It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.

[dyresand]

Islam is a stupid religion ill say it for all its worth its a much shittier clone of a already shit religion called christianity(won't even get uppercased).

[Rayaan]

Sounds reasonable, yes... up to the point where Sebeos, an Armenian bishop, writes, around the 660's, about Mahmet, the preacher. Remember that guy?
I still wonder why you presented him as an example of someone mentioning prophethood for Mahmet.
I can understand the name morphing due to different accents and writing on consonants, but the absence of prophethood in the text you quoted... it's strange....

I doubt that your reading comprehension is really that bad. But, if even if that's the case, I'll quote the entire thing and explain it to you.

At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Muḥammad], 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."

When you have lines like, "Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion," this would most reasonably resemble the role of a Prophet and not just a preacher. The passage seems to talk about a decisive moment when people were "abandoning their vain cults" and started to unite themselves by turning to the God of Abraham, which perfectly conforms with the Muslim tradition of the Prophet Muhammad, who is believed to be a merchant who was divinely inspired and urged everyone in to abandon their idolatry and paganistic belief systems and return back to the monotheistic faith of Abraham.

In the same quote we also find the line:
"So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication."

These are the exact things which Islam prohibits as mentioned in the Quran:
Prohibits carrion
Prohibits wine/intoxicants
Prohibits false speech
Prohibits fornication

Also, Sebeos mentioned that Mahmet was a merchant, and Muslim tradition has recorded that the Prophet Muhammad was a merchant too:

Wikipedia: "The Islamic prophet Muhammad was born and lived in Mecca for the first 52 years of his life (570–622). Orphaned early in life, he became known as a prominent merchant, and as an impartial and trustworthy arbiter of disputes. He married his first wife, the 40-year-old widow Khadijah bint Khuwaylid at age of 25. He would not take other wives during her lifetime."

and raises suspicions about the later claims made in the qur'an and hadiths.

Not really, because there is nothing in it which contradicts the later claims made in the Quran and hadiths, is there? Rather, if anything, it matches up with the later claims, as I just proved above. The preacher's name and the details that follow have more in correspondence with the Islamic description of Prophet Muhammad than anyone else. Thus, the preacher, merchant, and Prophet mentioned in the passage above is most likely to be a reference to the Prophet Muhammad, because the details in it are perfectly compatible with the Muslim view.

What we know and can attest to (Sebeos) is that the rumor of Mahmet's leadership seems to have reached the outskirts of the arab reach before the rumor of his prophethood, hinting at different origins for both these rumors.

Well, there's a 50 percent chance that either of those claims/rumors would be written down before the other one, so the mentioning of his leadership before his prophethood doesn't really mean anything significant.

Secondly, all the quotes in that link which hint at Muhammad's leadership do not in any way negate nor discredit the his role as a Prophet, either. Leadership and prophethood are not antithetical attributes. Why? Because the concept of "Prophet" - as Muslims understand it - already encompasses the idea of leadership when it comes to both religious as well as political affairs. The Quran and hadiths, in many places, mention the battles that took place and how Muhammad was conducting the plans and actions as a leader of the Muslim army. Therefore, even the quotes in that link which convey the existence of a military leader named Muhammad confer credence to our present understanding of the man's life. So the quotes there and the Muslim traditions about who Muhammad was are in full harmony.

Later evidence by itself is not suggestive of a later insertion, especially if the early and later claims are consistently the same. If Muhammad's prophethood was a later insertion, then most likely there would have been some discrepancies between the earliest claims (like the ones in that link) and the later claims about him (the hadiths), but yet there is none.

Here is something else ... the earliest reference of Muhammad from that link:

... and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., Ḥimṣ)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Muḥammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth [...] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] [...] and we saw everywhe[re...] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them. And on the t[wenty six]th of May went S[ac[ella]rius]... cattle [...] [...] from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them [...] and on the tenth [of August] the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus [...] many [people] some 10,000. And at the turn [of the ye]ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year n[ine hundred and forty-]seven there gathered in Gabitha [...] the Romans and great many people were ki[lled of] [the R]omans, [s]ome fifty thousand [...]

... which, once again, lends more credence to the later accounts of what happened, specifically regarding the battles in Emesa and Damascus.

And these are not just from Muslim sources only.

[Minimalist]

I wonder if you understand, Rayaan, that when there are words within brackets in a translation such as

by [the Arabs of] Muḥammad

that the words inside the bracket are not really there or are illegible? They are filled in by the translator.

Further, there is nothing in any of these which is inconsistent with what you insist is a name being a "title" since muhammad means "the praised one." I submit this is similar to the earliest Greco-Roman writers who heard of Christus (or Chrestus) but not anyone named "jesus," until the later second century. The reason is simple. Jesus was a later invention.

Richard Carrier in "On the Historicity of Jesus" gives a compelling explanation of how such an euhemerized myth can serve a group trying to establish a new religion. He, of course, is talking about ole jesus but the same dynamic holds true for your boy.

[pocaracas]

Actually, a guy claimed that god talked to some other guy, through an angel....

I'll post a reply to your other post shortly.

But I was wondering, if a guy claimed something so extraordinary about another guy, for the first time, then he must be prepared to give an answer when the people around him ask him to explain how he knows that.

There are two possible replies he could give to that, which is that:
1. He heard it from someone else - which would mean that a guy claimed that a guy claimed that God talked to some other guy ... or ...
2. He heard it through a divine inspiration - which would mean that the guy himself claimed to be a Prophet.

Which is more likely to be his answer, and why?

3. The guy speaks from a position of authority or trustworthiness and is hence not questioned one bit.

About a year ago, a colleague of mine said he was eating a kernel of a peach or apricot a day, because his friend, whom my colleague trusts to do his own research and so is not questionable, had told him that peach kernels help with cancer.
You can look it up... it's a rumor that has spread far and wide... and my colleague is just one more pawn who was acting on good will when he relayed that information to me and others.
Enjoy the info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin

Since the early 1950s, both amygdalin and a modified form named laetrile or Vitamin B17 have been promoted as cancer cures. However, neither of these compounds nor any other derivatives are vitamins in any sense,[4] and studies have found them to be clinically ineffective in the treatment of cancer, as well as dangerously toxic. They are potentially lethal when taken by mouth, because certain enzymes (in particular, glucosidases that occur in the gut and in various kinds of seeds, edible or inedible) act on them to produce cyanide.

Again, you ignore "human nature" as the main way things get passed on.
There are some people you just don't question...

---

Sounds reasonable, yes... up to the point where Sebeos, an Armenian bishop, writes, around the 660's, about Mahmet, the preacher. Remember that guy?
I still wonder why you presented him as an example of someone mentioning prophethood for Mahmet.
I can understand the name morphing due to different accents and writing on consonants, but the absence of prophethood in the text you quoted... it's strange....

I doubt that your reading comprehension is really that bad. But, if even if that's the case, I'll quote the entire thing and explain it to you.

---

At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Muḥammad], 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."

---

When you have lines like, "Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion," this would most reasonably resemble the role of a Prophet and not just a preacher. The passage seems to talk about a decisive moment when people were "abandoning their vain cults" and started to unite themselves by turning to the God of Abraham, which perfectly conforms with the Muslim tradition of the Prophet Muhammad, who is believed to be a merchant who was divinely inspired and urged everyone in to abandon their idolatry and paganistic belief systems and return back to the monotheistic faith of Abraham.

(I hid Sebeos in there)
You read what you want to read. I read what I want to read.
Stretching it a bit, I can see it as you do... but I'm not fond of stretching and this is stretching it too far beyond what's written.

How many other people are you aware of that have spoken on behalf of a god? (and people have believed in them!)
hint: pope. hint2: pharaoh

Still leading us back to your Mo being a preacher, not unlike those two in the hints.

In the same quote we also find the line:
"So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication."

These are the exact things which Islam prohibits as mentioned in the Quran:
Prohibits carrion
Prohibits wine/intoxicants
Prohibits false speech
Prohibits fornication

So... what?
The rules he made his people follow ended up being a few of the ones that muslims follow.
Why am I not surprised?

Also, Sebeos mentioned that Mahmet was a merchant, and Muslim tradition has recorded that the Prophet Muhammad was a merchant too:

Still not a prophet...

and raises suspicions about the later claims made in the qur'an and hadiths.

Not really, because there is nothing in it which contradicts the later claims made in the Quran and hadiths, is there? Rather, if anything, it matches up with the later claims, as I just proved above. The preacher's name and the details that follow have more in correspondence with the Islamic description of Prophet Muhammad than anyone else. Thus, the preacher, merchant, and Prophet mentioned in the passage above is most likely to be a reference to the Prophet Muhammad, because the details in it are perfectly compatible with the Muslim view.

Except for the prophet part, you're right.

What we know and can attest to (Sebeos) is that the rumor of Mahmet's leadership seems to have reached the outskirts of the arab reach before the rumor of his prophethood, hinting at different origins for both these rumors.

Well, there's a 50 percent chance that either of those claims/rumors would be written down before the other one, so the mentioning of his leadership before his prophethood doesn't really mean anything significant.

But it IS significant. Not conclusive, I'll grant you.

Secondly, all the quotes in that link which hint at Muhammad's leadership do not in any way negate nor discredit the his role as a Prophet, either. Leadership and prophethood are not antithetical attributes. Why? Because the concept of "Prophet" - as Muslims understand it - already encompasses the idea of leadership when it comes to both religious as well as political affairs. The Quran and hadiths, in many places, mention the battles that took place and how Muhammad was conducting the plans and actions as a leader of the Muslim army. Therefore, even the quotes in that link which convey the existence of a military leader named Muhammad confer credence to our present understanding of the man's life. So the quotes there and the Muslim traditions about who Muhammad was are in full harmony.

Yep, full harmony, except for the prophet part.
A prophet may be a leader.... but a leader need not be a prophet.
The description we have is of a leader.

Later evidence by itself is not suggestive of a later insertion, especially if the early and later claims are consistently the same. If Muhammad's prophethood was a later insertion, then most likely there would have been some discrepancies between the earliest claims (like the ones in that link) and the later claims about him (the hadiths), but yet there is none.

Sebeos makes a somewhat broad description of Mahmet's accomplishments... Many things can fit in there. That's why you find many things (all) in the qur'an and hadiths matching what Sebeos wrote... it's not hard.

Here is something else ... the earliest reference of Muhammad from that link:

... and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., Ḥimṣ)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Muḥammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth [...] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] [...] and we saw everywhe[re...] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them. And on the t[wenty six]th of May went S[ac[ella]rius]... cattle [...] [...] from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them [...] and on the tenth [of August] the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus [...] many [people] some 10,000. And at the turn [of the ye]ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year n[ine hundred and forty-]seven there gathered in Gabitha [...] the Romans and great many people were ki[lled of] [the R]omans, [s]ome fifty thousand [...]

... which, once again, lends more credence to the later accounts of what happened, specifically regarding the battles in Emesa and Damascus.

And these are not just from Muslim sources only.

Still not a prophet...

[Rayaan]

3. The guy speaks from a position of authority or trustworthiness and is hence not questioned one bit..

Then now the question is ... why do you think that this guy who is in a position of such authority/trustworthiness - and is not questioned one bit - ever want to ascribe prophethood to someone else who is dead?

I mean, if the guy is trustworthy enough or powerful enough, and no one even questions him, then he could have just as easily claimed himself to be a Prophet and still nobody would object to it because ... well, as you just said ... he is not questioned one bit. That would have been more preferable to him than claiming someone else to be a prophet. So what could have possibly prevented him doing that? Did he think that people might not trust him if he claimed to be a prophet?

People wouldn't have questioned the guy one bit if he told them to believe in something. So, why would he have to invent another prophet if he already has enough power and authority to make people submit to his own commands?

Maybe your rumor hypothesis finally ended up refuting itself ...

Stretching it a bit, I can see it as you do... but I'm not fond of stretching and this is stretching it too far beyond what's written..

I don't think that's stretching, but rather it's an act of connecting the dots.

The problem that I see with your reading, is that you're looking at each sentence one-by-one and then each time you say "Nope, still not a prophet," "Nope, still not a prophet," "Nope, still not a prophet," "Nope, still not a prophet." But what you fail to understand that is that if you take all the sentences in that quote and intelligently merge all of that to form a whole picture, it would most reasonably convey to you the image of a Prophet (and a leader as well) even though there is no one sentence in there which explicitly mentions him as a Prophet. But perhaps that's because you're just more of a compartmentalized thinker than I am.

I'm happy with whatever that I've explained and I don't need to elaborate on that quote any further. It's fine if you disagree with me. Afterall, it won't really make a difference to me, and the same goes for you, too, I believe.

How many other people are you aware of that have spoken on behalf of a god? (and people have believed in them!)
hint: pope. hint2: pharaoh

Still leading us back to your Mo being a preacher, not unlike those two in the hints..

It's simple: If the two people in those hints never made the claim that they receive new inspirations/revelations from a god, then they would be considered as preachers only. If they did make such a claim, then by definition (and not necessarily true in reality) they would fit under the description of a prophet.

What's your take on that? What exactly, to you, is the key difference between a preacher and a prophet?

that the words inside the bracket are not really there or are illegible? They are filled in by the translator.

I thought so, too.

Further, there is nothing in any of these which is inconsistent with what you insist is a name being a "title" since muhammad means "the praised one." I submit this is similar to the earliest Greco-Roman writers who heard of Christus (or Chrestus) but not anyone named "jesus," until the later second century. The reason is simple. Jesus was a later invention.

I don't honestly see how that implies a later invention, though.

Of course "Muhammad" has a meaning ("the praised one"), but it is also a proper name just like you might have a name with a meaning behind it. But, what makes you think that the meaning of his name has anything to do with his actual existence? You continued to the next sentence by mentioning something about a guy named Christus/Chrestus, but that doesn't necessarily have to be true regarding Muhammad's existence. Just like poca, it seems that you're just trying to shove Islam and Muhammad under the same understanding you have of Christianity simply because you guys like to put every detail about a religion into your unenlightened "It's all the same bullshit!" folder.

Oh, and writing "Muhammad" with a small case letter doesn't negate it as being a proper name either, as you did in your post. That was a nice trick though.

[robvalue]

No one is a prophet. If someone says they are a prophet, they are lying or crazy. It makes no difference how many people believe them. (I make this statement along the lines of "beyond reasonable doubt").

The fact that something supposedly happened a long time ago makes it less likely to be true, not more. I don't know why any accounts from that era are considered magically true.

[Hoopington]

3. The guy speaks from a position of authority or trustworthiness and is hence not questioned one bit..

Then now the question is ... why do you think that this guy who is in a position of such authority/trustworthiness - and is not questioned one bit - ever want to ascribe prophethood to someone else who is dead?

I mean, if the guy is trustworthy enough or powerful enough, and no one even questions him, then he could have just as easily claimed himself to be a Prophet and still nobody would object to it because ... well, as you just said ... he is not questioned one bit. That would have been more preferable to him than claiming someone else to be a prophet. So what could have possibly prevented him doing that? Did he think that people might not trust him if he claimed to be a prophet?

People wouldn't have questioned the guy one bit if he told them to believe in something. So, why would he have to invent another prophet if he already has enough power and authority to make people submit to his own commands?

Maybe your rumor hypothesis finally ended up refuting itself ...

Stretching it a bit, I can see it as you do... but I'm not fond of stretching and this is stretching it too far beyond what's written..

I don't think that's stretching, but rather it's an act of connecting the dots.

The problem that I see with your reading, is that you're looking at each sentence one-by-one and then each time you say "Nope, still not a prophet," "Nope, still not a prophet," "Nope, still not a prophet," "Nope, still not a prophet." But what you fail to understand that is that if you take all the sentences in that quote and intelligently merge all of that to form a whole picture, it would most reasonably convey to you the image of a Prophet (and a leader as well) even though there is no one sentence in there which explicitly mentions him as a Prophet. But perhaps that's because you're just more of a compartmentalized thinker than I am.

I'm happy with whatever that I've explained and I don't need to elaborate on that quote any further. It's fine if you disagree with me. Afterall, it won't really make a difference to me, and the same goes for you, too, I believe.

How many other people are you aware of that have spoken on behalf of a god? (and people have believed in them!)
hint: pope. hint2: pharaoh

Still leading us back to your Mo being a preacher, not unlike those two in the hints..

It's simple: If the two people in those hints never made the claim that they receive new inspirations/revelations from a god, then they would be considered as preachers only. If they did make such a claim, then by definition (and not necessarily true in reality) they would fit under the description of a prophet.

What's your take on that? What exactly, to you, is the key difference between a preacher and a prophet?

that the words inside the bracket are not really there or are illegible? They are filled in by the translator.

I thought so, too.

Further, there is nothing in any of these which is inconsistent with what you insist is a name being a "title" since muhammad means "the praised one." I submit this is similar to the earliest Greco-Roman writers who heard of Christus (or Chrestus) but not anyone named "jesus," until the later second century. The reason is simple. Jesus was a later invention.

I don't honestly see how that implies a later invention, though.

Of course "Muhammad" has a meaning ("the praised one"), but it is also a proper name just like you might have a name with a meaning behind it. But, what makes you think that the meaning of his name has anything to do with his actual existence? You continued to the next sentence by mentioning something about a guy named Christus/Chrestus, but that doesn't necessarily have to be true regarding Muhammad's existence. Just like poca, it seems that you're just trying to shove Islam and Muhammad under the same understanding you have of Christianity simply because you guys like to put every detail about a religion into your unenlightened "It's all the same bullshit!" folder.

Oh, and writing "Muhammad" with a small case letter doesn't negate it as being a proper name either, as you did in your post. That was a nice trick though.

Sorry, but all I've read so far is that you believe in the teachings of a man who lived around 1,500 years ago, in a dusty desert, who enjoyed beheading those who didn't submit and who enjoyed sexual relations with children.

You believe he is a prophet purely because somebody else told you, and because somebody wrote it in a book.

The rest is you desperately trying to justify your belief in him being a prophet, based on the fact that somebody told you he was and that it's written in a book.

A book that was cobbled together long after he died.

Why would anyone doubt it??

[pocaracas]

3. The guy speaks from a position of authority or trustworthiness and is hence not questioned one bit..

Then now the question is ... why do you think that this guy who is in a position of such authority/trustworthiness - and is not questioned one bit - ever want to ascribe prophethood to someone else who is dead?

If it was just one person, then, maybe because he knew he'd be questioned if he claimed prophethood for himself... people only do Suspension of disbelief for a few things.
If one guy makes an extraordinary claim about himself, then that gets called... if he makes it about someone else, it gets harder to call it.

If, on the other hand, we're dealing with a rumor, and who knows how those start, then it is far far easier for an individual to take it from rumor to fact, if that person is in a position of some power.

Stretching it a bit, I can see it as you do... but I'm not fond of stretching and this is stretching it too far beyond what's written..

I don't think that's stretching, but rather it's an act of connecting the dots.

The problem that I see with your reading, is that you're looking at each sentence one-by-one and then each time you say "Nope, still not a prophet," "Nope, still not a prophet," "Nope, still not a prophet," "Nope, still not a prophet." But what you fail to understand that is that if you take all the sentences in that quote and intelligently merge all of that to form a whole picture, it would most reasonably convey to you the image of a Prophet (and a leader as well) even though there is no one sentence in there which explicitly mentions him as a Prophet. But perhaps that's because you're just more of a compartmentalized thinker than I am.

I'm happy with whatever that I've explained and I don't need to elaborate on that quote any further. It's fine if you disagree with me. Afterall, it won't really make a difference to me, and the same goes for you, too, I believe.

You see a "command from on high" as signifying that it came from a god. That is not necessarily so. There are many other candidates that can fit the bill.
Your view is biased toward a god. Mine isn't. I also keep in mind that Sebeos was a bishop, so a believer in some god... also biased in some form.

How many other people are you aware of that have spoken on behalf of a god? (and people have believed in them!)
hint: pope. hint2: pharaoh

Still leading us back to your Mo being a preacher, not unlike those two in the hints..

It's simple: If the two people in those hints never made the claim that they receive new inspirations/revelations from a god, then they would be considered as preachers only. If they did make such a claim, then by definition (and not necessarily true in reality) they would fit under the description of a prophet.

What's your take on that? What exactly, to you, is the key difference between a preacher and a prophet?

Are you saying that a prophet need only claim to receive guidance from a god?
Is the reality of such claim not required?

Many preachers claim to receive inspiration from god or jesus or whatever, still to this day... why don't we take them seriously? Or as seriously as Mehmet?

[Rayaan]

Oooh, you look nicer with green. Congrats!

If it was just one person, then, maybe because he knew he'd be questioned if he claimed prophethood for himself... people only do Suspension of disbelief for a few things.

But just previously you said that he is not questioned one bit: "The guy speaks from a position of authority or trustworthiness and is hence not questioned one bit."

I love how you contradicted yourself.

If one guy makes an extraordinary claim about himself, then that gets called... if he makes it about someone else, it gets harder to call it.

Actually both claims are equally easy to call, but just in a different context:

- An extraordinary claim about himself would make it easier for people to question the validity of his (claimed) prophethood
- An extraordinary claim about someone else makes it easier to question the source of his (claimed) knowledge

You see a "command from on high" as signifying that it came from a god. That is not necessarily so.

But most likely it is signifying that it came from God because, as you yourself wrote in the very next line, Sebeos was "a believer in some god" and thus also "biased in some form."

Plus, my understanding of the entire passage agrees with the scholarly interpretations:

---

"Indeed, as John Moorhead has pointed out, one of the earliest Christian theological responses to Islam was actually a response that seemed to have credited Muhammad with the status of an actual prophet of God. The Armenian bishop Sebeos in roughly 661 argued that the religion of Islam was led by Muhammad, who 'taught the Arabs to know God' and led them back to the religion of their ancestors, the Ishmaelities. As such Muhammad served as a prophet of the God of Abraham, and thus a prophet of the Christian God as well (Moorhead 1981: 266). To be sure, as Moorhead recounts, this view of Muhammad as a veridical prophet was 'a particularly positive view of Islam' (266), one which soon fell out of favor as 'other Oriental authors took a hostile view of Islam' (268)--a view that would come to predominate in the decades and centuries to follow." - Joseph Prud'homme, writing in a review of Common Ground: Islam, Christianity, and Religious Pluralism (2009) by Paul Heck

"According to Sebeos, Muhammad was an Ishmaelite, educated in the Law of Moses, who claimed to be a prophet and instructed his fellow countrymen to return to the religion of Abraham." - Long, William Thomas (1993) A critical analysis of Christian responses to Islamic claims about the work of the Prophet Muhammad, ‘the Messenger of God'

---

Yours doesn't.

There are many other candidates that can fit the bill.

What are those other candidates?

Your view is biased toward a god. Mine isn't. I also keep in mind that Sebeos was a bishop, so a believer in some god... also biased in some form.

So if he was biased towards God then most likely the "command from on high" is referring to a divine command.

Are you saying that a prophet need only claim to receive guidance from a god?
Is the reality of such claim not required?

As I said before, they would be prophets only definition-wise (for claiming to be so), but it's a different thing whether or not you believe in the reality of it.

[pocaracas]

Oooh, you look nicer with green. Congrats!

Thanks!
With all the modding I almost forgot about this thread...

If it was just one person, then, maybe because he knew he'd be questioned if he claimed prophethood for himself... people only do Suspension of disbelief for a few things.

But just previously you said that he is not questioned one bit: "The guy speaks from a position of authority or trustworthiness and is hence not questioned one bit."

I love how you contradicted yourself.

I'm still not claiming that Mo is a prophet, so I'm still on the same side!

I keep presenting possible scenarios (maybe even contradicting ones), but none requiring any god talking to a man in a cave.
I admit I don't think it all through at once and, sometimes, I need to backtrack a bit, or add some more flourishes to what may have happened in that time that didn't get recorded.

If one guy makes an extraordinary claim about himself, then that gets called... if he makes it about someone else, it gets harder to call it.

Actually both claims are equally easy to call, but just in a different context:

- An extraordinary claim about himself would make it easier for people to question the validity of his (claimed) prophethood
- An extraordinary claim about someone else makes it easier to question the source of his (claimed) knowledge

And if the source is, as I find often, someone already trustworthy by all or most? And if it was... dead? Like Mo himself was dead and some of his family took over the business.... and you then get some hadiths or parts of the qur'an where the reports of the claims of such relatives of Mo got recorded.
Would they question that source?
Kinda difficult, huh?

You see a "command from on high" as signifying that it came from a god. That is not necessarily so.

But most likely it is signifying that it came from God because, as you yourself wrote in the very next line, Sebeos was "a believer in some god" and thus also "biased in some form."

Plus, my understanding of the entire passage agrees with the scholarly interpretations:

---

"Indeed, as John Moorhead has pointed out, one of the earliest Christian theological responses to Islam was actually a response that seemed to have credited Muhammad with the status of an actual prophet of God. The Armenian bishop Sebeos in roughly 661 argued that the religion of Islam was led by Muhammad, who 'taught the Arabs to know God' and led them back to the religion of their ancestors, the Ishmaelities. As such Muhammad served as a prophet of the God of Abraham, and thus a prophet of the Christian God as well (Moorhead 1981: 266). To be sure, as Moorhead recounts, this view of Muhammad as a veridical prophet was 'a particularly positive view of Islam' (266), one which soon fell out of favor as 'other Oriental authors took a hostile view of Islam' (268)--a view that would come to predominate in the decades and centuries to follow." - Joseph Prud'homme, writing in a review of Common Ground: Islam, Christianity, and Religious Pluralism (2009) by Paul Heck

"According to Sebeos, Muhammad was an Ishmaelite, educated in the Law of Moses, who claimed to be a prophet and instructed his fellow countrymen to return to the religion of Abraham." - Long, William Thomas (1993) A critical analysis of Christian responses to Islamic claims about the work of the Prophet Muhammad, ‘the Messenger of God'

---

Yours doesn't.

It also sounds like they're reading far too much into what is written.
But it is possible that Sebeos was already recounting, 30 years after Mehmet's death, the rumor. It is possible it started shortly before he heard about it.
Then again, it is possible that Sebeos was only attributing legitimacy to Mehmet's claim as leader of the people. Much as european kings would require the pope's acknowledgement in order to be true kings.

There are many other candidates that can fit the bill.

What are those other candidates?

Damn, I had to go back and see what that was all about!

"Command from on high" could be from Moses, from Jesus, from the previous leader of the tribe... who knows what he meant?!

Your view is biased toward a god. Mine isn't. I also keep in mind that Sebeos was a bishop, so a believer in some god... also biased in some form.

So if he was biased towards God then most likely the "command from on high" is referring to a divine command.

Yes, it is possible.

It's also interesting to note the distance from the heart of the arabian peninsula to Armenia... remember the broken telephone game?

Are you saying that a prophet need only claim to receive guidance from a god?
Is the reality of such claim not required?

As I said before, they would be prophets only definition-wise (for claiming to be so), but it's a different thing whether or not you believe in the reality of it.

Very well.... do you think it likely that Mehmet was an actual prophet (even if only claiming to be so) instead of just a preacher of the law of Moses (as is well patent in Sebeos' account)?