We discussed what the Roman historian Tacitus said about Jesus a while back and that got me wondering. You know in a small way what Tacitus wrote corroborates the Bible but what that first century historian said is totally not what the Quran believes about him. Never Mind rising from the dead Islam teaches that he was not even crucified some even going as far as to claim that it was an apostle that was crucified in his place.
So I'm left wondering how could one in six people in the world believe this religion's take on Jesus when it not just goes against what the Bible says (That goes without saying) but also the early historians accounts as well.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".
My understanding is that Islam rejects the Crucifixion not for historical reasons but for ideological reasons - they cannot believe that God would allow one of his prophets to be executed in so humiliating a manner.
But do you really think most Muslims have read Tacitus, or even know who he is? Most Christians don't. And furthermore, this is hardly the only place where an Abrahamic religious tradition contradicts an independent historical account, so I'd be very careful about throwing that stone, bakgat.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Oh, also, Islam actually believes the Crucifixion happened, just that Jesus didn't die from it.
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise. (4:157-8)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But do you really think most Muslims have read Tacitus, or even know who he is? Most Christians don't. And furthermore, this is hardly the only place where an Abrahamic religious tradition contradicts an independent historical account, so I'd be very careful about throwing that stone, bakgat.
Relax pal I'm not throwing any stones. Actually Tacitus account is relatively well known among Christians.
I wonder how then if Islam does not use the historical method to try and prove the truth of their world view. How do they get so many people to believe it. At least Christianity tries to make a historical case for what they believe about Jesus.
I'm not sure I buy that "doesn't agree with one guy" == "completely ignores history".
Does the fact that the historical dates of the Roman census don't line up with the story that Joseph went to Bethlehem for census reasons mean that Christianity rejects history?
If you understand how it started then you understand how so many people believe.
Mohammad wasn't some pacifist. He was quite the opposite. His goal was to define a religion that everyone would take to.
When that didn't happen he started raiding villages. So it isn't hard when a bunch of guys on horses or whatever with swords comes up to your village and goes believe in what we do or die.
that is how you get so many people to believe it.
Does the fact that the historical dates of the Roman census don't line up with the story that Joseph went to Bethlehem for census reasons mean that Christianity rejects history?
Do you not realize that a Roman Census would have taken years to accomplish? that by the time Joseph would have heard of the census that it could have been a year or two?
I wonder how then if Islam does not use the historical method to try and prove the truth of their world view.
But they do. They often trot out examples of things that Muhammad did, for example, as evidence that their religion is true. In fact, there is far more information about historical Muhammad than there is Jesus.
But the fact is, careful reasoned examination of historical evidence is not how most members of a religion determine what they believe. Most Christians know next to nothing about the history of the Church, but that doesn't stop them from being Christians. It's no different for Muslims.
Do you not realize that a Roman Census would have taken years to accomplish? that by the time Joseph would have heard of the census that it could have been a year or two?
Do you not realize that a Roman Census would have taken years to accomplish? that by the time Joseph would have heard of the census that it could have been a year or two?
Ultimately, however, Luke was much closer to the historical sources and claims to have "investigated everything carefully" (Luke 1:3) and he did this under the Holy Spirit's inspiration.
The problem here, Bakgat, is that you are coming from the wrong place. Your basic question is fairly ethnocentric. After all, why do so many people believe in Christianity when Christians are basically just a cult offshoot of Judaism?
Christianity wouldn't be what is it today if it wasn't forced on the Roman people by Constantine the Great, it would probably still be a smaller sect than Judaism. Why are so many Christians not Catholic even though Jesus clearly left St. Peter in charge?
The answer is because only a very small number of people convert of their own accord from the religion instilled in them by an authority figure during their youth.
But I think the real answer you are looking for is that, like the Roman spread of Christianity, Islam was spread by great Arab and Persian empires of the Mid-East from Sub-Saharan Africa through South Asia. While Christians were still barbarians in the dark ages, these Arab and Persian empires were expanding their reach and were establishing universities and centers for learning and spreading ideas.
Thanks for not reading the link. I think i will take a Dr in theology over your opinion.
so yes it does strike me as a good source.
Here is a doctor of systematic theology and New Testament studies who claims that Jesus was a mythical rather than historical figure. You should take his opinion because he is a doctor.
Or are doctors only beyond question when they agree with what you want to believe?
Christianity wouldn't be what is it today if it wasn't forced on the Roman people by Constantine the Great, it would probably still be a smaller sect than Judaism.
Very unlikely. Christianity was already larger than Judaism at the time of Constantine, and it had developed the strong evangelizing tradition that Judaism profoundly lacked.
But I think the real answer you are looking for is that, like the Roman spread of Christianity, Islam was spread by great Arab and Persian empires of the Mid-East from Sub-Saharan Africa through South Asia. While Christians were still barbarians in the dark ages, these Arab and Persian empires were expanding their reach and were establishing universities and centers for learning and spreading ideas.
You surely wouldn't call the Byzantine Empire 'barbarian'?
compared to arabic nations and middle eastern empires, yes. the byzantine empire was far behind in terms of medicine, astronomy, science, and math.
not entirely sure why all of that collapsed and the mid east turned into the hellhole that you still see today (large exceptions in swaths of more "civilized" areas, but if anyone is going to challenge this statement i'm going to laugh at you) as this particular area of history is not my strong suit. but yeah, once upon a time the mid east was the most developed area of the entire world.
not entirely sure why all of that collapsed and the mid east turned into the hellhole that you still see today (large exceptions in swaths of more "civilized" areas, but if anyone is going to challenge this statement i'm going to laugh at you) as this particular area of history is not my strong suit. but yeah, once upon a time the mid east was the most developed area of the entire world.
An interesting theory is that the Islamic golden age came to an end because of the Mongol conquests. Baghdad was one of the big centers of knowledge in the Islamic world, and the Mongols leveled it. They destroyed the irrigation systems that had kept Iraq fertile for millennia, and left the region too depopulated to repair them.
Europe was only saved from the same fate when Ogedei Khan died when the Mongols were preparing to attack the German states (who had little hope of defending against the invasion). When the Khan died, all the Mongol leaders had to go all the way back to Mongolia for the election the new Khan, so Europe was spared. Had that not happened, there wasn't much to stop the Mongolians from conquering all the way to the Atlantic.
Islam does contradict history. As does Christianity. As does several other religions. But what drives religious groups is not an appeal to scientific or historical accuracy but rather spiritual messages. Its conversion methods that make the religion not much else much of the time.
Oh, also, Islam actually believes the Crucifixion happened, just that Jesus didn't die from it.
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise. (4:157-8)
I'm curious where then, bakgat, you can argue that Islam goes against Tacitus.
Islam doesn't doesn't deny the existence of a man named Christ, doesn't deny the crucifixion, and doesn't deny the Christ movement that came out of Judea and spread across the world.
I'm not sure I buy that "doesn't agree with one guy" == "completely ignores history".
Does the fact that the historical dates of the Roman census don't line up with the story that Joseph went to Bethlehem for census reasons mean that Christianity rejects history?
It disproves the Bible is 100% historically accurate. But, I mean, Genesis probably should have clued everybody in on that.
However, Tacitus is a very helpful source for historical Jesus study as he is a pagan source from not too long after Jesus' life who corroborates the existence of Christ.
That being said, bakgat doesn't seem to understand, or want to understand, the difference between proof of a historical Jesus and proof that Christianity's claims about Jesus are true.
Very unlikely. Christianity was already larger than Judaism at the time of Constantine, and it had developed the strong evangelizing tradition that Judaism profoundly lacked.
You are partially right, I think. Part of my point that went unstated is that Christianity would have continued to be suppressed by the Roman Empire. It certainly wouldn't have had the inroads it did otherwise. So while, no, it wouldn't have been smaller than Judaism, it wouldn't be nearly as big as it is today either without the English, Spanish and French spreading it worldwide.
But this is all conjecture and I wouldn't really stand by that point as there is no good way to know for certain.
An interesting theory is that the Islamic golden age came to an end because of the Mongol conquests. Baghdad was one of the big centers of knowledge in the Islamic world, and the Mongols leveled it. They destroyed the irrigation systems that had kept Iraq fertile for millennia, and left the region too depopulated to repair them.
The Islamic Golden Age was already waning when the Mongols showed up. And even at its height, it must be said, it was not the equal of Athens' Golden Age, or of the European Renaissance that was to come. There was not the same outpouring of originality in the Caliphates; most of the great names among their intellectuals were translators, transmitters, and commentators of Greek and Indian works. And they remained shackled as a culture to religious dogma. Al-Ghazali savagely attacked Plato and Aristotle as infidel philosophers, and extended his attack to the Muslim commentators like Avicenna. To be sure, al-Ghazali's judgment was not uncontested; Averroës attempted to rebut his Incoherence of the Philosophers with the cheekily-titled Incoherence of the Incoherence. But in the end, the dogmatism of al-Ghazali won the soul of Islam and the humanism of Averroës lost.
I won't pretend to weigh seriously whether the poison of Ghazalian occasionalism did more to kill Islamic civilization than the sword of the Khans. But pillaging hordes are commonplace in history - natural and unavoidable - whereas al-Ghazali made a deliberate choice to turn his undeniably bright mind to the twisted and detestable end of abrogating critical thought, so it's more fun to blame him.
Europe was only saved from the same fate when Ogedei Khan died when the Mongols were preparing to attack the German states (who had little hope of defending against the invasion). When the Khan died, all the Mongol leaders had to go all the way back to Mongolia for the election the new Khan, so Europe was spared. Had that not happened, there wasn't much to stop the Mongolians from conquering all the way to the Atlantic.
Even the Mongols didn't have an infinite logistical capacity. And the other thing the Mongol Empire did, in its destruction of Central Asia and the Middle East, was cut off the overland trade routes between Europe and India and China. This may have been the impetus for European trade powers to start thinking about sea routes...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The Islamic Golden Age was already waning when the Mongols showed up. And even at its height, it must be said, it was not the equal of Athens' Golden Age, or of the European Renaissance that was to come. There was not the same outpouring of originality in the Caliphates; most of the great names among their intellectuals were translators, transmitters, and commentators of Greek and Indian works. And they remained shackled as a culture to religious dogma. Al-Ghazali savagely attacked Plato and Aristotle as infidel philosophers, and extended his attack to the Muslim commentators like Avicenna. To be sure, al-Ghazali's judgment was not uncontested; Averroës attempted to rebut his Incoherence of the Philosophers with the cheekily-titled Incoherence of the Incoherence. But in the end, the dogmatism of al-Ghazali won the soul of Islam and the humanism of Averroës lost.
I won't pretend to weigh seriously whether the poison of Ghazalian occasionalism did more to kill Islamic civilization than the sword of the Khans. But pillaging hordes are commonplace in history - natural and unavoidable - whereas al-Ghazali made a deliberate choice to turn his undeniably bright mind to the twisted and detestable end of abrogating critical thought, so it's more fun to blame him.
Yeah, it's absolutely true that the Mongolian invasion wasn't the sole cause of the situation.
Even the Mongols didn't have an infinite logistical capacity. And the other thing the Mongol Empire did, in its destruction of Central Asia and the Middle East, was cut off the overland trade routes between Europe and India and China. This may have been the impetus for European trade powers to start thinking about sea routes...
Well, sort of. After a while, the fact that everything from Crimea to Beijing was under Mongol control lead to the re-establishment of contact and trade, including the exchange of ambassadors. The Catholic Church was doing a pretty solid job of establishing Christianity in China, even. So it wasn't that they were cut off and had to find a way around, at least not while the Mongols were in charge.
It disproves the Bible is 100% historically accurate. But, I mean, Genesis probably should have clued everybody in on that.
However, Tacitus is a very helpful source for historical Jesus study as he is a pagan source from not too long after Jesus' life who corroborates the existence of Christ.
That being said, bakgat doesn't seem to understand, or want to understand, the difference between proof of a historical Jesus and proof that Christianity's claims about Jesus are true.
______________
OK maybe I do not. Seems like that is a bit of a red herring seeing as the whole point of this thread is to discuss the historical claims of Islam and to a lesser degree the Bible.
Also whether a Holy book is historically accurate is important when deciding if you actually want to believe in it. I would be less inclined to believe in a book that is portraying itself as the word of God if it does not get its facts straight. It is not as if the two issues are not at the very least connected.
OK maybe I do not. Seems like that is a bit of a red herring seeing as the whole point of this thread is to discuss the historical claims of Islam and to a lesser degree the Bible.
Also whether a Holy book is historically accurate is important when deciding if you actually want to believe in it. I would be less inclined to believe in a book that is portraying itself as the word of God if it does not get its facts straight. It is not as if the two issues are not at the very least connected.
Highroller is correct, historical 'Jesus' is not proof of a biblical Jesus anymore than the Cretan Labyrinth is proof of the Minotaur. It's not so much a red herring if you are holding up the Bible's historical 'accuracy' compared with that of the Quran, it's actually very related. If you are coming from the faulty assumption that the Bible is more historically accurate than the Quran, it's a very important issue to address.
I'm really confused here. Can you restate your opinion here, because I don't want to launch into a discussion because I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say.
If you are coming from the faulty assumption that the Bible is more historically accurate than the Quran, it's a very important issue to address.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm actually trying to discuss it. Bible's History vs Quran's history, How do they shape up?
Islam doesn't doesn't deny the existence of a man named Christ, doesn't deny the crucifixion, and doesn't deny the Christ movement that came out of Judea and spread across the world.
They deny the crucifixion of Jesus which is against Tacitus who tells us that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus. Some among Islam even think that Judas was crucified in Jesus's place which is completely different than the story that Tacitus wrote.
Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8]
Quran quote
Sahih International
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
Highroller is correct, historical 'Jesus' is not proof of a biblical Jesus anymore than the Cretan Labyrinth is proof of the Minotaur. It's not so much a red herring if you are holding up the Bible's historical 'accuracy' compared with that of the Quran, it's actually very related. If you are coming from the faulty assumption that the Bible is more historically accurate than the Quran, it's a very important issue to address.
OK lets just say that I'm a Christian and that independent verification of the Bible is not going to make me believe less in the Bible, but again that is not the main issue of this thread. I'm more trying to get a comparison on the history between the two world views (Especially on the issue of Jesus of Nazareth.)
And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
Meaning: They didn't crucify Jesus, but they thought they did. This isn't "completely different than the story that Tacitus wrote"; it explains the story that Tacitus wrote.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I'm left wondering how could one in six people in the world believe this religion's take on Jesus when it not just goes against what the Bible says (That goes without saying) but also the early historians accounts as well.
My understanding is that Islam rejects the Crucifixion not for historical reasons but for ideological reasons - they cannot believe that God would allow one of his prophets to be executed in so humiliating a manner.
But do you really think most Muslims have read Tacitus, or even know who he is? Most Christians don't. And furthermore, this is hardly the only place where an Abrahamic religious tradition contradicts an independent historical account, so I'd be very careful about throwing that stone, bakgat.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Relax pal I'm not throwing any stones. Actually Tacitus account is relatively well known among Christians.
I wonder how then if Islam does not use the historical method to try and prove the truth of their world view. How do they get so many people to believe it. At least Christianity tries to make a historical case for what they believe about Jesus.
Does the fact that the historical dates of the Roman census don't line up with the story that Joseph went to Bethlehem for census reasons mean that Christianity rejects history?
If you understand how it started then you understand how so many people believe.
Mohammad wasn't some pacifist. He was quite the opposite. His goal was to define a religion that everyone would take to.
When that didn't happen he started raiding villages. So it isn't hard when a bunch of guys on horses or whatever with swords comes up to your village and goes believe in what we do or die.
that is how you get so many people to believe it.
Do you not realize that a Roman Census would have taken years to accomplish? that by the time Joseph would have heard of the census that it could have been a year or two?
http://www.orlutheran.com/html/census.html
not sure what information you are going on but it is faulty.
So far it has been proven pretty correct in it's historical sense.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
But the fact is, careful reasoned examination of historical evidence is not how most members of a religion determine what they believe. Most Christians know next to nothing about the history of the Church, but that doesn't stop them from being Christians. It's no different for Muslims.
Your link boils down to "the dates don't fit, but they must be right anyway because Luke was guided by the Holy Spirit".
Does that really strike you as a good source here?
Thanks for not reading the link. I think i will take a Dr in theology over your opinion.
so yes it does strike me as a good source.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I'm certainly convinced.
Christianity wouldn't be what is it today if it wasn't forced on the Roman people by Constantine the Great, it would probably still be a smaller sect than Judaism. Why are so many Christians not Catholic even though Jesus clearly left St. Peter in charge?
The answer is because only a very small number of people convert of their own accord from the religion instilled in them by an authority figure during their youth.
But I think the real answer you are looking for is that, like the Roman spread of Christianity, Islam was spread by great Arab and Persian empires of the Mid-East from Sub-Saharan Africa through South Asia. While Christians were still barbarians in the dark ages, these Arab and Persian empires were expanding their reach and were establishing universities and centers for learning and spreading ideas.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Here is a doctor of systematic theology and New Testament studies who claims that Jesus was a mythical rather than historical figure. You should take his opinion because he is a doctor.
Or are doctors only beyond question when they agree with what you want to believe?
Very unlikely. Christianity was already larger than Judaism at the time of Constantine, and it had developed the strong evangelizing tradition that Judaism profoundly lacked.
There's no objective definition of "barbarian" in modern usage.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
compared to arabic nations and middle eastern empires, yes. the byzantine empire was far behind in terms of medicine, astronomy, science, and math.
not entirely sure why all of that collapsed and the mid east turned into the hellhole that you still see today (large exceptions in swaths of more "civilized" areas, but if anyone is going to challenge this statement i'm going to laugh at you) as this particular area of history is not my strong suit. but yeah, once upon a time the mid east was the most developed area of the entire world.
An interesting theory is that the Islamic golden age came to an end because of the Mongol conquests. Baghdad was one of the big centers of knowledge in the Islamic world, and the Mongols leveled it. They destroyed the irrigation systems that had kept Iraq fertile for millennia, and left the region too depopulated to repair them.
Europe was only saved from the same fate when Ogedei Khan died when the Mongols were preparing to attack the German states (who had little hope of defending against the invasion). When the Khan died, all the Mongol leaders had to go all the way back to Mongolia for the election the new Khan, so Europe was spared. Had that not happened, there wasn't much to stop the Mongolians from conquering all the way to the Atlantic.
I'm curious where then, bakgat, you can argue that Islam goes against Tacitus.
Islam doesn't doesn't deny the existence of a man named Christ, doesn't deny the crucifixion, and doesn't deny the Christ movement that came out of Judea and spread across the world.
It disproves the Bible is 100% historically accurate. But, I mean, Genesis probably should have clued everybody in on that.
However, Tacitus is a very helpful source for historical Jesus study as he is a pagan source from not too long after Jesus' life who corroborates the existence of Christ.
That being said, bakgat doesn't seem to understand, or want to understand, the difference between proof of a historical Jesus and proof that Christianity's claims about Jesus are true.
You are partially right, I think. Part of my point that went unstated is that Christianity would have continued to be suppressed by the Roman Empire. It certainly wouldn't have had the inroads it did otherwise. So while, no, it wouldn't have been smaller than Judaism, it wouldn't be nearly as big as it is today either without the English, Spanish and French spreading it worldwide.
But this is all conjecture and I wouldn't really stand by that point as there is no good way to know for certain.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I won't pretend to weigh seriously whether the poison of Ghazalian occasionalism did more to kill Islamic civilization than the sword of the Khans. But pillaging hordes are commonplace in history - natural and unavoidable - whereas al-Ghazali made a deliberate choice to turn his undeniably bright mind to the twisted and detestable end of abrogating critical thought, so it's more fun to blame him.
Even the Mongols didn't have an infinite logistical capacity. And the other thing the Mongol Empire did, in its destruction of Central Asia and the Middle East, was cut off the overland trade routes between Europe and India and China. This may have been the impetus for European trade powers to start thinking about sea routes...
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yeah, it's absolutely true that the Mongolian invasion wasn't the sole cause of the situation.
Well, sort of. After a while, the fact that everything from Crimea to Beijing was under Mongol control lead to the re-establishment of contact and trade, including the exchange of ambassadors. The Catholic Church was doing a pretty solid job of establishing Christianity in China, even. So it wasn't that they were cut off and had to find a way around, at least not while the Mongols were in charge.
OK maybe I do not. Seems like that is a bit of a red herring seeing as the whole point of this thread is to discuss the historical claims of Islam and to a lesser degree the Bible.
Also whether a Holy book is historically accurate is important when deciding if you actually want to believe in it. I would be less inclined to believe in a book that is portraying itself as the word of God if it does not get its facts straight. It is not as if the two issues are not at the very least connected.
Highroller is correct, historical 'Jesus' is not proof of a biblical Jesus anymore than the Cretan Labyrinth is proof of the Minotaur. It's not so much a red herring if you are holding up the Bible's historical 'accuracy' compared with that of the Quran, it's actually very related. If you are coming from the faulty assumption that the Bible is more historically accurate than the Quran, it's a very important issue to address.
I'm really confused here. Can you restate your opinion here, because I don't want to launch into a discussion because I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I'm not assuming anything. I'm actually trying to discuss it. Bible's History vs Quran's history, How do they shape up?
They deny the crucifixion of Jesus which is against Tacitus who tells us that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus. Some among Islam even think that Judas was crucified in Jesus's place which is completely different than the story that Tacitus wrote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
Quran quote
OK lets just say that I'm a Christian and that independent verification of the Bible is not going to make me believe less in the Bible, but again that is not the main issue of this thread. I'm more trying to get a comparison on the history between the two world views (Especially on the issue of Jesus of Nazareth.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.