Muhammad & Idolatry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

I like the idea of Islam being a conspiracy theory though. IIRC Mohammed is supposed to have started the movement because he was dissatisfied with Christianity and what he saw as it's corruption.

---

Whoah. Can you tell me where you got that? It is at odds with everything I have ever heard about Mo, but a man is never too old to learn. Do you have any sources?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

I like the idea of Islam being a conspiracy theory though. IIRC Mohammed is supposed to have started the movement because he was dissatisfied with Christianity and what he saw as it's corruption.

---

Probabaly how must breakaway sects start... see the corruption nail a proclamation to a door, or go turning over vendors tables in the temple, or leave the corrupt rule in one country by parting ways (and waters)...

Religions are idea sets, idea sets that change over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Adrian, I'm not saying I can prove he existed I'm saying that I don't think you could invent a man like Jesus as he is depicted in the New Testemant.

---

Well please yourself; this is an argument from the realm of religious speculation where I have no abode as an atheist. I see there are no takers for my remarks on the historicity of Mohammed, so I think that from the point of view of historiography we can consider the matter settled and move on. But I'll bet that next time round people will be once more astonished to hear that probably neither Christ nor Mohammed were historical figures. 'What? And I always thought..'

Blame it on education.

I suggest you replace "probably" with "possably" we have as much evidence for the existance of Shakespeare as Jesus.

My last comment about Mohammed was from memory but if you think about it it jives.

You do realise that Shakespeare is quite possibly a composite of many other authours... more of a non de plume for a writers group then an actual individual... sort of suits the idea that the Christian cult is based on many other sources...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

I suggest you replace "probably" with "possably" we have as much evidence for the existance of Shakespeare as Jesus.

---

Not at all. I can't be bothered to go into all that, but Homer would be a better analogy.

And regarding Mohammed, if he existed he was bound to have much more contact with Judaism than Christianity. There were few Christians around in his part of the world, they lived to the North. That is why Muslim tradition sends Mohammed to Syria on two occasions, there to be acknowledged as a Prophet by an old Christian monk. There was also a villager in Mekka, Waraqa ibn Nawfal, of whom traditions say that he was a Christian who was well read in the Jewish and Christian holy books and immediately recognised Mohammed's potential. The few Christian references only come in to show that Christian sages acknowledged Mo as the new Prophet, as a sort of stamp of approval from the older but incomplete religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Nostrodamus is also referred to as a prophet...

It's not really that big of a deal mate...

Besides prophet =/ (that's my sign for "not equals") son of God in terms of respect

---

It is when you consider that they are some of the people who would oppose jesus being commonly known as the son of god im not upset about it im just trying to show the double standard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Ok...well that's what muslims believe...

With all due respect, isn't that what you are doing? You believe that Jesus is the son of God, therefore, you think it is flawed for muslims to accept him as prophet, but not as divine...

BTW, I said strictly monotheistic, did you know that some compare trinity to polytheism...?

EDIT: I just noticed I use "..." a lot... And I mean a lot!

---

No because jesus said he was the son of god he never gave any indication of later prophets except that they would all be false prophets and yet muslims say they think he was a prophet so how can they ignore most of what he said?

also the issue of the trinity is not polytheism only three different ways in which god acts in the world although you will get a more precise definition from a theologin only someone who has apsolutely no understanding of christianity would say it is polytheiistic (unless your talking about saints but that is another issue)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

ByzMerc, either you don't understand the distinction which I am trying to make or, more likely, our experiences are indeed very different.

On changes to the Bible: It is largely suspected that a certain amount of mis-copying and, significantly, mis-translation has changed the meaning of some parts of the text. Even now it when tranlating from ancient Greek it is extremely common for two people to translate the same text with different results. This is on top of any editing which may or may not have been carried out by various parties through out the ages.

---

what i was saying is that there is no difference between the term ''the prophet muhammed'' and refering to him as a prophet

of course there is inaccuracys through translation that is why i use a bible translated from the greek bible rather then the latin one i believe catholics use

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

No because jesus said he was the son of god he never gave any indication of later prophets except that they would all be false prophets and yet muslims say they think he was a prophet so how can they ignore most of what he said?

---

I think AdrianII said it best here:

"They do accept Mozes, Jesus, etcetera, but they do not accept those parts of the OT or the Gospels that emphasise their uniqueness as Prophets. The Muslim view has always been that the Jews and Christians have falsified their holy texts in order to erase all passages that refer to Mohammed's coming as the one and only definitive Prophet."

It's what they believe mate, the son of God is what Christians believe, and Jesu bint Pantera is what Jews believe (I think). Muslims reject those portions of the bible which say Jesus is the son of God like they reject the parts which say the other prophets (Noah, Lot) were sinners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

also the issue of the trinity is not polytheism only three different ways in which god acts in the world although you will get a more precise definition from a theologin only someone who has apsolutely no understanding of christianity would say it is polytheiistic (unless your talking about saints but that is another issue)

---

I understand that mate, please, I did not bring my personal views in, I'm just saying that the concept of trinity has been equated with polytheism by some...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

what i was saying is that there is no difference between the term ''the prophet muhammed'' and refering to him as a prophet

of course there is inaccuracys through translation that is why i use a bible translated from the greek bible rather then the latin one i believe catholics use

---

But it is still a translation of a much copied book....

The Prophet Mohammed and the prophet Mohammed are very different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

I think AdrianII said it best here:

"They do accept Mozes, Jesus, etcetera, but they do not accept those parts of the OT or the Gospels that emphasise their uniqueness as Prophets. The Muslim view has always been that the Jews and Christians have falsified their holy texts in order to erase all passages that refer to Mohammed's coming as the one and only definitive Prophet."

It's what they believe mate, the son of God is what Christians believe, and Jesu bint Pantera is what Jews believe (I think). Muslims reject those portions of the bible which say Jesus is the son of God like they reject the parts which say the other prophets (Noah, Lot) were sinners.

I understand that mate, please, I did not bring my personal views in, I'm just saying that the concept of trinity has been equated with polytheism by some...

---

I understand that its what they believe, i just don't understand why their beliefs go unchallenged, unlike christian beliefs that are always challanged, its important that all belief sytems are challenged otherwise you only get one side of the argument

i was merely explaining why the trinity was not polytheism, it was not meant as some sort of personal attack

I'm with ByzMerc here.

Jws just refuse to accept Jesus but Muslims seem to pick and choose. Also this whole "The Torah and Bible got doctored" thing surely leaves it open for me to go out and say:

"I am the new prophet, the reason the Koran doesn't mention me is because I got edited out."

Doesn't wash, really phony.