Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,556
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
25 Apr 2012, 4:21 pm
25 Apr 2012, 9:58 pm
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Interesting 
Although I think in case of Muhammad, it makes little difference if he existed or not. We know that someone in the Arab world had a look at Judeo-Christian religious texts, liked what he saw, and wrote his own, somewhat plagiaristic book that came to be known as the Quran. That could have been Muhammad or somebody who made up Muhammad as a story character. In the end, it doesn't really matter.
I think the questionable historicity of Jesus is different insofar that Jesus was supposed to be the superpowered son of god who returned from the dead. That makes his existence a lot less believable than that of any mortal person mentioned in the Bible, the Tanakh or the Quran. There is little reason to doubt that the existence of Abraham or Saul/Paul of Tarsus, for example. Whereas Jesus' believability is more akin to that of the Greek demigods Heracles and Perseus.
Although I think in case of Muhammad, it makes little difference if he existed or not. We know that someone in the Arab world had a look at Judeo-Christian religious texts, liked what he saw, and wrote his own, somewhat plagiaristic book that came to be known as the Quran. That could have been Muhammad or somebody who made up Muhammad as a story character. In the end, it doesn't really matter.I think the questionable historicity of Jesus is different insofar that Jesus was supposed to be the superpowered son of god who returned from the dead. That makes his existence a lot less believable than that of any mortal person mentioned in the Bible, the Tanakh or the Quran. There is little reason to doubt that the existence of Abraham or Saul/Paul of Tarsus, for example. Whereas Jesus' believability is more akin to that of the Greek demigods Heracles and Perseus.
25 Apr 2012, 10:00 pm
25 Apr 2012, 10:15 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I'm pretty certain Christ the man existed. My faith tells me he was also God.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
When Christ, the man, took a dump, did he produce Holy Sh*t?
ruveyn
that brings the phrase a whole new meaning.
25 Apr 2012, 10:22 pm
26 Apr 2012, 2:14 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Interesting Although I think in case of Muhammad, it makes little difference if he existed or not. We know that someone in the Arab world had a look at Judeo-Christian religious texts, liked what he saw, and wrote his own, somewhat plagiaristic book that came to be known as the Quran. That could have been Muhammad or somebody who made up Muhammad as a story character. In the end, it doesn't really matter.
I think the questionable historicity of Jesus is different insofar that Jesus was supposed to be the superpowered son of god who returned from the dead. That makes his existence a lot less believable than that of any mortal person mentioned in the Bible, the Tanakh or the Quran. There is little reason to doubt that the existence of Abraham or Saul/Paul of Tarsus, for example. Whereas Jesus' believability is more akin to that of the Greek demigods Heracles and Perseus.
Although I think in case of Muhammad, it makes little difference if he existed or not. We know that someone in the Arab world had a look at Judeo-Christian religious texts, liked what he saw, and wrote his own, somewhat plagiaristic book that came to be known as the Quran. That could have been Muhammad or somebody who made up Muhammad as a story character. In the end, it doesn't really matter.I think the questionable historicity of Jesus is different insofar that Jesus was supposed to be the superpowered son of god who returned from the dead. That makes his existence a lot less believable than that of any mortal person mentioned in the Bible, the Tanakh or the Quran. There is little reason to doubt that the existence of Abraham or Saul/Paul of Tarsus, for example. Whereas Jesus' believability is more akin to that of the Greek demigods Heracles and Perseus.
Like Islam, Christianity just couldn't have appeared out of nowhere without a founder, even if you believe Christ was only a man.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
True. Both Jesus and Muhammad could have been real persons or story characters made up by the true founder of the respective religion, but since there had to be a founder in either case, we might as well asssume that both persons existed. The difference is that the Islam requires people to believe in a human founder who had some revelation of divine knowledge, similar to Abraham or Moses, whereas Christianity requires the belief that Jesus was the son of god or an incarnation of god and had superhuman abilities.
Of course the Quran also makes utterly unbelievable, supernatural claims about Muhammad. For example, he supposedly rode to heaven on a flying horse and had a chat with god. But the life of many historical figures has been embellished with mystical or magical elements. Such as Achilles, who was likely a real person who participated in the Trojan war, even though he wasn't the son of a nymph or raised by a centaur as the stories say. It's much easier to believe in a historical Achilles than in a historical Heracles, whose life story requires the belief that he was the superpowered son of Zeus.
27 Apr 2012, 12:04 pm
27 Apr 2012, 1:21 pm
27 Apr 2012, 1:35 pm
