You mind just linking the picture... Its so huge that it is annoying... just a suggestion
Yeah, I realize that now, I probably will change it.
But then again, it's hard to deny something when it's staring you right in the face.
You mind just linking the picture... Its so huge that it is annoying... just a suggestion
But then again, it's hard to deny something when it's staring you right in the face.
Firstly, the authors do not claim that Mohammad IS Jesus only that the word Mohammad is first used as a Title for Jesus. Like it or leave it, the coins do exist and the word Mohammad IS being used as a Title on them.Not surprising at all. I also don't have the desire to address your commentary on my joke either. You're the one asserting that because 'mhmd' was on a coin and that a cross appears on the reverse that, that means Muhammad was a title for Christ and thus Muhammad = Jesus Christ. Putting aside the fact that this notion is ridiculous, I would say it's no different than saying because "In God We Trust," is on a coin and so is the picture of Abraham Lincoln that Lincoln = God. Did it ever occur to you that, this hypothesis could be wrong? Why arguing like this is established fact? "It would appear," my ass.
So you figured it out too? :roflmao:
Peace be unto you![]()
Firstly, the authors do not claim that Mohammad IS esus only that the word Mohammad is first used as a Title for Jesus. Like it or leave it, the coins do exist and the word Mohammad IS being used as a Title on them.
Secondly, there's nothing wrong with the hypothesis that Lincoln is a picture of God on the penny. If a person from 1500 years in the future found a penny, and knew nothing at all about the USA (didn't know what a President was for example) and only saw the coin, they may hypothesize that the picture of Lincoln is a picture of God. What's so unreasonable with that?
Thirdly, we have Islam today. We know it's based on Christianity and that Christianity was the dominant religion in the area.
We also know there were all sorts of Christian sects. Some Christians didn't believe in a real Jesus, some thought he was a vessel for Sophia and the Christ, others thought he was the Messiah and still others thought he was Satan. It's very reasonable to hypothesize that Islam evolved from this mix-up of Christian sects.
The "Muslim" conquests may have occurred as legend suggest - or not - or something in between.
Archeological evidence suggests that many of the battles were actually between the Persians and the Byzantine Empires and later ruling Arabs had the Persian names rewritten as if they were actually Arabs. The research is still very new. Given there were Arabs living all over the Mediterranean as well as in Europe and in England and an Arab was even the Emperor of Rome - it's likely that they settled and expanded (perhaps with some fighting but perhaps less than is assumed).
argumentum ad hominem is a last ditch logical fallacy employed in an effort to attain another logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum (itself a fallacious argument).hahaha, i figured it out long time ago, he's head is like a rock, he's arguments and discussing, have no bases, it's like some one who's drunk and talking about whatever, heheheheh ^^"
argumentum ad hominem is a last ditch logical fallacy employed in an effort to attain another logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum (itself a fallacious argument).
argumentum ad hominem is a last ditch logical fallacy employed in an effort to attain another logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum (itself a fallacious argument).
I'm sure if we were discussing The Intergalactic Warlord Xenu and the Religion Scientology you'd be able to easily grasp both the context as well as follow the logic in the argument. As we're discussing your belief system (for which there is an equal amount of good evidence with Scientology it is valid - that is none) suddenly you are no longer able to follow the context nor the argument. In short, I could make the same arguments about Xenu or Thor or Athena and you'd see the logic. As soon as these same arguments made with Allah as the frame of reference you are not longer able to think logically. I find this phenomena very very interesting. I'm leaning it has a strong genetic component which I am sure we'll understand better during this decade.
Can an All Powerful and All Knowing God learn ? Can you?
At the end of day, coins from the period exist while a Qur'an doesn't. No amount of whining on a Science forum is going to change those two FACTS. The only way that is going to change is if someone were to make a new discovery. Which actually is happening every day. And perhaps unsurprisingly, each year, more evidence builds up that suggests ....(Oh My, Oh My).... much like Hercules, Moses, Zeus, and Jesus... Mohammad didn't actually exist. Which actually makes logical sense. Really, are these finding all THAT shocking. Regardless as to which myth you analyze, it's always the same, a myth.
At the end of day, coins from the period exist while a Qur'an doesn't. No amount of whining on a Science forum is going to change those two FACTS. The only way that is going to change is if someone were to make a new discovery. Which actually is happening every day. And perhaps unsurprisingly, each year, more evidence builds up that suggests ....(Oh My, Oh My).... much like Hercules, Moses, Zeus, and Jesus... Mohammad didn't actually exist. Which actually makes logical sense. Really, are these finding all THAT shocking. Regardless as to which myth you analyze, it's always the same, a myth.
You can sit here and pontificate endlessly with your jabber but, at the end of the day it doesn't mean jack shit unless you can prove it, so, answer my post.
beleive me, he can't, he's always talking no sense.
Ja'far,You can sit here and pontificate endlessly with your jabber but, at the end of the day it doesn't mean jack shit unless you can prove it, so, answer my post.
Did you miss the fact an Arab was the Roman Emperor? Arabs lived all over the Mediterranean. Many were Christian.Again, wrong. In Islam, the time before Muhammad (saw) and Islam is known as jahiliyyah ("the time of ignorance"). Pre-Islamic Arabia was predominately Pagan. Christians and Jews did exist within the area however again it was predominately Pagan.
There is ZERO contemporary evidence Mohammad existed and you're talking about if he could read or write :bugeye: You're basing your so-called evidence on a History written post-hoc in the 9th century by people with a political agenda.”We also know there were all sorts of Christian sects. Some Christians didn't believe in a real Jesus, some thought he was a vessel for Sophia and the Christ, others thought he was the Messiah and still others thought he was Satan. It's very reasonable to hypothesize that Islam evolved from this mix-up of Christian sects.
Not really, if you understood the origins of Islam you would have realized that the place in which the Prophet (saw) and the early ummah lived was predominately Pagan and worshiped idols. Infact the Ka'aba originally stored idols to Pagan gods before the emergence of Islam. It was this reason why the early Muslims were peresecuted and which lead to certain events. Sure, certain Christians may have been in the area and it could be argued that the Prophet (saw) had contact with such people however to argue that Islam is nothing more than a weird sect of Christianity seems like a gross oversimplification and generalization not to mention the fact that it has been said the Prophet (saw) couldn't read or write.
:bugeye:There is also no inidication that he had extended contact with Christians or studied from them which means that the influence of Christianity would have been at best minimal. While Islam does share somethings in common with Christianity it is distinct within it's own right.
At the end of day, coins from the period exist while a Qur'an doesn't.
If you open the Qur'an you'll find that approximately 80% of the stories found therein are based on Jewish and Christian myth. Let me repeat that: 80% of the STORIES in the QUR'AN are based on Jewish and Christian MYTHS. OK, one more time. Eighty Percent of the Koran is based on Jewish and Christian myths.
Now Ja'far, how do you suppose CHRISTIAN Myths ended up in the Qur'an? Well? Tell us a logical rational rational for how CHRISTIAN stories came to be 80% of the QUR'AN.
I did not say that lack of evidence is proof of absence. Sure maybe Hercules existed. And Zeus. Ooouu and maybe Mohammad did as well. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Seeing as we have EQUAL good evidence for them all. AND, as I noted earlier in the thread, perhaps there may have been a person (or few people), most-likely a Christian Patriarch, whom the Mohammad protagonist in the few Qur'an stories he therein appears that did exist?Wait... and this is proof for what?
Secondly if one can use logic... Coins are made of? Quran was written on? Which of material would survive better? What is the frequency of the minting of coins? How is that frequency comparable to the writing of the Quran?
Which does one expect to find easily? Which one would be harder to find?
So is lack of excavation a proof for the Quran not existing...
I don't know but I think, this 'fact' is quite pointless. As the argument 'there are coins but no Quran' is actually comparing apples and oranges.
Peace be unto you![]()
Honestly?What do you expect Michael the same one God has told about all the events of the past including what's in Christian and Jewish scriptures in the al-Quran.