RE: The Doctrina Jacobi
May 10, 2015 at 8:59 pm
(This post was last modified: May 10, 2015 at 10:01 pm by Rayaan.)
(April 22, 2015 at 2:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I’ve been toying with the idea for this thread since an offhand remark from Rayaan during one exchange in which he made an oblique reference to The Doctrina Jacobi (henceforth DJ) in a discussion on Mohammed. Now, no muslim in his right mind would try to use the DJ as support for a historical Mohammed for reasons which will become apparent shortly and certainly Rayaan didn’t. But it did get me thinking and that is always dangerous. Here is the relevant passage from the DJ:
That can't be true because, prior to reading this thread, I didn't even know what "The Doctrina Jacobi" is. I just googled that and only now I know what it is.
So, if anything, this was either a mistake on your part or it's a lie. You might have just inadvertently thought that I mentioned The Doctrina Jacobi somewhere, although I didn't, and I couldn't have. Or maybe it was someone else who said that. I even did a search on this forum and I didn't find it being mentioned anywhere in my posts, as I expected. What I did do was quote was a passage that was attributed to Seboes, which you already posted a response to. But that has nothing to do with The Doctrina Jacobi. Clearly, those are two different things.
I would have instead preferred you toying with my actual comments: http://atheistforums.org/thread-30930-po...#pid846039
or these comments: http://atheistforums.org/thread-30887-po...#pid866432
Also, much to my delight, I think CapnAwesome schooled you pretty well on how historical figures are established by historians (and on why Robert Spencer's method is rejected):
(March 23, 2015 at 8:25 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I listened to a number of his debates and read a good deal on his site. He ignores so much evidence that counters his points. Loads of it. Then presents some of the shittiest evidence that no historian would accept as true. (Coins with crosses and the misuse of the name Muhammad) and then makes wild speculation about it that he presents as fact. His argument is garbage. People just don't understand how we establish historical figures. Again, I'm to reiterate my point about Ghenghis Khan having no primary sources about him. Ghenghis Khan has less written about him, and much later too than Muhammad does. If someone wrote that Ghenghis Khan didn't exist no historian would take them seriously. Ancient peoples didn't keep records like we did and applying the standard that we have for modern figures to ancient ones just doesn't make sense historically. I'd be shocked if any credible historian took him seriously.
