D
De_Maria
Guest
In other words, because the case for Islam could not pass a its own legal requirements.Because we’re not talking about legal jurisprudence, we’re talking about history.
Remember that Islam is a theocracy. It’s laws are jurisprudence.
That’s why we have written testimony.Only the living can testify to what they saw.
But we can read their record.Since everyone who ever saw Jesus is long dead, we can’t ask them.
Which we have done and the Bible accounts pass every test.We have to rely on historical accounts and techniques of verifying information.
The entire Quran fails all tests of legal jurisprudence. Especially Islamic tests.If we believed everything written as a historical eyewitness account, we would have to accept a number of things that we know for a fact aren’t true. We don’t accept every hadith that is attributed to Mohammed (peace be upon him) either, only those with reasonable historical validity.
On the contrary, Biblical accounts pass all tests of jurisprudence from any court in any nation of the world.By the same standards we use for hadith, we don’t consider the gospels of the Bible historically valid over all, even if they contain valid portions of the original message.
cont’d
Last edited: