Prophet Muhammad vs Jesus Christ

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not talking about Scripture. I'm talking about science, science that you have just refused to consider.

That MAY be so. But I'm not arguing that "evolution" is opposed to "religion". Which I dispute. I am saying that the supposed "proofs" are pure fairy tales and conjecture based on an ideological prejudice.

I think this particular argument belongs in another thread.

Okay David, explain to me that the dinosaurs and humans co-existed. I'll give you a chance, though it won't change the fact that it never happened and millions of years separated the two.

How is it ideological prejudice to say evolution is a fact? Science is based on facts, and it's been a widely accepted fact for a good amount of time now. One can say the same thing about the Bible, Torah and the Koran being fairy tales as well if they interpreted them that way.

You can be a believer in God and still believe in evolution. The Catholic Church's view on evolution has been pretty damn on point, at least in my view. I believe the age of the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old, yet I still believe in Jesus. I don't see a contradiction in my faith. It makes sense to me, which is all that matters.

Science with an agenda that comes from religion is not science.
And....... pot kettle.

How do you know?
It might be all that matters to you, but to me nonscience is a deadly pollutant of science, culture,morals and intelligence.

Where are the actual sources? Documents? Fragments of these documents? How can we have copies of the OT books 2,000+ years old, yet none of the documents? Why would the Jewish leaders in ancient days assume and teach that the various books in question were written by one person, if they knew that they were compilations - and had much more reason to know whether or not they were, being much closer in time to the writings?

The problem with textual criticism is that it is full of assumptions. It is people on the outside looking in and trying to make sense of how a text is put together and what an author intended. Ultimately, it is their own imaginations, not outside proof, that guide the criticism.

I am in music composition. It is interesting that just last week, I was reading a book on fugal writing that talked about a string quartet which Mozart wrote. The author of the book said that when Mozart used strict fugal writing, his own personal style disappeared. This string quartet would not be recognized as a work by Mozart because it lacked his compositional "fingerprint." If we did not have Mozart's name on the piece, plenty of people would try to say he "must not have" written it. I have listened to the piece, and I agree. I would never know it was Mozart.

I wrote a piece for string quartet last year. If I wasn't here to say I wrote all four movements to go together in one piece or have an explanation of my piece written out, I would bet that most would say the last movement did not fit (it is the only tonal movement.) The last movement has stylistic differences than the other three, and an extremely different approach. I "couldn't possibly" have intended for them to go together. In a textual criticism approach, one might think that the movements were written at very different times and then stuck together.

Oh, and then we have the people who are questioning the authorship of all of Shakespeare's work because we don't have enough evidence regarding the man William Shakespeare. They say a shopkeeper in a village "couldn't possibly" have been an absolute genius.

I have read several articles by authors who scoff at the literary criticism done of their works. So much literary criticism puts things "into" the writing or draws conclusions that the authors never intended.

Textual criticism may be right, or it may be dead wrong. We don't have the evidence that it is correct, so why not trust what Jesus said about Moses being the author of the Pentateuch?

These writers in the links above seem to forget that Moses was a *PROPHET*. Prophets were given "inside information", often far into the future. Of course, prophets could be talking about things they had no personal knowledge of, even Moses of his own death. This happens in Moses' writing as well as in the later OT books of prophecy. And calling people and places by different names? It happens all the time. How many of us talk about the places we know by different names. Or, by old names that are no longer in use but would make sense to locals?

Also, when discussing dating, what year of the Exodus are the writers in the links above assuming? I saw no reference to that, and that could very well affect some of their conclusions about what Moses may or may not have known.

Here's another interesting fact regarding this topic. You may have heard about a huge boulder off the coast of Rhode Island that has Icelandic words engraved in it. The archeologists are trying to date the writing and prove that the Icelandic people came to the New World much earlier than thought. The wording on the rock is "Beware Indians." The thing about it is that I happen to personally know the man who carved the words into the rock. He used to go to that beach as a boy and when he was 13, he used a chisel to carve in the rock when it was not covered by the tide. He is an eccentric man who has an intense interest in ancient English and Norse, so it is not a surprise to anyone who knows him that he did this. Funny, huh? He has come forward and explained when/where/how he carved the rock, including the mistake he made in forming one of the letters, and no one will believe him. His testimony, and the testimony of his brother is just not enough. Instead, the archeologists want to believe their own assumptions to create the story they want to put forward as true.

Word to the wise regarding textual criticism: Be very careful.

Anyone comprehensively familiar with the work done on this would know that a) it's not a criticism, but several studies done by people from various disciplines, and b) that to play it down as pure imagination with no outside proof reveals a lack of familiarity with the work.



I do not know the case, though I have heard of it. But there is no wide body of scholars from competing faculties making a case that Mozart did not write the fugues. As for the authorship of the Pentateuch, if style was the only evidence, then no one would have listened to the multi-authorship argument.



I enjoyed reading all about this since I first heard of it back in 1993. It almost reads like a conspiracy story, with people wondering if Marlow or Bacon or de Vere or someone else were the true authors, hiding behind Shakespeare so they would not be found in conspiracy against the royals. There was a woman in Chicago in the 1920's by the name of Elizabeth Wells Gallup. She was employed full-time for several years by an eccentric wealthy industrialist. She was skilled at ciphers and it was her job to decipher the codes in Shakespeare's works and discover the true author. She never came close.

Aside from the enjoyable reading, there has never been wide support for the various theories. And as you say, there are plenty who scoff at the notions.

This is very different to having wide agreement by Catholic scholars, Jewish scholars, protestant scholars and secular scholars. You don't get wide agreement of that nature, between competing faculties, from an imagined idea.



Saying there is no evidence is only your assumption. I learned about this 39 years ago while studying theology, where I saw and read a decent chunk of the evidence.

Look at Gen. 6:19 "And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind..."
Look at Gen. 2:7 "Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean..."

Not only is the style different and words used different, so are the numbers. The first quote says to bring 2 each of all flesh. The second quote changes this to, take 7 pairs of clean animals and a pair of unclean. That's just one small sample of the combined Noah tale.

The scholars also referenced older works, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh and other writings which go back several hundred years before the Torah was written, many of which influenced Biblical stories.

Some of the things written about in the Pentateuch refer to times and places that came after Moses lifetime. That's not imagination.

And finally, unlike the many who scoff at Bacon's Shakespeare, the only ones who scoff at this are fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Christians. The rest of Jewish, Christian and secular scholarship took their time accepting it, but they weighed the evidence and all agreed with it.


It's not criticism, it's a scholarly thesis, or more correctly, the theses of many scholars. Theses like these can be used as criticism by others, but they still stand on their own as theses.

the trinity can be explanied like this: jesus was god before he came to earth, he was god when he was jesus also, but at the same time he was also a human, after the death he was god, but since that he has a body you can see and touch. he is jehova, he is called son becuse jesus before he died was also a human and not 100 % god aka the father. same person. god can to anything! even comming to earth as a human and still be god at the same time. god in human body is the perfect sacrifice, he died for all humans sins.

its funny tought that many dont understand this, not even christians, many thinks jesus is a prophet, or only a son or that god is 2 or 3 persons.

Im a christian and I tolerate mocking. Dont judge us all...

but jesus is god/yahweh, thats the funny thing, hence the "trinity".

Snow, I think it'd be best to explain it by an image



Mind you not all branches of Christianity are Trinitarians (I'm a Catholic so I myself am one by default, as is the faith)

If im not misstaken, Tom Cruise is a part of church of scientology. However, when he was young, he was a devoted christian.

Jesus is not a prophet: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/jesusgd2.htm

How did jews change their religion?

Jews didn't. Just ignore that post in all honesty. While I respect azaam as a person, his belief system I do not. He cannot see faith through a different set of eyes and does not realize Islam was founded and modified on Jewish and Christian texts.

Islam is a political ideology.

Im a christian and I tolerate mocking. Dont judge us all...[/quote

okay.