A Comparison: Jesus and Muhammad

Originally posted by queeq
Church just means community of believers, he didn't mean an exact institute with worldy powers.
The church was more or less founded by St. Paul.

Well, you might be right, but how do you know what Jesus intended?

Because He said quiet clearly what He came to do.

Originally posted by queeq
Because He said quiet clearly what He came to do.

All you know is what the church said he said. There are no original manuscripts of what Jesus said.

To us Christians Jesus is the savior. To other religions Jesus was a teacher of peace, Jesus, himself said he was a bringer of peace, so which is it? I am getting confused.

All of the above. 😄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All you know is what the church said he said. There are no original manuscripts of what Jesus said.

No, we sorta know what he said from eye witness reports. They were later assembled into what we now know as the New Testament.

Originally posted by queeq
All of the above. 😄

No, we sorta know what he said from eye witness reports. They were later assembled into what we now know as the New Testament.

Actually, if my understanding is correct, most, if not all of the New Testament's documentations was written at least 100 years after Jesus' death. Before that they were passed down via oral tradition.

Originally posted by queeq
All of the above. 😄

No, we sorta know what he said from eye witness reports. They were later assembled into what we now know as the New Testament.

Originally posted by Kram3r
Actually, if my understanding is correct, most, if not all of the New Testament's documentations was written at least 100 years after Jesus' death. Before that they were passed down via oral tradition.

Queeq, could you imagine if we today did not have any news papers, TV or Internet, and someone where to right down what they heard about something that happened 100 years ago? Even with news papers, TV and Internet we are inundated with conspiracy theories about things that happened just 7 years ago. It is human nature to make things up, hero worship, and conspiracy theorize things to death.

True. And we can't even trust today's media can we? Then again, if media are accessible to everyone, lies are also easily detected. It was the same when these books were written. If there were complete baloney, a lot of people would have attacked it severely on its facts. But they didn't. The early Christian had a pretty good name, except with the ones that persecuted and killed them.

Originally posted by Kram3r
Actually, if my understanding is correct, most, if not all of the New Testament's documentations was written at least 100 years after Jesus' death. Before that they were passed down via oral tradition.

No, that is incorrect. Only the book of John and Revelation is dated to about 100 years after Jesus' death. The Book of Mark is roughly dated at about 60 AD, some 30 years after Jesus' death, and many eyewitnesses were still alive then. Most of the books were then written between 60 and 100 AD.

Not instant recording no, but no documents from the time are. Plus, there are thousands of copies known from that period so we know it wasn't altered too much. Comparing to many contempory and older non-bilblical documents, it rates as pretty reliable.

But then, it's easy to debunk it by saying people didn't remember too well after 30 years. It just depends on what you are willing to accept as reliable or not. And what criteria your using in that assesment.

Originally posted by queeq
True. And we can't even trust today's media can we? Then again, if media are accessible to everyone, lies are also easily detected. It was the same when these books were written. If there were complete baloney, a lot of people would have attacked it severely on its facts. But they didn't. The early Christian had a pretty good name, except with the ones that persecuted and killed them...

But that would leave it up to popular opinion, and we know how accurate that can be. 😉

Well, at least it contains some facts that CAN be checked and they prove pretty accurate.

And no, we don't leave it up to popular opinion, because that would be dumb. Look what president the US got due to popular vote. Maybe not the first time, but worse: they re-elected him.

Originally posted by queeq
Well, at least it contains some facts that CAN be checked and they prove pretty accurate.

And no, we don't leave it up to popular opinion, because that would be dumb. Look what president the US got due to popular vote. Maybe not the first time, but worse: they re-elected him.

You kind of proved my point. 😂

No I didn't. There's no such thing as democracy in science.

Originally posted by queeq
No I didn't. There's no such thing as democracy in science.

In a perfect world there is no such thing as democracy in science, but we don't live in that world. 😉

Yes we do.