mountainman

See the Acts of John: Jesus does not leave footprints in the sand. John cannot seem to touch Jesus' physical body. As for Muhammad the city of Mecca doesn't appear in the sources until well after Muhammad's supposed lifetime. Furthermore the Quranic compilers appear to have used the heretical gnostic non canonical Jesus and not the canonical Jesus.

sotto voce

Don't you mean the Qur'an? I mean, it's perfectly standard for some of us to profusely quote and cite known works of fantasy, but shouldn't they at least be on topic?

Of course not. That's because he's on his Imperial battle-horse. You can't have forgotten already, surely.

See? They just can't stop talking about their Lord and Saviour. By means accidental or devious.

Fuckin' teejus, anyway.

Duvduv

That's correct. Of course the Muslim Jesus (who is some kind of messiah born of a virgin) is something of a mishmash figure without even any historical context in the Quran as part of condemnation of Orthodox trinitarianism, though it allows for the virgin birth (without any contextual explanation). There is no Joseph of course, and very little of the story line about Isa's life beyond the condemnations of his opponents and his birth under the date tree to the single unbetrothed single mom.

youngalexander

If you watch the vid I posted you will find that far from being 'common' muhammad is meantioned only 4 times in the Koran, its meaning is dubious and it may even be a reference to Jesus? It is found on contemporary coins - Christian coins??

Duvduv

If any "dares" claim that Islam emerged only during the Abbasid Caliphate, watch our!
Do you know that the stories concerning the early proto-Karaite Anan ben David who lived in Baghdad in the 8th century mention the Caliph but nothing of the substance of a Quranic religion? Nor do the stories of Abu Isa the pseudo Messiah from Isfahan before Anan? The later writers (Muslims from the 10th century) claim he had an affinity to the Muslims, but nothing substantive.