outhouse

a man walks into a cave with a bible, and comes out a year later with the koran.

do we really care what his name was ??


somebody is guilty of claiming divinity knowing he's a cheat.


wonder if they just buried the finished version in the cave or redacted it in there, or just created cave mythology

aa5874

The Angel Gabriel was the one who told Mary the story about the Ghost Baby in gLuke 1.26-35.

And it was the Angel Moroni who told Joseph Smith how to get his Bible story.

Without Angels we probably would not have some Bibles.:constern01:

Net2004

a muslim has reviewed his book here

http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R1APS...wasThisHelpful



4. Spencer appears quite inconsistent in his methodology. He takes the Muslim literary sources as historical when they facilitate his argument and unreliable when they contradict it. Let's take his treatment of Doctrina Jacobi on page 20-21 as an example. One of his main objections to this source being a reference to Muhammad is that "this unnamed prophet is still alive, travelling with his armies, whereas Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632" (p 21). Now, how does Spencer know that "Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632"? Well, because the Muslim literary sources say he died in 632. If Spencer rejects the Muslim literary sources, how can he use that as an argument? Furthermore, the "supposed" is just a cleaver insertion not to commit totally. Note that while on page 21 Spencer says "Muhammad is SUPPOSED to have died in 632", later on page 87 he is not so uncertain Muhammad died in 632 when he says "But Ibn Ishaq was not remotely a contemporary of his prophet, who died in 632". So although on page 21 is does not want to commit, when on page 87 he wants to emphasise the gap between Muhammad and Ibn Ishaq, he is sure Muhammad died in 632. Moreover, and quite funnily, if Spencer knows Muhammad at 632CE, then we have a DEAD Muhammad at 632CE. How did someone who never existed die at 632CE?


here is another interesting response

quote:
documentary data from the first fifty years of Islam, all of which sit comfortably within the traditional account. Admittedly, documentary data mentioning Muhammad only occur 50 years after Muhammad. However, between 50-100 years after Muhammad, there exist at least 25 pieces of extant documentary data that mention Muhammad. The first clear reference to Muhammad occurs in the drahma of `Abdul al-Malik ibn `Abdullah ibn Amir, dated 685 CE, 53 years after Muhammad, and contains on the obverse margin the legend Muhammad rasul Allah ("Muhammad is the Messenger of God"). How does Spencer deal with this and other documentary data? Quite astonishingly, he argues that `Muhammad' in these inscriptions does not refer to the prophet Muhammad, but refers to Jesus? Since "Muhammad" linguistically means `praised one', these inscriptions could be referring to Jesus. Nowhere does Spencer provide any corroborating evidence for this argument. If Spencer were to produce a single instance where Arab Christians ever referred to Jesus as "Muhammad", then on this basis, his argument would have some weight. Unfortunately he does not, and this raises the obvious question: Why now? And why did they stop? In other words, Spencer wants us to believe that all of a sudden in the seventh century, the Christians started referring to Jesus as "Muhammad" and then all of a sudden in the eighth century, they stopped. Beside the absurdity of this argument, Spencer failed to mention let alone deal with the disconfirming evidence against this argument. Spencer failed to engage with the first century bilingual Greek-Arabic administrative papyri that clearly translate "Muhammad" as "Muhammad" in Greek. Further still, he failed to mention the first century Arab-Sasanian coins of Kirman which translate "Muhammad" as "Muhammad" in Middle Persian. So the Greeks translated "Muhammad" as proper name, the Persians translated "Muhammad" as a proper name, the Arab held "Muhammad" as a proper name, but Spencer wants us to believe it was not a proper name but "could have been" an epithet referring to Jesus. Furthermore, Spencer fails to note the absurd consequence of this argument. If "Muhammad" meant Jesus, who was that "Muhammad" referred to by earlier and contemporaneous Christian texts? That "Muhammad" was clearly an Arab, while Jesus was a Jew. Were seventh century Christians so stupid that they didn't know that Jesus was a Jew and not an Arab? Much worse, was Jesus alive in the seventh century according to these Christians? Worst Still, why are these Christians referring to Jesus so negatively? Is he not their Lord and Savour? Thus is trying to rubbish the documentary data, Spencer forgot about the contemporaneous Christian texts. So much for explanatory scope

Duvduv

What makes the hadiths authentic, or for that matter what makes the biography attributed to the Arab Eusebius, Ibn Ishaq, written a couple of hundred years later authentic??

Duvduv

There are a number of anomalies leading to the questioning of what "muhammad" means, not the least of which is that the name is mentioned only four times in the whole Quran and with no context. I don't think it would refer to Jesus, but the praised one may not refer to a historical Muhammad in the seventh century.

Minimalist

Yes, that is very much Spencer's point and it mirrors the situation with "jesus." The implication is that both are later developments not founders.


P.S., I am aware that muslim "scholars" can lose their minds whenever someone dares question their holy horseshit. Xtians get the same way. I've had xtians tell me that "scientists are biased against them" but they will steadfastly refuse to admit that they are "biased for them."

It is hard to take believers seriously.

EarlDoherty

But Abe, Christianity DID have a personality cult at its origin. The personality of the heavenly Son and Christ, who for the ancients could have as real an existence as a physical person has for your more limited 21st century mind. Read Paul's epistles. The personality of his Christ Jesus is for him utterly real and vivid. Like all the epistle writers, he relates to him as he is, a spiritual figure in heaven, with no attention whatever given to a past human man. Bishop Lightfoot in the 19th century, in analyzing the epistle 1 Clement, made the remark that for early Christians like 'Clement' Jesus was a present spiritual figure whom they interacted with, not some past person whose memory they cherished (even if Lightfoot believed that there had been such a past person). Despite his own faith, he could recognize what today you and others refuse to do, that the epistolary record is all about believing in and loving a spiritual entity (just as people today still love a God, who is and has always been an entirely spiritual entity). That was a personality cult, the cult of a personality known from scripture and revelation.

The Spartans had a personality cult for Lycurgus, who very likely, Greek scholars judge, did not actually exist. The ancient Greeks had personality cults for Heracles and Achilles, Orpheus and Dionysos. Did they exist? The Swiss developed a personality cult on the non-existent William Tell. The existence of Lao-Tze and even Confucius now, is doubted. The Romans had a cult of Romulus and Remus. Did they exist? Do you ever let your mind wander outside the rigid confines of your box, Abe? Ever let a little light penetrate the concrete?

I see that your smug and porcine-encephalated attitude toward mythicism is still alive and well, and still as based on ignorance as ever. But since you steadfastly maintain your zero understanding of the subject, shouldn't this contravene your principle that it is a little knowledge that is a dangerous thing, and leads to an unjustified confidence in one's own opinion? In my books, any degree of knowledge is preferable to sheer closed-minded ignorance.

It is ignorance, not knowledge, which leads one to regard differing viewpoints as "insanity." And we've all learned where that leads. People like you are dangerous, Abe.

Earl Doherty

sotto voce

And yet, many manage to do so.

Duvduv

It's probably safe to assume that it was the coercive power of the Baghdad caliphate that enforced the religion thst came to be known as orthodox mohammadan islam not unlike the Byzantine regime put into place the roots of orthodox Christianity, and the caliphate reduced the imamist gnostic trends to the isolated mountains of Lebanon and Syria. And this is where the syncretic movement combining mohammadism and imamism produced the roots of Persian Shiism that emerged later.

aa5874

There is NO safety in assumptions. If everyone assumes their own history then we might as well do away with BC&H.

Why are your assumptions safe without evidence??

Who detemines safe assumptions??