GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1090363511


From: Peter Stewart <>
Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:45:11 GMT
References: <1e2.255590ce.2e26e482@aol.com> <ac1a3786.0407150822.83f9817@posting.google.com> <ac1a3786.0407160512.1016af50@posting.google.com> <VHQJc.3624$K53.1844@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <ac1a3786.0407161102.6a41873c@posting.google.com> <DFZJc.3829$K53.2108@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <ac1a3786.0407190859.1489ab63@posting.google.com> <vmYKc.8132$K53.3063@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <ac1a3786.0407191934.95a102d@posting.google.com> <5E3Lc.8613$K53.4844@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <ac1a3786.0407200834.43970d1a@posting.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <ac1a3786.0407200834.43970d1a@posting.google.com>


Jared Linn Olar wrote:
> Peter Stewart <> wrote in message news:<5E3Lc.8613$>...

<snip>

>>>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.
>>
>>There would be none _with_ his life unless some people thought his
>>nature to be divine as well as human, and it's only when they believed
>>and said (or indeed wrote) so that the Christian religion came into
>>being.
>
>
> That's one hypothesis. Another is that Jesus said He is both divine
> and human.

There's no conflict here with my point - lunatic asylums may be full of
people who say that they are divine, but this doesn't make for a
religion, any more than the declared divinity of a Roman emperor did.

According to orthodox belief, Jesus founded the Church, but if the
religion is to be traced from faith in the nature of Jesus and his
self-knowledge of this, then in its own terms Christianity can only be
held have existed since before the beginning of time.

<snip>


> Yes, and I've already said I misspoke -- even though you know full
> well that my very slight errors do not actually affect the accuracy of
> my claim that Christianity is better documented than Islam.

It's not a "slight" error in my view to claim that others are
"spectacularly wrong" on a point about which you are clearly wrong,
beyond clarity or otherwise of expression, & they are right.

> Now then, having established that Islam's origins are not as well
> documented as Christianity's, let's apply some Herculean effort to
> shove this thread onto something appropriate for Gen-Medieval.

The discussion in which I engaged was entirely appropriate to SHM - a
question had been raised about the historicity of a medieval person, and
then this was shifted to the documentary basis for knowing of him from
early independent sources about the revelation that he proclaimed. The
eexistence of these was falsely denied - that's all there is to it, and
it was perfectly on-topic to counter this mistake.


For
> instance, something I'm curious about is what kind of source material,
> and of what quality, do we have for the traditional descent of the
> Emirs and Sheriffs of Mecca (not to mention the modern Hashemite
> dynasty) from al-Hassan, son of Fatima, daughter of Muhammad?

The archive will probably help a bit - at least you will find works
cited there that can be usefully consulted.

>
> (We could also choose to discuss medieval descents from Jesus and/or
> His relatives, but since there is really no way to demonstrate any
> such descents, that discussion would probably be very short.)

A total lack of evidence often leads to longer rather than shorter
discussions here.

Peter Stewart


This thread: