Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

duvduv · **#41** by **duvduv** » Aug 24, 2015 7:52 pm

It's too bad that more people don't want to discuss this topic, but perhaps prefer going on and on about Trump or Hillary.
In any case, Thomas, without knowing whether parchments were reused (washed and reused) or kept for supply when parchment material was scarce, one cannot really bank on early dates. If Carbon 14 isn't used on the parchment or the ink it makes it very difficult.
But on the basis of historical events, we know that the bishop of Jerusalem who met the Arab conquerors did not mention one word about the Arabs' holy book or religion, if any. No biography of Muhammad existed for 200 year after he supposedly died. There were alot of Allah-believing monotheists (not just pagans) among the Arabs, and they even other "prophets" such as Muslayma and others. Who wrote what when?
http://icrs.ugm.ac.id/forum/60/pre-isla ... phets.html
In any event, it was when Mansour set up his regime in Baghdad that Islam really got going, so he had the Means, Motive and Opportunity to establish a new religion, just like Constantine did, and just like Adarshir did with Zurvan Zoroastrianism in Persia in the 3rd century.

Thomas Eshuis · **#42** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 24, 2015 8:16 pm

duvduv wrote:It's too bad that more people don't want to discuss this topic, but perhaps prefer going on and on about Trump or Hillary.

People have given you a sound explanation as to why they don't want to discuss this topic. Why do you feel the need to attribute things to them they have not expressed?

duvduv wrote:In any case, Thomas, without knowing whether parchments were reused (washed and reused) or kept for supply when parchment material was scarce, one cannot really bank on early dates.

Desperate and obvious dismissal. Not to mention nosense.
Without evidence that the parchments were reused there's no rational basis to assume they are.

duvduv wrote: If Carbon 14 isn't used on the parchment or the ink it makes it very difficult.

More desperate grasping at straws.
Carbon 14 isn't the only reliable dating method duvduv. And it can be used succesfully on many ancient manuscripts.

duvduv wrote:
But on the basis of historical events, we know that the bishop of Jerusalem who met the Arab conquerors did not mention one word about the Arabs' holy book or religion, if any.

So?
We have sources from the 7th and early 8th century like John of Damascus who do go into great detail about the Islamic faith and why it's so bad compared to Christianity.

duvduv wrote:No biography of Muhammad existed for 200 year after he supposedly died.

The quran =/= biography of Mohammed.

duvduv wrote: There were alot of Allah-believing monotheists (not just pagans) among the Arabs, and they even other "prophets" such as Muslayma and others. Who wrote what when?

Does neither demonstrate the quran didnt exist before the Abbasids nor that the Abbasids created it.
You also keep begging the question that the quran originated ex-nihilo as a written text and that it isn't based on oral tradition.

duvduv wrote:In any event, it was when Mansour set up his regime in Baghdad that Islam really got going, so he had the Means, Motive and Opportunity to establish a new religion, just like Constantine did, and just like Adarshir did with Zurvan Zoroastrianism in Persia in the 3rd century.

Islam was already 'going' pretty well during the second half of the 7th century beating both the Eastern Roman and the Sassanids empires.

duvduv · **#43** by **duvduv** » Aug 24, 2015 9:14 pm

There is no evidence that the Arabs who defeated the Persians were Quranic Muslims. I already brought up the issue of the bishop of Jerusalem who said nothing about a holy book and prophet. If you read this translation of what is attributed to John of Damascus, you will notice many problems. http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx
a) Nowhere is there mention of a holy book attributed to a man named Mohammed who had a revelation from Gabriel. This Mohammed is just an ordinary guy, a leader with opinions. Not someone considered to be a nabi and rasullah......!!!
b) Nowhere are suras and verses mentioned for this book.
c) The person Mohammed is alleged to have written "many books" but this is impossible, because Muslims say he was illiterate and never wrote anything.
d) There is no proof that the stories that were integrated in the Quran found in the discussion of John of Damascus did not exist PRIOR to the advent of Islam.
e) NOWHERE does the word Muslim or Islam appear.
PLEASE REREAD IT CAREFULLY.

Thomas Eshuis · **#44** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 25, 2015 4:54 am

duvduv wrote:There is no evidence that the Arabs who defeated the Persians were Quranic Muslims.

Stop talking via your rectum. The same Arabs who beat the Persians also beat the Eastern Roman empire, they fought both empires during the same time period: from the second half of the 7th century onward.

duvduv wrote: I already brought up the issue of the bishop of Jerusalem who said nothing about a holy book and prophet.

Irrelevant. John of Damascus refutes that anecdote.

duvduv wrote:If you read this translation of what is attributed to John of Damascus, you will notice many problems. http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

Really?

duvduv wrote:a) Nowhere is there mention of a holy book attributed to a man named Mohammed who had a revelation from Gabriel. This Mohammed is just an ordinary guy, a leader with opinions. Not someone considered to be a nabi and rasullah......!!!

Again: the quran =/= biography of Muhammed.
Secondly, you're appear to be struggling with reading comprehension:

From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst.This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, [101] devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven.

This is from the very source you cited.
Next time actually do the research instead of blindly copy pasting links only to assert your preconceived narrative.

duvduv wrote:b) Nowhere are suras and verses mentioned for this book.

Irrelevant. John mentions both how Muhammed got his theology from god and turned it into a book, as well as giving detailed information about the religion in the form of specific examples of beliefs:

He says that the Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron.
They furthermore accuse us of being idolaters, because we venerate the cross, which they abominate. And we answer them: ‘How is it, then, that you rub yourselves against a stone in your Ka’ba [107] and kiss and embrace it?’ Then some of them say that Abraham had relations with Agar upon it, but others say that he tied the camel to it, when he was going to sacrifice Isaac.
As has been related, this Mohammed wrote many ridiculous books, to each one of which he set a title. For example, there is the book On Woman, [109] in which he plainly makes legal provision for taking four wives and, if it be possible, a thousand concubines—as many as one can maintain, besides the four wives. He also made it legal to put away whichever wife one might wish, and, should one so wish, to take to oneself another in the same way. Mohammed had a friend named Zeid. This man had a beautiful wife with whom Mohammed fell in love.
He (Muhammed) prescribed that they be circumcised, women as well, and he commanded neither to observe the sabbath nor to be baptised, to eat those things forbidden in the Law and to abstain from others. Drinking of the wine he forbade absolutely.He says Christ is the Word of God and his Spirit, created and a servant, and that he was born from Mary, the sister of Moses and Aaron, without seed. For, he says, the Word of God and the Spirit have entered Mary and she gave birth to Jesus, a prophet and a servant of God. And [he says] that the Jews, acting unlawfully, wanted to crucify him, but, on seizing [him] they crucified only his shadow; Christ himself was not crucified, he says, nor did he die. For God took him up to heaven to Himself... and God questioned him saying: “Jesus, did you say that 'I am the son of God and God?” And, he says, Jesus answered: “Mercy me, Lord, you know that I did not say so...”

duvduv wrote:c) The person Mohammed is alleged to have written "many books" but this is impossible, because Muslims say he was illiterate and never wrote anything.

Way to miss the point. The historicity of Muhammed or of his writing the Quran is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.
The fact remains that the Muslims at the end of the 7th and start of the 8th century already had a quran and believed in the story of Muhammed, contradicting the assertion that the Abbasids created the quran.

duvduv wrote:d) There is no proof that the stories that were integrated in the Quran found in the discussion of John of Damascus did not exist PRIOR to the advent of Islam.

Another irrelevant point.
At the time of John of Damascus, Islam, the quran and the story of Muhammed already existed. Long before the Abbasid Caliphate.

duvduv wrote:e) NOWHERE does the word Muslim or Islam appear.
PLEASE REREAD IT CAREFULLY.

Stop grasping at straws and stop using your rectum as a source of information, especially when your own cited source contradicts you.

duvduv · **#45** by **duvduv** » Aug 25, 2015 5:35 pm

Thomas, you are incorrect. The points I raised do not show that the religion of the Quran and a recognized illiterate prophet existed. And if you want John of Damascus, include also Sebeos the Bishop of Jerusalem, whose words indicate no religion or prophet for the Arabs who he met when they arrived there at all.
And while you're at it, keep your personal insults of argumentum ad hominem to yourself.
Does anyone else care to join in here??

Thomas Eshuis · **#46** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 25, 2015 5:48 pm

duvduv wrote:Thomas, you are incorrect.

Blind counterfactual assertion.

duvduv wrote:The points I raised do not show that the religion of the Quran and a recognized illiterate prophet existed.

No, the points I raised did.
The source you cited refuted your own assertion that John does not mention Muhammed or that he got the quran from heaven.

duvduv wrote: And if you want John of Damascus, include also Sebeos the Bishop of Jerusalem, whose words indicate no religion or prophet for the Arabs who he met when they arrived there at all.

Are acting deliberately obtuse or what?
If Sebeos bishop of Jerusalem did not mention Christians, would that prove there were no Christians at the time?
FFS. :crazy:

duvduv wrote:And while you're at it, keep your personal insults of argumentum ad hominem to yourself.

Quote me attacking or insulting you.
Oh wait, you can't because I haven't done so.
Note btw that your failure to adress the points I made hasn't gone unnoticed, nor will desperate attempts at flailing like this hide that failure.

duvduv · **#47** by **duvduv** » Aug 25, 2015 6:12 pm

It was YOU who brought up John of Damascus, NOT I. In any case, the fact that a religious official greeting conquerors who writes about the meeting makes no reference to a religion of a prophet or holy book at all means nothing to you, but the reference of a MHMD (which is usually the case in those early references) who "wrote books" means everything to you. Go figure. While you're at it, enjoy Robery Hoyland's book, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It. I found it somewhere online.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Is ... ers_Saw_It
Does anyone else care to jump in here??? :ask:

And take a look about other Arab prophets in those days: Umayya b. Abi Salt, Abu 'Amir, Tulayha, Sajah, Aswad, and Musaylima.
Here is a short article you can find online: RE-THINKING OTHER CLAIMANTS TO PROPHETHOOD by Al Makin

Thomas Eshuis · **#48** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 25, 2015 6:25 pm

duvduv wrote:It was YOU who brought up John of Damascus, NOT I.

Irrelevant. YOU cited a source for one of his texts and then proceeded to assert it did not mention Muhammed being a prophet and receiving the quran from heaven. Eventhough the source you cited says exactly that.

duvduv wrote: In any case, the fact that a religious official greeting conquerors who writes about the meeting makes no reference to a religion of a prophet or holy book at all means nothing to you,

Stop making shit up. I did not say it means nothing. I said it doesn't prove there was no quran, Islam or Muhammed and that it certainly doesn't refute the text of John of Damascus which does talk about those things.

duvduv wrote: but the reference of a MHMD (which is usually the case in those early references) who "wrote books" means everything to you.

Thank you for reaffirming you haven't actually read the text and thereby that you're not intersted in a rational discussion about the facts. Now at least I know I won't have to waste my time discussing with you.

duvduv wrote: Go figure. While you're at it, enjoy Robery Hoyland's book, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It. I found it somewhere online.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Is ... ers_Saw_It

You're making the claim duvduv, I'm not doing your work for you.

duvduv wrote:Does anyone else care to jump in here???

What? So you can ignore me? :lol:

duvduv wrote:And take a look about other Arab prophets in those days: Umayya b. Abi Salt, Abu 'Amir, Tulayha, Sajah, Aswad, and Musaylima.

This is similar to a Christian saying: read the bible or read something of Eusebius, in response to a request for evidence. :nono:

duvduv · **#49** by **duvduv** » Aug 25, 2015 7:37 pm

Excuse me. These were noted other "prophets" with their own Qurans at the time. Anyway, this thread is turning out to be exceedingly unproductive and just plain boring........

Thomas Eshuis · **#50** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 25, 2015 7:48 pm

duvduv wrote:Excuse me. These were noted other "prophets" with their own Qurans at the time. Anyway, this thread is turning out to be exceedingly unproductive and just plain boring........

Which is exactly what multiple people predicted and why they told you to speak to experts.

duvduv · **#51** by **duvduv** » Aug 26, 2015 1:29 am

Thomas, I am relieved and glad you believe people should not discuss or exchange ideas on a forum! Hear that, everybody! Our friend Thomas wants us all the resign from forums in order to "speak to experts" about whatever we are interested in! Well I declare!

Thomas Eshuis · **#52** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 26, 2015 4:11 am

duvduv wrote:Thomas, I am relieved and glad you believe people should not discuss or exchange ideas on a forum! Hear that, everybody! Our friend Thomas wants us all the resign from forums in order to "speak to experts" about whatever we are interested in! Well I declare!

Stuff the pathetic lies duvduv, the above is 100% fabrication and cannot be deduced from anything I've posted in this thread.

Peter Brown · **#53** by **Peter Brown** » Aug 26, 2015 1:38 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
duvduv wrote:Excuse me. These were noted other "prophets" with their own Qurans at the time. Anyway, this thread is turning out to be exceedingly unproductive and just plain boring........

Which is exactly what multiple people predicted and why they told you to speak to experts.

of which you clearly demonstrate again are not!

@Duv

The reason the Quran does not mention Paul is because Muhammad did not believe in a resurrected Jesus and presumably talked to and were instructed by Christians and Jews of the same belief that Jesus never died on the cross. See Tom Hollands book for more ideas on that topic.

The Islamic tradition mentions how Christians worship 3 gods, father son and the other one, so Muhammad was aware of the concept, he just discarded it as blasphemy.

I think you'll find there was another 'prophet' who proposed the same ideas as Muhammad. He approached him and asked to be accepted as an equal, but Muhammad got on his high horse, rejected the proposal denounced him, and although I know the Muslims have a name for this other prophet, I can't recall it right now.

I only decided to post because Thomas is a cretin and this was a opportunity not to miss to say so.
(strike 2 and worth it)

Thomas Eshuis · **#54** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 26, 2015 2:09 pm

Peter Brown wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
duvduv wrote:Excuse me. These were noted other "prophets" with their own Qurans at the time. Anyway, this thread is turning out to be exceedingly unproductive and just plain boring........

Which is exactly what multiple people predicted and why they told you to speak to experts.

of which you clearly demonstrate again are not!

Sunce I never claimed to be, houd response is, once again, completely off-base.
And I don't neem to be an expert to refute duvduv's preconceived assertions.

@Duv

The reason the Quran does not mention Paul is because Muhammad did not believe in a resurrected Jesus and presumably talked to and were instructed by Christians and Jews of the same belief that Jesus never died on the cross. See Tom Hollands book for more ideas on that topic.

The Koran preaches that Jesus was taken into heaven before they could crucify him. The resurrection is completely irrelevant, as Paul die niet claim to have met a resurrected Jesus, but a spirit/vision of him.
Meaning that Youri argument above does nog automatically exclude Paul from being in the quran.

The Islamic tradition mentions how Christians worship 3 gods, father son and the other one, so Muhammad was aware of the concept, he just discarded it as blasphemy.

Does not explain why he rejected it, of why they did not incorperate an alternative Paul, like they did with Jesus.

I think you'll find there was another 'prophet' who proposed the same ideas as Muhammad. He approached him and asked to be accepted as an equal, but Muhammad got on his high horse, rejected the proposal denounced him, and although I know the Muslims have a name for this other prophet, I can't recall it right now.

Irrelevant information to the topic al hand.

I only decided to post because Thomas is a cretin and this was a opportunity not to miss to say so.
(strike 2 and worth it)

Pathetic.

Peter Brown · **#55** by **Peter Brown** » Aug 26, 2015 3:23 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Sunce I never claimed to be, houd response is, once again, completely off-base.
And I don't neem to be an expert to refute duvduv's preconceived assertions.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/islam ... l#p2253019

I've actually succesfully completed an introductory course on Islam and the Middle East at university, so I'm far from ignorant.

and as proved above, a cretin and a liar

one only has to wait and trolls like you expose themselves are the cunts they really are.

Thomas Eshuis · **#56** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 26, 2015 4:41 pm

Peter Brown wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Sunce I never claimed to be, houd response is, once again, completely off-base.
And I don't neem to be an expert to refute duvduv's preconceived assertions.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/islam ... l#p2253019

I've actually succesfully completed an introductory course on Islam and the Middle East at university, so I'm far from ignorant.

and as proved above, a cretin and a liar

Underline the bit in the quote above where I claim to be an expert on the quran.
All you've done here is demonstrate that your reading compherension is pretty poor for a supposedly native speaker.

Peter Brown wrote:one only has to wait and trolls like you expose themselves are the cunts they really are.

You'll find that:
A. I never claimed to be an expert, not even your dishonest quotemine above, demonstrates anything of the sort, I only refuted your blind accusation that I had no knowledge about the subject at all.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Peter Brown wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Peter Brown wrote:The Nazi party and the KKK. They are no longer allowed to have the freedom you wish Islam to have

Seriously Peter, you're not going to convince anyone if you persist in these dishonest straw-men.

Peter Brown wrote:and they are no longer a force strong enough to dominate whole nations or even declare war on the world like Daesh has.

Thank you for proving closing Mosques is a better solution than keeping them open.

No-one, least of all yourself, has managed to provide solid evidence to support that conclusion.
No ammount of cherry-picking and blind polemics is going to do that.

I don't think you understand the problem nor have enough knowledge to draw from and wisdom to be a part of a serious debate. You are confusing personal emotional desires with reality.

I know you're blindly accusing me of ignorance, in an attempt to hide your own failure to support your case with evidence.
I've actually succesfully completed an introductory course on Islam and the Middle East at university, so I'm far from ignorant.

B. I never called you names or in any other way attacked you personally. You're in no position to judge anyone, even if the FUA would allow it.

Peter Brown · **#57** by **Peter Brown** » Aug 26, 2015 5:43 pm

You and others attacked me, you all called me things I wasn't and I'll never forget that, ever! I think you know I really do hate you and the others for that.

Thomas Eshuis · **#58** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 26, 2015 6:14 pm

Peter Brown wrote:You and others attacked me, you all called me things I wasn't and I'll never forget that, ever!

That you never forget fantasies is your problem not mine.
You've failed to quote a single post where I attacked you personally, because I haven't done so.
Most improtantly, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly "they made me do it" has never been a rational or valid response, both inside and outside the FUA.

Peter Brown wrote: I think you know I really do hate you and the others for that.

Peter I harbour no animosity towards you, nor have I attacked you. All I've done is point out flaws and misrepresentations in your posts. Criticising your claims and posts =/= attacking you.
If you truly cannot see that, it's you who needs to check himself, not me or anyone else.

duvduv · **#59** by **duvduv** » Aug 26, 2015 7:08 pm

Thomas, how on earth can you say you point out "flaws" and misrepresentations?! You just shmooze around with criticism. At least do something productive like Dejuror does in his arguments.
If you have so many corrections for Peter Brown, then list them with arguments one by one, exactly as I did to you.

SkyMutt · **#60** by **SkyMutt** » Aug 26, 2015 7:12 pm

duvduv wrote:As requested, although I wanted input from others first. In any case, I believe the authors of the Quran rejected in principle the Church view of Jesus, but maintained their own concepts that they developed in rejecting Church dogma, especially if they were more Jewish-friendly types of people, even PRIOR to the emergence of the stories of Muhammad. I wonder why they didn't go all the way and assume Jesus had a human father as well. I guess the idea of the virgin birth itself was quite popular.

And if they were rejecting the Church canon, it didn't mean they rejected the story behind the canon. The Arabs in those centuries must have had their own tales that found their way into the Abbasid regime's book.

I agree that the creators of the Quran (I don't subscribe to your assertion that it was "the Abbasid regime," since there is physical evidence in the form of fragments of codices which predate the Abbasids) rejected the Christian canon. That's why Islam is not simply another Christian sect. So, not much to be discussed in that regard.

Nobody has mentioned the other issue you raised; the Mandeans and their reverence for John the Baptist. I'm not sure how this relates to Islam, since Mandaeism predates Islam by centuries. Maybe you could elaborate on that point.

Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Re: Why does Quran not mention Paul, gospel writers?

Who is online