Im not answering any questions that don't directly have to do with Mohammed peace be upon him, in earlier biblical canons.
Muhammad, in, the, Bible
- Thread starter da32010
- Start date
Im not answering any questions that don't directly have to do with Mohammed peace be upon him, in earlier biblical canons.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
We all know these arguments because they are simple and correct.
If you think you're going to get very far on a website devoted to science by insisting that religious texts are literal, historical truth, rather than a collection of useful metaphors, you are very much mistaken.
It's you supernaturalists who make it your mission to go around trolling your utterly preposterous fairytales everywhere. We only post this stuff when someone like you comes along preaching patently absurd stories from the Stone Age. The rest of the time we never even think about religion.
So please stop trolling, and stop insulting our members by accusing them of being paid to post. Even we Moderators don't get paid!
You've been warned. If you ever repeat that statement it will be treated as trolling, a violation of the forum rules.
Some people are on the payroll for these very things, I was asking him if he was one of them. The MI5 and MI6 pay agents to conduct espionage and intel gathering, this includes agents who just sit behind computers and go online. Some companies also hire and pay peope to spread diss-info around and to manipulate public opinions or highten pubic opinions on a certain thing. I wasn't suggesting he works for Sci-forums for all I know he could work for a christian company who spread hate against Islam they do exist. Some people are hired to make youtube videos aswell.
Your comments were interesting though, If I have "Trolled" anybody I suggest you file a report about it show proof of my troling and then get me banned, if not pipe down please.
The scientific question has not been addressed.
This Post is "Muhammad, in, the, Bible".
If you're going to attempt to answer the OP then the very first starting place is understanding that there is no good contemporary evidence Mohammad actually existed. Thus, we'd have limit the response to literary characters. Which, quite frankly, is just making it up.
The authors of the Bible wouldn't have known a branch superstition would develop 400 years in the future with a protagonist names Mohammad. Also, it should be noted: Which Bible? There were Christians who believed Jesus was the son of God, Christians who believed Jesus was an allegorical fictional character, Christians who thought Jesus was Satan, Christians who thought Jesus was only a Prophet - these Christians evolved into Muslims.
So, if you're going to talk about Mohammad being in a Bible, you'd be better off looking into Gnostic Sethians "Bible" as those are likely the descendants who made of much of the Qur'an.
It's a fact there is NO good contemporary evidence for Mohammad (as well as Khalid). You can prove this to yourself by simply doing the research. If there were some evidence you'd easily find it published in archeological journals where peer reviewed data can be found.
As it stands, we do have a Syrian coin with the word Mohammad being used as a TITLE for Christ. That's good contemporary evidence Mohammad was, at that time, simply a word. This word later became a "Prophet" for political consolidation of religious control over the, mostly superstitious illiterate masses. Which is why there is no contemporary evidence of Mohammad, the Companions, this Khalid character (even I thought he was at least real) or any of the other mythological events from that period - including the Qur'an, which was codified along with all the rest of the foundation myth much LATER.
Oh, and no, I'm not paid for pointing our a simple historical FACT that ANYONE here can look into for themselves. THAT is the beauty of the Scientific Method
Last edited:
Yeah you know it ! bad communicator . I like that " Invisible guy in the Big Sky " I added Big for you . Hollow Man in the Big Sky . Don"t you be dis-sen Santa Alpha ! Your on the "Naughty list" and you would not want to jeopardize that. That guy you were waring with "to funny . He thought I called him Robin Hood , Can you believe that ? WE all know who the real Hero is . Alpha ! Alpha ! Yeah Alpha !
The trinity is not polytheism. It is simply different manifestations of the same God. The easiest way to think of it is in terms of all the things that an omnipotent god type character could do. Create the universe, permeate every aspect of his creation, and become a man himself (without giving up his aforementioned roles). Any assertion that this would not be possible for a god type character would be the equivalent of denying his omnipotence.
Do you think Allah would be incapable of doing the aforementioned things?
This is a comparative religion study, the analysis of scriptures to find mention of a person within the text's. by your standards we should conclude that "There is no evidence for any biblica characters ever existing, so everything in the bible/s is bunk and comparative religion study's are moot.
There is no contemporary evidence for many/most of the Characters in the Bible. It's like saying: There is no evidence for any GreekoRoman Gods ever existing, so everything in the Pantheon is bunk and comparative religion study's are moot. More than likely none of the main protagonists in the Bible existed aside from, perhaps, Paul. Likewise, there is no contemporary evidence that any of the main protagonists in the Qur'an existed either. More than likely, they didn't. That doesn't mean the comparison of religion isn't worth pursuing. Only that to make the endeavor have any meaning, that fact that these are literary characters only, needs to be taken into serious consideration.
As an example, one could compare Greek Gods with Roman Gods (and do). Hinduism is compared with Buddhism all the time. Japanese Shinto Gods are compared with Greek Gods. Etc.... If someone thought a certain Greek Goddess myth predicted, say, Julius Caesar - well, no one would think that the Greeks REALLY had a Goddess that really foresaw Caesar. What they'd do, is study WHY people think such a thing. The psychology behind that way of thinking. We'd end up studying the individuals who believe these sorts of superstitions and what sort of society they create.
You can live your life believing in Khalid and Hercules, or you can set aside your superstitions and attempt to make real comparisons between 5-6th century Gnostic Christianity and attempt to uncover how this form of Christian belief developed into Islam in the 7th - 9th centuries. Comparison between religions is worthwhile if done properly.
Of course, that would mean thinking rationally and skeptically about your own particular superstitions - something we both know is impossible for most superstitious people to so.
As an example, one could compare Greek Gods with Roman Gods (and do). Hinduism is compared with Buddhism all the time. Japanese Shinto Gods are compared with Greek Gods. Etc.... If someone thought a certain Greek Goddess myth predicted, say, Julius Caesar - well, no one would think that the Greeks REALLY had a Goddess that really foresaw Caesar. What they'd do, is study WHY people think such a thing. The psychology behind that way of thinking. We'd end up studying the individuals who believe these sorts of superstitions and what sort of society they create.
You can live your life believing in Khalid and Hercules, or you can set aside your superstitions and attempt to make real comparisons between 5-6th century Gnostic Christianity and attempt to uncover how this form of Christian belief developed into Islam in the 7th - 9th centuries. Comparison between religions is worthwhile if done properly.
Of course, that would mean thinking rationally and skeptically about your own particular superstitions - something we both know is impossible for most superstitious people to so.
Last edited: