I'm burning a Quran on Friday nite (a day before the pastor)

Brian wrote:

I seriously doubt there was a historical Jesus or a historical Mohammed. If there was a Mohammed, he is responsible for little if any of the Koran. In the case of both the Bible and the Koran, the textual history of the tesxt is a hell of alot more complicated than pious history would have one believe.

why would you seriously doubt either an historical jesus OR Muhammad? Both of those are absurd statements - especially re: Muhammad, who was certainly famous in enough in his lifetime to evidence his existence.

I don't have time to go into it now. There is some good stuff ou there on this.

RE: Jesus. The only "historical" evidence is the Gospels and I think the argument (From Earl Doherty, Robert Price, and others) that Jesus began as a mythical chracter who was later historicized (in a familiar patter from the ancient world) is pretty strong using textual evidence from the NT itself and tracing the origin of the stories told about Jesus to clear analogs in the OT (Jesus basically repeats everythign Elijah does) and he also repeats miracles attributed to Pythagoras, Attis, Apollonious of Tyana, and other quasi-historical figures. And the passion stores can be found almost verbatim in Greco Roman novels from the period. The NT stories are all traceable to muyth and all the "words of Jesus" traceable in near verbatim form to early Cynic, Jewish, or Epicurean sources. Read Earl Doherty's book "The Jesus Puzzle" or Robert Price's "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man". Both offer compelling arguments. I am not saying the question is settled by any means, but that onion is almost thoroughly peeled to nothing as far as I can tell. I would just suggest reading the arguments, taking them seriously, and then just seeing if you think you can come up with coutnerarguments that aren't dealt with. If I had to bet my money on it, I would bet on no historical Jesus. I would also bet on no historical Socrates, if that matters. I might also bet on no historical Pythaogras.

The case of Muhammed is simply that Muslims lie about the Koran. It's textual course is far more murky that Muslims would have you believe (why be surprised - while critical theology gets you criticism from the pious in Christianity, it gets you killed in Isman) See Ibn Wariq and others discuss the origin of Muhammed (which was originally a title and not a proper name). I am fairly convinced that Islam began as a sect of Nestorian Christians who had an adoptionist Christology. Christians have this bizarro idea about Christian origins that the "original" Christians all believed the same things and that later heresies broke off. It was quite the opposite. Do some research on Nestorianism and how it held sway in what is now modern Iran in the 5th-7th centuries. The Koran is full of residual Christian doctrine that were squashed by rising catholic orthodoxy.

I'm betting on no historical Brian.

Im going to burn the Quran, a Bible, an American Flag, a picture of Martha Washington, a picture of every World Leader, a Rainbow flag, a box of poptarts, and 2 squirrel tails.

Rebel Iconoclast wrote:

Im going to burn the Quran, a Bible, an American Flag, a picture of Martha Washington, a picture of every World Leader, a Rainbow flag, a box of poptarts, and 2 squirrel tails.

Hey, not the poptarts, buddy! Now, THAT is sacrilegious!

Please throw on fire "The Audacity of Hope" which was derived from a sermon delivered by Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.