Teenager arrested for burning Koran

A teenager was arrested in the West Midlands for burning a copy of the Koran.

Burning Korans is offensive to Muslims.

Here is an extract from the Koran which explains what will happen to people who offend Muslims.

111. The Flame - Al-Masadd
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
111:1 Perdition overtake both hands of Abu Lahab, and he will perish.
111:2 His wealth and what he earns will not avail him.
111:3 He shall soon burn in fire that flames,
111:4 And his wife, the bearer of fuel,
111:5 Upon her neck a halter of strongly twisted rope.


Every week, a minority of Muslims recite how Ahu Lahab is burning in Hell, and think nothing of it other than that he deserves to burn.

Historical Jesus?Just ask for the evidence

I had an interesting exchange with Professor Larry Hurtado on a blog post written by Helen Bond.

Professor Hurtado was , of course, a bit rude in his replies to me. This is understandable, as he probably is used to dealing with his students and colleagues, who would not dream of asking him for the evidence that Judas existed.

It is interesting that Biblical historians will refuse to give any evidence, even when asked point blank to do so. Instead they will claim that I regard them as 'ignorant' and 'worthless', even when you have as polite to them,as they have been obnoxious about you.


I should point out that all Biblical historians can do is say 'These people are in the Bible, so they must have existed.'

This is bad logic, but what else could Professor Larry Hurtado say? He had no evidence, so all he could say was 'The Bible says so.'


When did Jesus die?

Here is my reply to Professor Hurtado, although I doubt that it will be allowed.

Paul, of course, is a primary source, so letters by him are primary documents. Claims by Paul to have existed and to know of the existence of Apollos,Priscilla etc are valuable primary affidavits.

Mischaracterising my views by pretending I do not know the difference between primary and secondary sources is not nice of you.

The Gospels are secondary anonymous sources. They mention a lot of characters who,like a lot of characters in the Book of Mormon, do not exist outside their pages.

Therefore , the gospels are not evidence of the existence of Judas,Lazarus, Barabbas, Thomas, and the vast cast of Gospel characters who are never mentioned by Christians writing to each other.

‘ You ask for an affidavit signed by first-century Christians, but unfortunately we don’t have any such affidavit for most people from history.’

Is this an explanation of why there is no evidence for Judas? Because no evidence should be expected?

Explaining why there is no evidence of their existence is not producing evidence that they existed.

The difference is the sheer number of people mentioned in the Gospels who vanish into thin air as soon as there is a public church, in precisely the same manner that the Angel Moroni vanished when Joseph Smith went public.

No Christian ever named himself as seeing this vast cast of Gospel characters.

And when Christians write to each other, and tell each other of examples of people who behaved in a certain instructive manner, they almost invariably use Old Testament examples,even if the actions of Judas, John the Baptist, Lazarus, Thomas, Joseph of Arimathea etc would have been far more suitable material to use.

‘you misconstrue Paul’s comment in Romans 10:14-15, if you take it to mean that no Jew had ever heard of Jesus.’

As I already pointed out, Paul is clear that Jews HAD heard of Jesus. People had been sent to preach about him.

Paul asks rhetorically, how can they believe in the one they have never heard of, and how can they hear unless somebody is sent to preach.

He then points out that people have been sent to preach about Jesus, so that Jews do now know about Jesus, and not all have accepted the good news.

The implication is obvious that Paul thinks Jews heard about Jesus by people sent to preach about him.

Mischaracterising my views by pretending I claim Paul says Jews have never heard of Jesus is not nice of you.

Professor Larry Hurtado on 'How on earth did Jesus become a god?'

Professor Larry Hurtado wrote an excellent book on 'How on earth did Jesus become a god?'

On page 33, Professor Hurtado points out how Jews like Saul would have regarded the killing of Jesus as 'just punishment' for his 'misbehaviour' and that Jesus would have been regarded as having 'fell under God's curse.'

This led Saul to try to destroy the Christian movement. They were committing a 'major offense' in being devoted to Jesus, and this led to Saul's zeal for attacking the Christian movement. For Saul, Jesus had been 'justly executed'.

It is hard to think of modern analogies for people regarded as justly killed and having fallen under God's curse, and then been acclaimed as Lord.

I suppose one analogy would be if people started claiming Lee Harvey Oswald had been vindicated by God and was the True President of the United States. Most people would regard Lee Harvey Oswald as being justly punished, and followers of him as people who should be persecuted.

Or perhaps another analogy would be if somebody started to regard Osama bin Laden as a prophet of God, when he had previously regarded Osama as a wicked person who had fallen under God's curse.

Professor Hurtado does a good job in explaining just how radical a change had come over Paul, who converted to the view of Jesus as Lord, after attacking the Jesus movement for following somebody justly killed, who had fallen under God's curse,somebody who had deserved a sentence of death as surely as many people today think Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden or Lee Harvey Oswald should die.