(February 5, 2015 at 5:11 pm)Rayaan Wrote: I get the impression that the difference between you and me is that you're just generally more distrustful of oral tradition (because you wrote: "with each retelling the ironic bits fell off and people started giving credence to the tale"}. That conveys to me that you assign a much less reliability to oral transmission than written transmission as an arbiter of what actually happened.

And, above that, I'm generally distrustful of supernatural claims.
So, if super-nature is unavailable, then a good part of the stories is... by necessity... made up.
How and who made it up? I don't know... But in that day-and-age, it seems everyone had some sort of belief in something beyond this world. So they were primed to believe in something. Like you, and the guys that are joining ISIS, and mormons, and all the christians, and every theist on this planet....

When a people is primed to believe and a a good story comes along... and is picked up by the ruling family and implanted as true, then how are the simple peasants going to distrust it... much less, discredit it?
People go along, like the egyptians had gone along with their pharaohs, and the jews go along with their rabis...
The same thing happened with christianity in the Roman Empire about 300 years before Abd Al-Malik... and the romans had already done it before when they implemented their own version of the greek mythology... so, implementing a new religion, empire-wide, was clearly not a problem!
Life goes on and half the population has an IQ below 100, so it's easy to keep it going on.

Back on track, Mehmet's story. We have tales of his wondrous claim of having a direct channel to the supernatural.
You put stock on the claims being trustworthy and, thus, true accounts of what the man himself claimed.
I couldn't care less, but the fact that those tales get recorded rather late, and some earlier tales present him, just in passing, and as a simple military leader, suggest that such a wonderful claim came later on.
That's all I'm saying.
It's a suggestion from absence of mention of a claim that came to become rather central to this novel religion that Abd Al-Malik disseminated throughout the caliphate.

If the only record we have of those times is what later became written in the Qur'an, and if (mighty "if" here, I'm aware) the Qur'an was written with an agenda in mind, then there is really nothing we can say about those times... it then becomes even possible to admit that the arab tribes were not as riddled with animosity as would later be written, maybe the caliphate was already established for a few centuries before Abd Al-Malik implemented the roman concept of empire and unified everything under one religion... maybe there was a tribal leader who knew his neighbors well and, through politics and trade, brought them together.
The tale that Abd Al-Malik spread throughout his empire could very well have been a cunning lie, at a time when no one alive would know better and most people just wouldn't care... but it would bring them together under a single nation and religion... and it clearly worked.

And the idea was stolen from early xtian emperors.

(February 5, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Yeah - apologists are creative when it comes to contriving excuses.

http://academicatheism.tumblr.com/post/6...e-muhammad

But the author of that passage (Robert Spencer) thinks that the "Muhammad" in those coins most likely refers to his own Prophet:

Quote:This could be a derivative of the common Christian liturgical phrase referring to the coming of Christ: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” In that case, the muhammad, the praised or blessed one, would be Jesus himself.

You agree with that also?

He also contradicts himself when he quotes a verse from the Quran mentioning Muhammad as a messenger, and then quotes another that mentions Jesus, as if they're both talking about the same Prophet:

Quote:Jesus is the most likely candidate, because, as we have seen, the Qur’an tells believers that “Muhammad is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (3:144), using language identical to that it later uses of Jesus: “the Messiah, the son of Mary, is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (5:75).

Which also makes me wonder, why is this guy even quoting Quranic verses to prove something if he doesn't even believe in it (as a divine revelation)?

---

(February 5, 2015 at 6:02 pm)pocaracas Wrote: The tale that Abd Al-Malik spread throughout his empire could very well have been a cunning lie, at a time when no one alive would know better and most people just wouldn't care... but it would bring them together under a single nation and religion... and it clearly worked.

But before you were saying that the tale/rumor could have started somewhere between Abd-Al-Malik and Muhammad. Now you went back to saying that Abd-Al-Malik started the tale before anyone else knew anything about it?

Plus, I think it's almost impossible that the people who were alive at that time would have all forgotten who Muhammad was, and yet only Abd-Al-Malik would know something about him.

Quote:You agree with that also?

It is an interesting hypothesis, Rayaan. Which is the problem here as it always has been. I understand why you cannot tolerate hypothesis which you consider to be blasphemous but scholarship cannot be constrained by charges of blasphemy. We'd still be living in caves eating rocks if people were forbidden to every investigate any new concept.

I'm going to go looking for a passage from a book for you...happily for you it is not one of Spencer's...I'll be back. Perhaps then you will see how Spencer's idea arises.

Just hold one thought while I'm gone. The Xtian emperors of Rome and Byzantium were as vicious in suppressing heretical xtians as much as they were in suppressing paganism.

BRB.

(February 5, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(February 5, 2015 at 6:02 pm)pocaracas Wrote: The tale that Abd Al-Malik spread throughout his empire could very well have been a cunning lie, at a time when no one alive would know better and most people just wouldn't care... but it would bring them together under a single nation and religion... and it clearly worked.

But before you were saying that the tale/rumor could have started somewhere between Abd-Al-Malik and Muhammad. Now you went back to saying that Abd-Al-Malik started the tale before anyone else knew anything about it?

This is in a different time-line (like the new star trek movies). Remember that paragraph started with a mighty IF.
This is another potential way things could have unraveled, for all I know...

(February 5, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Plus, I think it's almost impossible that the people who were alive at that time would have all forgotten who Muhammad was, and yet only Abd-Al-Malik would know something about him.

Well, Once upon a time, there was a Teacher of Righteousness.... in time, somehow, his deeds became attributed to a Jesus.
It then becomes possible that once there was a leader of tribes, who in time, somehow, finds his deeds attributed to a Mohammad.
Nothing was recorded in due time and when something was finally recorded, it may have been with an agenda behind it.
And if this is the case, what can we say is true from that record?

Rayaan, this is pg 2 of Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities - and a couple of lines from pg 3.

Quote:The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all in the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that God had created the world. But others believed that this world had been created by a subordinate, ignorant divinity. (Why else would the world be filled with such misery and hardship?) Yet other Christians thought it was worse than that, that this world was a cosmic mistake created by a malevolent divinity as a place of imprisonment, to trap humans and subject them to pain and suffering.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that the Jewish Scripture (the Christian “Old Testament”) was inspired by the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by the God of the Jews, who was not the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by an evil deity. Others believed it was not inspired.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. There were other Christians who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. (For them, divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: God can no more be a man than a man can be a rock.) There were others who insisted that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son but not himself divine. There were yet other Christians who claimed that Jesus Christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ, who had temporarily inhabited Jesus’ body during his ministry and left him prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus’ death brought about the salvation of the world. There were other Christians who thought that Jesus’ death had nothing to do with the salvation of the world. There were yet other Christians who said that Jesus never died. How could some of these views even be considered Christian? Or to put the question differently, how could people who considered themselves Christian hold such views? Why did they not consult their Scriptures to see that there were not 365 gods, or that the true God had created the world, or that Jesus had died? Why didn’t they just read the New Testament?

C. 360 AD, xtians got the shit scared out of them by the Emperor Julian (the Apostate) who rejected xtianity in favor of paganism. Luckily for the jesus freaks...if not for the rest of the world...Julian didn't last long but it was enough to make the xtians realize how easily they could lose their grasp on power. After Julian xtians became persecutors and not just of pagans. They went after other xtian groups who they considered heretical with great vigor. They did not kill them all and they did not convert them all. Many were pushed towards marginal areas and one of the most marginal areas in the 4th century was Arabia which was outside of the realm of both the Romans and the Persians. And there they stayed...unmolested in the 5th century. Unmolested because the Western Roman Empire was up to its armpits in Goths and Huns and Vandals and Picts and whatever and the Eastern Roman Empire was going at it hammer and tong with the Persians.

Spencer's argument is that any of these bizarre (to OUR minds) xtian sects might have burst forth from Arabia into the vacuum created by the Byzantine-Persian slaughters with a doctrine of some form of jesusism. His evidence includes coins of successful leaders with crosses on them.

Perhaps "The Praised One" is simply a better choice for the region than "The Anointed One." I don't know.

But, and here is where you and I will always differ, the notion that "god" spoke to some guy in a cave holds no fascination for me without evidence that such a "god" exists....and you don't have that.

BTW, if you would like Lost Christianities, PM an email address and I'll send you the .pdf version. It is one of Ehrman's best works.

(February 5, 2015 at 7:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote: C. 360 AD, xtians got the shit scared out of them by the Emperor Julian (the Apostate) who rejected xtianity in favor of paganism. Luckily for the jesus freaks...if not for the rest of the world...Julian didn't last long but it was enough to make the xtians realize how easily they could lose their grasp on power. After Julian xtians became persecutors and not just of pagans. They went after other xtian groups who they considered heretical with great vigor. They did not kill them all and they did not convert them all. Many were pushed towards marginal areas and one of the most marginal areas in the 4th century was Arabia which was outside of the realm of both the Romans and the Persians. And there they stayed...unmolested in the 5th century. Unmolested because the Western Roman Empire was up to its armpits in Goths and Huns and Vandals and Picts and whatever and the Eastern Roman Empire was going at it hammer and tong with the Persians.

Spencer's argument is that any of these bizarre (to OUR minds) xtian sects might have burst forth from Arabia into the vacuum created by the Byzantine-Persian slaughters with a doctrine of some form of jesusism. His evidence includes coins of successful leaders with crosses on them.

Well, just the fact that the coins have the word "Muhammad" in them and has a "cross" is hardly any reason to think that he was a later invention, let alone anything conclusive, for that matter.

The coins might symbolize a lot of different things. We don't know what the coin makers really had in mind when they made those coins. Hence there is room for plenty of different interpretations. Maybe the coins were meant to represent the meeting of Christians and Muslims. Or it could be that the Christians converted to Islam and that's why they included a picture of themselves holding a cross. Or maybe it was a picture of Jesus holding a cross and testifying that Muhammad is the next Prophet that everyone should listen to. Or maybe it was a picture of Muhammad who is depicted as taking over the role of Jesus in the preaching of God's message. Or maybe there was a picture of a sword which only appeared as a cross ...

I've seen images of two of those coins and it's very hard to make out what exactly they might be portraying. It seems to me that Spencer is doing a similar thing as what some Christians have done, like when they see some patterns in a dog's ass or something and excitedly proclaim "Hey look, that's Jesus!!!" Likewise, Spencer finds a coin with one or two vague, non-specified images and characters and then he interprets them to be whatever he wants to see in them. By doing that he's just making a mockery out of himself.

Anyway, I've sent you a PM. Thanks for the recommendation.

(February 5, 2015 at 6:51 pm)pocaracas Wrote: This is in a different time-line (like the new star trek movies). Remember that paragraph started with a mighty IF.
This is another potential way things could have unraveled, for all I know...

What about the "if" that writing itself was uncommon in the 600s in Arabia and therefore Muhammad's claim of prophethood was passed down orally? Does that sound like a greater "mighty if" to you or not? And why?

Also, please explain what you mean by "a different time-line," because that's very vague and I don't get it.

(February 5, 2015 at 6:51 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Well, Once upon a time, there was a Teacher of Righteousness.... in time, somehow, his deeds became attributed to a Jesus.
It then becomes possible that once there was a leader of tribes, who in time, somehow, finds his deeds attributed to a Mohammad.
Nothing was recorded in due time and when something was finally recorded, it may have been with an agenda behind it.
And if this is the case, what can we say is true from that record?

But once upon a time there were already Muslims before Abd-Al-Malik who all partook in the spreading of Islam (see below), which makes it too late for adding such later attributions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_of_S...slims#List

(February 6, 2015 at 6:32 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(February 5, 2015 at 6:51 pm)pocaracas Wrote: This is in a different time-line (like the new star trek movies). Remember that paragraph started with a mighty IF.
This is another potential way things could have unraveled, for all I know...

What about the "if" that writing itself was uncommon in the 600s in Arabia and therefore Muhammad's claim of prophethood was passed down orally? Does that sound like a greater "mighty if" to you or not? And why?

That it passed down intact and unchanged is a "mighty if", yes.

(February 6, 2015 at 6:32 am)Rayaan Wrote: Also, please explain what you mean by "a different time-line," because that's very vague and I don't get it.

Oh, it just means it's a new different hypothesis of how events may have unfurled, given the lack of evidence one way or another.

(February 6, 2015 at 6:32 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(February 5, 2015 at 6:51 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Well, Once upon a time, there was a Teacher of Righteousness.... in time, somehow, his deeds became attributed to a Jesus.
It then becomes possible that once there was a leader of tribes, who in time, somehow, finds his deeds attributed to a Mohammad.
Nothing was recorded in due time and when something was finally recorded, it may have been with an agenda behind it.
And if this is the case, what can we say is true from that record?

But once upon a time there were already Muslims before Abd-Al-Malik who all partook in the spreading of Islam (see below), which makes it too late for adding such later attributions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_of_S...slims#List

And how do we come to know about those muslims?
Could the source that tells us this history be skewed? Could it be exaggerating? Could it be biased?
Could it be just boosting its numbers?
Could it have found the source of the rumor?

Too many potential human induced problems, for the super-natural account to be admitted.

Why can't a god just address everyone at once, so that no one has any doubts?... even if they doubt themselves, they'll have everyone else on the planet confirming to have had a similar experience... a similar prophethood.
Everyone should be a prophet.
Since only a few restricted dead individuals are claimed to be prophets, I see no need to believe in such claims.... or god is toying with us, and setting us at war on purpose.... then god is malevolent... then why worship such a being?
[/rant]

Just as I said in the bible thread, the first mistake a theist makes when trying to objectively assess their own holy book is to assume any of it is real. If you do that, you're innately biased and your analysis is worth nothing.

Every single event or character of importance needs to be independently and objectively verified. If it cannot, then the logical thing to assume is that it didn't happen.

And showing some of the book to be correct does not in any way give credence to anything else in the book. To say it's either all true or all false is ridiculous. And of course, to assume it was "divinely inspired" is also ridiculous. That's a claim that needs substantiating, and I imagine that would be impossible with conventional methods.

Also, trying to establish the truth of an account by appealing just to the supposed author's motivations is speculation and totally invalid.

(January 13, 2015 at 1:02 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Min... that's a lot of "absence of evidence"...

Theist: that's what makes it so legit!