Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 09-30-2008, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, immediately you will see another major problem, to which Paul would you compare Muhammad?

That is not a major problem. It is not any kind of a problem. I would compare Muhammed to the Paul who actually existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Scholars have deduced that there were more than one person called Paul.

No, they have not. They have deduced that there was one person called Paul. There were other people who used his name, but they were not called Paul.

If I know that someone else is posting under your name, I am not going to call that person aa5874. If I know his real name, I will call him that. If I do not know his real name, then I will call him "the person pretending to be aa5874."

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, according to Eusebius in Church History 3.3.1, the second epistle of Peter does NOT belong to the canon, it is not genuine.

I don't care what Eusebius said about who wrote anything.

jbarntt · 09-30-2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alias

Is there more historical evidence for Muhammad than there is for Jesus?

Yes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alias

The historical debate about Jesus is already well known. Is there is similar debate regarding Muhamad?

Yes, but it is unhealthy to take a an unorthodox position on this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alias

In my brief research I discovered that like Jesus and the Bible the Quran is considered to be the number one source for information about the life of Muhammad. However, there are supppsed to be some non-Muslim historical texts from the seventh century that verify his existence.

There is little doubt that Muhammad existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alias

Also, most of the Quran was written down during Muhammad's life. At least I think it was.

You think wrong.

spamandham · 09-30-2008, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I don't think that Muhammad can be really compared to any character in the NT. It is like comparing Muhammad to Achilles or Apollo.

...I would think that you would recognize the fantastic, impossible, and legendary feats attributed to Muhammed as just that. The Muhammed we know, is every bit as concocted as Paul. If there is a historical core to Muhhamed, it's as mired in myth, legend, and fantasy as is Paul. Why make a special exception for Muhhamed?

Clinical · 09-30-2008, 11:18 PM

Everything we know about Muhammed is in the Quran. We thus know very little about his personal or day to day to life. For the faithful Muslim this is no problem as it is the Quran that should be his authority, not Muhammed.

In my opinion, the only Biblical character that can be compared to Muhammed from a religious perspective is Moses (That's off course after excluding the genocides etc...).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-30-2008, 11:18 PM	#24
Clinical Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 359	Everything we know about Muhammed is in the Quran. We thus know very little about his personal or day to day to life. For the faithful Muslim this is no problem as it is the Quran that should be his authority, not Muhammed. In my opinion, the only Biblical character that can be compared to Muhammed from a religious perspective is Moses (That's off course after excluding the genocides etc...).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.