In the religious realm, there is a long succession of people who while appealing to a previous belief system, announce that they have new and better knowledge that improves or replaces its predecessor. Starting with Jews and the Bible, one can follow this road from Christians to Gnostics to Islam, Mormonism, Bahai, Jehovah�s Witnesses, Christian Science and others.

One distinction in this succession is that Jesus recognized the burden of proof that was required to justify the new �truths� He was revealing. Others have simply claimed that they had a new revelation without accepting the burden of proof. Another distinction with Jesus is that He did not challenge what the Bible said. He claimed to fulfill it in fact and said that God�s Word (the Tanach or Old Testament) would not pass away until all be fulfilled. He only had two areas where His teaching actually differed from what the average Jew believed at that time and He told His disciples to listen to what the Priests and Scribes said � but not follow their hypocritical practices. (The two differences Jesus had with the Jewish leadership were � the idea that the Law could not be accomplished by human efforts and, the Messiah would be God�s Son who would suffer and die for their failure to satisfy the Law.)

It is interesting that in the Bible the first one to challenge God�s Word was Satan and he claimed the same thing that many others have echoed since then: �Has God really said such and such? No he hasn�t, just listen to me. You won�t die if you do!� He offered no reason to Eve that he should be trusted rather than God. It seems that humans since that time still don�t need much reason to abandon God�s Word for the word of someone else. But there should be a reason to trust someone new - especially when that person wants us to reject what we believe God has said in the past. On the one hand they want us to grant them the respect that belongs to a fellow believer but on the other hand, they want us to reject our beliefs. Why would we grant them the status they want?

If this isn�t sinking in, let me illustrate: Someone comes up with a unique belief that was never believed before and they claim the Bible substantiates their authority to have this unique belief. If that is true, it would give them some credibility, right? On the other hand, part of their unique belief is that the Bible can�t be trusted! This is not just a circular argument, it is a self-stultifying one. The picture it conveys is someone sitting on a tree limb while they are sawing that limb off.

There are lots of variations on this presumptive illogical claim. Maybe you have heard some yourself:

"Christianity started out right, but then - according to my standards � it failed to do what it was supposed to do. Since the very things I'm asserting were wrong are evident, and since these are the things my group does right, it's obvious that my group is the restoration or replacement of true Christianity."

"Don't trust anyone but us."

"If you let us interpret the Bible for you, we'll show you that we alone are right."  

I stated that Jesus accepted the burden of proof when He came. He performed miracles, fulfilled hundreds of Old Testament prophecies and then � after being killed � rose from the dead. Moses demonstrated some credentials with the signs God provided but Jesus performed greater miracles and He said Moses foretold His coming. Other Old Testament prophets exhibited credentials from God and Jesus exceeded their works as He fulfilled the prophecies they gave.

So - when Jesus presumes to tell people what Moses really meant, we should listen. When a mere human with lesser credentials (e.g.- Mohammed) presumes to tell us what Jesus really said or meant, why should we listen to them?

Apollos

Salam/Peace,

For Muslims it's very simple. The Quran is beyond any existing book. The beauty of the rhyme (the arabic) in conjunction that with the content that there is any doubt or contradiction, is not comparable with anything else on earth.

That's why Umar ibn Khattab one of the earliest Prophet companioning, was accept Islam just after he listened her sister recite the Quran, on that time he came to her house to kill her, because he as the Qurays leader was shame her sister become Prophet Muhammad PBUH follower.

So we as muslim anything is not in-line with the Quran is not correct, this the ultimate requirement for Muslim to judge other books.

Here one of the surah/chapter in the Quran that said that God doesn't have son or daughter, listen yourselves how the beauty of the verses:

Semar,

Thank you for your post. Unfortunately I do not share your feeling about these verses. Independent of the teaching it proclaims, the words and style do not seem beautiful to me. They are in fact lacking of any beauty, poetry or interesting literary style to me. I will admit that I do not read Arabic and even if I did, it would be a second language so I might be missing something in this English translation. Because of this I offer two responses:

One � this type of subjective response is exactly what I was referring to in my initial post. Instead of accepting the burden of proving that the Quran is a revelation from God, you provide a �proof� that anyone can say about any writing. Literary beauty is too subjective to be a proof of divine inspiration.

Two � If literary beauty were the evidence of divine inspiration I would argue that the Old Testament Bible is superior to all other books. Even when translated from the original Hebrew it captures profound thoughts and feelings. Do you not agree that the below example is beautiful?

Psalm 23

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Apollos

2. It is He Who has taught the Qur'an.

3. He has created man:

4. He has taught him speech (and intelligence).

5. The sun and the moon follow courses (exactly) computed;

6. And the herbs and the trees - both (alike) bow in adoration.

7. And the Firmament has He raised high, and He has set up the Balance (of Justice),

8. In order that ye may not transgress (due) balance.

9. So establish weight with justice and fall not short in the balance.

10. It is He Who has spread out the earth for (His) creatures:

11. Therein is fruit and date-palms, producing spathes (enclosing dates);

12. Also corn, with (its) leaves and stalk for fodder, and sweet-smelling plants.

13. Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?

14. He created man from sounding clay like unto pottery,

15. And He created Jinns from fire free of smoke:

16. Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?

17. (He is) Lord of the two Easts and Lord of the two Wests:

18. Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?

19. He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together:

20. Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress:

21. Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?

22. Out of them come Pearls and Coral:

23. Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?

24. And His are the Ships sailing smoothly through the seas, lofty as mountains:

25. Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?

26. All that is on earth will perish:

27. But will abide (for ever) the Face of thy Lord,- full of Majesty, Bounty and Honour.

28. Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?

29. Of Him seeks (its need) every creature in the heavens and on earth: every day in (new) Splendour doth He (shine)!

30. Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?

"Truth is beautiful, without doubt; but so are lies." -Ralph W. Emerson

Nur that is what the Bible claims.

Welcome back, Ron!

I, on my own, have never been able to reconcile the two commandments (but do have something good-naturedly up my sleeve).  I have always considered this a prime example of the contradiction between the so-called Old and New Testaments, between Moses and Jesus, reported statements from the latter that he had not come to change but to �fulfill� the law notwithstanding.

Yes, as I understand, Islam recognizes both Moses and Jesus as prophets.

Serv

Hi Ron,

You wrote:  �Okay, I'll bite: what's up your sleeve?�

Not yet mate, it�s waaaaaaay too important to be revealed so quickly.  But seriously, I first want to see if anyone from especially the Christian tradition can play lawgiver and devise a means, or statement, by which the above-cited laws as given by Moses and by Jesus can be reconciled and harmonized.  How might one simultaneously observe Moses� and Jesus� law, or edicts, without contradiction?    

You wrote:  �Personally, when I was a Christian I pretty much ignored the Old Testament, because it was just too much at odds with Jesus's message.�

I can relate.  My arguably Christian name is Servetus, which is bad enough in some circles, but I am also sometimes surnamed Marcion.  (One can remain a Christian, as in my case, and have highly disparate, or let�s say, independent viewpoints and, for the fun of it, name oneself after heretics and heresiarchs.)  Remain fiercely independent then, as you are, but please do consider coming back into the fold.  You are missed.   

Hi Apollos

You wrote:  �I will answer your [Servetus�s] question but I gather from your and other Muslim posts that you do not have an answer for my question. That is, you simply want to continue asserting that Islam is correct without accepting the burden of proof that is yours.�

That, I must say, is a lot of gathering from my question.  I have not asserted that Islam is correct and neither for that matter have I continued to do so.  I just thought, after reading your opening argument, that we could break it down and discuss, or digest, it in increments.

You wrote:  �The Jews - like you - objected to such audacious statements ��

Now hold on.  I don�t mind being placed in such illustrious company as, say, Caiaphas, but please do reconsider your assumption that I have thus far voiced any objections.  I have not.  I have presented two statements, one by Moses and another by Jesus, which seem contradictory at best.  I would like to know how to reconcile the two, how to observe both of them without contradiction.  Do you see any way of doing so?

You wrote:  �To summarize, if you had considered the underlying intent of God�s commands and knew a little about Middle Eastern culture, you would have realized that the commandment Moses gave in Leviticus was in keeping with loving thy neighbor ...�

If you don�t stop being so condescending, I am not going to attend your catechism, or Sunday School, and you will no doubt miss me and my fascinating, endlessly thought-provoking contributions to your thread.

Best regards,

Serv

Servetus,

I apologize for assuming you were agreeing with Muslim claims in your objections. I don't have a Sunday School class but I see how my comments would appear condescending with this wrong assumption.

So, to provide me a better understanding of what your questions are about � will you please reveal your opinion on my claim that Jesus rose from the dead and the burden of proof we expect from people claiming to be from God?

Apollos

Apollos,

You wrote:  �I apologize ��

Thanks.  It was just a stutter step.  I am having some fun with you.

You wrote:  �So, to provide me a better understanding of what your questions are about ��

I will, at your request, address the remainder of this sentence, but my question, thus far, seems very simple.  Let me rephrase my question �restate the problem- by using the so-called triad, i.e., the thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

�Source Wikipedia:

The thesis is an intellectual proposition.

The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis, a reaction to the proposition.

The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.�

Thesis (Moses)

�If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.�

Antithesis (Jesus)

�You have heard that it was said [by Moses], 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.�

Synthesis

?

Can you or anyone (especially among Christians) write a statement, or law, which solves the apparent conflict between Moses and Jesus and reconciles their common truths, thus forming a new proposition?  In other words, can anyone here create, or write, a synthesis?           

You wrote:  �� will you [Servetus] please reveal your opinion on my claim that Jesus rose from the dead and the burden of proof we expect from people claiming to be from God?�

I will try.  But, with your permission, I will have to do it later, because I usually restrict myself to a half hour or less on these boards (which is one reason why I like to take things in smaller doses.)

Best regards,

Serv

The Law was a concession from GOD for the sins of man.

Hi Ron,

I wrote:   �Can you or anyone (especially among Christians) write a statement, or law, which solves the apparent conflict between Moses and Jesus and reconciles their common truths, thus forming a new proposition?�

You wrote:  �Well, I suppose one could argue that Moses did not mean that the victim should retaliate in kind, but that society (i.e., the law) should retaliate on his behalf.  In other words, if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also -- then call the police and they will punish the aggressor as Moses prescribes.�

Brilliant!  I had a hunch that you could meet the requirements.  To my view, this, in theory, perfectly meets the definition of synthesis.

Thesis (Moses)

�If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.�

Antithesis (Jesus)

�You have heard that it was said [by Moses], �Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.� But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.  If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.�

Synthesis (Ron)

�{I}f someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also -- then call the police and they will punish the aggressor as Moses prescribes.�

A problem I see in practice, however, is that if one were to follow your synthesis to its logical end, the Mosaic law (thesis) of exact and equal retribution would be in any case enacted, whether the victim himself or the police sought justice, and the perpetrator of the crime would be finally minus an eye or tooth.  And thus, it seems, would be negated Jesus� concept (antithesis), expressed elsewhere and throughout the New Testament, of �overcoming evil with good,� of giving a cloak in addition to a coat, and of pacifism in the face of aggression.

If you don�t mind, then, please allow me to narrow the requirements for the synthesis.  Can anyone create a synthesis, or statement of law, which solves the apparent conflict between Moses and Jesus and reconciles their common truths, thus forming a new proposition, without, in the end, negating or subsuming either the thesis or antithesis?  (The reason why I keep specifying especially those within the Christian tradition will, I hope, be made clear enough at some point as we continue.  Be assured that it is not, by any means, an attempt on my part to exclude Muslims.)   

That is an interesting (opening) post, Apollos,

You wrote:  �One distinction in this succession is that Jesus recognized the burden of proof that was required to justify the new �truths� He was revealing. Others have simply claimed that they had a new revelation without accepting the burden of proof.�

Are you including Muhammad among these others?  If so, I disagree with his being included.  He (the Quran) often appeals to proofs.  Here is a single, though probably too controversial example:

�If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.  Nor be of those who reject the signs of Allah, or thou shalt be of those who perish.  Those against whom the word of thy Lord hath been verified would not believe �even if every Sign was brought unto them- until they see (for themselves) the penalty grievous.�  (Quran 10:94-97)

For my purposes thus far, it doesn�t matter how those who had been reading the Book from before him responded, the fact is, an appeal to them was here made, or recommended.

You wrote:  �Another distinction with Jesus is that He did not challenge what the Bible said. He claimed to fulfill it in fact and said that God�s Word (the Tanach or Old Testament) would not pass away until all be fulfilled. He only had two areas where His teaching actually differed ��

I hope you don�t mind my abbreviating your statements.  This one impresses me as understated.  Whether one calls it �abolished,� �fulfilled,� or paradoxically abolished by way of fulfillment, the fact remains that, according to the writer of Acts (St. Luke), one of the so-called �false� witnesses who testified before the Sanhedrin claimed that both St. Stephen and Jesus himself had spoken against the temple and against the law.  �For we have heard him [St. Stephen] say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place [temple] and change the customs Moses handed down to us.� (Acts 6:12-14)

Quite apart from the rather tricky issue of whether this witness was true or false, a question to my mind arises: did Jesus in fact change the customs that Moses handed down to them?   I think he did.  I think one of the best proofs of that is New Testament Christianity itself (in contradistinction to Judaism, which for the most part disregards Jesus).  Consider, among other things, dietary laws, though you have already adequately explained why you think Jesus had the authority to change them.

You wrote:  �He only had two areas where His teaching actually differed from what the average Jew believed at that time and He told His disciples to listen to what the Priests and Scribes said � but not follow their hypocritical practices.�

He is also said to have interrupted the madding throng from enacting the very penalty prescribed by God and Moses in the case of the woman taken in adultery and, in the process, further paved the way toward his own martyrdom (John 8:7).  I would consider this more than a slight disagreement with Moses and his designates.  Wouldn�t you?

To keep things manageably brief, I will close for now.  (Were there some specific questions you wanted me to answer?  If so, please rephrase and present them.  Except, in this case, at the beginning, I haven�t known quite where to start.)

Best regards,

Servetus wrote: A problem I see in practice, however, is that if one were to follow your synthesis to its logical end, the Mosaic law (thesis) of exact and equal retribution would be in any case enacted, whether the victim himself or the police sought justice, and the perpetrator of the crime would be finally minus an eye or tooth.  And thus, it seems, would be negated Jesus� concept (antithesis), expressed elsewhere and throughout the New Testament, of �overcoming evil with good,� of giving a cloak in addition to a coat, and of pacifism in the face of aggression.

You're assuming that the "eye for an eye" thing cannot be considered good.  I happen to agree that it isn't good, but I'm not sure that Jesus would.  He didn't come to abolish the law, after all, so he must have considered it to be good.

Quite apart from the rather tricky issue of whether this witness was true or false, a question to my mind arises: did Jesus in fact change the customs that Moses handed down to them?   I think he did.

I have tried to address a specific topic in this post. I realize some tangents will arise but it seems that every post ends up with people wanting to attack the Bible being God�s Word. I and other Christians are trying not to show our frustration and offense in having the Scripture we believe in being condemned this way � but it is hard to do so when people deliberately change the topic back to this again and again. If Muslims do not accept the burden of proof in showing that Islam is true, please just say so and we will move on to another topic. If there is an answer from Muslims on the burden of proof, please present it.

Apollos

"If you don�t mind, then, please allow me to narrow the requirements for the synthesis.  Can anyone create a synthesis, or statement of law, which solves the apparent conflict between Moses and Jesus and reconciles their common truths, thus forming a new proposition, without, in the end, negating or subsuming either the thesis or antithesis?  (The reason why I keep specifying especially those within the Christian tradition will, I hope, be made clear enough at some point as we continue.  Be assured that it is not, by any means, an attempt on my part to exclude Muslims.)"

Apollos wrote: I have tried to address a specific topic in this post. I realize some tangents will arise but it seems that every post ends up with people wanting to attack the Bible being God�s Word. I and other Christians are trying not to show our frustration and offense in having the Scripture we believe in being condemned this way � but it is hard to do so when people deliberately change the topic back to this again and again. If Muslims do not accept the burden of proof in showing that Islam is true, please just say so and we will move on to another topic. If there is an answer from Muslims on the burden of proof, please present it.

I don't understand, Apollos.  It seems to me that anyone making magical claims ought to be prepared to prove them.  Why do you feel that Muslims have a burden of proof, but not Christians?

Ron,

I wrote:  �A problem I see in practice, however, is that if one were to follow your synthesis to its logical end, the Mosaic law (thesis) of exact and equal retribution would be in any case enacted, whether the victim himself or the police sought justice, and the perpetrator of the crime would be finally minus an eye or tooth.  And thus, it seems, would be negated Jesus� concept (antithesis), expressed elsewhere and throughout the New Testament, of �overcoming evil with good,� of giving a cloak in addition to a coat, and of pacifism in the face of aggression.�

You wrote:  �You're assuming that the "eye for an eye" thing cannot be considered good.  I happen to agree that it isn't good, but I'm not sure that Jesus would.  He didn't come to abolish the law, after all, so he must have considered it to be good.�

Actually, for purposes of this discussion, I am not assuming anything.  I accept both propositions as equal.  In the new, narrower synthesis I am seeking, I want neither the thesis (Moses) nor the antithesis (Jesus) to be negated or subsumed.  If possible, I want them to be reconciled.  As it reads, to my ear, in the Bible we have a thesis and an antithesis but no apparent synthesis.  At least, in my many years of Bible reading, I�ve never been able to find one.  At this point, that and only that is what I seek.

Shasta�sAunt,

Thanks for the input.  It is always welcome.

You wrote:  �It really doesn't matter how many theories are produced regarding synthesis of the two quite different approaches taken between Moses and Jesus ..�

I am actually aiming at something in particular by responding to Apollos and by raising this apparent conflict between Moses and Jesus as a single case in point.  The reason I am asking primarily Christians to offer, or produce, a synthesis is to provoke thought and logical inquiry.  I hope, after a time, to provide something in the nature of a �proof,� which might, just might, appeal to both Christians and Muslims alike.  Before I proceed, I want to ensure that I have allowed sufficient time for those who would to write a synthesis and to consider the matter.

Serv

Servetus wrote: Ron,   I wrote:  �A problem I see in practice, however, is that if one were to follow your synthesis to its logical end, the Mosaic law (thesis) of exact and equal retribution would be in any case enacted, whether the victim himself or the police sought justice, and the perpetrator of the crime would be finally minus an eye or tooth.  And thus, it seems, would be negated Jesus� concept (antithesis), expressed elsewhere and throughout the New Testament, of �overcoming evil with good,� of giving a cloak in addition to a coat, and of pacifism in the face of aggression.� You wrote:  �You're assuming that the "eye for an eye" thing cannot be considered good.  I happen to agree that it isn't good, but I'm not sure that Jesus would.  He didn't come to abolish the law, after all, so he must have considered it to be good.� Actually, for purposes of this discussion, I am not assuming anything.  I accept both propositions as equal.  In the new, narrower synthesis I am seeking, I want neither the thesis (Moses) nor the antithesis (Jesus) to be negated or subsumed.  If possible, I want them to be reconciled.  As it reads, to my ear, in the Bible we have a thesis and an antithesis but no apparent synthesis.  At least, in my many years of Bible reading, I�ve never been able to find one.  At this point, that and only that is what I seek.   Shasta�sAunt,   Thanks for the input.  It is always welcome.   You wrote:  �It really doesn't matter how many theories are produced regarding synthesis of the two quite different approaches taken between Moses and Jesus ..�   I am actually aiming at something in particular by responding to Apollos and by raising this apparent conflict between Moses and Jesus as a single case in point.  The reason I am asking primarily Christians to offer, or produce, a synthesis is to provoke thought and logical inquiry.  I hope, after a time, to provide something in the nature of a �proof,� which might, just might, appeal to both Christians and Muslims alike.  Before I proceed, I want to ensure that I have allowed sufficient time for those who would to write a synthesis and to consider the matter.   Serv

Servetus,

I think I provided a �synthesis� of these statements before you raised the question � or I do not understand what you mean. I will summarize my explanation again and please tell me if it addresses your post.

In the passage at hand Jesus refers to numerous written a verbal commandments the people knew of and then contrasted them with His admonitions/commandments. It is clear to anyone reading these that He was either identifying the underlying principal of the previous commandment or He was creating a new commandment that took the old one to a new level. Either way, He was not reversing a commandment but amplifying it. So we don�t find Him saying we can kill people now, or that we can commit adultery now, etc. He says we can�t even have the thoughts that lead to such things.

So when we come to the statement about � an eye for an eye ��, we should expect Jesus to do just what He had with the preceding statements � amplify the old command not reverse it. Looking at the intent of the old commandment we can see this is what He did; He did not reverse it but amplified it.

I note that someone else wrote that Jesus� credentials allow Him to reverse the old commandment if He had wanted to. I don�t think this is what He did but they are right that He could have if He wanted to. What do you have a problem with in this?

Apollos

Apollos,

You wrote:  �I think I provided a �synthesis� of these statements before you raised the question � or I do not understand what you mean.�

I think it is the latter.

You wrote:  �In the passage at hand Jesus refers to numerous written a verbal commandments the people knew of and then contrasted them with His admonitions/commandments.�

Agreed.

You wrote:  �It is clear to anyone reading these that He was either identifying the underlying principal of the previous commandment or He was creating a new commandment that took the old one to a new level. Either way, He was not reversing a commandment but amplifying it.�

Here, then, is a difference, and not one only of semantics.  I don�t think that negating the thesis amplifies it.   I think that negating the thesis creates the antithesis.  As I read it, Moses stated the thesis and Jesus stated the antithesis (see above).            

You wrote:  �So we don�t find Him saying we can kill people now, or that we can commit adultery now, etc. He says we can�t even have the thoughts that lead to such things.�

For purposes of brevity, I think it best if we continue to focus upon the single �eye for an eye� example.  But, to revisit your statement, we do, in fact, find Him reportedly and at least parenthetically (Mark 7:19) saying that we can not only think, for example, about pork chops, but that we can also grill and chomp a few of them if we so desire.

You wrote:  �So when we come to the statement about � an eye for an eye ��, we should expect Jesus to do just what He had with the preceding statements � amplify the old command not reverse it.�

Again, I don�t see, or read, what he said as an amplification; I read it as a negation.

You wrote:  �Looking at the intent of the old commandment we can see this is what He did; He did not reverse it but amplified it.�

Sorry, who�s the �we� ?  I cannot so clearly see this and never, for that matter, have I been able to see it in my years of being nourished in the Christian tradition.

Please allow me to put it in practical, logical rather than theological, but still hypothetical terms.  Forget all else and accept, for now, that there are two primary laws, or statements of law, on the books, one by Moses and the other by Jesus:

(Moses)�If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.�

(Jesus)�You have heard that it was said [by Moses], �Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.� But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.  If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.�

I am the aggrieved party (plaintiff) standing before you, the sole judge, jury and, if necessary, executioner.  The defendant has, hours before, in a fit of fury and for no legitimate reason, punched me in the face and knocked out one of my teeth.  How do you judge the case and dispense justice according to both Moses and Jesus (using these and related verses) and what, in the end, becomes of the defendant?  What, if any, punishment is meted to the perpetrator of the crime?  Answering that might provide a workable synthesis.

Thank you.

Serv

You (Apollos) wrote:  �It is clear to anyone reading these that He was either identifying the underlying principal of the previous commandment or He was creating a new commandment that took the old one to a new level. Either way, He was not reversing a commandment but amplifying it.�

(From Serv):

Apollos wrote:  �You [Servetus] ask a good question but I think the stage is missing some elements.�

Yes.  It was probably scrubbed too bare.     

Apollos wrote:  �Actually Jesus described a similar setting in some of His parables and stories and He made you both the judge and plaintiff. He then added a Supreme Judge over you and described a situation where your decision toward the one who has harmed you will be used as the measurement for how you will be treated. If you demand justice, justice will be demanded of you. If you give forgiveness and grace, these will be given to you. As long as you see only look at the horizontal plane, you might imagine yourself as a plaintiff. When/if you can see yourself in the vertical plane you will see that God is the plaintiff and we need grace not justice.�

Bravo, Apollos!  That is a fine and insightful synthesis.  Thank you.

Sign-Reader wrote:  �I would like to offer the synthesis the LAW of RETALIATION AND EQUALITY:
42:40 (Y. Ali) The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah. for ((Allah)) loveth not those who do wrong.

17:33 (Y. Ali) Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand recompense  or to forgive): but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).�

Well said (quoted)!  Your timing is also excellent.  The thing that, from the beginning, was up my sleeve (but which may now seem at best anticlimactic when put on the table ) was exactly this and I was about to ask Muslims for their input, to see if they could produce a synthesis (as you have).  I had never really seen, or read, a synthesis between Moses and Jesus, at least not as seamlessly as Apollos clearly has, until I read this, from the Quran, and I thought, wrongly it turns out, that I could offer it as something in the nature of a proof:

�We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.� (Quran 5:45)

Oh well.  I thank everyone in this thread for contributing to my understanding and I do furthermore apologize if I took us on an unnecessary tangent.

Serv

Serv,

Apollos wrote: I think I was clear in opening post. The "magical" claim Christians make is that Jesus fulfilled prophecy and rose from the dead and this provides Him with credentials above any other person. There is historical evidence supporting this claim and none supporting an alternate theory. Refute the resurrection and I will concede that no one has met the burden of proof I am addressing here.   You apparently discount the resurrection of Jesus. If so, can you explain why - on a scientific, logical, philosophical or historical basis?

As I said in that other topic ( http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14279&PID=123439#123439 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14279&PID=123439#123439 ), the prophecies are weak to the point of meaninglessness.

As for the resurrection, if Jesus was seen up and walking around after the crucifiction, my first assumption would be the same as for anyone else --  that he didn't die.

Posted by Ron Webb:

As for the resurrection, if Jesus was seen up and walking around after the crucifiction, my first assumption would be the same as for anyone else --  that he didn't die.

Apollos:

Posted by Nur_Ilahi:

The proof that we Muslims can bring forward is the Quran. Nothing else. This is the miracle of Muhammad given by God AlMighty that transcend the past, the present and the future. Original, Authentic, without contradiction or anyone's tampering.

From Apollos:

In what way is the Quran objectively different than any other human writing? The qualities you mention are subjective criteria and can be found in Shakespear, Dr. Seus or the New York times. 

Posted by Nur_Ilahi:

Apollos wrote: For the sake of brevity I am willing to limit the historical facts to the 12 core ones I mentioned but if you reject even this minimal historical scholarship, I don�t think we have much to discuss on what is historical about Jesus. All scholars agree that Jesus was crucified and died.

Well, not the Muslim scholars for sure.  But I'm getting the feeling that only Christian theologians qualify as "scholars" for you.

Many years ago I heard a radio program that discussed the hypothesis that Jesus didn't actually die during the crucifixion.  They mentioned that dentists are taught about a phenomenon they call an "upright faint".  Normally if you faint, you fall down, blood rushes to your head and you revive more or less automatically.  When you are held upright (e.g. in a dentist's chair, or nailed to a cross), this doesn't happen, and you can lapse into a deeply unconscious state which may be mistaken for death.  It's always seemed like the most logical explanation to me.

I went searching for that information on the Internet, and didn't find it; but instead I found a BBC documentary program called "Did Jesus Die?"  There is a Web page for it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/did-jesus-die.shtml - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/did-jesus-die.shtml , and if your bandwidth can handle a 670 MB download (mine can't, unfortunately) I think you can watch it or download it here: http://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=Did_Jesus_Die - http://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=Did_Jesus_Die .  Here's a piece of the interview with the director, Richard Denton:

BBC Four: How do you think he might have survived crucifixion? RD: Crucifixion took up to three days; the maximum he was on the cross for was nine hours, it might even have been six. And even if you read the gospels Pontius Pilate is clearly surprised that he's already dead and wants to be reassured by the centurion that he really is dead. My personal take on it would be that he goes into a shock induced coma, and probably they thought he was dead. ... BBC Four: What actually prompted you to start exploring this topic? RD: I was intrigued because most academic theologians and intelligent churchmen, or a very significant number of them, do not believe that the resurrection is the literal truth. It's a metaphor to tell us that there is hope. Whilst not saying that it's a literal truth they don't actually say it's a lie, but if you're saying something's not literal truth then you are saying it's a lie. I was shocked that none of the people we interviewed, with the exception of the Cannon of Westminster, believed it was true. Yet if they don't think it's true what on earth do they think is the motivation behind writing the story in the Bible?

Apollos wrote: Ron - In answering your questions I am trying to appeal to some common ground as a starting place but I don�t know what that might be. Are you an atheist? An agnostic? A Mormon? Please clarify so I can understand your reference point

First and foremost I call myself a freethinker.  I also consider myself an atheist, but I stay away from that term because too often it leads to tedious arguments about how I can "prove" that God doesn't exist.  (As if Christians etc. can't call themselves that unless they can "prove" that He does.)

P.P.S.: I also need to correct a spelling error: "crucifixion", not "crucifiction".  I'm normally very good with spelling.  Must have been a Freudian slip.

Shasta'sAunt wrote: What does The Quran instruct us to do that could be considered Satanic?

I was asking hypothetically, not suggesting that it actually was Satanic.  But since you asked: in my opinion only an evil god, or possibly Satan, could recommend or even permit that we should cut off the hands of somebody who steals a donut.  We've had this discussion before, so I don't want to go there again; and anyway, nothing anyone can say could change my opinion on that.  If God Himself appeared before me and told me that, I'd tell him (as I believe Muhammad should have) that he is a liar and an impostor.  There is no way I could worship such a god.

Apollos,

Well, maybe if your ideology tells you to expect a miracle, then you might indeed assume it was a miracle, and report it as such.  But for the rest of us, common sense suggests that somebody somewhere must have been mistaken.

Apollos wrote: One of the many problems with this naturalistic explanation is - the disciples see an anemic, weak and mutilated Jesus 3 days after he was crucified and it convinces them that Jesus has risen from the dead? This person who would have definitely needed emergency care convinced them that he was the amazing Lord from heaven?

Then again, maybe the 3 days was actually three "prophetic days"...

I contend that it is illogical and unjustified to say that miracles can�t and/or don�t occur. Will you explain to me how I am incorrect on this position?

 

Miracles are by definition illogical and unjustified.  If they were logical or justified by natural principles, they wouldn't be miracles, would they?

Ron Webb wrote: Apollos,   1. Yes, I think you need to list them for me.  (But keep it a short list, please.  I don't want to get into a debate about evolution.)  If you think that the theory of evolution defies our observations of natural laws, then you either don't understand evolution or you don't understand what is meant by "natural laws".  Evolution is the poster child for a naturalistic world view.

Ron,

On evolution � let�s just discuss a few of the basic problems for calling this theory �natural�. For example: arrival of the fittest. We know how survival of the fittest works but each species � according to the theory of evolution � requires the arrival of a new species. This species arrival requires a macro level mutation that is totally unlike the small changes within a species. The latter we can observe, the former has never been observed. (If you need a specific change to illustrate this, consider the supposed change from cold blooded reptile to warm blooded bird). And its not just external features that pose the problem. The DNA of each species is different and nowhere do we have transitional forms or DNA.

The idea of mutations producing an overall positive change is counter to our observations and other natural laws like the law of entropy (second law of thermodynamics). Raw energy is destructive not productive; water destroys DNA so DNA repair genes would have to be in place simultaneously with the occurrence of DNA or it would not survive. Homchirality is another formidable opponent. The only way we come close to re-creating life is when we concoct an experiment filled with our own �intelligent design�. We pick certain chemicals and exclude others � not based on the predicted elements in the primordial world but the kind that will give us the required results we want. And even then the results aren�t completely right.

Consider the origin of life itself. In addition to all of the other problems for the first living cell being the result of random chance, we know that living cells require DNA and Proteins. (RNA can substitute for some virus forms). We also know that proteins must have DNA and DNA replication requires proteins. The chicken and egg dilemma is at it�s worst here. If you wish to read a list of quotes by evolutionists who admit to this, please see this link - http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrstpsnknwnmchnsmfsbjctfthrcntrvrsyrcmpltbwldrmnt - http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrstpsnknwnmchnsmfsbjctfthrcntrvrsyrcmpltbwldrmnt

These are just some of the reasons why it is incorrect to call evolution a theory based on �natural laws�.

Apollos

Apollos,

We seem to be running off in tangents here.  You clearly don't understand the theory of evolution (the theory that new species arise via "macro level mutation" is called saltation, not evolution) but we'll save that for another time.  Nor do I want to digress into a debate on the origin of the universe.

I started out by saying that if Jesus was up and walking around after the crucifixion, the most logical explanation would be that he didn't die.  I reject "it's a miracle" as an explanation because (at least by my definition) miracles are inherently illogical, i.e. if there's a logical explanation then it isn't a miracle.

If you want to make a miracle into a logical explanation, then you need to explain (or at least offer a credible theory of) how miracles work.  By what mechanism does God intervene in the world?  For example, is it a quantum effect of some kind?  Perhaps God manipulates the probabilities of particle interactions at the subatomic level?  If so, how does He accomplish this?  What is your evidence that this is happening, and how can we test your theory?

That would be a logical explanation, and I would be thrilled to see the evidence.  But simply saying "it's a miracle" is not an explanation at all -- on the contrary, it is an admission that you have no explanation.

Apollos wrote: I am taking this tangent because I am trying to find a starting point for us to agree on. Since you have said you only accept natural explanations for events and the universe is the only reality that exists, I will never be able to show you satisfactory reasons that don't meet your criteria, correct? I am therefore trying to show that your definitions are subjective and arbitrary so you will consider the possibility that God exists. I am not trying to get you to admit that God exists but allow the possibility that He exists. If you exclude that possibility, no one could ever prove a miracle to you, could they?

If you look back in the discussion you will see that it was you, not me, who introduced the word "universe".  To me, as I said, the "universe" means everything that exists; and if God exists, then He is part of the universe.  If that isn't what you meant by the term, then I wish you would define it; but my definition does not exclude the possibility of God.

Your request for the mechanisms of a miracle to prove it is "logical" is equally subjective and arbitrary. If you applied this criteria to a host of other events they would prove to be "illogical" as well. For example, the love your parents had for you, the truthfulness of your memories, the existence of everything around you. Show me the logical proof of these and I will know how to answer your question.

My parents have helped me in many ways, and their attention and assistance are a logical explanation for the kind of person I am and the good life I live.  I can easily prove that my parents exist, I can prove what they did for me and how they did it, and I can probably even show that those acts of good parenting might logically be expected to produce beneficial results.

The other examples you offer are not explanations of anything, so they are not analogous to miraculous explanations of events.  There is nothing logical or illogical about memories or existence.  Such things may be true or false, but not logical or illogical.

Ron Webb posted:

If you look back in the discussion you will see that it was you, not me, who introduced the word "universe".  To me, as I said, the "universe" means everything that exists; and if God exists, then He is part of the universe.  If that isn't what you meant by the term, then I wish you would define it; but my definition does not exclude the possibility of God.

Ron,

I get that you believe that the existence of God is impossible and/or illogical. If we accept this as valid premise, there is no way I can prove the existence of God or that such a God does miracles, can I? So though you hold this belief you still ask me to prove how a particular miracle occurred. Am I missing something or do just want to see me waste my time?

Our fundamental disagreement then is over the existence of God. I contend that your belief about God not existing is subjective and arbitrary. I have given a basic argument to support my contention. I was hoping that by seeing the �error of your ways�, you would at least concede the possibility that God does exist and we could then discuss reasons for accepting the resurrection of Jesus as historical. If you refuse to respond to the fundamental argument I pose, fine. But if I am wrong, you have the opportunity to show me and refute my belief that God exists. This will effectively take care of other beliefs I have about God�s Word and miracles. Why not respond to my challenge?

I�ll try again to the fundamentals so we can know where we agree and disagree? Please let me know if you agree with the below � or please correct it so you do agree with it:

1.      Something has always existed.

2.      The Universe has not always existed.

3.      Therefore the Universe does not contain everything that exists. (Another way of saying this is there is something transcendent to the universe. This allows the possibility of �God�.)

Apollos

Apollos wrote: I get that you believe that the existence of God is impossible and/or illogical. If we accept this as valid premise, there is no way I can prove the existence of God or that such a God does miracles, can I? So though you hold this belief you still ask me to prove how a particular miracle occurred. Am I missing something or do just want to see me waste my time?

Yeah, you're missing just about everything.  When did I ever say that the existence of God is impossible?  That's exactly why I avoid the term "atheist" -- people immediately jump to that conclusion.  I personally do not believe in God, but that doesn't mean I can prove it.  It's possible I'm wrong, but in order to convince me you would need evidence.

I�ll try again to the fundamentals so we can know where we agree and disagree? Please let me know if you agree with the below � or please correct it so you do agree with it: 1.      Something has always existed. 2.      The Universe has not always existed. 3.      Therefore the Universe does not contain everything that exists. (Another way of saying this is there is something transcendent to the universe. This allows the possibility of �God�.)

First, please define "universe".

If you mean the observable, physical universe that originated in the so-called "Big Bang", then yes, there may be other things beyond its borders, but there is no theory at present that can explain how they could affect us.  If you have such a theory, I'd love to hear it -- but "it's a miracle" is no explanation.

Originally posted by Apollos

I get that you believe that the existence of God is impossible and/or illogical. If we accept this as valid premise, there is no way I can prove the existence of God or that such a God does miracles, can I? So though you hold this belief you still ask me to prove how a particular miracle occurred. Am I missing something or do just want to see me waste my time?

Posted by Ron Webb:

Yeah, you're missing just about everything.  When did I ever say that the existence of God is impossible?  That's exactly why I avoid the term "atheist" -- people immediately jump to that conclusion.  I personally do not believe in God, but that doesn't mean I can prove it.  It's possible I'm wrong, but in order to convince me you would need evidence.

New post by Apollos:

Ron,

I have obviously misunderstood you. I took your earlier statements (quoted below) to mean that you were excluding God from existence � unless He is part of the natural world.

Miracles are by definition illogical and unjustified.  If they were logical or justified by natural principles, they wouldn't be miracles, would they?

The universe by definition is "all that exists".  If God exists, then he is part of the universe.  If that definition makes you uncomfortable, then think of another word and I'll use it instead, but my "closed system" includes all that exists.  Yours too, I hope.  Would you knowingly include in this discussion things that do not exist?  Would you knowingly deny things that do exist?

So let me try to start over and see where we agree or don�t. Do you agree that it is logically and/or scientifically possible that God could exist?

Apollos

Apollos wrote: So let me try to start over and see where we agree or don�t. Do you agree that it is logically and/or scientifically possible that God could exist?

I agree that it is possible that some sort of god or gods exist(s), though I think it's a pretty low probability.  If you are talking about a very specific God, such as is described in the Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, or the ancient Greek pantheon, then I would say that the probability is infinitesimal, but still non-zero -- perhaps only slightly higher than the infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Celestial Teapot.

One thing I can say with near-certainty is that if God exists, he obviously doesn't care whether I believe in Him or not.  I say that because, honestly, I'm quite open to being convinced of his existence.  It's not that I'm especially hostile to the concept or unwilling to accept authority or anything like that.  If God really wanted me to believe, it would be trivially simple for an omnipotent God to make His existence crystal clear.

If You're listening, God, here are just a few suggestions, though I've no doubt You could do much better than these:

1. How about setting up a celestial radio station, broadcasting the Quran (or the Bible, or whatever) to the entire planet, or the entire galaxy for that matter?  Make it have equal signal strength everywhere and in all directions, so it was clear that the signal is not a point source, but that the ether itself is resonating to Your frequency.  Or maybe different frequencies for different languages.  That would be pretty impressive, but surely not too difficult for the Creator of the Universe.

2. A more low-tech suggestion: You often talk about the "very rocks and stones" singing your praises.  Well, how about it?  That would be something, wouldn't it?  Maybe every time we tap a stone, instead of a dull thud we hear a Psalm, or a Sura?  Why not?

3. We sometimes hear silly stories about people claiming to see the face of God or Jesus in their fried egg or burnt toast or whatever.  Well, it wouldn't be silly if it was reproducible.  Why not make your image (or if you're shy, maybe just that Ichthys symbol or something) appear every time I fry an egg?  Once is just weird, and twice is a coincidence, but EVERY time would leave no room for doubt.

Apollos, you probably think I'm joking, but I'm not.  Maybe my examples are a bit inane, but it would take something on that scale to convince me.  Remember, the burden of proof rests with those who claim the existence of something, not the non-existence of it; and like they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Well, God is certainly an extraordinary claim.

I'm waiting, God.  I've been waiting for half a century, but so far You haven't made any serious attempt to reveal Yourself.  I can only conclude that You don't care one way or another whether I believe.  And that's cool.  I guess I'm doing okay -- God doesn't feel the need to intervene.

Apollos wrote: Since we agree that the existence of God is possible, would you also agree that raising someone from the dead is also possible? While this is currently an impossible event for humans to pull off, and certainly beyond the abilities of humans in 33 A.D., God � by the most minimal of definitions � could pull this off. I don�t know or care at this point if this event is a miracle or not. That is, maybe it is an invasion of natural laws or maybe it is just advanced knowledge of our natural laws. Either way, it is something humans can�t do and God � if He exists � could do. Do we agree on this?

Until recently, a person was considered dead once his/her heart stopped.  Now we know that CPR, administered soon enough, can restart the heart and bring the patient back.  So based on the standards of a century ago, we can already raise someone from the dead.

I believe that the current standard for death is a flat EEG.  Once brain activity stops, we consider the patient dead.  I have no doubt that in the next few decades we will find ways to restart the brain, at least in some cases.  There are already wealthy people with incurable diseases who are opting for cryogenic preservation after death, with the expectation that they will be brought back to life once a cure is found for their illness.

So no, I'm not sure I agree with you.  It depends on how you define death, and whether you mean impossible in principle or just impossible with current knowledge and technology.

I appreciate your other suggestions for proving God�s existence but I suggest to you that these are not universal criteria. I have heard a host of other examples from skeptics and the only thing they seem to share is being subjective.

If you ask me next week I'll probably give you a completely different list of criteria, but that doesn't mean that I would no longer be convinced by the ones I am offering now, or that other skeptics' suggestions wouldn't also convince me.

Are you willing to look at the historical facts on the resurrection claim and see where they lead?

I'm always willing to look, but frankly I think you're wasting your time.  Just how dead was Jesus?  Had he stopped breathing?  Did anyone even check?  Had his heart stopped?  Was he brain-dead?  Had decomposition begun?  We don't know, and it's hard to imagine how we ever could know.  Without any kind of physical evidence, all we have is a two thousand year old story.  The fact that a great many people heard the story, repeated it and perhaps wrote it down doesn't really prove anything.

Ron Webb wrote: Until recently, a person was considered dead once his/her heart stopped.  Now we know that CPR, administered soon enough, can restart the heart and bring the patient back.  So based on the standards of a century ago, we can already raise someone from the dead. I believe that the current standard for death is a flat EEG.  Once brain activity stops, we consider the patient dead.  I have no doubt that in the next few decades we will find ways to restart the brain, at least in some cases.  There are already wealthy people with incurable diseases who are opting for cryogenic preservation after death, with the expectation that they will be brought back to life once a cure is found for their illness. So no, I'm not sure I agree with you.  It depends on how you define death, and whether you mean impossible in principle or just impossible with current knowledge and technology. I mean really dead - brain waves and all.   Are you willing to look at the historical facts on the resurrection claim and see where they lead? I'm always willing to look, but frankly I think you're wasting your time.  Just how dead was Jesus?  Had he stopped breathing?  Did anyone even check?  Had his heart stopped?  Was he brain-dead?  Had decomposition begun?  We don't know, and it's hard to imagine how we ever could know.  Without any kind of physical evidence, all we have is a two thousand year old story.  The fact that a great many people heard the story, repeated it and perhaps wrote it down doesn't really prove anything.

Ron,

I will list the major reasons we know that Jesus was dead. And when I say �we�, I am not just referring to Christians. The consensus of skeptical historians is that Jesus died by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.

1.      The disciples of Jesus publicly proclaimed their accounts in the midst of contemporaries who would have known the facts if they were otherwise. Though the Jews objected to the part about Jesus rising from the dead, they never claimed he had not died. They had great motivation to do so since these followers of Jesus were drawing people away from historical Judaism.

2.      The same scenario applied to the Romans who would have known if Jesus was not dead. They greatly disliked the impact Christians were having on the Roman Empire and had great motive and ability to squash the story if they thought Jesus had not died.

3.      Carrying on in the tradition of early Jewish anti-Christian thought, the Toledoth Jesu purports that Jesus' body was stolen away. While no body has ever been produced, these claims acknowledge that contemporary enemies of Christians believed Jesus had died and the tomb where he was laid was found empty.  

4.      Tacitus ( ca. 55-120 A.D.) a Roman historian, states that "Christus" the founder of Christianity suffered death at the hands of Pontius Pilate but this only stopped the "superstition" for a short while.

5.      Thallus (ca. 52 A.D.) tried to explain away the darkness that accompanied Jesus' death as an eclipse of the sun. Obviously, Jesus' crucifix­ion and the resurrection message promoted by the disciples immediately after Christ's death was accepted common knowledge to those alive at the time.

6.      Josephus (b. 37 A.D.) mentions the crucifixion of Jesus (Antiquities 18, chapter 3). Even though some believe the passage has been added to by Christians in later years, the underlined portion below is judged authentic by most scholars: 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.

7.      The details and history of crucifixion show that people didn�t survive this form of execution. The Romans were good at it and they didn�t make such mistakes. But let�s imagine they did this one time. This meant Jesus was nailed to a cross as various eyewitnesses attest, he suffered incredible blood loss, paralysis of the upper body and overall shock before his legs were broken or a sword was put through his side. If he had survived all this (something there is no natural explanation for), he had to look dead to a Roman soldier who was experienced at ascertaining such things. He then had to stay alive while others made a tomb ready, wrapped him tightly in burial cloths, and placed him in a cold dark tomb. He would have had about hundred pounds of burial spices on top of him, and a large stone sealing off the entrance where guards were probably posted. If he somehow survived all this for several days without medical attention, food or water (something there is no natural explanation for) he had to somehow get out of the bindings, out from under the heavy spices, and out of the  tomb - by himself. Once outside he had to appear healthy and robust for the disciples needed to see him as the Lord of Life, not a pale bleeding, bruised and near dead man. The swoon theory is so unbelievable that even people who are determined to reject the resurrection as real, opt for other theories rather than this one.

Thank you for your kind comments, Abuayisha and Shasta�sAunt  .

As I see it, Muhammad (by way of the Quran) has in this case still provided the best, most concise, synthesis between Moses and Jesus, and he clearly did not have the advantage that we here enjoyed of specifically focusing upon and considering the matter for a fortnight.  To borrow wording from the Quran, �therein,� it seems to me, �is a sign,� even if only an understated one, for those who would see or perceive it.

It is also interesting to note, in analytic terms, that, whereas Ron�s synthesis was logical in nature, Apollos�s, relying, as it did, upon a complex reading and distillation of many, various New Testament parables and related scriptures, was a more inductive, theological form of reasoning, and seems thus somewhat analogous to what Muslims call ijtihad.  In other words, and again if only as I see it, Apollos, in the manner of an alim (scholar), read the scriptures and derived a judicial ruling.  It was by means of this exercising of ijtihad that he also wrote a synthesis which impresses me as largely in harmony with the Quran, though it is by no means as direct and concisely worded.

That is, stating it in the pointy-eared Spock�s famous word, �fascinating.�

(I am not meaning to be impolite by referring to anyone in the third person; I just didn�t want to address anyone specifically in the majority of this post.)

Serv

Akhe Abdullah wrote: Apollos wrote: [QUOTE=Akhe Abdullah]As Salamu Alaikum, Apollos. If you can not understand me how can you understand the Bible.I do not use big words and Im not talking in circles.Maybe we can communicate better if you could only greet me properly for ounce. <SPAN ="cgable cgable-over" title="View all messages with this subject" style="CURSOR: pointer" widget="" cmd="erView:subjectSearch">Charis kai Eirene Xapis Kai Eipnun,Would this be the correct response?Do you speak and or read Greek? So I take it that since you are non-Muslim you cant greet me the same,dont worry it's not a form of conversion.

Akhe Abdullah,

Since you greeted me with an English transliteration of the Arabic for �Peace be upon you�, I thought I should also use the English transliteration for my greeting. As you apparently know it comes from the Greek words meaning �Grace and Peace� and is a common greeting by Paul in his letters. While the last word is akin to the Jewish greeting of �Peace� or �Shalom�, the first word �Grace� was the common Greek greeting. Paul � and I here � tie the two together in this order to emphasize that Peace from God comes after Grace from God. I therefore wish upon you the Grace and Peace that comes from God. (I am not averse to "As Salamu Alaikum" but I wish more than just peace on you).

Apollos

Apollos wrote: I will list the major reasons we know that Jesus was dead. ...

Points 1 to 6 are easily disposed of because they are just hearsay.  I agree that it was widely and maybe universally believed that Christ died on the cross.  Lots of things are widely believed but eventually turn out not be true.  (Remember the "weapons of mass destruction"? )  But the people whom you quote are merely reporting what others have said.  None of them is writing from his own knowledge.  Aside from the disciples (who are hardly impartial), none of them actually witnessed the event.

Point 7 needs to be broken down into pieces:

The details and history of crucifixion show that people didn�t survive this form of execution. The Romans were good at it and they didn�t make such mistakes.

But let�s imagine they did this one time. This meant Jesus was nailed to a cross as various eyewitnesses attest, he suffered incredible blood loss, paralysis of the upper body and overall shock before his legs were broken or a sword was put through his side.

If he had survived all this (something there is no natural explanation for), he had to look dead to a Roman soldier who was experienced at ascertaining such things.

He then had to stay alive while others made a tomb ready, wrapped him tightly in burial cloths, and placed him in a cold dark tomb. He would have had about hundred pounds of burial spices on top of him, and a large stone sealing off the entrance where guards were probably posted.

If he somehow survived all this for several days without medical attention, food or water (something there is no natural explanation for) he had to somehow get out of the bindings, out from under the heavy spices, and out of the  tomb - by himself.

Once outside he had to appear healthy and robust for the disciples needed to see him as the Lord of Life, not a pale bleeding, bruised and near dead man.

The swoon theory is so unbelievable that even people who are determined to reject the resurrection as real, opt for other theories rather than this one.

Then there's

8.   If Jesus continued living rather than rose from the dead, why did he disappear after 40 days? What would have been his motive and how would he have been able to hide?  Why wasn�t he recognized by people elsewhere after this? Even if he decided to stop preaching in public, someone would have noticed his stigmata. And how could he have evaded his followers who were so convinced he had risen from the dead? Surely he would hear of their torture and martyrdom for claiming that he had risen. Why wouldn�t he have had shown up to say: �Hey, look they are telling the truth, here I am�?

And

9. All the facts support the simple history that he was crucified and died. There is nothing but a theory to support the idea that he was only temporarily injured.

Well, aside from the fact that he was still alive three days later!  It reminds me of those incredulous villains in movies who leave their victim for dead and then meet up with him later in the film.  "You can't be alive!  I murdered you!"