A comparison of Jesus and Muhammad

[Dayan81]

.
Moh is widely said (by Islamists) to have been illiterate.
The book is the memories of those said to have been his companions.
Now, when compiling all the thoughts and deeds of a person years after that person's death, there's a lot of "first liar doesn't have a chance", and "this is what Moh would have said...".
IOW, fiction with an agenda.

See my edited post.

 

[Resume]

From the article "Evidence for the Resurrection" by Josh McDowell.

Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:

"I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said:

"raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."

Clark Pinnock Mcmaster University, said:

There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.

E. M. Blaiklock Professor of Classics Auckland University, said:

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

For the actual historical evidence, you might want to read "Part 1" of my Evidence thread in the History Forum.

Again, you might want to examine the definitions of history, and evidence. Then, look up apologetics.

 

[joobz]

From the article "Evidence for the Resurrection" by Josh McDowell.

Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:

"I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said:

"raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."

Clark Pinnock Mcmaster University, said:

There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.

E. M. Blaiklock Professor of Classics Auckland University, said:

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

For the actual historical evidence, you might want to read "Part 1" of my Evidence thread in the History Forum.

I assume you rely upon 19th century medicine as well.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Wait. Are you seriously asserting that the opinions of a 19th century historian are more useful than the opinions of 21st century historians?

Well it was more recent for the 19th century historian. He's less likely to forget the important details that way.

And I thought you were smart, Ladewig.

 

[bikerdruid]

There is very much historical evidence for the resurrection, not to mention the fact that no body has ever been found.

doc...there is ZERO evidence for the resurrection.
there were no contemporary witnesses that wrote about it.
there is no extra-scriptural evidence for this supposedly cosmic event.
and, short of mummification, there are very few two thousand year old bodies in existence, if they ever actually knew where to look.
if your faith is so weak as to need physical evidence to verify it, you are doomed to illusion.
that's why they call it 'faith', dude.

 

[Dayan81]

There is very much historical evidence for the resurrection, not to mention the fact that no body has ever been found...

There is also no evidence that a body ever existed.

 

[bikerdruid]

doc...there is ZERO evidence for the resurrection.
there were no contemporary witnesses that wrote about it.
there is no extra-scriptural evidence for this supposedly cosmic event.
and, short of mummification, there are very few two thousand year old bodies in existence, if they ever actually knew where to look.
if your faith is so weak as to need physical evidence to verify it, you are doomed to illusion.
that's why they call it 'faith', dude.

addendum.

i personally have no problem believing that jesus existed.
however the mythology that grew up around him is, frankly, largely, unbelievable.

to my mind, i blame the bloody legacy of christianity on paul.
paul took the message of love and prostituted it into a religion.
i think if james and the jerusalem christians had taken prominence from paul, history might be ver different.
at least james actually knew his brother, jesus.

 

[RandFan]

There is very much historical evidence for the resurrection, not to mention the fact that no body has ever been found.

No. Heresay evidence pased around through oral tradition and written down decades after it was supposed to happen isn't evidence of much. We don't even know if there was a body.

And the fact that Christianity is in existence to the extent it is is some evidence for the Resurrection because the Resurrection is the whole focal point and essence of Christianity. So without a resurrection it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to exist.

Which is why no other religons exist. Wait... what?

Since it does exist that can be considered some evidence. This is a very obvious point but many people have never considered it.

That scientology exists is proof it is true.

 

[Nogbad]

Here is a website that offers a comparison of the two historical figures.

http://carm.org/religious-movements/islam/comparison-between-jesus-and-muhammad

DOC you have posted some nonsense in the past but that is just drivel. FFS! anyone could do a partisan "who would win in a fight" comparison and come up with a similar table for two individuals Obama and Boehner perhaps?.

It is intellectually dishonest.

I hold no candle for Muhammed and becoming a Muslim seems about as much fun as trapping your hand in a drawer but the details listed about him are not even all that accurate.

 

[bikerdruid]

Here is a website that offers a comparison of the two historical figures.

http://carm.org/religious-movements/islam/comparison-between-jesus-and-muhammad

this site is pathetically biased.
the conclusion it draws, after the comparisons is, "There is no comparison between Jesus and Muhammad. Muhammad falls so far short that he cannot be held on any level remotely close to Jesus. Muhammad is clearly inferior to Christ."

wow.

 

[Mudcat]

this site is pathetically biased.
the conclusion it draws, after the comparisons is, "There is no comparison between Jesus and Muhammad. Muhammad falls so far short that he cannot be held on any level remotely close to Jesus. Muhammad is clearly inferior to Christ."

wow.

I didn't read it till just now (though I had a pretty good idea what conclusion would be drawn), but now that I have I feel a strong urge to go shower. Please excuse me while I cleanse myself of this filth...

 

[cwalner]

ha they got something wrong and made it less scandalous
can you find out what?

probably not what you are thinking, but the site claims that Mohammed died and was never resurrected.

My understanding (limited as it is) of Islamic theology is that according to the Koran Mohammed never died, but ascended directly to heaven, which to me is just as miraculous as being resurrected.

 

[Craig4]

They were both cult leaders, the followers of whom have done and continue to do incalculable damage to the world and for no good reason.

 

[Akhenaten]

Here is a website that offers a comparison of the two historical figures.

http://carm.org/religious-movements/islam/comparison-between-jesus-and-muhammad

There seems to be something wrong with both the thread title and your link. Only one of those guys is a historical figure.

Have you forgotten that you failed dismally to provide any evidence for the Jewish feller?

 

[Akhenaten]

Just putting information out there about two historical figures that are very relevant, even today, if you read the headlines.

I've just read all of the July headlines from both the China Daily and The Times of India and nary a mention of either of your pin-up boys, DOC.

What am I to make of this?

 

[Akhenaten]

There is very much historical evidence for the resurrection, not to mention the fact that no body has ever been found.

No body is evidence of resurrection is it?

Do you have a current address for Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan, DOC? Attilla the Hun? Boudicca?

And the fact that Christianity is in existence to the extent it is is some evidence for the Resurrection because the Resurrection is the whole focal point and essence of Christianity. So without a resurrection it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to exist. Since it does exist that can be considered some evidence. This is a very obvious point but many people have never considered it.

And the fact that Islam is in existence to the extent it is is some evidence for Allah because Allah is the whole focal point and essence of Islam. So without Allah it doesn't even make sense for Islam to exist. Since it does exist that can be considered some evidence. This is a very obvious point but DOC has never considered it.


And the fact that Hinduism is in existence to the extent it is is some evidence for the Sanātana Dharma because the Sanātana Dharma is the whole focal point and essence of Hinduism. So without the Sanātana Dharma it doesn't even make sense for Hinduism to exist. Since it does exist that can be considered some evidence. This is a very obvious point but DOC has never considered it.


And the fact that Buddhism is in existence to the extent it is is some evidence for Enlightenment because Enlightenment is the whole focal point and essence of Buddhism. So without Enlightenment it doesn't even make sense for Buddhism to exist. Since it does exist that can be considered some evidence. This is a very obvious point but DOC has never considered it.

 

[Leumas]

Jesus wrote nothing and we have nothing written by him.

However, we do possess writings of Muhammed. I had seen them myself.

Actually Muhammad was supposed to be an illiterate and he wrote nothing and even the Quran was written as one book years after his death. Even his supposed Hadith was written years after his death.

The quran was collected into one tome years after his death and from people's memory and fragments written on Asses' shoulder blades and I can imagine in some cases tattooed on some people's derrieres.

Imagine the wisdom of this MORON YHWH (a.k.a. Jesus a.k.a. Allah)..... for all these years with REVELATION after revelation and he NEVER EVER had anyone keep the original safe and sound for anyone to ever be able to VERIFY its authenticity in any way that is meaningful to any THINKING person. Even Moses did not have much regard for the HAND WRITTEN tablets and smashed them to pieces while PRETENDING to be surprised and angry at the digression of the Jews.

YHWH surely never meant for any REASONING human to accept any of it as truths...... which again goes to prove my theory about all religions being Satan's efforts to divert humans from REASONING about the real god who is under a WAGERING RESTRAINT from revealing himself and can only wait until REASON prevails for people to discover that they have been DUPED all along by the various manifestations of the devil (e.g. YHWH, JESUS, MOSES, Muhammad, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, etc. etc.)..... good theory hah???

 

[Leumas]

From the article "Evidence for the Resurrection" by Josh McDowell.

Now I see where you are getting all your Circular Reasoning from.

All of McDowell's books are NOTHING BUT logical fallacies and a bunch of UTTER NONSENSE and ILLOGIC. He is a twit.

 

[Leumas]

addendum.

i personally have no problem believing that jesus existed.
however the mythology that grew up around him is, frankly, largely, unbelievable.

to my mind, i blame the bloody legacy of christianity on paul.
paul took the message of love and prostituted it into a religion.
i think if james and the jerusalem christians had taken prominence from paul, history might be ver different.
at least james actually knew his brother, jesus.

Actually if James et al had their way there would be no Christianity today.

Paul was much more prescient than James. Even Peter wised up and ended up agreeing with Paul (justifying it with a dream revelation).

Paul made it possible to become a Jew without all the restraining and unpalatable Mosaic laws (all 613 Mitzvot).

Christianity today should be called Paulinism and it is nothing but HELLENIZED JUDAISM....which the traditional Jewish PRIESTS (the people did not careless) abhorred and have been fighting since Alexander and almost succeeded in defeating with the Maccabees but even they eventually became hellenized too, which resulted in the Zealots and Essenes etc. There is a theory that James was and Essene leader and Paul was a renegade Essene who left the CULT.


If it were not for Paul's distortion of the Jesus movement the gentiles would have never ever accepted the Jesus myth. The trinity etc. were also added to make the whole thing more fashionable as per all the other religions that the Hellenistic societies of the time were dabbling with due to being tired with Zeus and all that TRITE pantheon of fickle, raping and vengeful gods who demanded sacrifices and too many vestal virgins. I think it was the virgins that helped Paul along .


As with everything....Paul never foresaw the unforeseen consequence of 2000 years of persecution that the Jews would undergo as killers of Christ. I think the idea that Jews killed Jesus was a later distortion on the Paul movement. I think Paul thought that it was the Romans who killed him and thus the SACRIFICIAL LAMB was sacrificed by the people who were to be saved....the Jews did not need saving since god was going to save them regardless. So in his mind it was the Romans who needed the saving and thus as the actual SACRIFICERS of Jesus they have fulfilled the BLOOD SACRIFICE required by the Mitzvot for ever after.

 

[pakeha]

Just putting information out there about two historical figures that are very relevant, even today, if you read the headlines.

Given last week's events in Norway, I think this is in terribly bad taste, DOC.
After all, the perp justified his actions by direct quotes from one of the two figures you mentioned.