GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1090294481
From: (Jared Linn Olar)
Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: 19 Jul 2004 20:34:51 -0700
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <VHQJc.3624$K53.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <DFZJc.3829$K53.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <vmYKc.8132$K53.email@example.com>
Peter Stewart <> wrote in message news:<vmYKc.8132$>...
> So having claimed there was no Muslim documentation within decades of
> the religion's beginnings, now you are stating only that there may have
> been some but less than are found for Christianity,
I would have to be convinced that there are some, since I've never
seen any proof that any Muslim writings date to the seventh century.
But even if the two or three items you mention date to the seventh
century, it's still obvious that 29 items outnumber two or three.
Therefore Christianity's origins are better documented than Islam's.
> and you have introduced an arbitrary standard that
> these must have been committed to paper in their
> surviving form by the end of the 7th-century.
Arbitrary shmarbitrary. There's got to be some standard for
determining which religion's origins are "better documented." I think
my standard works pretty well. Of course that would mean
Christianity's origins are better documented than Islam's origins, so
obviously there must be something wrong with my standard, since
everyone knows that Islam's origins are better documented, right?
> As to theology, that is the stuff of religion and your original remarks
> were about the Christian religion - not the life of Jesus.
My remarks were about the documentation of the origin of the Christian
religion, and there is no origin of the Christian religion without the
life of Jesus Christ.
Jared Linn Olar