Just saw Kingdom of Heaven, got me thinking about Christians vs. Muslims

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Ah but the Jews have survived oppression and genocide and dislocation every place they've been and they've outachieved their oppressors.

Not that I believe in any of that stuff, but it is interesting.

Oh, and I wanted to let you guys know--I'll drop the facade.

I am God.

Now fall to your knees and forsake all others before me.

No you're not I am!!!

[Prosperity]

All of this religious nincompoopery aside (yes it is probably mostly my fault) I saw the movie and I think it was decent film and I would reccomend others to see it too. It was as historically accurate as you can expect a big hollywood movie to be. Plus Orlando Bloom wasn't as big of p*ssy as I thought he would be.

All in all I will say it is 7.5/10

[footballhenry]

Originally posted by chomerics

First off, I did not say his posts are "brilliant", but having read a number of his posts for a while, I have come to know his personality and his demeanor. When I say he is mature beyond his years, I mean it.

The reason people don't say the same thing about you is because you don't get it yet. Maybe you will one day, but as of right now, you surely don't. And by saying you don't get it, this implies that you think I am coming down hard on you because of your opinions, which is NOT the case.

Actually chom you have personally attacked me numerous times for no valid reason. You have shown your hateful and vitriolical side many times over towards me, even when I have tried to be respectful. Saying that I don't get it tells me more about you. We all have different opinions and beliefs. I would never tell an atheist, buddhist, muslim,etc. that they just dont get it. We all form our beliefs with good intention and reason, mostly off of experience. Why is it so black and white that you get it and I dont? Sorry but the world doesn't work like that.

Oh, and I could care less if someone says my posts are brilliant or not, I don't need that reinforcement.

[Predicto]

By the way, to say that the Muslim middle ages was not the perfect and most enlightened society in history is not saying much. It was a rough time all over. However, at THAT time, Islamic civilization was more culturally and scientifically advanced than the West. They had huge nations with several cities of over a million people (Samarkand, Bukhara, Herat), more advanced science and mathematics, wider trade, at least some limited tolerance of other religions (at least the religions of the Book, Christianity and Judiasm), and better living conditions for the average person.

There is no legitimate question that in comparison, the West was more barbaric. In fact, Muslim philosophers had a heck of a time with understanding how the Crusaders could be so successful, given that they were less advanced and not on the side of God (in their view).

Ghost of Nabs might think that I am knocking Christianity, but I am not. Civilizations ebb and flow. The fact that this was the West's "Dark Ages" does not mean that every civilization had to have its dark ages at the same time.

It is hard to say how it all would have panned out in the long run, Islam vs. the West, because some guy named Genghis Khan came through and destroyed the heart of the Islamic world, and it never recovered.

I think that this explains much of the appeal of radical fundamentalist pan-Islamicism. There WAS a time when they were the top dogs, and appealing to that spirit is a very powerful emotional tool.

[dfitzo53]

Originally posted by Predicto

By the way, to say that the Muslim middle ages was not the perfect and most enlightened society in history is not saying much. It was a rough time all over. However, at THAT time, Islamic civilization was more culturally and scientifically advanced than the West. They had huge nations with several cities of over a million people (Samarkand, Bukhara, Herat), more advanced science and mathematics, wider trade, at least some limited tolerance of other religions (at least the religions of the Book, Christianity and Judiasm), and better living conditions for the average person.

There is no legitimate question that in comparison, the West was more barbaric. In fact, Muslim philosophers had a heck of a time with understanding how the Crusaders could be so successful, given that they were less advanced and not on the side of God (in their view).

Ghost of Nabs might think that I am knocking Christianity, but I am not. Civilizations ebb and flow. The fact that this was the West's "Dark Ages" does not mean that every civilization had to have its dark ages at the same time.

It is hard to say how it all would have panned out in the long run, Islam vs. the West, because some guy named Genghis Khan came through and destroyed the heart of the Islamic world, and it never recovered.

I think that this explains much of the appeal of radical fundamentalist pan-Islamicism. There WAS a time when they were the top dogs, and appealing to that spirit is a very powerful emotional tool.

The term "Dark Ages" has fallen out of favor. It was coined by Renaissance thinkers to separate themselves from those who had come before, despite the fact that much of their work was based off of medieval thought. Also, wider trade was due largely to being situated in the only place through which goods could pass from East to West. It is true, however, that they were advanced beyond many western societies in mathematics and science.

[Ghost of]

Ghost of NIBBS is fine with your analysis, PredictoR.

Seriously, though, I'm agnostic. Knock away at Christianity

But just so you know, the Islamic civilization made its hay from the borrowed works of the classical world, India(the real origin of "arabic numerals") and even China.

Once the Ottomans entered the picture, the philosophical and scientific achievements became more stifled, as far as I recall.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Ghost of NIBBS is fine with your analysis, PredictoR.

Seriously, though, I'm agnostic. Knock away at Christianity

But just so you know, the Islamic civilization made its hay from the borrowed works of the classical world, India(the real origin of "arabic numerals") and even China.

Once the Ottomans entered the picture, the philosophical and scientific achievements became more stifled, as far as I recall.

Everyone made hay from the Greeks. No shame there. More original thinking happened in Athens in 200 years than happened in the rest of the world for a millennium.

Still, the crusades predate the Ottomans by a long time, and there really can be no argument that the Islamic world of Suleiman and Saladin was way ahead of the West.

[footballhenry]

well since everyones stating their sect, Im MORMON!!!! Take that fools!!!

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by Predicto

Everyone made hay from the Greeks. No shame there. More original thinking happened in Athens in 200 years than happened in the rest of the world for a millennium.

Still, the crusades predate the Ottomans by a long time, and there really can be no argument that the Islamic world of Suleiman and Saladin was way ahead of the West.

Yeah, I wont quibble with that.

And yes, some of my ancestors were bad-ass.

[panthro]

So you say you want proof? OK, I'll give it a whirl....

Do you know any other man in the history of the world who said he would die and then be resurrected three days later and then actually did it?

Jesus did. How do I know? Well, the Bible told me so. Still not good enough? Thought you might say that....

Arguably the most well respected and published historian from the first century is Josephus, a Jewish Pharisee (not a Christian). Josephus lived during the first century and recorded some of the most important events of that time for historical records.

Below is an authentic translation from "The Antiquities of the Jews", XVIII, iii, 3:

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

I must admit that if this man observed this and is willing to write these things, why wasn't he a confessing Christian? It's perplexing to say the least.

Nonetheless, it is recorded as an historical event outside the Bible and repected as such by any historian who has done his homework. No honest person can dispute the fact that Jesus lived (as a man), died and rose again on the third day - just as he and the Old Testmant Prophets predicted he would.

Things that make you go hmmmm.....

[Ghost of]

That Josephus quote is well-recognized as an interpolated edition NOT belonging to Josephus.

Josephus was a Jew, and would not so casually say' Yeah, he was the Christ(which i assume is actually Mashiach, translated) and was pretty great...anyways..."

Also, there is a similar record of an Apollonius of Tyana and historians make mention of him performing similar miracles. So, even if the line were real, it wouldn't matter.

But the line commonly attributed to Josephus is BUNK.

I also know that it does the old Gospel of John thing of currying favor with the Romans by blaming the Jews. It's more likely they caught wind of him, and decided the whole "King of the Jews" deal was going to start a revolt. Better to crucify him and put paid to it.

Didn't work, but I hate that people still rely on that fake Josephus passage.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Predicto

Everyone made hay from the Greeks. No shame there. More original thinking happened in Athens in 200 years than happened in the rest of the world for a millennium.

Still, the crusades predate the Ottomans by a long time, and there really can be no argument that the Islamic world of Suleiman and Saladin was way ahead of the West.

I don't know I think China would have to say something about that. Indian cities also had paved ground and plumbing before anyone in the West could dream of sucha luxury.

My personal ranking of ancient civilizations based on their mathmatic/scientific achievements would be

China

India

Greece

Persia

but hey thats just me I am not sure if I know what I am talking abou.

[miragv]

I agree Liberty....China and India had knowledge of so many different ideas etc long before the Greeks did. But for some reason they are credited with everything

[panthro]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

That Josephus quote is well-recognized as an interpolated edition NOT belonging to Josephus.

Josephus was a Jew, and would not so casually say' Yeah, he was the Christ(which i assume is actually Mashiach, translated) and was pretty great...anyways..."

Also, there is a similar record of an Apollonius of Tyana and historians make mention of him performing similar miracles. So, even if the line were real, it wouldn't matter.

But the line commonly attributed to Josephus is BUNK.

I also know that it does the old Gospel of John thing of currying favor with the Romans by blaming the Jews. It's more likely they caught wind of him, and decided the whole "King of the Jews" deal was going to start a revolt. Better to crucify him and put paid to it.

Didn't work, but I hate that people still rely on that fake Josephus passage.

Actually Ghost, there is no hard evidence that this quote is "bunk". If you do your homework on this issue, you'll realize that there is more evidence that this quote is intact than otherwise. Considering that the earliest copies of this text in the Greek actually included the same text, no one can conclusively say that Josephus didn't write the exact quote above.

Most of those who say that the entire quote isn't real usually don't change the basic content of Josephus' quote. Even Shlomo Pines' translation doesn't really change the historical evidence of Jesus being a real, historical person and evidence for his resurrection:

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."

—Shlomo Pines' translation

Given that the writings of Josephus were nearly 2000 years ago, and the overwhelming majority of historical evidence still points towards documentation of Jesus outside of the Bible, we can conclude that there is no real evidence that Josephus' quote is not authentic. We may have suspicion, but that's as far as we can take it - if we're true to the principles of research.

The point remains that the accounts of Jesus found in the Bible may be considered factual because they are so well supported by other historical accounts outside of Scripture - e.g., Tacitus, Lucian and many others.

[National Defense]

"The point remains that the accounts of Jesus found in the Bible may be considered factual because they are so well supported by other historical accounts outside of Scripture"

evangelical logic belongs in its own thread.

[panthro]

Originally posted by National Defense

"The point remains that the accounts of Jesus found in the Bible may be considered factual because they are so well supported by other historical accounts outside of Scripture"

evangelical logic belongs in its own thread.

Evangelical logic????

Document #1 states ABC. Document #1 is suspected to be inaccurate. OK, so are there any other documents that are accepted to be factual that can support Document #1?

Document #2, #3, #4,... are considered factual and support Document #1.

Therefore, Document #1 must be considered factual.

This is basic research 101. It's called science - doesn't have anything to do with religion.

Oh, but it's the double standard yet again from those who oppose Christianity. :doh:

[National Defense]

science like the study of evolution?

nevermind--this thread will go nowhere fast at this rate.

just keep repeating "its true because the bible said so"

[footballhenry]

its true because the bible said so;)

[Funkyalligator]

There is barely any actual historical evidence from around 0 CE that shows that jesus actually existed....the new testament was written hundreds of years after his death....of course it proves that jesus was the son of god....if you are going to base a religion on an old religion and a new book of course all the "facts" are going to line up to prove his existence...

[Ghost of]

funky, you're mostly-right.

But I just wanted to correct you on one point. While the oldest SURVIVING New Testament manuscripts are from the, third century CE, I think, it is pretty much accepted(and one could challenge this I suppose) that the first gospel was written around 30 years after Jesus is supposed to have died.

That's still a lot, and panthro, no offense dude but that Josephus quote is bunk on the face of it.

No historian of his caliber who is JEWISH would say, "yeah, this guy is probbaly the Messiah...anyway." It's WELL KNOWN that Christian priests/writers would forge entries into other books to create evidence for JEsus.

Now, that said, I DO think there was some historical figure that Jesus is based upon.

But there is very little historical evidence other than a well-known forged quote to base that upon. And it's no MORE evidence of JEsus being DIVINE than Appolonius of Tyana.

[Funkyalligator]

Never in a million years would a jewish person ever agree that jesus was the messiah...should a jew ever agree with that statement they aren't jews anymore because that simple fact is the biggest difference between jews and christians...

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by Funkyalligator

Never in a million years would a jewish person ever agree that jesus was the messiah...should a jew ever agree with that statement they aren't jews anymore because that simple fact is the biggest difference between jews and christians...

This is true, but let's even say there's a 'gray area' as some Jews accept Christ(like they need time to deal with it or something like that.)

No faithful Jew would just utter that stuff then move on...it would be the CENTRAL FOCUS OF HIS LIFE as it would be the Mashiach!

[Funkyalligator]

No jews accept Christ...you can't be a jew if you do...they might call themselves jewish but no real jew would ever consider them jewish

[tvan]

All 3 faiths, (Christian, Muslim, and Jewish) acknowledge that Jesus in fact existed. That's about all they agree on. Who he is and the role he played is where the 3 go their on ways.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by Funkyalligator

No jews accept Christ...you can't be a jew if you do...they might call themselves jewish but no real jew would ever consider them jewish

Well, not NOW you couldn't, but the first Christians(in that area) probably considered themselves Jewish.

Remember, the big sticking point is that the Jews don't feel Jesus was the Messiah. If the Messiah comes, do they stop being Jewish?

Now you getting my logic?

I still agree about Josephus and how odd the wording is and that it's a fraud, but I dont think you're less Jewish because you're Christian back in 40 CE(unless you're a Gentile who does not follow Mosaic law.)