JC wasn't crucified, says 1500-year-old bible

[Minimalist]

Thanks, that's a very good review of Spencer's work. He also goes into the idea that "muhammad" was just a title rather than the name of a person.

[Confused Ape]

Thanks, that's a very good review of Spencer's work. He also goes into the idea that "muhammad" was just a title rather than the name of a person.

If Muhammad was meant to be a title the references would mean the Arabs of the Chosen One for the war leader while the merchant would be the Chosen One because he was supposed to have had a divine revelation.

What Sebeos said was -

At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: 'With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Ismael. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.[43]

If this account isn't a forgery it means there really was a merchant who became a preacher. He wasn't teaching Islam, though, and his personal name wasn't Muhammad.

[Minimalist]

Seems like it is good to be cautious about that one.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...2/abstract

Sebeos of Armenia (ca. 600–post 661 ce) is usually credited as the author of an Armenian text that offers a wide-ranging overview of Near Eastern history between 572 and 661. In fact the longstanding identification is unproven.

And,

http://www.ourbeacon.com/cgi-bin/bbs60x/...3119171318

For example, Sebeos's writings and the history attributed to him is a source for much scholarly debate. His work was first published in 1851 in Constantinople under the title 'History of bishop Sebeos on Heraclius'. The text was first published by T'adeos Mihrdatean and both manuscripts he used had neither a title nor name of the author.

"This manuscript, Mat 2639 [henceforth A] was one of the two MSS used by Mihrdatean for his 1851 edition. The other was an older MS, dated to 1568, which has now disappeared. A remains the earliest surviving witness of the History attributed to Sebeos, and from it all other known copies derive"

[Confused Ape]

Seems like it is good to be cautious about that one.

"This manuscript, Mat 2639 [henceforth A] was one of the two MSS used by Mihrdatean for his 1851 edition. The other was an older MS, dated to 1568, which has now disappeared. A remains the earliest surviving witness of the History attributed to Sebeos, and from it all other known copies derive"

It's astonishing how many of these old manuscripts about the history of Christianity and Islam conveniently disappeared. :p

I think the best that can be said is that somebody inspired the Arabs to go forth and conquer. We'll never know if Muhammad was his personal name or a title meaning, The Chosen One. It's also impossible to know what he said to inspire them other than it was little to do with Islam as it ended up.

[Minimalist]

Perhaps the time was simply right? The Byzantines and Persians had spent most of the 6th and the early part of the 7th century merrily slaughtering one another. The result?

The devastating impact of this last war, added to the cumulative effects of a century of almost continuous conflict, left both empires crippled. When Kavadh II died only months after coming to the throne, Persia was plunged into several years of dynastic turmoil and civil war. The Sassanids were further weakened by economic decline, heavy taxation from Khosrau II's campaigns, religious unrest, rigid social stratification, and the increasing power of the provincial landholders. The Roman Empire was even more severely affected, with its financial reserves exhausted by the war, the Balkans now largely in the hands of the Slavs, Anatolia devastated by repeated Persian invasions, and the empire's hold on Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt loosened by many years of Persian occupation. Neither empire was given any chance to recover, as within a few years they were struck by the onslaught of the Arabs, newly united by Islam.

The issue is were they "united" by Islam then or somewhat later when a ruler decided to emulate Constantine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E...sanid_Wars

[Confused Ape]

Perhaps the time was simply right? The Byzantines and Persians had spent most of the 6th and the early part of the 7th century merrily slaughtering one another. The result?

Neither empire was given any chance to recover, as within a few years they were struck by the onslaught of the Arabs, newly united by Islam.

Even if the time was right they still needed a leader. Maybe all that was required to unite the Arabs at this time was the promise of land and riches now that the two empires were severely weakened. The leader could have been a man who was called Muhammad or he could have been called something else.

The issue is were they "united" by Islam then or somewhat later when a ruler decided to emulate Constantine?

It seems that the Arab tribes were pagans who worshipped various deities. This doesn't mean there couldn't have been a sect which had adopted some version of the Abrahamic religion, though. One God and one set of rules would make sense for anyone doing a Constantne. As time went on, whatever the original sect was about gradually turned into Islam.

A prophet would be a very useful invention for the purpose of establishing this religion and a prophet who was also a war leader would be even more useful. The real war leader got lost to history because he was merged with a fictional character. If the real war leader had been called Muhammad it would be an ideal name for the prophet because it means The Chosen One. If he'd been called something else, the fictitious prophet was given the name Muhammad because of what it means.

[Bob3141592]

One man's Holy Scripture is another man's heresy. I don;t give this text any more credibility than I give any other one.

[Minimalist]

Even if the time was right they still needed a leader. Maybe all that was required to unite the Arabs at this time was the promise of land and riches now that the two empires were severely weakened. The leader could have been a man who was called Muhammad or he could have been called something else.

You've just triggered a very interesting question in my mind, Ape. Back after I do some research.

[Minimalist]

I can find no reference to any ancient document/inscription using the name mohammed prior to the establishment of islamic traditions. Arabic, as a written language did not exist until the 6th century AD but there are inscriptions in Nabatean and writings in Greek...of course. The name "as a name" is unknown. Which brings up the possibility that it was a title which was later institutionalized as a proper name: like Caesar, like Khan, or even David.

Of even more interest is this archaeological finding which dismisses even more islamic fiction.

http://isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/qu...ology.html

Muslims are adamant in asserting that the Quran is the final true word of God. However the historical reliability of Islam has been challenged by contemporary scholarship. Manuscript, documentary and archaeological evidence all fail to confirm many of the claims of Islam. Let's explore the mounting case against Islam from external documentary sources and modern archaeology.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Yeah, the Qur'an also says that.