A comparison of Jesus and Muhammad

[megaresp]

Let's start with the first line:
Jesus died and rose from the dead". That's an unsubstantiated claim.

Only the second part of the claim needs to be substantiated. I for one am willing to believe that someone who lived more than 19 centuries ago is now dead.

I suspect even the sort of uncompromising hard-boiled tobacco-chewing ask-questions-first-and-deride-later style of sceptic would accept, on balance, that if* Jesus lived, then he almost certainly did die.

* In a sort of thought-experimenty way where his existence is assumed without being accepted, for the sake of argument and all that.

 

[Spindrift]

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

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

Lets compare Jesus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

Jesus died on a cross to save mankind
FSM died in a pot of boiling water to feed mankind

Jesus has WWJD tee shirts for sale
FSM has WWFSMD tee shirts for sale

Jesus is part of a trinity -Father-Jesus-Holy Ghost
FSM is part of a trinity - Macaroni-Spagetti-lasagna noodles


There is no comparison between Jesus and FSM. Jesus falls so far short that he cannot be held on any level remotely close to FSM. Jesus is clearly inferior to FSM.

 

[Spindrift]

The fact that the author might be biased does not substantially change any of the information listed. If you believe any of the info is wrong, then you can give reasons why you feel so.

Does it say somewhere in the bible that Jesus never married? If not, should that be Jesus "allegedly" never married. (Of course same sex marriages weren't allowed so that could be a possible explanation.)

 

[DOC]

Let's start with the first line:
Jesus died and rose from the dead"

That's an unsubstantiated claim.

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

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.

 

[Resume]

There is very much historical evidence for the resurrection

Are you sure you understand what the word evidence (and its connotations) means? I'm getting a feeling that might be the whole problem with your threads.

 

[DC]

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

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.

Must be hard when the whole focal point and essence of Christianity has no real evidence. the bible claiming it is no more credible than RedBull claiming RedBull gives wings.

 

[Mudcat]

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

Surely you been called out on this reasoning before any number of times, but there are plenty of reasonable and rational explanations for no body being found. The most likely being is that there is no body to be found.

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.

This could work for any other living religion, too. Doesn't require a supernatural event.

 

[joobz]

There is very much historical evidence for the resurrection,

nope.

not to mention the fact that no body has ever been found.

So Jimmy Hoffa Rose from the dead as well?

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.

And scientology is evidence the Lord Xenu.... ah nevermind. You'll resort to special pleading soon.

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.

The point is obviously a fallacious argument. It's called affirming the consequent.

 

[Sun Countess]

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

Of course, neither man would be relevant at all in my life, if their followers would just mind their own business and not try to force everyone to adhere to their nonsensical beliefs.

I am of the opinion that if someone is deciding which religion to join the information would not be pointless.

Why would somebody decide to join a religion? Don't most people just stick with the one their parents told them was correct? And why does your comparison only look at two? There are a lot of other religions out there. Come to think of it, there are so many brands of Christianity out there, that if somebody did decide to follow Jesus, they're not really given enough information.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Mohammed was just a politician.
So was Jesus, more or less.

 

[Aepervius]

Ok. So let me get this right : you are using criteria (or that website is) which are valid only if you already believe to begin with. If one is not a christian, then what is written is toroughly invalid (Jesus died and rose from the dead<<<=== INVALID if one is not a christian Muhammad died and stayed dead.) This is more or less only a wanking exercize "we are the best" of christian patting themselves in the back.

From all i read from you DOC, this gotta be the 13th stupidiest things you presented to us (*quickly shuffle in the list*) no wait, only the 17th stupidiest.

 

[Aepervius]

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

18th stupidiest thing.

Assertion not supported by evidence, and certainly *NO* historian worth his salt (read : not mixing his christian faith with historical fact) would state that as an historical fact.

 

[Mudcat]

Really? Can you name one story in the news today for which this comparison provide any usefulness whatsoever?

All the ones with ignorant people pissing away human lives, destroying property at massive scale, overthrowing functional governments and generally acting the fool for minor differences in thousand year old beliefs. Glad I could help.

 

[Dayan81]

Jesus wrote nothing and we have nothing written by him.

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

 

[DC]

Jesus wrote nothing and we have nothing written by him.

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

wasn that written by others? and not Mohammed, he had others writing for him.

 

[DOC]

18th stupidiest thing.

Assertion not supported by evidence, and certainly *NO* historian worth his salt (read : not mixing his christian faith with historical fact) would state that as an historical fact.

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.

 

[Dayan81]

wasn that written by others? and not Mohammed, he had others writing for him.

No, I believe that monks to possess writings by Mohammed. I saw a tv show months ago that showed either Greek Orthodox, or Hindu, or some other monks that actually possessed a letter written by Mohammed. I will search for this and send you a message if I can find it.

edit: It appears that what I saw on tv may not have been true. I cannot locate any of it on the interwebs.

 

[Ladewig]

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."

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

 

[I Ratant]

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

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.

.
.
Even you missed it!
It is a fact in reality that belief does not make reality.
The lack of a body doesn't "prove" a resurrection.
It just proves there is no body.
That can be extrapolated into 'there never was a body'.

 

[I Ratant]

Jesus wrote nothing and we have nothing written by him.

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

.
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.