Islam Did Mohammed exist?

[withwonderingawe]

Any theological belief identify El-Messiah more than a human being prophet is for sure not from Injiil. by the way, you'll not find an explicit Jesus sayings "Jesus said :...." in Gospels that El-Messiah is God or Creator or asked people to worship him

Then I really do not understand the purpose of the virgin birth then?

I agree Jesus never said I am God/El or Allah or the logos of him. BUT if we understand that Jesus is the spirit Yahweh then the Old Testament calls him the creator.

In John 8 Jesus said
54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father/El that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: …..

They had gone into apostasy and no longer worshiped El as their God but worshiped a combination of Yahweh and El.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

They then picked up stones to kill him but he was able to get away. They were angry because they felt he was declaring that he was ‘I Am’ or Yahweh.

Nathanael and his companions were followers of John the Baptist and he had told him one greater than himself was coming. When he meets Jesus for the first time he says to him; “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God/El; thou art the King of Israel.”

Jesus does not rebuke him for this comment at all. By “King of Israel” he was referring to Isa 43: 15 I am the Lord, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.

In Isa 45 after saying “I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me……I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded”

Yahweh stops short of taking all of the glory to himself, he says;

18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God/El himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord/Yahweh; and there is none else.

We have to understand that Yahweh is addressing idol worshipers and he’s trying to say those idols are not your god, I am! I made the earth but El establish it. Yahweh speaks as if he is El because he is his mediator, he is part of the “We”.

In Isa 43 Yahweh says;
25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.
26 Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.

So to whom is Yahweh pleading?

In Malachi 1 Yahweh scolds them for bring polluted offerings and says;
9 And now, I pray you, beseech God/El that he will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he/El regard your persons? saith the Lord of hosts.

In other words ‘You come to me and want me to beseech El when you bring these polluted offerings, forget that!

And again in Malachi 2 he tells them “ye are departed out of the way…Have we not all one father? hath not one God/El created us?…. and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord/Yahweh which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.”

The Old Testament clearly teaches there were two beings referred to as God but that one was superior to the other and did the other’s bidding. And the New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus is Yahweh, doing the Father’s bidding.

 

[mindlight]

You've provided 2 contradicted claims. You can't put both together in one claim:

• First: he didn't exist
• Second : Quran is derived from many resources Aramaic, Syriac, Ethiopian, Hebrew, Greek, and other languages. Quran is full of linguistic mistakes

The claim that Mohammed does not exist does not have to be incompatible with the view that the text that testifies to him has errors. How is that at all logical?

As I said earlier, the first one about his existence doesn't have any scientific bases at all. Companions recorded his genealogy, grand fathers history, father and mother history, birth, infantry, childhood, youth, before proficiency and after, clothes, words, stops/moves, sleep/awaken, wards, body language,,,,
I challenge you if it happened ever in human history someone shared his personal affairs even how to go to toilet, how to take care of your body (nails, hairs,,,)

I am not closed to the idea that there was a man called Mohammed as the evidence could support that. If he existed then the nature of his existence and message may have been radically different from what has been passed on. The jury is out on that one. Whether he existed in the form passed on or not his message in contrary to scripture and to my faith.

The Hadiths are indeed quite thorough in describing personal details about Mohammed. Whether they do him any favours here is not as clear and most importantly whether or not these are actually eye witness reports or hearsay. A friend of a friend has a brother who said.... written down generations after the event is hardly evidence. Muslims themselves have rejected hundreds of thousands of so called Hadiths and few could be authenticated by modern standards of historical criticism.

In light of Gospels, What do you know about history of Jesus-Christ ? What do you know about period from infantry till 12 years old ? What do you know about Jesus before become 30 years old ?
What do you know about disciples' father/family names or genealogy ? What do you know about Jews Christians ?

We know what we need to know - he grew up a Jew in Nazareth. Why do the personal details of how Mohammed behave in every situation add to the credibility of his message? To a considerable extent they contextualise him to a particular Arab culture that has no relevance or attraction to the rest of the world. You can conquer the rest of us and force us to like it but it is not our own culture. That a girl can be slept with the moment she has her first period is a distinctively Arab conviction that constitutes child abuse in most of the rest of the world for instance.

Second point is a real proof that Prophet Mohamed is a true prophet as you're wondering how Quran contains words from many religions/languages/nations ?:

• He was illiterate (can't read or write), he never get into school or guided a master. He grown up in Mecca where there is no Jews and about 2-3 Christians. Arabs at that time were illiterates a few people all over peninsula who could read/write. There is no trace for any Arabic writings before Islam
• Quran contains some history about many prophets and nations from an illiterate person means that it's from The Creator
• Non-Arabic words in Quran are used in names of people and places. It's normal if you're telling about non-Arabic nations. Nevertheless, Quran also told about Pharaohs and mentioned some Pharaohs names
• Quran is free of mistakes. If you're talking about mistakes in Quran, we should agree about the reference. If you take Bible as a reference, I would reject it. If you take real history or stabilized scientific fact then I agree (If you've examples, just submit it here, don't refer me to thousand pages books)

The fact is he repeats stories that were already in the culture so they were not fresh revelation at all. He misquotes scripture and confuses biblical stories and characters. The Arabic language and his testimony are shown to be an historical product that grows from pre-existing narratives and languages.

The Quran itself testifies that it was an early accusation that it merely repeated older stories:

"Quran 25:5
And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening."

Quran 16:103-104
"We know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and clear. Those who believe not in the Signs of Allah, Allah will not guide them and theirs will be a grievous Penalty." (Yusef Ali's translation) "

An example of this is quoted below:

"Let's start with two simple cases: Muhammad borrowing from the Jewish Mishnah concerning 1) Cain and Abel, and 2) Abraham. [27]

1) The Quran's story is found in Sura 5:27-32. Initially, the O.T. and Quran basically agree on the narrative. In verse 31, the two diverge.

"That is why we laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be deemed as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be deemed as though he had saved all mankind.".

Initially, there appears to be no connection between verses 31 and 32. Why the life or death of one should be as the salvation or destruction of all mankind in not made clear in the Quran. When we turn to another Jewish record - the Mishnah Sanhedrin, we find the link between the story and what follows:

"We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, 'The voice of thy brother's bloods crieth' (Gen. 4:10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed. Man was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual it shall be reckoned that he has slain the whole race, but to him who preserves the life of a single individual it is counted that he hath preserved the whole race." Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4:5

Here in the Quran is a passage from the Mishnah! The Mishnah is a Jewish commentary on the Torah. How did a Rabbi's commentary on the Torah make its way into the Quran? Simple, Muhammad had heard these teachings from the Jews, and repeated them later as he recited "revelation". "

If Prophet didn't exist or a false prophet:

• Did anyone succeeded to write a comprehensive book contains wards from many sources ?
• Dis any nation succeeded to invent a character that didn't exist and that nations succeeded to beat the greatest empires and extended for more than 14 century ?

Your biggest rival is Jesus and yes he did conquer empires and spread his message across the world. Indeed he has been more successful than Mohammed (whether Mohammed is a myth or a man) without the use of military conquest. The initial success was fast for the growth of Islam because the 2 empires of the time were exhausted after decades of fighting. Also the narrative of Islams rise is not clearly one of Muslim conquest but may actually be one of Christian infighting, of alliances with Christians, or strategic withdrawals and yes also of the occasional military victory.

Even invented character Jesus-Christ (different from El-Messiah) failed ,arrested, crucified, his followers are divided, no agreement about his nature, no agreement about the books

This is hat happens with invented charecters

All the major Christian denominations accept that Jesus is the Son of God and second member of the trinity and that he is the Saviour who dies for us on the cross and then rose again. That includes Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox and Pentecostal. There is no disunity on that. Mormons and JWs are a recent aberration that repeat the Arian heresy to which many people in Mohammeds time were also vulnerable.

 

[withwonderingawe]

without the use of military conquest.

Montezuma would beg to differ

 

[mindlight]

Montezuma would beg to differ

Actually the reasons for Aztec conversion may have been more complicated than merely being forced to. There are suspicions they regarded the invaders as gods and that the missionaries cleverly syncretised their local traditions with Catholicism to ease the conversion process for instance. But you are right that in certain circumstances the destruction of the hold of false religions by Christian military invaders was often a precondition for the later work of missionaries that brought people into the Kingdom. The difference with Islam is that force/compulsion is not the means of conversion but rather the means of removing the political obstacles to conversion.

http://soar.wichita.edu/bitstream/handle/10057/2112/LAJ 2007_70-83.pdf?sequence=1

 

[withwonderingawe]

Actually the reasons for Aztec conversion may have been more complicated than merely being forced to. There are suspicions they regarded the invaders as gods and that the missionaries cleverly syncretised their local traditions with Catholicism to ease the conversion process for instance. But you are right that in certain circumstances the destruction of the hold of false religions by Christian military invaders was often a precondition for the later work of missionaries that brought people into the Kingdom. The difference with Islam is that force/compulsion is not the means of conversion but rather the means of removing the political obstacles to conversion.

http://soar.wichita.edu/bitstream/handle/10057/2112/LAJ 2007_70-83.pdf?sequence=1

Spain went there with the idea of finding gold, converting the Aztec was just away of getting the Church's blessing for going, it justified their stealing of someone else's treasure. Islam marched forth with sward in hand with the expressed purpose of conversion.

 

[Limo]

Much of the doubt thrown at the Bible is done by men who are atheist, their desire is to destroy the word of God and the faith of those who believe in it. They run around claiming "you can't prove that!" having set the standard to an impossible high. Even where it can be shone that men who lived and walked with the Apostles and quoted from them they refuse to accept it because they have an humanist agenda.

Regardless of whom is raising the concerns, it should be addressed.
Most of professors that I've listened to their claims were fundamentals Christians, ministers and council members of churches,,,,
They didn't become atheist suddenly but after long study.
Other than the Bible and Christian theological writings, you can't prove any of Jesus-Christ character life and history.
They've a scientific base and acceptable justification to believe no more in Jesus-Christ the Son God or God or Trinity.
I fully understand their position.

For the Muslims it's more of my scriptures are better that your's argument.

Your scriptures is valid only with people who believe in it. As I explained above, We beleive in El-Messiah's Injill not in Gospels (which may contain pieces of that Injiil).

and that's why the Trinity concept came into being. When I learned 1 John 5:7 was added to the Bible " 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" I knew for sure the Trinity was false. The newer translations have removed that verse.

Our Prophet Joseph Smith said "8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;.."

With the influence of the Spirit Joseph went though the New Testament making some corrections, some small and some rather major. He changed John 1:1 to read this way.

"1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word,and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

It gets rid of that idea of the logos of God or the incarnation of God.



Again I think we have to have faith that God can preserve his word. In John 17 He preserves Jesus' intercessory prayer, which probably has more actual doctrine than any other part of the Gospels.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Jesus was a personage of glory before the world was!

6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word..... And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them."

First we belonged God the Father but we live in a world full of sin and are lost to him. He gives us to the Son and if we keep his word he returns us to the Father/El.

There is a lot packed into that one chapter and there is one point that both you and the Trinity believers miss.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;

Adam and Eve were told that they should be one flesh but God never meant they should one 'being' but one in purpose and unity. Yes there is one God the Father but he is not alone, he uses the words 'us', 'our' and 'we' in the Quran. The royal we does not mean one person. It means 'We' as in a dynasty or long line of kings. The Queen of England represent all of the kings before her.

Although Jesus said the Father is greater than I he also taught that he had been glorified by the Father before the world came to be and after his resurrection he told John;

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

As Stephen was being stoned he looked up into heaven and saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Again they are not one being but to separate beings with El/Allah being the superior.

I've a few question just came on top of my mind :
In light of your belief,Your Prophet Joseph Smith corrected many mistakes in Bible especially John-1 :

• If Joseph Smith identified some mistakes, Then we've 2 choices (tell me the third if any):
  • Gospels are wards of God but El didn't guarantee to preserve the wards of God, or
    
  • Gospels are not wards of God as they are not preserved

• If John's one was truly written by Apostle John (as per all Christian Churches):
  • In this case, John is a false prophet according to your beleif
• Are we expecting more prophets to correct the Gospels as Joseph did? Were there any prophets like Joseph in the past ?

Conclusions from your belief :

• In the current era, people like Joseph Smith has corrected the Gospels
  
• Whatever Joseph Smith did is not something new, it was the same in all eras
• Then
  • Gospels are not preserved from changes
  • Gospels are not wards of God as they were not preserved

 

[Limo]

Then I really do not understand the purpose of the virgin birth then?

Allah wants to give people alive sign of his power, so created El-Messiah from mother without a father. Easier than creating Adam with neither father nor mother.
Virgin birth is a miracle. Mircle supports El-Messiah prophet.

Quran 19:20-21 "She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?
He said, "Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, 'It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.'"

I agree Jesus never said I am God/El or Allah or the logos of him. BUT if we understand that Jesus is the spirit Yahweh then the Old Testament calls him the creator.

I thank you for expressing agreement as it's very rare.
It looks like there is no understanding that Jesus is the spirit Yahweh.

The Old Testament clearly teaches there were two beings referred to as God but that one was superior to the other and did the other’s bidding. And the New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus is Yahweh, doing the Father’s bidding.

It's not "clearly" at all as Judaism is monotheism religion.

 

[Limo]

The claim that Mohammed does not exist does not have to be incompatible with the view that the text that testifies to him has errors. How is that at all logical?

You either don't read whatever I write or you intentionally tweeting facts.

The contradiction is between the claim of existence of Prophet and how clever he was to collect info from all cultures you know at that time.

I am not closed to the idea that there was a man called Mohammed as the evidence could support that. If he existed then the nature of his existence and message may have been radically different from what has been passed on. The jury is out on that one. Whether he existed in the form passed on or not his message in contrary to scripture and to my faith.

Again no scientific bases you're talking about an Idea. We can discuss any scientific evedances when exist.

The Hadiths are indeed quite thorough in describing personal details about Mohammed. Whether they do him any favours here is not as clear and most importantly whether or not these are actually eye witness reports or hearsay. A friend of a friend has a brother who said.... written down generations after the event is hardly evidence. Muslims themselves have rejected hundreds of thousands of so called Hadiths and few could be authenticated by modern standards of historical criticism.

Moselms rejection of hundreds of Hadiths is a sign of quality of accepted one.
Accepting/rejecting Hadiths is a set of science that searches in credibility of the chain of narrations and narrators themselves.
It should be perfect to accept Hadith.
It's a comprehensive science that guarantee that only true wards are accepted.
The level of trust of connecting Accepted Hadith to Prophet Mohamed is much much higher than the level of trust of connecting any of Gospels to El-Messiah.

We know what we need to know - he grew up a Jew in Nazareth. Why do the personal details of how Mohammed behave in every situation add to the credibility of his message? To a considerable extent they contextualise him to a particular Arab culture that has no relevance or attraction to the rest of the world. You can conquer the rest of us and force us to like it but it is not our own culture. That a girl can be slept with the moment she has her first period is a distinctively Arab conviction that constitutes child abuse in most of the rest of the world for instance.

mmmm. running away from question to another subject.
You know nothing about Jesus-Christ not even El-Messiah.
Lack of information is the basis of scholars studies who are saying "Jesus doesn't exist" which is very convenient.

The fact is he repeats stories that were already in the culture so they were not fresh revelation at all. He misquotes scripture and confuses biblical stories and characters. The Arabic language and his testimony are shown to be an historical product that grows from pre-existing narratives and languages.

The Quran itself testifies that it was an early accusation that it merely repeated older stories:

"Quran 25:5
And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening."

Quran 16:103-104
"We know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and clear. Those who believe not in the Signs of Allah, Allah will not guide them and theirs will be a grievous Penalty." (Yusef Ali's translation) "

Your writings are a vague example of Dishonest. You're saying "Quran itself testifies" while the truth is Quran is discussing your claim and It's answer smashes your claims.
Although the answer to the claim in the next verse.
Allah said in Quran 25:6 which is next to 25:5 you misused it
Say, [O Muhammad], "It has been revealed by He who knows [every] secret within the heavens and the earth. Indeed, He is ever Forgiving and Merciful."
Allah is answering you that Quran is revealed by the Almighty Creator who knows the secrets of everything, it's not copied from any religious or cultural books or floating stories

An example of this is quoted below:

"Let's start with two simple cases: Muhammad borrowing from the Jewish Mishnah concerning 1) Cain and Abel, and 2) Abraham. [27]

1) The Quran's story is found in Sura 5:27-32. Initially, the O.T. and Quran basically agree on the narrative. In verse 31, the two diverge.

"That is why we laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be deemed as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be deemed as though he had saved all mankind.".

Initially, there appears to be no connection between verses 31 and 32. Why the life or death of one should be as the salvation or destruction of all mankind in not made clear in the Quran. When we turn to another Jewish record - the Mishnah Sanhedrin, we find the link between the story and what follows:

"We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, 'The voice of thy brother's bloods crieth' (Gen. 4:10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed. Man was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual it shall be reckoned that he has slain the whole race, but to him who preserves the life of a single individual it is counted that he hath preserved the whole race." Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4:5

Here in the Quran is a passage from the Mishnah! The Mishnah is a Jewish commentary on the Torah. How did a Rabbi's commentary on the Torah make its way into the Quran? Simple, Muhammad had heard these teachings from the Jews, and repeated them later as he recited "revelation". "

As Allah said, it's from him who knows the secrets of everything. If there are some agreements, it doesn't imply the copying at all. It's because it's from same source Allah.
However, Jeremiah 8:8 clearly said that about the books "lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely"

Your biggest rival is Jesus and yes he did conquer empires and spread his message across the world. Indeed he has been more successful than Mohammed (whether Mohammed is a myth or a man) without the use of military conquest. The initial success was fast for the growth of Islam because the 2 empires of the time were exhausted after decades of fighting. Also the narrative of Islams rise is not clearly one of Muslim conquest but may actually be one of Christian infighting, of alliances with Christians, or strategic withdrawals and yes also of the occasional military victory.

Absolutly untrue, It's Gospels of Mark, Luke, John, and Mathew not the wards of Allah that have conquered empires.
El-Messiah conquered no empires.
Pagan empire Constantine invented a new God (Jesus-Christ) like his ancestors on the remains of the stories about the true prophet El-Messiah.
He uses the invented character Jesus-Christ (whom never existed) as the official God.
With new Jesus-Christ Romans and their successors Christian Empires ignited Crusade wars that killed millions, slaved other millions, and stolen the fortune of the world.
Anglican bishop Desmond Tuto (Not a Muslem) says about your Christianity "
"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land"
This is Pauline Christianity not El-Messiah Christianity

All the major Christian denominations accept that Jesus is the Son of God and second member of the trinity and that he is the Saviour who dies for us on the cross and then rose again. That includes Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox and Pentecostal. There is no disunity on that. Mormons and JWs are a recent aberration that repeat the Arian heresy to which many people in Mohammeds time were also vulnerable.

You're missing a lot to learn my friends, Where are the old monotheism Christians and Jews Christians who includes all Apostles ?
Where are the Unitarian Christians who are exist till date?

Nevertheless, Do all denominations have the same understanding of the nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit ?
Do they agree about the relationship between Divinity and humanity ?
Do they agree about the secrets ?
Do they agree about the books ?

Every church of them has it's own philosophical model of the trinity.
They're completely separated religions to the level that they're mutually saying on each other that they're not going to survive.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Glad you returned

Most of professors that I've listened to their claims were fundamentals Christians,

and the Quran .........? The whole point of this discussion is "Did Mohammed exist"

Your scriptures is valid only with people who believe in it.

and ditto to the Quran!

Mohammad has no witness, no one else saw this angle, all ya have is his claim! And now that he actually lived is in questioned. He could be a myth which was used for political reasons.

There are those who claim the Quran is a mix of Bible passages and folk lore. This website goes through many of the stories of the Quran and found they come from the Talmud, the Midrash, Christian Gnostic gospels, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Persians myths. The Sabaeans which predate Mohammad by a long ways were already worshiping at Ka'ba, they did the same circular ritual calling out the names of their pagan gods. That black rock just might be a meteorite, it fell from heaven made a big splash and some pagans decided to worship it.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-koran-fairy-tales-dr-morey.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/pagansources.htm

The point here is I can attack the Quran just as easily as you can the Bible!

I've a few question just came on top of my mind :
In light of your belief,Your Prophet Joseph Smith corrected many mistakes in Bible especially John-1 :

The revision which Joseph made are placed within what is called the Pearl Of Great Price and truthfully I had never read that particular passage until several years ago. What I did was ask God to tell me what that passage means. Jesus said

Luke 11:9
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

His Holy Spirit is here to help us understand the writings in the Bible. I received the prompting of the Spirit to find out what the the word logos means. I discovered it means 'to reason' if I do a math problem in my head I am logosing. To write that on a chalk board is to express my logos. Verbalizing that problem is to speak my logos. It was never intended to mean some incarnate being! The next prompting I got was to see how Jesus used the word and I found he never said I am the logos of God but I bring the logos of God. He only claimed to be God's messenger. Then I looked to see how John used the word logos in all of his other writings and never in any of his other passages does he use logos to mean Jesus is "the logos/incarnation of God".

I came to understand that Yahweh/Jesus was with God in the beginning, he had the logos or message of God and God gave Jesus the power to act with the authority of God. Then I read Joseph Smith's revision and yes! that is what John's intent was. We can with the help of the Spirit rise above the false doctrines of men.

 

[Limo]

Glad you returned

Thanks.
It was Eid al-Adha "Festival of the Sacrifice" vacation

and the Quran .........? The whole point of this discussion is "Did Mohammed exist"

I was answering your point that only atheist who are fighting wards of God (according to your belief)
The reality is that they were religious Christians till they study deeply then they turned into atheist.

and ditto to the Quran!

Mohammad has no witness, no one else saw this angle, all ya have is his claim! And now that he actually lived is in questioned. He could be a myth which was used for political reasons.

There are those who claim the Quran is a mix of Bible passages and folk lore. This website goes through many of the stories of the Quran and found they come from the Talmud, the Midrash, Christian Gnostic gospels, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Persians myths. The Sabaeans which predate Mohammad by a long ways were already worshiping at Ka'ba, they did the same circular ritual calling out the names of their pagan gods. That black rock just might be a meteorite, it fell from heaven made a big splash and some pagans decided to worship it.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-koran-fairy-tales-dr-morey.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/pagansources.htm

The point here is I can attack the Quran just as easily as you can the Bible!

The point is that you shouldn't try to argue with statements from your books to proof something to me or any non-Christian who don't believe in your books.
If you notice, I never provided evedances from Quran to non-Moslem.
Please avoid using statements from Bible in discussion.

The revision which Joseph made are placed within what is called the Pearl Of Great Price and truthfully I had never read that particular passage until several years ago. What I did was ask God to tell me what that passage means. Jesus said

Luke 11:9
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

His Holy Spirit is here to help us understand the writings in the Bible. I received the prompting of the Spirit to find out what the the word logos means. I discovered it means 'to reason' if I do a math problem in my head I am logosing. To write that on a chalk board is to express my logos. Verbalizing that problem is to speak my logos. It was never intended to mean some incarnate being! The next prompting I got was to see how Jesus used the word and I found he never said I am the logos of God but I bring the logos of God. He only claimed to be God's messenger. Then I looked to see how John used the word logos in all of his other writings and never in any of his other passages does he use logos to mean Jesus is "the logos/incarnation of God".

I came to understand that Yahweh/Jesus was with God in the beginning, he had the logos or message of God and God gave Jesus the power to act with the authority of God. Then I read Joseph Smith's revision and yes! that is what John's intent was. We can with the help of the Spirit rise above the false doctrines of men.

As always with all, no one answer any question.... just thoughts and spiritual statements that can't be discussed.
Other Christian who looks at you as non-Christians have the same claims "Holy Spirit said, guided, told, revealed, blessed ......."

I'm sure If Holy Spirit (who exists according to your belief) can talk, he'll abandon all churches claims since Christianity is kidnapped from Jews-Christians.

 

[withwonderingawe]

The point is that you shouldn't try to argue with statements from your books to proof something to me or any non-Christian who don't believe in your books.

But Mohammed believed in the Bible; http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/bible.htm
Dawood - Quran 3:48 - 50

48. He [Allah] will instruct him [Jesus] in the Scriptures and in wisdom, in the Torah and in the Gospel
49. and send him forth as an apostle to the Israelites. He will say: "I bring you a sign from your Lord". ...
50. "I come to confirm the Torah which preceded me and to make lawful to you some of the things you are forbidden. I bring you a sign from your Lord: therefore fear God and obey me."

Ali - 29:46
And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (then mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury); But say, "We believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our God and your God is One...

TAli - 10:37
This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it and a fuller explanation of the Book wherein there is no doubt from the Lord of the Worlds.


Dawood - 3:3
He has revealed to you the Book with the Truth, confirming the scriptures which preceded it; for He has already revealed the Torah and the Gospel for the guidance of mankind, and the distinction of right and wrong.

This website goes through 16 different passages where the Quran confirms the Bible as being true, the Bible Mohammed knew is pretty much the New Testament we have today. Scholars say there are 5,650 handwritten copies written in Greek and 10,000 in Latin add in other languages and there are 25,000 hand written copies. Irenaeus in 180ad is already referring to the four Gospels which means they existed before that time and were considered cannon.

The point is the Gospels which Mohammed knew and loved were the same we have today.


Now most will say that they were originally written in Greek but I doubt that, these were fishermen. By saying it was written in Greek it takes it a step away from these men. I believe at least Matthew and John and was written in Aramaic. It's the translating into the Greek which caused the John 1 problem. When the Quran was organized as you now have it scribes and men who had memorized it came together to check their documents. In John we find the same thing. In the last chapter there is a little twist in the person writing, someone else is adding their witness to the document.

John 21
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

We have to assume these are his scribes and men who were with him in his old age, he lived a very long time if he died at all. Jesus said " he tarry till I come..", did he mean his second coming or until Jesus came to take home.

 

[mindlight]

Having just managed to complete several more chapters of Pressburgs book I have read some more interesting info there:
1) The evidence is that the Kaaba and Dome of the Rock were originally Christian churches. Indeed in the seventh century there were churches all across the Arabian peninsula. Many of these relics are now being systematically destroyed by the Saudi government.
2) Muhamad was a coin inscription that referred to Christ.
3) There was no initial great wave of Islamic conquest. But rather the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius following his great victory of 622 (the year the Islamic calendar begins) and of 627AD established a system of Arab proxy government over areas he had conquered. From these local Arab rulers (who were mainly Christian ( albeit Monarchical in their view of the Trinity). would spring the heroes of Islamic mythology. Later as Islam gained in strength history would be rewritten to include the narrative of military conquest to explain the rise of Islam but in fact this golden age of Islamic expansion was mainly characterised by Arab Monarchial Christianity and Christian rulers. Most of the great battles are completely absent from Byzantine literature and Mohammeds letter to Heraclius in Jerusalem has no supporting historical evidence.
4) There is no hard evidence to support the existence of hadiths before about 200 years after Mohammeds supposed existence. The Muslim view of an oral tradition that was not written down before this time is not supported by the existence of old 7th century examples of the Quran itself (sometimes contradictory in their texts) which point to a tradition of Arab writing that was much earlier. Surely something as important as the life of the prophet himself would have qualified for a written record. Yet there is none before about 2 centuries after. This coincides and confirms the narrative of a MOnarchial Christianity, Arab proxy rulers turning into later Caliphs and then rewriting history. Book burning and historical revisionism have thus obscured the facts of the matter for centuries.
5) Luxenburgs analysis of the inscription in the Dome of the Rock traditionally regarded as an affirmation of Mohammed turns out to be an expression of Christian monarchism.

So overall the view emerges that the myth of Mohammed was something constructed and crafted by later Caliphs and has little to do with the realities of the seventh century.

 

[mindlight]

The contradiction is between the claim of existence of Prophet and how clever he was to collect info from all cultures you know at that time.

No because if the life of Mohammed we have been passed down is itself a fabrication of later generations then the mix of stories from other cultures and languages and generations even previous to his supposed existence can be explained in those terms. The story of Mohammed and the texts he is supposed to have received from God then become a cultural collation and fabrication.

Again no scientific bases you're talking about an Idea. We can discuss any scientific evedances when exist.

Coin inscriptions, the original buildings of the Dome of the Rock and the Kaaba churches and inscriptions on their walls are all evidences. Copies of changed Qurans where 2 different texts can be read on the same parchment as with Saana is evidence. Heresay from 2 centuries after the prophet is supposed to have existed meanwhile carried no scientific credibility.

Moselms rejection of hundreds of Hadiths is a sign of quality of accepted one.
Accepting/rejecting Hadiths is a set of science that searches in credibility of the chain of narrations and narrators themselves.
It should be perfect to accept Hadith.
It's a comprehensive science that guarantee that only true wards are accepted.
The level of trust of connecting Accepted Hadith to Prophet Mohamed is much much higher than the level of trust of connecting any of Gospels to El-Messiah.

There is no reason why Hadiths could not have been written down earlier than they were. That 200 year transmission gap is a big problem to their credibility as sources of information, We have early examples of the Quran written down so why not Hadiths. It looks like heresay and serves the convenient purpose of cementing a newly founded religion

mmmm. running away from question to another subject.
You know nothing about Jesus-Christ not even El-Messiah.
Lack of information is the basis of scholars studies who are saying "Jesus doesn't exist" which is very convenient.

Where are the non religious sources affirming the existence of Muhammed. Josephus, Tacitus even the Jewish Talmud affirm the existence of Christ. But the complete absence of non Islamic records indicates a purification of history by centuries of book burning and information control. Even the title Muhammed was not an Arabic name of the time but rather a way of praising Christ.

Your writings are a vague example of Dishonest. You're saying "Quran itself testifies" while the truth is Quran is discussing your claim and It's answer smashes your claims.

Although the answer to the claim in the next verse.
Allah said in Quran 25:6 which is next to 25:5 you misused it
Say, [O Muhammad], "It has been revealed by He who knows [every] secret within the heavens and the earth. Indeed, He is ever Forgiving and Merciful."
Allah is answering you that Quran is revealed by the Almighty Creator who knows the secrets of everything, it's not copied from any religious or cultural books or floating stories

As Allah said, it's from him who knows the secrets of everything. If there are some agreements, it doesn't imply the copying at all. It's because it's from same source Allah.
However, Jeremiah 8:8 clearly said that about the books "lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely"

The point here is that this discussion is as old as the Quran and the accusation of its fabrication was there from its very beginning as the Quran says but defiantly asserts against. No proofs are offered just the declaration God says this is false...

Absolutly untrue, It's Gospels of Mark, Luke, John, and Mathew not the wards of Allah that have conquered empires.
El-Messiah conquered no empires.
Pagan empire Constantine invented a new God (Jesus-Christ) like his ancestors on the remains of the stories about the true prophet El-Messiah.
He uses the invented character Jesus-Christ (whom never existed) as the official God.
With new Jesus-Christ Romans and their successors Christian Empires ignited Crusade wars that killed millions, slaved other millions, and stolen the fortune of the world.
Anglican bishop Desmond Tuto (Not a Muslem) says about your Christianity "
"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land"
This is Pauline Christianity not El-Messiah Christianity

Monarchial Christians in the Arabic and Aramaic lands of the Middle East did have a problem with Roman rule and Trinitarianism and it is this that is the source of the idea that the Byzantines invented their God as a tool of subjugation. This was a tension in the Christian world that characterised the Arian heresy discussion. But the Christian world is larger than that of Rome and the view that God is One and Three is the dominant understanding of the vast majority of Christians. There is no contradiction between Pauline Christianity and the true gospels as we have them today in the bible.

You're missing a lot to learn my friends, Where are the old monotheism Christians and Jews Christians who includes all Apostles ?
Where are the Unitarian Christians who are exist till date?

Thomas said of Jesus "My Lord and my God". Peter said "You are the Christ the Son of the Living God". John said "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". The apostles knew who Jesus was even if the fullness of that took a while longer to articulate. Christians are monotheists whether monarchical or Trinitarian. There is only One God! The Nicene Trinitarian creed is the settled view of the biggest denominations of Christians today

Nevertheless, Do all denominations have the same understanding of the nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit ?
Do they agree about the relationship between Divinity and humanity ?
Do they agree about the secrets ?
Do they agree about the books ?

Every church of them has it's own philosophical model of the trinity.
They're completely separated religions to the level that they're mutually saying on each other that they're not going to survive.

That there is pluralism within Christianity is indicative of the Oneness with Diversity implicit within the Trinitarian model. Arius was however a heretic and so were the Monarchical Arab Christians of the seventh century. The inflexibility of the Muslim model has less to do with the Quran which is quite confused and contradictory in its message and more to do with a dogmatic enforcement of interpretation by Muslim teaching authorities.

 

[Limo]

But Mohammed believed in the Bible; http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/bible.htm
Dawood - Quran 3:48 - 50

48. He [Allah] will instruct him [Jesus] in the Scriptures and in wisdom, in the Torah and in the Gospel
49. and send him forth as an apostle to the Israelites. He will say: "I bring you a sign from your Lord". ...
50. "I come to confirm the Torah which preceded me and to make lawful to you some of the things you are forbidden. I bring you a sign from your Lord: therefore fear God and obey me."

Ali - 29:46
And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (then mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury); But say, "We believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our God and your God is One...

TAli - 10:37
This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it and a fuller explanation of the Book wherein there is no doubt from the Lord of the Worlds.


Dawood - 3:3
He has revealed to you the Book with the Truth, confirming the scriptures which preceded it; for He has already revealed the Torah and the Gospel for the guidance of mankind, and the distinction of right and wrong.

This website goes through 16 different passages where the Quran confirms the Bible as being true, the Bible Mohammed knew is pretty much the New Testament we have today. Scholars say there are 5,650 handwritten copies written in Greek and 10,000 in Latin add in other languages and there are 25,000 hand written copies. Irenaeus in 180ad is already referring to the four Gospels which means they existed before that time and were considered cannon.

The point is the Gospels which Mohammed knew and loved were the same we have today.

All the verses in Quran are truly refers to Moses and El-Messiah and their books Torah and Injiil.
We must believe that not only Moses and El-Messiah but also Ibrahim, Noah,, and all other prophets mentioned in Quran are true prophets from Allah.
We must believe not only in Torah and Injiil but also in all other books.

Allah told us in Quran that these books were subject to changes :
Quran 2:75 "Do you (faithful believers) covet that they will believe in your religion inspite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah [the Taurat (Torah)], then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?"
Allah told us that the changes in the books have already started before even Prophet era.
It's fully compliant with modern research of scholars that the Bible especially the new Testimony was subject to many changes to the level that there is no original for it.
The number of variations between these copies is 400-500 thousand differences which is more than the number of wards in New Testimony itself.

Now most will say that they were originally written in Greek but I doubt that, these were fishermen. By saying it was written in Greek it takes it a step away from these men. I believe at least Matthew and John and was written in Aramaic. It's the translating into the Greek which caused the John 1 problem. When the Quran was organized as you now have it scribes and men who had memorized it came together to check their documents. In John we find the same thing. In the last chapter there is a little twist in the person writing, someone else is adding their witness to the document.

John 21
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

We have to assume these are his scribes and men who were with him in his old age, he lived a very long time if he died at all. Jesus said " he tarry till I come..", did he mean his second coming or until Jesus came to take home.

This is one of unsolved puzzle about the New Testimony. No doubt that El-Messiah and the disciples were Jews. They were using Hebrew in study and writing but Aramaic for speaking. Why there is no single line in Hebrew or Aramaic ?

Also, scholar said that the Gospels were written in a perfect standard Latin language which means these Gospels are not a translation of another book from a different language.

I think these books were written by new Christians, Latin is their first language, and Gospels are a collection of stories and remains of El-Messiah wards transferred inaccurate and non authenticated way.

Again, whatever Joseph Smith did with John 1 and other statements have been done all over the history. Nevertheless, churches are adding/removing/translating differently according to their belief.

The end result is that there is no guarantee/assurance about what was realy said by El-Messiah and what is not.

 

[Limo]

.

Let me list your errors in beginning :

• Dome of Rock is part of Temple Mount it was never ever something holy for Pauline-Christianity. Never been a church or part of a church
• Kabba never been a church or holy for any kind of Christianity
  
• It's not true that the first writing of Hadeeth after 200 years if Prophet's death
• It's not true that name "Muhammad" is not an Arabic. You can consult any fair Arabic student
• Arius was an Egyptian, opposing the Egyptian church believe. Ariusism has nothing to do with Byzantines and the colonized countries
• Nicene is a not a Trinitarian creed, Nicene was talking about 2 persons only. Holy spirit was not ranked as God yet till year 381 AD
• There is no dogmatic enforcement of interpretation by Muslim teaching authorities simply because there is no authorities in Islam

No because if the life of Mohammed we have been passed down is itself a fabrication of later generations then the mix of stories from other cultures and languages and generations even previous to his supposed existence can be explained in those terms. The story of Mohammed and the texts he is supposed to have received from God then become a cultural collation and fabrication.

Will you try submitting evedances or rational claims instead of emotional wards

Coin inscriptions, the original buildings of the Dome of the Rock and the Kaaba churches and inscriptions on their walls are all evidences. Copies of changed Qurans where 2 different texts can be read on the same parchment as with Saana is evidence. Heresay from 2 centuries after the prophet is supposed to have existed meanwhile carried no scientific credibility.

Are pasting without reading ?
If you google a little bit, you'll get the historical information from Christian writings not even Moselm ones.
Dome of Rock is part of Temple Mount it was never ever something holy for Pauline-Christian.
Your ancestors Pagan Roman destroyed it then your ancestors Pauline-Christians turned it into garbage dump and a dunghill for the people of Jerusalem.
How do you say it was churches ?
Who told you that Kaaba was ever a church ?
There were no more than one Christian in whole Makka.

There is no reason why Hadiths could not have been written down earlier than they were. That 200 year transmission gap is a big problem to their credibility as sources of information, We have early examples of the Quran written down so why not Hadiths. It looks like heresay and serves the convenient purpose of cementing a newly founded religion

Who told you that there are 200 year transmission gap ?
Writing of Hadeeth started during Prophet's life and continued till 3rd century.
If you know how the Hadeeth scholars were studding the narrator's life and credibility, you'll cry how your early Christians were accepting any ward from anyone to the level that Gospels were anonymous then get its names later

Where are the non religious sources affirming the existence of Muhammed. Josephus, Tacitus even the Jewish Talmud affirm the existence of Christ. But the complete absence of non Islamic records indicates a purification of history by centuries of book burning and information control. Even the title Muhammed was not an Arabic name of the time but rather a way of praising Christ.

Josephus proofed to be imposed in later ages. Tacitus is ambiguous.
Who told you that "Mohamed" is not an Arabic name ?
Although the claim on existence of Mohamed has no base but I'll answer you.
I wish you've an open minded after reviewing facts against emotional claims.

Prophet Muhammad lived between 570 AD to 632 AD
The document known as "Fragment of the Arab Conquests" dated as 636 AD. It's talking about the conflict between Byzantines and what the fragment call "the Arabs of Muhammad".
mmmm. Still repeating the same emotional wards. Nobody can help you if you're not helping yourself.

The point here is that this discussion is as old as the Quran and the accusation of its fabrication was there from its very beginning as the Quran says but defiantly asserts against. No proofs are offered just the declaration God says this is false...

What you're saying is strange !!!!
You said Quran is testifying, which is not true.
This is not the only claim Alllah told in Quran.
I understand that Allah says is not enough for you. I didn't ask you to believe in it. I was correcting your false saying about testifying.

Monarchial Christians in the Arabic and Aramaic lands of the Middle East did have a problem with Roman rule and Trinitarianism and it is this that is the source of the idea that the Byzantines invented their God as a tool of subjugation. This was a tension in the Christian world that characterised the Arian heresy discussion. But the Christian world is larger than that of Rome and the view that God is One and Three is the dominant understanding of the vast majority of Christians. There is no contradiction between Pauline Christianity and the true gospels as we have them today in the bible.

Strange justification !!!!
Arius is an Egyptian neither Arabic nor Aramaic. His belief was against the Egyptian church belief. This conflict has nothing related to Byzantine authority verses Arabs and Syrians.
By the way after Constantine death the Empire changed to Arius belief till 381. i.e. the majority of Christians at that time were Unitarian.

Thomas said of Jesus "My Lord and my God". Peter said "You are the Christ the Son of the Living God". John said "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". The apostles knew who Jesus was even if the fullness of that took a while longer to articulate. Christians are monotheists whether monarchical or Trinitarian. There is only One God! The Nicene Trinitarian creed is the settled view of the biggest denominations of Christians today

You're saying a strange thing, "Apostles knew but belief is articulated later" specifically in 381 AD. If this is the case :

• Why followers of Apostles didn't have the same belief ?
  
• Why not all Christians at that time have the same belief ?
  
• What about Christians in between ?
• What about Jews Christians ?

Nicene creed 325 AD established a God with 2 persons only. In Nicene creed Holy spirit is not a God.
Only in 381 AD in First Council of Constantinople Holy spriit is ranked as the 3rd person in Trinity God.

That there is pluralism within Christianity is indicative of the Oneness with Diversity implicit within the Trinitarian model. Arius was however a heretic and so were the Monarchical Arab Christians of the seventh century. The inflexibility of the Muslim model has less to do with the Quran which is quite confused and contradictory in its message and more to do with a dogmatic enforcement of interpretation by Muslim teaching authorities.

There is no Islamic authorities, so there is no dogmatic enforcement of interpretation.
Where is the pluralism in Christianity ? Many Churches which divided into many other churches till date
You're not even agreed about Who is the Christian ?
Every Church is exiling others from God's heaven and are not recognizing others as Christians
It's not one religion, it's many

 

[mindlight]

Let me list your errors in beginning :

• Dome of Rock is part of Temple Mount it was never ever something holy for Pauline-Christianity. Never been a church or part of a church
• Kabba never been a church or holy for any kind of Christianity

First, Christianity is an older religion than Islam and it dominated the region before Islam came along. The Quran itself refers to Christians and to Muhammad's engagement with them. So it would not be an odd thing if sites now holy to Islam were previously Christian. The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius for example is said to have built on the site of the Dome of the Rock before the construction of the Dome of the Rock.(^ H. Busse, "Zur Geschichte und Deutung der frühislamischen Ḥarambauten in Jerusalem", Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 107 (1991), 144–154. (gere 145f).) The inscription inside the Dome of the Rock is a monarchic view of God that was Christian not Muslim in content and implies that the Caliph who built the building was also a Christian (but one who wanted to distinguish himself from the Byzantines and who did not share their view of the Trinity). The building was almost definitely constructed by Christians because Arabs lacked the skills at that time. It seems it was originally constructed for a heretical version of Christianity and then converted into a Muslim mosque with history rewritten at a later date.

In the Kaaba itself there is a picture of Jesus, Mary and Abraham on the walls. The prophet himself (it is traditionally said by Muslims) urged that these be preserved while pictures of pagan deities were erased. It is therefore perfectly possible that the Christian God was worshipped there before the time of Islam.

"Apart from the icon of the Virgin Mary and the child Jesus, and a painting of an old man, said to be Abraham, the walls inside [Kaaba] had been covered with pictures of pagan deities. Placing his hand protectively over the icon, the Prophet told `Uthman to see that all other paintings, except that of Abraham, were effaced."

Martin Lings, "Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources"
p.300, ref: al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Maghazi 834, and Azraqi, Akhbar Makkah vol. 1, p. 107.
Martin Lings is a practicing Muslim.

• It's not true that the first writing of Hadeeth after 200 years if Prophet's death

So where is the earliest complete manuscript of the Hadiths. You will not find one before about 200 years after the event.

Schacht, Joseph (1967). The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 1–20.

• It's not true that name "Muhammad" is not an Arabic. You can consult any fair Arabic student

It appears very likely that the name did not exist before Muhammad was supposed to have been named.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...d-not-exist-as-a-name-before-Prophet-Muhammad

The name itself means praised(thanked).

The name has been found on seventh century coins in Egypt and Syria with a Christian cross on it. Implying that it was reference to Jesus not to a man called Muhammad:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=15&t=009213

 

[mindlight]

• Arius was an Egyptian, opposing the Egyptian church believe. Ariusism has nothing to do with Byzantines and the colonized countries

Arianism is the heresy from which Islam springs. Basically it is the idea that Jesus is a creature and it expresses the view that the Trinity is therefore a misunderstanding of the nature of God. It was commonplace in the region and even during the time of the Byzantines. The Byzantine empire itself supported the Trinitarian doctrine. So if Heraclius following his victories over the Persians established a system of proxy rulers in the region as part of a strategic consolidation plan ( as Pressburg argues) then the local rulers were more likely Arian Christians than Muslims in the time period immediately following that. The Monarchic Christian Arab inscription inside the Dome of the Rock would then be an example of that.

Nicene is a not a Trinitarian creed, Nicene was talking about 2 persons only. Holy spirit was not ranked as God yet till year 381 AD

Christians always call it the Nicene creed. But you are right that the final version was established in Constantinople 381AD. From the point of view of this discussion it is a mute point because 300 years before Muhammad is supposed to have existed the Trinitarian doctrine was established and accepted by the Byzantine Empire. That its tenants were in fact clear in scripture and the practice of the early church from its beginnings is also clear.

There is no dogmatic enforcement of interpretation by Muslim teaching authorities simply because there is no authorities in Islam

OK so there is no such thing as Ulamas , the Mutaween (Saudia Arabia) or the Basiji(Iran)?

 

[mindlight]

There were no more than one Christian in whole Makka.

There are more than 60000 Christians from a Muslim background in Saudia Arabia. It is matter of assertion on your part to say that none of those can be found in Mecca.

https://www.academia.edu/16338087/Believers_in_Christ_from_a_Muslim_Background_A_Global_Census

In the seventh century some Arab tribes and indeed whole towns were Christian and trade would have brought many of these to Mecca or Medina on a regular basis. So it seems more likely there have always been Christians in Mecca, that they were there before the emergence of Islam and they will be there after Islam crumbles also.

Josephus proofed to be imposed in later ages. Tacitus is ambiguous.

The Antiquities of the Jews includes this uncontroversial reference to Jesus (Chapter 9:1):

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent

Schlomo Pines also did research on the controversial passage you refered to (Testmonium Flavanium). There is an Arabic version which is less flattering to the Christian perspective but nonetheless mentions Jesus also.

 

[mindlight]

Prophet Muhammad lived between 570 AD to 632 AD
The document known as "Fragment of the Arab Conquests" dated as 636 AD. It's talking about the conflict between Byzantines and what the fragment call "the Arabs of Muhammad".

That fragment seems to suggest that Muhammad is still alive. But also we have no way to be absolutely sure of the dating of the ink on this 6th century Syrian bible or indeed that the battle of Gabitha mentioned in the writing was the same as the battle of Yarmuk.

I understand that Allah says is not enough for you. I didn't ask you to believe in it. I was correcting your false saying about testifying.

What God says is all sufficient for me. What must be established is whether God has spoken. God is not a liar and I would not blaspheme Him by suggesting that words which are clearly false are of Him.

Arius is an Egyptian neither Arabic nor Aramaic. His belief was against the Egyptian church belief. This conflict has nothing related to Byzantine authority verses Arabs and Syrians.
By the way after Constantine death the Empire changed to Arius belief till 381. i.e. the majority of Christians at that time were Unitarian.

The struggle went too and fro between Constantine I (opposed to Arianism) - some emperors in the 4th century who were Arians and Theodosius I who finally established the Nicene creed as the official doctrine of the state church. From 381AD onwards the Trinity was the official doctrine of the Byzantine empire.

You're saying a strange thing, "Apostles knew but belief is articulated later" specifically in 381 AD. If this is the case :

• Why followers of Apostles didn't have the same belief ?
  
• Why not all Christians at that time have the same belief ?
  
• What about Christians in between ?
• What about Jews Christians ?

Nicene creed 325 AD established a God with 2 persons only. In Nicene creed Holy spirit is not a God.
Only in 381 AD in First Council of Constantinople Holy spriit is ranked as the 3rd person in Trinity God.

The scriptures themselves support the deity of all 3 members of the Trinity. In practice the early church worshipped Christ in a way that would be blasphemous were he not God- the scriptures also testify to angels doing the same (Hebrews 2). There is a difference between the actual church of God and the official state religion of the Byzantine empire. But the creeds finalised in 381AD finalise a Trinitarian understanding of the nature of God which has persisted to this day in the Christian church. When Thomas an apostle of Jesus says: "My Lord and my God" of Jesus the declaration could not be more clear.

That Christians have held different views on this over the years is clear but while heresies come and go Arianism was firmly defeated in the 4th century and mainly disappeared until the emergence of Mormons, JWs and Philadelphians in the last 2 centuries. These groups remain cults and the vast majority of Christians are Trinitarian.

All the Messianic Jews I have met have been Trinitarian so not sure what you meant there.

Where is the pluralism in Christianity ? Many Churches which divided into many other churches till date
You're not even agreed about Who is the Christian ?
Every Church is exiling others from God's heaven and are not recognizing others as Christians
It's not one religion, it's many

The unity is in Christ Himself. None of the major denominations claim that it is impossible to be saved outside of their own group though historically some of the leaders have done so , often due to unhealthy political influences.

A Christian is one who can confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and died and rose again for us. He is one who follows Christ. A false understanding of the Trinity may not be a barrier to salvation if a person is looking for that salvation through Christ. By this reckoning even Mormons and some Jehovah witnesses may be among the saved.

 

[SolomonVII]

It is possible that Mohammed did not exist. The first stories of raids against the Byzantine made no mention of anyone named Mohammed, and instead relayed back stories of raids by Hagarites.
There is nothing about a new religion being introduced in the earliest accounts.

What is most likely, I think, is that a man sporting the name of Mohammed likely did exist, and his biography served as a kernel upon which the entire myth of the Prophet was spun.
It is not as if this disagrees with Robert Spencer either, as Robert Spencer was merely asking the question and looking for evidence.

I think that the best evidence that Mohammed did exist lies in the early Sunni-Shia split. This was all predicated on who was to be the successor to Mohammed, and to have a successor there must have been someone there in the first place to take his place.
Almost certainly though, whoever Mohammed was, the birth of the religion was more the working of political need than of angelic revelation. From very early there were thousands upon thousands of sayings attributed to him as Koranic, and it was a very arbitrary task that the early leader of the movement made to choose some and eliminate others, even eliminating the copy that the widow of Mohammed held in her possession. This is to say that the religion of Mohammed already existed, in the lore of the Persians and the Christians and the Jews and the Christian apocryphal writings. The model of government in those days was a theocracy, and when the Arabs(Hagarites) found themselves with a world-class empire, they scrambled to create a religion with which to govern it.
The earliest leader of the movement even said as much as he went about picking and choosing which elements to put into the new religion, and which to leave out, all in the overt intent to not repeat the political divisiveness of the Christian world over what version of the religion was authentic and which were not.