(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
