Chili

And no, I do not hold you accountable for the total wisdom of Islam but Gabriel is first cause and God becomes manifest in Gen.2 only on the seventh day when we arrive there to make Him known, and so it must belong to show how it is that we created our own God with substance there in Truth.

First cause means by way of induction inside our soul or TOL, and induction is from pre-existence beyond the capacity or reach of woman. IOW religion is a human thing and Islam is trying to tell us here that God wants us to built temples in heaven, while in Chirstendom they are left behind as just the vehicle to get us there.

Chili

To put this in very simple words, God is telling Joseph via Zechariah to start building his cocoon and told Mohammed to start building a temple instead. And note please that Elizabeth as 'woman' in the mind of Joseph proclaimed: "In these days the Lord is acting on my behalf, he has seen fit to remove my reproach among men," to so end the 'determined cause' within as first projected in Gen.3:15. Following then is also why Herod and Pilate became friends in Luke and so the emnity of Gen. 3:15 was gone for good and the Cana event was sure to follow (hypostatic union).

Notice that 'first cause' induction here is from God (albeit aloof from God but clear to him), that was 'prior to the TOL' and so prior to the woman as it relates to the animal man only.

Pamela Spencer

Are you suggesting that the Islamic interpretation of Gabriel is analogous to the normative Christian understanding of the Holy Spirit?

Some Muslim scholars maintain that Gabriel is Rooh ul Qudus, "The Holy Spirit", or the designated creative force of God.

Chili

No, our Gabriel and Holy Spirit are distinctly different, and so is our Michael and Lucifer. Gabriel is first cause, Michael is second cause and Mary/ Holy Sprit is third casue and they form the trinity, or troika that drives us.It is wrong to call Gabriel the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the creative force. So I do not deny the creative force, nor the HS in Islam but the insight is missing to 'lead the flock.' Understand here that 'Infallibility' is a necessary condition for a religion in charge of it's destiny, which is just a daring proclamation, but is necessarily true if you claim to have saints in heaven who are in charge of their own destiny as Freeman.

I can return to this later as I have things to do.

Minimalist

Thank you. So, still a minimum of 75-odd years after the traditional date of death.

Adam

The history of the Quran is also hotly debated, with no extant text within two centuries of Mohammed. The earliest texts don't agree with the current canonized text in Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran

Net2004

i am sure hector avolos said to jp holding that the qur'aan is better preserved than your bible.

edit

"So, by Holding’s logic, we should exclude the law of Moses (or the book of the Law, if it is the same) from any textual comparisons with even better preserved non-biblical texts (e.g. the Quran) because that Law was not written on perishable materials, and its “distribution” was more restricted than even the Res Gestae, which was meant for public view and was not stored in an Ark."

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...nds-to-jp.html

For an academic discussion about early Quranic manuscripts, perhaps this is worth looking at:

The Rise of the North Arabic script and its Qur'anic developmen*t by Nabia Abbott

She discusses some of the Quranic manuscripts dating from the second half of the 1st century Hijra onwards at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago

mountainman

Jerusalem Coin - Muhammad, Messenger of God, 632 CE

Chili

There is another one that is fatal: "Mohammad messenger of God" should read "Mohammad is your God" and I can just hear satan say "You are my beloved son" gullible as can be, the fucking idiot he was, but smart enough to mislead a flock if you keep your women in the dark.

Be reminded here of Thomas when all doubt was removed: "My Lord AND my God."

Is that English enough for you Pete?

Oh I see, Mohammad denied Jesus as God and was a modern prophet, and so a Jewish protestant still pointing at the promise of the first coming (of God he wrote? = totally absurd), much like Billy Graham who was a Christian still pointing at the second coming and so denied his own salvation. Do you think maybe that both these guys had this weird idea of a papa-God up there in the sky someplace?

ApostateAbe

The arguments against a historical Muhammad would be about the same as the arguments against a historical Jesus: absence of impartial witnesses, evidence derived exclusively from witnesses of religious tradition, and the extraordinary claims of those traditions.

But Muhammad almost certainly existed for the same reason that Jesus almost certainly existed: whenever a cult adheres to a reputedly-human founder of the cult, then that person existed, in all cases that we know about. There are no known cases where the reputedly-human founder of the cult existed only as myth.

The people who advance the theory that Muhammad never existed are the same people who ideologically oppose the traditional beliefs of the religion. Again, a strong parallel is drawn to the Jesus-minimalists and Christianity. The rest of us need to take seriously the patterns of history, because probability depends largely on plausibility.