This lecture discusses the differences between the historical Jesus and the Jesus presented in the Qur’an, as well as the historical Muhammed.
This lecture is by Andy Bannister and Jay Smith.
More details found here.
MP3 Download here.
Enjoy.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Historical Jesus vs Historical Muhammed MP3 Audio
Topics:
Andy Bannister
,
audio
,
Bible
,
christianity
,
History
,
Islam
,
Jay Smith
,
Jesus Christ
,
mp3
,
Quran
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(219)
-
▼
August
(26)
- Sunday Quote: Samuel Johnson on Objections
- Historical Apologist: G.K. Chesterton
- Excellent Theology and Apologetics Audio MP3 Resource
- Featured Podcast: Intelligent Design the Future
- Beyond the Big Bang - William Lane Craig MP3 Audio
- Apologetics Course with Rob Bowman MP3 Audio
- Historical Apologist: C.S. Lewis
- History of Philosophy and Christian Thought - MP3 ...
- Christopher Hitchens Book Review by Paul Manata - ...
- PDF Download: Craig vs. Ehrman Resurrection Debate...
- The Cosmological Argument: An Interview with David...
- Relativism: Interview with Dr. Paul Copan MP3 Audio
- Historical Apologist: William Paley
- Featured Podcast: Unbelievable?
- Radio Interview with Norman Geisler MP3 Audio
- Radio Interview with Dr. Phil Fernandes MP3 Audio
- Radio Interview with Alvin Plantinga MP3 Audio
- Radio Interview with William Lane Craig MP3 Audio
- Gary Habermas: State of the Apologetics Today - MP...
- Historical Apologist: Blaise Pascal
- The Need for Apologetics by Norman Geisler
- Ravi Zacharias MP3 Archive
- The God Delusion & the Human Illusion - MP3 Audio ...
- Historical Jesus vs Historical Muhammed MP3 Audio
- Featured Apologetics Resource: Ravi Zacharias Mini...
- Historical Apologist: St. Augustine
-
▼
August
(26)
1 comments :
This lecture says nothing about the strength of evidence of the historical Jesus over the historical Mohammed and everything about the partition that exists in the minds of religious apologists in promoting their God over their neighbour’s.
Bannister’s segment on the historical Jesus makes repeated reference to the “context” of First Century Palestine, Jesus conforming to Second and Third Temple Judaism and the ignition of a “resurrection-shaped bomb” is exposed as baseless assertion next to Smith’s confident presentation of hard archaeological and scientific evidence which shows Islam as the man-made fabrication, plagiarised from the two preceding monotheisms.
Similarly, on the moral implications of the Islamic texts, Smith states that Mohammed’s taking ‘Aisha as his wife while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old would not be considered paedophilia at the time, this isn’t a model for mankind today.
Rather like Abraham almost making a human sacrifice of his son Isaac (Genesis 22)?
Or Moses ordering the slaughter the Midianite boys and the enslavement of the girls (Numbers 31:13 – 18)?
There is absolutely no circular, unintelligible padding about “context” or “scholarship” or “the early Islamic movement”. It is a flat-out admonition of the text at its face value of exactly the type I as an atheist of all religions would make.
Hard and fast proof that we are atheists in respect of most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in; some of us just go one god further.
MSP
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.