Question about Islam

[dead0man]

CAIR is putting ads on buses in Broward County FL that proclaim "ISLAM: The Way of Life of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.".  link Now, I'm not a religious historian, but I'm pretty sure those first two dudes died thousands of years before Islam.  I suppose one could argue that because Islam is an Abrahamic religion, Abraham is a Muslim.  Still, seems like a reach to me.  Abraham certainly didn't consider himself anything but Jewish, same for the second two guys.  Color me confused.


(I do NOT advocate that the ads should be pulled.  That's just silly.)

[John Dibble]

Note that they say "The Way of Life" of those people - since these people are regarded as important moral figures in Islamic theology, it wouldn't be unusual for a member of Islam to consider these people to have an Islamic system of morals. That doesn't mean that they think that these people considered themselves Muslims, just that they think they behaved in a way consistent with Islamic morals.

[dead0man]

Ahhh, that makes some sense.  Thank you.

[anvi]

Islamic teachings, drawn from the Qur'an and Hadith, consider Islam to have been the religion given to the first human beings (Adam and Eve) and passed down through Abraham, Moses, all the prophets of the Hebrew Bible (as well as some others who preached about Allah to "all nations") and Jesus.  There are numerous stories about the Hebrew prophets, Adam, Abraham and Moses in the Qur'an which are largely the same as the stroies from the Hebrew and Christian bibles, but with some significant differences.  In any case, Muslims think that these religions were historically distorted in many ways, in the Jewish tradition mostly by rabbinical interpretation and in the Christian by theological councils.  Still, the Musilm tradition considers Judaism and Christianity "religions of the book," which means that their God is the one true God who sent them genuine prophets, and so Judaism and Chrsitianity are supposed to be held in particularly high regard by Muslims, and in many traditions of Islam this is why Muslims are allowed to intermarry with Jews and Christians.

So, the short answer to your question is that Muslims believe that Adam, Abraham, Moses and the prophets, including Jesus, were prophets of Islam, and that's why the bus signs you are talking about claim them to have belonged to the Islamic tradition.

[GMantis]

and in many traditions of Islam this is why Muslims are allowed to intermarry with Jews and Christians.

This is inaccurate. Only Muslim men can marry non Muslim women.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Islamic teachings, drawn from the Qur'an and Hadith, consider Islam to have been the religion given to the first human beings (Adam and Eve) and passed down through Abraham, Moses, all the prophets of the Hebrew Bible (as well as some others who preached about Allah to "all nations") and Jesus.  There are numerous stories about the Hebrew prophets, Adam, Abraham and Moses in the Qur'an which are largely the same as the stroies from the Hebrew and Christian bibles, but with some significant differences.  In any case, Muslims think that these religions were historically distorted in many ways, in the Jewish tradition mostly by rabbinical interpretation and in the Christian by theological councils.

well, if that were the case, then why is there no written trace of Islam prior to 600AD?

---

  Still, the Musilm tradition considers Judaism and Christianity "religions of the book," which means that their God is the one true God who sent them genuine prophets, and so Judaism and Chrsitianity are supposed to be held in particularly high regard by Muslims, and in many traditions of Islam this is why Muslims are allowed to intermarry with Jews and Christians.

Christians do NOT worhip the same god as Muslims because Christians worship Jesus Christ as the one and only true God.

[pbrower2a]

Islamic teachings, drawn from the Qur'an and Hadith, consider Islam to have been the religion given to the first human beings (Adam and Eve) and passed down through Abraham, Moses, all the prophets of the Hebrew Bible (as well as some others who preached about Allah to "all nations") and Jesus.  There are numerous stories about the Hebrew prophets, Adam, Abraham and Moses in the Qur'an which are largely the same as the stroies from the Hebrew and Christian bibles, but with some significant differences.  In any case, Muslims think that these religions were historically distorted in many ways, in the Jewish tradition mostly by rabbinical interpretation and in the Christian by theological councils.

well, if that were the case, then why is there no written trace of Islam prior to 600AD?

Because those people didn't need a written transcript of the Word of God. They lived the Word of God and were able to exemplify that Word through their deeds and their non-written communications. Example: no evidence exists that Jesus Christ ever wrote anything.

God, according to the Quran, ordered Mohammed to transcribe the Quran. The usual claim of Muslims is that Jews and Christians slowly distorted God's Word into something very different from what God intended.

---

  Still, the Musilm tradition considers Judaism and Christianity "religions of the book," which means that their God is the one true God who sent them genuine prophets, and so Judaism and Chrsitianity are supposed to be held in particularly high regard by Muslims, and in many traditions of Islam this is why Muslims are allowed to intermarry with Jews and Christians.

But -- Muslim men may marry Christian or Jewish women  (but not pagan 'idolaters') ,  the children to be raised as Muslims. Non-Muslim men must convert to Islam before marrying Muslim women. Of course Islam recognizes the relatedness of Judaism and Christianity even if they are flawed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christian Arabs call God Allah.

[The Mikado]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christian Arabs call God Allah.

jmfcst has a point, though.  Muslims do not accept Jesus as God Incarnate, merely as a prophet and messenger of God.  Allah is what Christians would call "God the Father."  Interestingly, that makes Islam much closer to Judaism.

[anvi]

Islamic teachings, drawn from the Qur'an and Hadith, consider Islam to have been the religion given to the first human beings (Adam and Eve) and passed down through Abraham, Moses, all the prophets of the Hebrew Bible (as well as some others who preached about Allah to "all nations") and Jesus.  There are numerous stories about the Hebrew prophets, Adam, Abraham and Moses in the Qur'an which are largely the same as the stroies from the Hebrew and Christian bibles, but with some significant differences.  In any case, Muslims think that these religions were historically distorted in many ways, in the Jewish tradition mostly by rabbinical interpretation and in the Christian by theological councils.

well, if that were the case, then why is there no written trace of Islam prior to 600AD?

For the same reason there is no written trace of Chrstianity before 50 AD and no written trace of Judaism before about 500 BC ect. ect., and yet Christianity claims that it was incipiantly alive in the Hebrew scriptures and Judaism would claim that the words of the Torah were eternal long before they were written.  For Muslims, what Jews considered Judaism and Christians considered Christianity was actually Islam, only inperfectly transmitted, just as Christians believe Judaism was incipiantly Christian although unfulfilled until Jesus, and Judaism accounts for a unfolding of revelation through the patriarchs to Moses.  For these religions, there is believed to be a continuity of religious faith through preceding traditions.

It's true that Muslims do not consider Jesus to have been God but merely one of the preeminent prophets.  They believe a good bit about him that Christians believe as well, that he was born of a virgin, that he taught and healed, and that he will preside with God over the day of final judgment.  Arab Christians do call God "Allah," with the word being merely a generic word for God (a cognate of the Hebrew El or Elohim). 

Thanks for the correction in detail on the intermarriage issue.  My bad--should have been clearer.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

why is there no written trace of Islam prior to 600AD?

For the same reason there is no written trace of Chrstianity before 50 AD and no written trace of Judaism before about 500 BC ect. ect

huh?

First, Christianity accepts the Old Testament, so Christianity wasn't made up out of thin air, and the New Testament was written by 1st and 2nd generation Christians.

Second, both the Old and New Testament are historically accounted for within recorded human history.

Not so with Islam, which was invented and lacks any prior recorded record, and the historical facts of the Holy Land refute the historical claims of the Koran.

---

For Muslims, what Jews considered Judaism and Christians considered Christianity was actually Islam, only inperfectly transmitted, just as Christians believe Judaism was incipiantly Christian although unfulfilled until Jesus

check your facts, they are wrong.

Jews and Christians disagree about the interpretation of the Old Testament.  That is TOTALLY different from Islam inventing a totally different and contrary set of scripture with a different set of historical claims.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who cares what Islam accepts about Jesus Christ - without belief in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which Islam denies, any claimed linkage to Christianity is simply a charade.

[anvi]

why is there no written trace of Islam prior to 600AD?

For the same reason there is no written trace of Chrstianity before 50 AD and no written trace of Judaism before about 500 BC ect. ect

huh?

First, Christianity accepts the Old Testament, so Christianity wasn't made up out of thin air, and the New Testament was written by 1st and 2nd generation Christians.

Second, both the Old and New Testament are historically accounted for within recorded human history.

Not so with Islam, which was invented and lacks any prior recorded record, and the historical facts of the Holy Land refute the historical claims of the Koran.

---

For Muslims, what Jews considered Judaism and Christians considered Christianity was actually Islam, only inperfectly transmitted, just as Christians believe Judaism was incipiantly Christian although unfulfilled until Jesus

check your facts, they are wrong.

Jews and Christians disagree about the interpretation of the Old Testament.  That is TOTALLY different from Islam inventing a totally different and contrary set of scripture with a different set of historical claims.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who cares what Islam accepts about Jesus Christ - without belief in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which Islam denies, any claimed linkage to Christianity is simply a charade.

Huh? indeed.  Christianity only accepts the Hebrew scriptures on the precondition that they comprehensively be given a Christian interpretation.  Of what siginficance is the fact that "the New Testament was written by 1st and 2nd generation Christians" when the Qur'an was written by 1st and 2nd generation Muslims?  All religions had a history of scriptural composition such that there was a time before their scriptures were written, and that apples to all three of the traditions we are talking about.  And, you think the New Testament was "historically accounted for within recorded human history" but the Qur'an is not?  This means that the Qur'an was known to no one in recorded human history?  When you are talking about "the historical facts of the Holy Land" refuting the Qur'an. you'd best be careful, because professional historians and archeologists (as opposed to religious fundamentalists) don't see any confirmation of the New Testament or even any confirmation of the existence of Christianity outside the texts of the New Testament at all until the second century, and have even identified a number of outright historical fabrications in the New Testament.   

My facts are not wrong in the slightest.  They are only "wrong" from the point of view of a fundamentalist Christian who thinks only one interpretation of one collection of books in all of human history tells us anything about history.  And furthermore, your charge against Islam with inventing a whole new set of scriptures with a whole new set of historical claims is precisely what Jews would say about Christians regarding the New Testament. 

If your only reply to any other religious tradition is "who cares?" then it can be said to you also.  So, who cares about what Christianity accepts about Jesus Christ either?  Your belief in salvation through Christ is a matter of faith and not a matter of fact, for if it were a fact, it would not require faith at all.  But the belief of Muslims that salvation is through God is a matter of faith also.   Facts don't vindicate either believer, they don't justify either believer. 

This is the last time I'm going to waste my time responding to your posts.  I've learned at least that lesson.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Huh? indeed.  Christianity only accepts the Hebrew scriptures on the precondition that they comprehensively be given a Christian interpretation.

That's absolutely ludicrous.  I have NEVER preconditioned the acceptance of the Old Testament "on the precondition that they comprehensively be given a Christian interpretation" or any other precondition .

Nor have I ever met anyone, Jew or Christian, that only accepts scripture based on acceptance of a given interpretation.  Doing so would be putting the cart in front of the horse.

And if you would take the time to read the New Testament, you would find that all the 1st generation Christians accepted the Hebrew scriptures PRIOR to being converted to Christianity….so your point is refuted.

---

Of what siginficance is the fact that "the New Testament was written by 1st and 2nd generation Christians" when the Qur'an was written by 1st and 2nd generation Muslims? 

Christianity has its basis on PREEXISTING scripture that has a recorded history – the Old Testament.

Islam has NO preexisting scripture in recorded history, rather it took the Old and New Testament and changed the contents to suit its purposes.  And the historical events it claims are contrary to human recorded history and it the digs around Jerusalem.

---

And, you think the New Testament was "historically accounted for within recorded human history" but the Qur'an is not?  This means that the Qur'an was known to no one in recorded human history?

Prior to 600 AD?  No, there is no record the Koran even existing.

---

  When you are talking about "the historical facts of the Holy Land" refuting the Qur'an. you'd best be careful, because professional historians and archeologists (as opposed to religious fundamentalists) don't see any confirmation of the New Testament or even any confirmation of the existence of Christianity outside the texts of the New Testament at all until the second century

The historical details of New Testament have been verified.  The book of Acts alone gives hundreds of details which could only have been written by a first century witness.  In fact, there is no other ancient document that provides so many geographic, political, and historical details of the first century Jewish, Greek, and Roman worlds.

----

, and have even identified a number of outright historical fabrications in the New Testament.

Then name them.
   
---

And furthermore, your charge against Islam with inventing a whole new set of scriptures with a whole new set of historical claims is precisely what Jews would say about Christians regarding the New Testament. 

I have never had a disagreement with a Jew over recorded history, for that is NOT what  divides Christianity and Judaism.

---

If your only reply to any other religious tradition is "who cares?" then it can be said to you also.  So, who cares about what Christianity accepts about Jesus Christ either?

My “who cares” was in regard to Islam’s half-veiled attempt to claim a belief in Jesus.  For it doesn’t matter if you believe Jesus was a historical figure or even if you believe Jesus as a prophet.  What matters is that you believe in his death and resurrection. 

---

This is the last time I'm going to waste my time responding to your posts.  I've learned at least that lesson.

Lesson: don't try to historically equate Islam with Christianity/Judaism.  There is no comparison.

And, most of all, do NOT attempt to claim what precondition a given religion has when you're not even a member of that religion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

anvikshiki,

I apologize for my tone.

[anvi]

jmfcst,

And I apologize for my tone.

[afleitch]

jmfcst,
And I apologize for my tone.

It is admirably gracious of you, considering what you were responding to.

Huh? indeed.  Christianity only accepts the Hebrew scriptures on the precondition that they comprehensively be given a Christian interpretation.  Of what siginficance is the fact that "the New Testament was written by 1st and 2nd generation Christians" when the Qur'an was written by 1st and 2nd generation Muslims?  All religions had a history of scriptural composition such that there was a time before their scriptures were written, and that apples to all three of the traditions we are talking about.  And, you think the New Testament was "historically accounted for within recorded human history" but the Qur'an is not?  This means that the Qur'an was known to no one in recorded human history?  When you are talking about "the historical facts of the Holy Land" refuting the Qur'an. you'd best be careful, because professional historians and archeologists (as opposed to religious fundamentalists) don't see any confirmation of the New Testament or even any confirmation of the existence of Christianity outside the texts of the New Testament at all until the second century, and have even identified a number of outright historical fabrications in the New Testament.   

My facts are not wrong in the slightest.  They are only "wrong" from the point of view of a fundamentalist Christian who thinks only one interpretation of one collection of books in all of human history tells us anything about history.  And furthermore, your charge against Islam with inventing a whole new set of scriptures with a whole new set of historical claims is precisely what Jews would say about Christians regarding the New Testament. 

If your only reply to any other religious tradition is "who cares?" then it can be said to you also.  So, who cares about what Christianity accepts about Jesus Christ either?  Your belief in salvation through Christ is a matter of faith and not a matter of fact, for if it were a fact, it would not require faith at all.  But the belief of Muslims that salvation is through God is a matter of faith also.   Facts don't vindicate either believer, they don't justify either believer. 

This is the last time I'm going to waste my time responding to your posts.  I've learned at least that lesson.

This I think is very well argued and from a 'step back' viewpoint if you will. There is often an irony that manifests itself whenever a Christian attempts to refute scriptural Islam and this history of Islam without dealing with the notion that the same charges can be made against Christianity and scripture with it's relationship with Judaism.

There are indeed probable historical fabrications in the NT, but that was more human error or over eagerness as opposed to a deliberate fabrication. Contextually we can easily place the events during Jesus' lifetime to an accurate timeframe (born with the decade before 0AD, probably 4 or 6BC) After his death and resurection when his apostles are effectively scattered to the wind, dates becomes a little less certain and some 'corrections' in line with external events are a bit over eager. I had something on this. I'll need to dig it out.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst,
And I apologize for my tone.

It is admirably gracious of you, considering what you were responding to.

ah, in walks the steam of a duck's quack on a cold day that would attempt to discredit Christianity...this should be good.

---

This I think is very well argued and from a 'step back' viewpoint if you will. There is often an irony that manifests itself whenever a Christian attempts to refute scriptural Islam and this history of Islam without dealing with the notion that the same charges can be made against Christianity and scripture with it's relationship with Judaism.

As if Christianity invented the Old Testament? 

Please explain how the Koran, made up out of whole cloth, can compare to Christianity which is based on fulfilling the prior Old Testament, and give explicit examples 

Please show the legitimacy of the Koran, which is vastly different from the bible, when Islam claims that the current bible was edited as a product of a joint conspiracy between Christianity/Judaism.

And how does Islam’s theory of such a joint conspiracy hold water in light of the fact the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated prior to the birth of Christianity, are >95% in agreement to the letter and 100% in doctrinal agreement to the current Old Testament? 

Notice I am making a definitive and specific charge here, not some broad nameless innuendo.

---

There are indeed probable historical fabrications in the NT, but that was more human error or over eagerness as opposed to a deliberate fabrication.

But Islam’s theory is that the NT was vastly changed.  That is NOT the same as a scribal error.

Also, please give specific examples of “over eagerness” which you claim the NT includes.  Otherwise you’re simply making baseless innuendos.

---

There are indeed probable historical fabrications in the NT, but that was more human error or over eagerness as opposed to a deliberate fabrication.  Contextually we can easily place the events during Jesus' lifetime to an accurate timeframe (born with the decade before 0AD, probably 4 or 6BC) After his death and resurection when his apostles are effectively scattered to the wind, dates becomes a little less certain

Huh?  You’re claiming that your inability to date the post-resurrection NT events lead you to think the NT includes “historical fabrications”?   

Unless you can name specific examples where the NT contradicts the known historical record, it is impossible for someone >1900 years removed from the events to show that those 1900 years closer to the events fabricated history.

---

and some 'corrections' in line with external events are a bit over eager. I had something on this. I'll need to dig it out.

Ah, the “I buried it, but don’t know where to find it” excuse for making blanket and baseless innuendos against people you never met.  How convenient.

I suggest you find yourself a shovel so that you can add SOMETHING specific to this discussion.  And if you still can’t find ANYTHING specific, then please use the shovel to clean up your mess.

[afleitch]

I wasn't addressing you jmfcst. Besides, why are you so venomous towards me?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I wasn't addressing you jmfcst. Besides, why are you so venomous towards me?

My apologizes.  Bad Indian food.

...now...do you have specific examples you would like to share to back up your claims?

[afleitch]

You know what I really dislike about you. You never actually read what someone says; you read what you think they are saying. And then you spoil for a fight.

I said there were probable fabrications. And this has nothing to do with what was said, but when it was dated. Look at it this way; we can't accurately date when Jesus was born, we cant accurately date when Paul spoke to x or y. We can't date some books of the NT to within a 20 year time frame. Considering some oral testaments were not written down to as late as 200AD, any man of both faith and knowledge would have ensured that if he was writing down the life of Christ or the travels of Paul he'd get his dates right. This is a problem every historian has with nearly every account of any period in history. It doesn't mean events have been fabricated or Christ has been fabricated. It means that they may have been overeager to 'set' Jesus with the context in which he was born. If we were writing about someone 200 years later who had suffered persecution from an occupying force and from elders, and trying to ensure people believe in him and his experiences halfway across the world we would be eager to mention events in his lifetime to highlight his divinity, humanity and his oppression.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You know what I really dislike about you. You never actually read what someone says; you read what you think they are saying. And then you spoil for a fight.

I said there were probable fabrications.

I read exactly what you wrote.  And what I don't like are those who slander others without cause and then are shocked when someone takes them to task for it.

It’s no different than if I claimed “President Obama probably has sex with 8 year old boys…but, hey, don’t get up in arms about it, for I used the word probable.”  That’s an innuendo, with or without the use of the word “probable”.

So, what you judge as “spoiling for a fight” is simply my reaction to your baseless innuendo leveled against the NT.

---

And this has nothing to do with what was said, but when it was dated. Look at it this way; we can't accurately date when Jesus was born, we cant accurately date when Paul spoke to x or y. We can't date some books of the NT to within a 20 year time frame.

That only proves what we already know: a) modern historians don’t have a complete picture of recorded history and b) the bible isn’t exhaustive.  It does NOT, in any way shape or form, show that there are “probable fabrications” in the bible.  In order to conclude “probable fabrications”, you have to have CONTRADICTIONS between the NT and recorded history.  But the number of contradictions you’ve brought forth is ZERO.

---

Considering some oral testaments were not written down to as late as 200AD, any man of both faith and knowledge would have ensured that if he was writing down the life of Christ or the travels of Paul he'd get his dates right.

1) I have been reading the bible for over 16 years, and I have yet to come upon a single date.  Rather a lot of the events are given in the historical context of the timeframes of rulers and events (droughts, wars, etc).  So I must assume that by the word “dates” you’re referring to “historical context”.   So please state which historical context you believe the bible has wrong that has led you to believe there are  "probable fabrications".

2) There are recorded references to ALL of four gospels and the book of Acts way prior to 200AD, so your claim of authorship was as late as 200AD is refuted.

3)  The earliest discovered referenced of a writing (e.g. the author of the Didache, written in 100AD, referenced Matthew) only proves the latest possible date of writing.  It does NOT prove when it was written, just the latest possible date.

4) It is beyond the realm of possibility that the book of Acts could have been written outside of the 1st century.  Besides the early 2nd century references to Acts, the hundreds of details about 1st century religious, political, geographic events from Egypt to Rome are far too accurate to be attributed to oral tradition.  The accuracy of its descriptions strongly suggest an eyewitness account, just as the book of Acts claims in all its first person references:  “We sailed…”, “We went…”, etc, etc.   

---

This is a problem every historian has with nearly every account of any period in history. It doesn't mean events have been fabricated or Christ has been fabricated. It means that they may have been overeager to 'set' Jesus with the context in which he was born. If we were writing about someone 200 years later who had suffered persecution from an occupying force and from elders, and trying to ensure people believe in him and his experiences halfway across the world we would be eager to mention events in his lifetime to highlight his divinity, humanity and his oppression.

After reading points 1 through 4 above, please state explicit examples of this "overeagerness" which you claim.

[afleitch]

So, what you judge as “spoiling for a fight” is simply my reaction to your baseless innuendo leveled against the NT.

What on earth is 'baseless' about suggesting that we don't know exactly when some of the books of the NT were written down? That's what I've said. And that's what you just agreed with!

All I said is that those who wrote down each book had to ensure the context of each book was consistent with each other and with the narrative of Jesus' life and the journey's of the apostles and so on.

Edit:

Alright, if you want an example you can have one (now I have access to my own computer); It has been noted by historians that John was the only one of the four evangelists to pay attention to the 'chronology of Jesus' public career.'

I quote:

John refers to four Passovers in which Jesus is supposed to have taken part during his public ministry: (2:13; 5:1; 6:4 and 11:55) According to Jesus' activity would therefore have lasted three years, according to John. But on chronological grounds Scaliger believed that Jesus was active in public for four years and not three, for his baptism
occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Lk. 3:1). But according to John his death took place in a year in which the first füll day of Passover, that is 15 Nisan, feil on a Saturday (John 19:14). That was the case not in the eighteenth but in the nineteenth year of Tiberius.

There you go. A bit of housekeeping by John and he looses a year. Big whoop. Call it an error, call it an 'over zealous fabrication' (and note I was quoting someone esle when I used 'fabrication' - considering it was in the context of chronology I hoped you'd have understood) No need to whip out your handbag.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, what you judge as “spoiling for a fight” is simply my reaction to your baseless innuendo leveled against the NT.
 

What on earth is 'baseless' about suggesting that we don't know exactly when some of the books of the NT were written down? That's what I've said. And that's what you just agreed with!

jmfcst: Stop attempting to rewrite the discussion.  You stated the NT had “probable fabrications”.  I can have the court reporter read back your comments if you’d like.

---

All I said is that those who wrote down each book had to ensure the context of each book was consistent with each other and with the narrative of Jesus' life and the journey's of the apostles and so on.

jmfcst:  Objection. Speculation.

---

Alright, if you want an example you can have one (now I have access to my own computer); It has been noted by historians that John was the only one of the four evangelists to pay attention to the 'chronology of Jesus' public career.'

I quote:

John refers to four Passovers in which Jesus is supposed to have taken part during his public ministry: (2:13; 5:1; 6:4 and 11:55) According to Jesus' activity would therefore have lasted three years, according to John.

jmfcst:  Objection.  The gospel of John never stated the length of Jesus’ ministry, nor does it state that its own narrative is exhaustive.  May the court reporter please read back the testimony of the gospel of John:

Court Reporter: John 21: 24 “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

jmfcst: As you can see, the facts of the case are that the gospel of John explicitly states that its narrative is NOT exhaustive.  That is totally different than "probable fabrication".

---

But on chronological grounds Scaliger believed that Jesus was active in public for four years and not three, for his baptism occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Lk. 3:1). But according to John his death took place in a year in which the first full day of Passover, that is 15 Nisan, fell on a Saturday (John 19:14). That was the case not in the eighteenth but in the nineteenth year of Tiberius.

John 19:14  “It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. ‘Here is your king,’ Pilate said to the Jews".... John 19:31 "Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath."

You mean the first full day of Passover, that is 15 Nisan, was a Sabbath, not necessarily a Saturday:

Lev 23:5 " ‘The LORD's Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. 6 On the fifteenth day of that month the LORD's Feast of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast. 7 On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work."

So, the first full day of Passover, that is the 15 Nisan, is always a Sabbath, regardless of the day of week on which it falls.   So much for the biblical knowledge of Scaliger.

---

There you go. A bit of housekeeping by John and he looses a year. Big whoop. Call it an error, call it an 'over zealous fabrication' (and note I was quoting someone esle when I used 'fabrication' - considering it was in the context of chronology I hoped you'd have understood)

Objection 1:  Not being exhaustive does NOT come anywhere close to rising of the level of 'over zealous fabrication'.  Not being exhaustive is the opposite of "fabrication".

Objection 2:  And since your friend Scaliger, whom you thought so highly of as to quote, doesn’t realize the  Sabbath of the 15th of Nisan is not necessarily the weekly Sabbath, but can fall on any day of the week...your whole claim that the gospel of John loses a year is a TOTALLY BOGUS. 

John may have captured all the Passovers, or John may have left out one or more Passovers, but your argument does NOT prove that one way or another because it is based upon false assumptions due to your lack of scriptural knowledge of the 15th of Nisan.   If you had spent more time reading Moses (or at least asked any Jew), instead of Scaliger, then maybe you could have spared us this little exercise.

[afleitch]

Cute

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Pardon, I may be awfully stupid, but, I can't resist:

Second, both the Old and New Testament are historically accounted for within recorded human history.

You spoke mainly about NT here, and, I've the impress that in life in general most of people, evangelicals or not, just westerners, think that OT, outside of Genesis and miracles, mainly more or less refers to historical events.

Outside of miracles, according to historical facts, to works of historians, lot of things are or not exact or even didn't exist, like the... exodus! I've even been surprised about it. I didn't believe in the miracles of the Exodus but I thought it happened. According to the historian Israël Finkelstein, passioned by the Bible and who gave his life to find traces of what's in it through the historian facts, there is not the slightest trace of that event in facts and he says that if such a thing had happen it should had let of traces by several ways.

I've all on interview of him speaking about this, and his works in general, unluckily it's in French. If some are interested that's here.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Pardon, I may be awfully stupid, but, I can't resist:

Second, both the Old and New Testament are historically accounted for within recorded human history.

You spoke mainly about NT here, and, I've the impress that in life in general most of people, evangelicals or not, just westerners, think that OT, outside of Genesis and miracles, mainly more or less refers to historical events.

Outside of miracles, according to historical facts, to works of historians, lot of things are or not exact or even didn't exist, like the... exodus! I've even been surprised about it. I didn't believe in the miracles of the Exodus but I thought it happened. According to the historian Israël Finkelstein, passioned by the Bible and who gave his life to find traces of what's in it through the historian facts, there is not the slightest trace of that event in facts and he says that if such a thing had happen it should had let of traces by several ways.

I've all on interview of him speaking about this, and his works in general, unluckily it's in French. If some are interested that's here.

there are many studies that have searched for physical evidence of the Exodus.  Some studies concluded there is no evidence, other studies concluded that there is evidence.

What has been generally agreed upon is that the descriptions of Egypt in the latter part of Genesis and the early part of Exodus were the product of someone who had extensive knowledge of Egypt.

Also, the biblical account of the overthrow of Jericho (within 45 years of the Exodus) and the biblically stated account that the city was not re-inhabited for hundreds of years, match the physical evidence found by archaeologists: they found evidence of a fire that engulfed and overthrew the city without a long siege (the storehouses of grain were barely touched, meaning there was no starvation prior to the complete overthrow), and evidence that there was a habitation gap of several hundred years.

Even the seasonal timing of the overthrown of Jericho (determined by the fact there was early grain in storehouses) matches the biblical account that Jericho was overthrown shortly after the Passover Feast.