Historical Jesus

[Katzpur]

I have to number my responses to make sure I hit everything and do so in a distinct response.

I appreciate your doing so. Most people can't afford to be bothered.

1. I said it was a joke. However several documentaries (with evidence, eyewitnesses, and historical sources) I have seen suggest that they still practice and teach about the temple garments but only at the higher levels of the church hierarchy.

2. Since you do not believe in them, then I will just drop the issue. I do not want to be judged by what others consider Christian doctrine, so I will try and return the favor. I will defend the bible and mainstream Christianity, will you do so with Mormonism and the book of Mormon?

Okay, so you were joking and I was being pedantic, so maybe we're both partly responsible for getting off of the wrong foot. Just to clarify one final time. You said you have seen it suggested that "they still practice and teach about the temple garments but only at the higher levels of the church hierarchy," and then added that you will drop the issue since I "do not believe in them." When I admitted to being pedantic, it was with regards to your choice of words. No, I do not believe in magic pajamas or magic underwear (or magic shoes, socks, coats, hats, umbrellas or anything of the sort). No Mormon does. Furthermore, no Mormon (even at the highest level) has ever spoken of "magic pajamas." The "temple garment," which is something else entirely, and which most certainly has no magical qualifies, is most certainly a part of Mormonism today. I not only that this garment exists, but wear it, as does my husband. We have been doing so for over 46 years now. You may think I should just have responded to your initial comment about "magic pajamas" without playing word games with you, because I absolutely did know what you were referring to. I responded as I did because I found the phrase "magic pajamas" to be insensitive and derogatory, and I did not want to dignify it with a serious answer. The best thing you could do at this point is apologize for referring to something I consider sacred in such a demeaning way. That would make me think a lot more highly of you. One way or the other, though, I agree that it's essentially off-topic. I'm willing to drop the subject if you are.

3. There is no biblical parallel to what I was referring to. Of course it is cool to be anti-Semitic in the modern era. That is why their neighbors attack them and lose about once a decade, why our former excuse for a president shunned them openly, and why the Nazis tried to wipe them out all together. I however do not judge any group based on genetics. I simply judge issues. I do renounce the garment and entire the entire faith of Judaism because Christ did. God (not me) said Judaism was imperfect and warned all those who came to Christ from sliding back into it.

I disagree as to whether there is a biblical parallel, but am fine moving on to other topics anyway.

I will probably be forced to ask over and over but until I get a good answer I can't get to much of what you say. What or who is it that speaks for Mormonism?

I'm not sure why you're even asking a second time since I already gave you a good answer. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume that you may have missed it. Again (with a couple of minor additions) this is "who speaks for Mormonism":

The final authority on LDS doctrine can be found in the LDS "Standard Works," which are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. New revelation can be added to the Doctrine and Covenants from time to time, but this rarely happens. In order for any teaching or concept to become officially binding on the members of the Church and to become part of the LDS canon of scripture, there is a very specific process which must take place. God would have to reveal His word to the President of the Church (aka the Prophet). No one else would receive the information first, and it would probably not be given out of the blue, but in response to a prayer offered by the Prophet for guidance and direction. Once the Prophet believed God had spoken to him, he would present the revealed information to his two counselors and to the men who were members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Together, these fifteen men would fast and pray, and only when the Holy Ghost had witnessed to all fourteen of them that what the Prophet had said was truly from God, would the revelation become official doctrine, and would be added to the Doctrine and Covenants. We do not believe that any of these individuals -- not even the Prophet -- is infallible, and none of them -- not even the Prophet -- can establish doctrine on his own. Any of them can have opinions or interpretations of the scriptures that come from their own powers of reasoning and experiences, and not from God. That's why it takes a consensus in order for doctrine to be established.

In my case it is the scriptures, my personal experiences with God, history, philosophy, and reason.

Those are all good ways, and ways I use myself. The one thing I would say is of great importance is to use reliable sources of information when trying to understand a belief system that is not one's own. Just because a website or book quotes an LDS leader does not mean that it's necessarily a good source. Often such websites takes quotes out of context. Almost always, they disregard who the audience was. And 9 times out of 10, they paraphrase the quote so that it means something quite different from what the speaker actually meant. For someone who isn't coming from an LDS background, such sources -- which, I'm sorry but it's true -- can be intentionally misleading. Far better is to use the official LDS website.

There is an evangelical Christian man on another forum I participate on. Even though we have many differences of opinion, we have come to respect one another for the simple reason that we are both genuinely trying to understand the other's position. We may disagree on the interpretation of a passage of scripture, but we have both come to the conclusion that the other is not just pulling his beliefs out of thin air. When I say that I believe a certain doctrine to be true, I can point to a passage of scripture from the Bible to support my point of view. When he claims that Bible teaches something that I question, he can also show me where he believes it does so. Either of us can say, "Hmmm. I'm not convinced that that's what it means, but I can see how that interpretation may be possible." This has made it possible for us to have a good relationship and actually learn from one another. Plus, we have actually even found some common ground where we previously doubted it existed. I would hope that yours and my conversation with each other might yield similar results.

I can and will get to the bottom of any issue I raised but I can only do one or two at a time. I think my claim about becoming God's is by far the most important. That is the one I wanted to get to the bottom of. Do you wish to concentrate on the becoming God's, temple garments, the original Joseph Smith, the book of Mormon, or who is the primary authority on Mormon doctrine? We can do justice to all of them at once. Please select one or two of them.

I agree 100%. I would much prefer to discuss one topic at a time. I gather you'd prefer to discuss the concept of men becoming gods. If so, that's okay with me. I'm going to leave it at this for now but will absolutely return and take up where I am leaving off within a short while.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You are probably correct. I was in a hurry. It is illustrated in the Tarikh, referenced by Muhammad's earliest biographers, probably recorded in the hadith, referenced by Islam's greatest scholars, and possibly alluded to in the Quran. However I did not expect to have to go deeper with the person I made that claim to.

Hi Robin,

You anticipated correctly that I would not be too interested in a debate about Muhammad, especially on a thread about Jesus. I had started to reply, left it a few days and everything disappeared! Ce la vie.However in making such a criticism of Islam you need to be certain that the God of the Christians and Jews is very different to the God that inspired Muhammad. Christ who was completed inspired by the same God of the Old Testament simply advised against taking on the Romans and turning the other cheek. It was pragmatic, just as it was pragmatic for the Hebrew people after Moses had freed them from captivity under the Egyptians, to reclaim the land God promised Abraham.

Of course God took life and involved Himself in war. It was an inevitability of living in a world of empires and barbarism. Most empires wouldn't have lasted too long if they couldn't defend themselves and consider the occasional pre-emptive attack. Much wisdom in ancient times revolved around war did it not? A significant part of the story of the Hebrew peoples was about its relationship with other peoples and empires. It was vastly different times. Why sanitise it to make it into something it isn't?

There is a time for everything,
......
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

So lets consider a summary of the Hebrew peoples as they retake the land of Canaan

Joshua "carries out a systematic campaign against the civilians of Canaan — men, women and children — that amounts to genocide."In doing this he is carrying out herem as commanded by Yahweh in Deuteronomy 20:17: "You shall not leave alive anything that breathes". The purpose is to drive out and dispossess the Canaanites, with the implication that there are to be no treaties with the enemy, no mercy, and no intermarriage.[8] "The extermination of the nations glorifies Yahweh as a warrior and promotes Israel's claim to the land," while their continued survival "explores the themes of disobedience and penalty and looks forward to the story told in Judges and Kings." The divine call for massacre at Jericho and elsewhere can be explained in terms of cultural norms (Israel wasn't the only Iron Age state to practice herem) and theology (a measure to ensure Israel's purity as well as the fulfillment of God's promise), but Patrick D. Miller in his commentary on Deuteronomy remarks, "there is no real way to make such reports palatable to the hearts and minds of contemporary readers and believers."

Book of Joshua - Wikipedia

Looks like the God of the Hebrews and the Christians is the same God of Islam, wouldn't you think?

 

[Katzpur]

I do not get this. This is the most simplistic thing we have discussed, your obviously intelligent, and I have went out of my way to post your own quotes.

1. I said Mormons have taught that men can become Gods. All I had to do to show my claim was true was quote a single Mormon. I quoted at least three so far. I fulfilled my burden and then some.

2. You said (and I have quoted you) that Mormons have not taught that men can become Gods. First, even if that was true you wouldn't know it. Second, if we pretend it is true, and that you can know it, you still couldn't show it. Third, even if we pretend it is true, we pretend you could know it, and we pretend you could show it, you still haven't. You have not done anything what so ever to meet your burden.

I am pretty sure you just made a sloppy claim, we all do from time to time, my goal was simply to get you to admit it so we can move on. You won't, so we can't. If you can't admit to a minor semantic mistake why should I believe you would follow the evidence about less obvious mistakes?

Again, I was being pedantic. I tend to fall into that MO whenever I sense that a discussion is going to be less than civil, regardless of anything I might say. I apologize for that (this time, at least) because you and I really don't have much history on this forum and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt. You initially said that "Mormon's (sic) claim we come back as God's (sic)." I took advantage of your grammatical errors, which I shouldn't have done, but I do believe your statement misleads people into thinking we believe something we don't. Now, let's go back to the beginning of the paragraph I just quoted and examine it in depth. Your bolded point #1 says:

I said Mormons have taught that men can become Gods.... I fulfilled my burden and then some.

That's right, you did, but "men can become Gods" does not mean the same thing as "we come back as God's." "We come back as Gods" would imply that Mormons believe that men are reincarnated and return to live a second life on this earth as Gods, whereas Hindus believe that men are reincarnated and return to live a second life on this earth as cows or insects. "Men can become Gods" means that at some point in eternity, after we are resurrected, we can progress to the point where we have the same divine attributes that our Father in Heaven has. So, to clarify a couple of points, (1) we do not believe anybody will be reincarnated and return to earth, and (2) we do believe in "eternal progression" which means exactly what the words mean, that we don't stop learning and growing and maturing and improving once we are in heaven. I hope you understand the difference between these two things. If you don't, we need to stop right there and rehash the whole thing until it makes sense.

Your bolded point #2 says, "You said (and I have quoted you) that Mormons have not taught that men can become Gods." If I did, in fact, say anything like that, I would not have capitalized the word "Gods." I never capitalize the word, "God," and neither does the Bible, unless it is specifically being used to denote our Father in Heaven, God Almighty, the God of Abraham, etc. If I am using the word "god" (though almost always in the plural form, i.e. "gods,") I am using it as the Bible does, to refer to beings ("whether," Paul says, "on earth or in heaven") who may be called "gods" but who have absolutely no supremacy over mankind and whom we have been expressly commanded not to worship. No Mormon has ever taught that men can become "God" because He is an actual being who already exists. We can't turn into Him or become Him. On the other hand, Mormons most certainly have taught that we can, over time (not in this life but in the life to come) progress to the point where God is willing to gift us with the attributes which make Him divine, in other words, He will grant us perfect and absolute knowledge, wisdom, goodness, mercy, justice, power and authority. We would not have any of these were it not for His desire that we have them.

Lets start with a link to exactly what C.S. Lewis said, and exactly what your claiming he meant. However in Christian doctrines every Christian claim is required to submit to absolute judgment to the bible. The Christian doctrine of infallibility (as stated in the Chicago statement of faith) only applies to the original revelation. Scholars as cherished as Lewis, Luther, OT prophets, and even the apostles were fault ridden men. Regardless I will still consider whatever it is about Lewis your referring to.

I'm willing to talk about C.S. Lewis' statement whenever you are. It appears as if we both hold him in pretty high regard -- even if we agree that, like all of the rest of us -- he was merely a fallible human being.

 

[Augustus]

You are probably correct. I was in a hurry. It is illustrated in the Tarikh, referenced by Muhammad's earliest biographers, probably recorded in the hadith, referenced by Islam's greatest scholars, and possibly alluded to in the Quran.

It's not alluded to in the Quran either. What verse are you thinking of?

As a general point, much of the Sirah was created after the fact to explain the Quran. Any link is far more likely to be a result of this process rather than a Quranic 'allusion' to a real event.

Apparently you want to defend Muhammad, which is fine with me, so let me make take the time to clarify what it is I claim.

Just wanted to correct a significant piece of misinformation.

If you want to have a detailed debate about the character of Muhammad why are we starting in the middle? We need to go back to his cave experience and work forward from there. Agreed?

I'm probably the wrong person for this. Much as I love discussing the topic of Early Islamic history, what you are suggesting is really theology rather than history. Unless you consider the Sirah historically accurate, there is little to go on as regards this topic.

 

[1robin]

I appreciate your doing so. Most people can't afford to be bothered.

No problem. I actually had a person basically yell through the keyboard that my numbering points was an assumption they were unintelligent. Go figure.

Okay, so you were joking and I was being pedantic, so maybe we're both partly responsible for getting off of the wrong foot. Just to clarify one final time. You said you have seen it suggested that "they still practice and teach about the temple garments but only at the higher levels of the church hierarchy," and then added that you will drop the issue since I "do not believe in them." When I admitted to being pedantic, it was with regards to your choice of words. No, I do not believe in magic pajamas or magic underwear (or magic shoes, socks, coats, hats, umbrellas or anything of the sort). No Mormon does. Furthermore, no Mormon (even at the highest level) has ever spoken of "magic pajamas." The "temple garment," which is something else entirely, and which most certainly has no magical qualifies, is most certainly a part of Mormonism today. I not only that this garment exists, but wear it, as does my husband. We have been doing so for over 46 years now. You may think I should just have responded to your initial comment about "magic pajamas" without playing word games with you, because I absolutely did know what you were referring to. I responded as I did because I found the phrase "magic pajamas" to be insensitive and derogatory, and I did not want to dignify it with a serious answer. The best thing you could do at this point is apologize for referring to something I consider sacred in such a demeaning way. That would make me think a lot more highly of you. One way or the other, though, I agree that it's essentially off-topic. I'm willing to drop the subject if you are.

Magic pajamas was a euphemism. I will refer to them as temple garment from here on in. When I heard of these garments (if I remember correctly) they were described as far more than a ceremonial piece of clothing. For example it was said that they could not be removed (even in the shower) for some specific amount of time. However this is a little off topic. I will let you decide if you want to discuss them further.

I disagree as to whether there is a biblical parallel, but am fine moving on to other topics anyway.

Ok.

I'm not sure why you're even asking a second time since I already gave you a good answer. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume that you may have missed it. Again (with a couple of minor additions) this is "who speaks for Mormonism":

You did so but only further down in your post than where I asked this question again.

The final authority on LDS doctrine can be found in the LDS "Standard Works," which are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. New revelation can be added to the Doctrine and Covenants from time to time, but this rarely happens. In order for any teaching or concept to become officially binding on the members of the Church and to become part of the LDS canon of scripture, there is a very specific process which must take place. God would have to reveal His word to the President of the Church (aka the Prophet). No one else would receive the information first, and it would probably not be given out of the blue, but in response to a prayer offered by the Prophet for guidance and direction. Once the Prophet believed God had spoken to him, he would present the revealed information to his two counselors and to the men who were members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Together, these fifteen men would fast and pray, and only when the Holy Ghost had witnessed to all fourteen of them that what the Prophet had said was truly from God, would the revelation become official doctrine, and would be added to the Doctrine and Covenants. We do not believe that any of these individuals -- not even the Prophet -- is infallible, and none of them -- not even the Prophet -- can establish doctrine on his own. Any of them can have opinions or interpretations of the scriptures that come from their own powers of reasoning and experiences, and not from God. That's why it takes a consensus in order for doctrine to be established.

I hate to see others spend a lot of time typing things they didn't have to. We just got out of sync. When I asked the question above I did not realize that further down in your post you had already given the above standard. I should have went back and erased the question but I was too lazy. Sorry.

My computer is messing up I will post this, log out, then respond to the rest. Since you include the Holy Ghost (and I would have to accept at least that source) then I must find other ways to examine

 

[1robin]

Those are all good ways, and ways I use myself. The one thing I would say is of great importance is to use reliable sources of information when trying to understand a belief system that is not one's own. Just because a website or book quotes an LDS leader does not mean that it's necessarily a good source. Often such websites takes quotes out of context. Almost always, they disregard who the audience was. And 9 times out of 10, they paraphrase the quote so that it means something quite different from what the speaker actually meant. For someone who isn't coming from an LDS background, such sources -- which, I'm sorry but it's true -- can be intentionally misleading. Far better is to use the official LDS website.

I agree we should use reliable sources. The problem I am having is that while my reliable sources are simplistic and have been scrutinized more than any other texts in human history, your sources are complex, varied, what seems to be arbitrary, and too unwieldy to apply for the average guy on the street.

Regardless are you saying that whatever I find at the link you gave "official LDS website" sits in judgment over Mormon doctrine?

There is an evangelical Christian man on another forum I participate on. Even though we have many differences of opinion, we have come to respect one another for the simple reason that we are both genuinely trying to understand the other's position. We may disagree on the interpretation of a passage of scripture, but we have both come to the conclusion that the other is not just pulling his beliefs out of thin air. When I say that I believe a certain doctrine to be true, I can point to a passage of scripture from the Bible to support my point of view. When he claims that Bible teaches something that I question, he can also show me where he believes it does so. Either of us can say, "Hmmm. I'm not convinced that that's what it means, but I can see how that interpretation may be possible." This has made it possible for us to have a good relationship and actually learn from one another. Plus, we have actually even found some common ground where we previously doubted it existed. I would hope that yours and my conversation with each other might yield similar results.

That sounds fine to me but we can't get deep into what any specific scripture means if we are discussing dozens of topics. If you want to examine a specific doctrine or scripture then name them and lets let most of this stuff go.

I agree 100%. I would much prefer to discuss one topic at a time. I gather you'd prefer to discuss the concept of men becoming gods. If so, that's okay with me. I'm going to leave it at this for now but will absolutely return and take up where I am leaving off within a short while.

That is fine but I want to make sure you understand that what you originally responded to has been concluded. I claimed Mormon's taught that men can become God's, I showed that at least 3 have. You claimed Mormons do not teach that, you didn't, and can't show that that is true. You probably just replied too fast and it seems you do not agree with the doctrine. I am fine with moving on but if we can't agree on a point that obvious then what hope could I have that we can resolve more complex and less obvious issues. I was in too big of a hurry the other day and said the Quran said something it didn't, I was called out on it, I did not defend it. I admitted to being in too big of a hurry. I then went back and showed that the Quran merely alludes to the event but it is fully described in Tabari (and another hadith) and in an early Tarikh.

Ok, we both agree that we would like to spend more time on less issues than we have been. I will give you leave to choose which topics we will restrict our discussion to.

BTW forget this post until you read my next response, I think I just figured out why it seems we have been talking past each other.

 

[1robin]

Again, I was being pedantic. I tend to fall into that MO whenever I sense that a discussion is going to be less than civil, regardless of anything I might say. I apologize for that (this time, at least) because you and I really don't have much history on this forum and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt. You initially said that "Mormon's (sic) claim we come back as God's (sic)." I took advantage of your grammatical errors, which I shouldn't have done, but I do believe your statement misleads people into thinking we believe something we don't. Now, let's go back to the beginning of the paragraph I just quoted and examine it in depth. Your bolded point #1 says:

I don't get it. I am a grammatical disaster but the grammatical mistakes I see in my original claim do not change the meaning. You should have said that I was mistakenly using the punctuation that implies a possessive relationship. You shouldn't have said, wait a minute I think I finally know what your on about. Your saying that no Mormon taught what I claimed because it had a typo in it. You mean we have spent this much time over an apostrophe? Talk about falling into a rabbit hole. I have to recalibrate.

That's right, you did, but "men can become Gods" does not mean the same thing as "we come back as God's." "We come back as Gods" would imply that Mormons believe that men are reincarnated and return to live a second life on this earth as Gods, whereas Hindus believe that men are reincarnated and return to live a second life on this earth as cows or insects. "Men can become Gods" means that at some point in eternity, after we are resurrected, we can progress to the point where we have the same divine attributes that our Father in Heaven has. So, to clarify a couple of points, (1) we do not believe anybody will be reincarnated and return to earth, and (2) we do believe in "eternal progression" which means exactly what the words mean, that we don't stop learning and growing and maturing and improving once we are in heaven. I hope you understand the difference between these two things. If you don't, we need to stop right there and rehash the whole thing until it makes sense.

1. Now that I know your arguing about semantic technicalities I know better how to respond.
2. Lets forget about "coming back", "becoming", and "reincarnation" concerning LDS doctrine. Lets say that humans can become = God by whatever linguistic label you want to apply.
3. I will even let you establish the official label for the methodology.
4. Until you do so I will have to use my own language.
5. I claim that LDS or Mormons (it is almost certain that at some point I will mistakenly type LSD, ignore it when I do) teach that men can attain co-equal attributes with God. I claim that teaching to be irrational and unbiblical.

Your bolded point #2 says, "You said (and I have quoted you) that Mormons have not taught that men can become Gods." If I did, in fact, say anything like that, I would not have capitalized the word "Gods." I never capitalize the word, "God," and neither does the Bible, unless it is specifically being used to denote our Father in Heaven, God Almighty, the God of Abraham, etc. If I am using the word "god" (though almost always in the plural form, i.e. "gods,") I am using it as the Bible does, to refer to beings ("whether," Paul says, "on earth or in heaven") who may be called "gods" but who have absolutely no supremacy over mankind and whom we have been expressly commanded not to worship. No Mormon has ever taught that men can become "God" because He is an actual being who already exists. We can't turn into Him or become Him. On the other hand, Mormons most certainly have taught that we can, over time (not in this life but in the life to come) progress to the point where God is willing to gift us with the attributes which make Him divine, in other words, He will grant us perfect and absolute knowledge, wisdom, goodness, mercy, justice, power and authority. We would not have any of these were it not for His desire that we have them.

I think I finally figured out what your counter argument has been this whole time. I did not think you were arguing about something that trivial. I have been defending my position while you have been denying my Grammar. Give me a little while to adjust.

I'm willing to talk about C.S. Lewis' statement whenever you are. It appears as if we both hold him in pretty high regard -- even if we agree that, like all of the rest of us -- he was merely a fallible human being.

It appears we agree concerning Lewis. If I do not see anything to disagree with I do not know what to say about him.

In summary

1. I only now see that your arguing with a grammatical mistake. I see so few people willing to spend this much time on something that trivial it never occurred to me our disagreement was about semantics.
2. I am not pedantic. I am so bad at grammar I rarely point it out of others when seen and I never spend much time on it. I care about concepts not semantic technicalities, as long as others can understand me, and I them I just roll with it.
3. I am actually relieved. What I thought you were doing was far worse than splitting hairs about my grammar.
4. I do not see a point of disagreement concerning Lewis so I do not know what to discuss about him.
5. We both desire to cover fewer issues in more depth than we have so I leave it to you to choose.

 

[1robin]

It's not alluded to in the Quran either. What verse are you thinking of?

I don't blame you but it appears you didn't read everything I linked to or posted. Regardless, here it is:

According to Ibn Kathir, Quranic verses 33:26-27 and 33:9-10 are about the attack against the Banu Qurayza.[2][25][26]
Invasion of Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia

As far as I know Ibn Kathir is one of the most relied upon Islamic scholars in history.

As a general point, much of the Sirah was created after the fact to explain the Quran. Any link is far more likely to be a result of this process rather than a Quranic 'allusion' to a real event.

Are you a Muslim? I find this to be the same place most Muslims start. No matter what I quote, the source is denied. If the source is accepted then the part I quote is denied. If the source and quote are accepted then my use of it is denied. At least if your a Muslim apologist I can understand the motivation behind it.

However this is a new one. It is almost impossible to figure out what you said above. I gave you 5 types of sources. You seem to be doubtful about some un-named biography for some un-given reason. You might as well have said that you do not believe cows exist because you do not have confidence in Texas Longhorns, or that you do not accept the existence of libraries because you are doubtful about the periodic section.

Just wanted to correct a significant piece of misinformation.

It wasn't that significant. You have not done anything to change the character of Muhammad. You simply showed me I need to slow down before I hit reply. BTW misinformation implies intent in most cases. It is like saying I lied instead of I was mistaken.

I'm probably the wrong person for this. Much as I love discussing the topic of Early Islamic history, what you are suggesting is really theology rather than history. Unless you consider the Sirah historically accurate, there is little to go on as regards this topic.

I offered to skip this topic because it would require starting in the middle and is not well enough attested to persuade anyone. I said we should go back to the beginning, which in Muhammad's case, would be his cave experience.

I gave the event at Banu Qurayza in the middle of a huge post in response to a claim about Muhammad's love for the Jews. I would not lead off with that event alone in a discussion about Muhammad's overall character or the earliest history of Islam.

So, do you want to examine early Islam from it's earliest point and then cover it some what sequentially or do you want to drop it here?

 

[1robin]

Hi Robin,

Hello Adrian. I thought you were done with our discussion, good to hear from you.

You anticipated correctly that I would not be too interested in a debate about Muhammad, especially on a thread about Jesus. I had started to reply, left it a few days and everything disappeared! Ce la vie.However in making such a criticism of Islam you need to be certain that the God of the Christians and Jews is very different to the God that inspired Muhammad. Christ who was completed inspired by the same God of the Old Testament simply advised against taking on the Romans and turning the other cheek. It was pragmatic, just as it was pragmatic for the Hebrew people after Moses had freed them from captivity under the Egyptians, to reclaim the land God promised Abraham.

1. I was just responding to your claim about Muhammad's attitude toward Jews and it depends which part of the Quran you read. Many scholars consider the Quran to be almost two books. The first part was Muhammad's peaceful attempts to promote Islam (it didn't work), the second part of it was about spreading Islam by any means necessary. The bad thing is the second part abrogates the first part. So the butcher Muhammad replaces the peaceful Muhammad.
2. What do you mean Christ was completed?
3. Lets pretend for a minute Christ taught to be peaceful so that the Romans wouldn't get mad at the Jews. The Romans killed him, the Romans persecuted and killed the disciples, the Roman empire persecuted the early Church. Why was Rome so zealous to kill off a religion that preached peace with Rome at all costs?
4. It would be real hard to find two things as diametrically opposed at all levels as early Christianity and the Roman empire. Maybe liberalism and rationality but I am not sure.
5. Your Baha'ism is showing again, I looked at 30 interpretations of the verse below, not one contains the word Rome.

New International Version
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

Of course God took life and involved Himself in war. It was an inevitability of living in a world of empires and barbarism. Most empires wouldn't have lasted too long if they couldn't defend themselves and consider the occasional pre-emptive attack. Much wisdom in ancient times revolved around war did it not? A significant part of the story of the Hebrew peoples was about its relationship with other peoples and empires. It was vastly different times. Why sanitise it to make it into something it isn't?

I didn't deny that God has, could, or shouldn't take life. I said Muhammad took lives without regard for God or Allah. That story I mentioned says Muhammad simply told one of his followers to decide what to do with a tribe of Jews (Allah is not even mentioned), the man said kill the men, and Muhammad apparently could care less.

There is a time for everything,
......

a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Apparently Muhammad's time for war began on March 624AD and has lasted to the present. I do not deny God's right to kill the humans he has complete sovereignty over, I deny that any evidence exists to show Muhammad ever had God's permission to do anything. In fact at times Muhammad specifically said he had not heard from Allah, yet killed people anyway.

So lets consider a summary of the Hebrew peoples as they retake the land of Canaan

Joshua "carries out a systematic campaign against the civilians of Canaan — men, women and children — that amounts to genocide."In doing this he is carrying out herem as commanded by Yahweh in Deuteronomy 20:17: "You shall not leave alive anything that breathes". The purpose is to drive out and dispossess the Canaanites, with the implication that there are to be no treaties with the enemy, no mercy, and no intermarriage.[8] "The extermination of the nations glorifies Yahweh as a warrior and promotes Israel's claim to the land," while their continued survival "explores the themes of disobedience and penalty and looks forward to the story told in Judges and Kings." The divine call for massacre at Jericho and elsewhere can be explained in terms of cultural norms (Israel wasn't the only Iron Age state to practice herem) and theology (a measure to ensure Israel's purity as well as the fulfillment of God's promise), but Patrick D. Miller in his commentary on Deuteronomy remarks, "there is no real way to make such reports palatable to the hearts and minds of contemporary readers and believers."

Book of Joshua - Wikipedia

Looks like the God of the Hebrews and the Christians is the same God of Islam, wouldn't you think?

That is like saying doughnuts and tires are round so we should eat them both or drive on both. Or like saying hummingbirds and Mig-25s both have wings so they both must have hatched from the same nest. I never claimed that biblical figures had never killed others. The Bible records history. The history of people killing with God's permission and people who killed without God's permission. The only arguments to be had are which is which. Are you defending Muhammad concerning the battle of the trench or are you condemning the Hebrew's wars to take Canaan (if so which battles)? Again, just like theological claims, claims about historic battles do not come in monolithic blocks which all either stand or fall together. You seem to specialize in the attempt to make them so.

Also, killing everyone in a geographical area is not genocide, it is called total war (but even total wars are rarely total). Genocide is to kill off the members of a racial group (or something similar) because of their race (or something similar). If you post a specific battle we can see if it was genocide, whether it was justifiable or not, and whether it was divinely sanctioned or not? However you can't (or at least you shouldn't) lump everything together into an arbitrary set and then condemn or approve them all. I have heard of painting with a broad brush but your painting with a flame thrower.

 

[Augustus]

I don't blame you but it appears you didn't read everything I linked to or posted. Regardless, here it is:

According to Ibn Kathir, Quranic verses 33:26-27 and 33:9-10 are about the attack against the Banu Qurayza.[2][25][26]
Invasion of Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia

As far as I know Ibn Kathir is one of the most relied upon Islamic scholars in history.

Do you a) believe Muhammad flew to Jerusalem on Buraq? b) believe Muhammad split the moon in half?

Ibn Kathir does...

Are you a Muslim? I find this to be the same place most Muslims start. No matter what I quote, the source is denied. If the source is accepted then the part I quote is denied. If the source and quote are accepted then my use of it is denied. At least if your a Muslim apologist I can understand the motivation behind it.

What I tend to find is that people who want to criticise Islam do so by cherry picking the sources. I prefer to be consistent in my approach.

The sources you are citing as the apogee of historical accuracy are the same ones that said Muhammad split the moon, flew around on Buraq and claimed Heraclius told his court he wanted to convert to Islam and wash Muhammad's feet, then passed it of as a 'test' when it caused too much discontent and he backtracked.

So, why do you find such sources to be trustworthy when it suits you yet you probably don't believe half of what they write?

Just for fun:

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

However this is a new one. It is almost impossible to figure out what you said above. I gave you 5 types of sources. You seem to be doubtful about some un-named biography for some un-given reason. You might as well have said that you do not believe cows exist because you do not have confidence in Texas Longhorns, or that you do not accept the existence of libraries because you are doubtful about the periodic section.

Well it wouldn't be new or almost impossible to figure out if you were remotely familiar with academic literature on early Islam.

Sirah often developed to explain the Quran see splitting the moon, Abu Lahab, Surat al-fil, etc.

Medieval exegetes often clearly don't have a clue what they are talking about. Tabari, for example, often has 10+ contradictory explanations for the same passage.

It wasn't that significant. You have not done anything to change the character of Muhammad. You simply showed me I need to slow down before I hit reply. BTW misinformation implies intent in most cases. It is like saying I lied instead of I was mistaken.

Not differentiating between sirah and Quran is significant.

I offered to skip this topic because it would require starting in the middle and is not well enough attested to persuade anyone. I said we should go back to the beginning, which in Muhammad's case, would be his cave experience.

I gave the event at Banu Qurayza in the middle of a huge post in response to a claim about Muhammad's love for the Jews. I would not lead off with that event alone in a discussion about Muhammad's overall character or the earliest history of Islam.

So, do you want to examine early Islam from it's earliest point and then cover it some what sequentially or do you want to drop it here?

Am happy to if you want to discuss history rather than theology. You'd struggle to get back to a cave though, so you might not want to.

 

[Katzpur]

Magic pajamas was a euphemism.

No, it was mockery.

I will refer to them as temple garment from here on in.

Thank you.

When I heard of these garments (if I remember correctly) they were described as far more than a ceremonial piece of clothing. For example it was said that they could not be removed (even in the shower) for some specific amount of time. However this is a little off topic. I will let you decide if you want to discuss them further.

The only other think I have to say is that the temple garment is ordinarily expected to be worn day and night. There are, however, exceptions. It can and certainly ought to be removed when bathing or showering. It can be removed for sexual intimacy. It can be removed when undergoing a medical procedure or surgery. It can be removed when participating in a sport where the normal clothing worn for that sport would interfere with it; swimming would obviously be a good example of that. We are not anal about wearing the garment, but we do wear it whenever it is both possible and reasonable to do so.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't get it. I am a grammatical disaster but the grammatical mistakes I see in my original claim do not change the meaning. You should have said that I was mistakenly using the punctuation that implies a possessive relationship. You shouldn't have said, wait a minute I think I finally know what your on about. Your saying that no Mormon taught what I claimed because it had a typo in it. You mean we have spent this much time over an apostrophe? Talk about falling into a rabbit hole. I have to recalibrate.

As much as you would like to think that punctuation and capitalization do not affect meaning, Robin, they do. That's why they are so essential to good writing.

Now that I know your arguing about semantic technicalities I know better how to respond.

I apologized for being pedantic, and I meant it. On the other hand, there definitely is a difference in meaning between the words "God" (singular and capitalized) and "gods" (plural and not capitalized). Since there is, if you continue to use them interchangeably, I can guarantee that we're not going to get very far.

Lets forget about "coming back", "becoming", and "reincarnation" concerning LDS doctrine. Lets say that humans can become = God by whatever linguistic label you want to apply.

As I already stated, we cannot become "God" because He already exists and we cannot turn into Him. We can, however, become like Him. He has ordained this to be possible. And you may forget about the difference between "becoming" and "being reincarnated," if you wish, but that difference is very real to me and I can't pretend it doesn't exist.

I claim that LDS or Mormons (it is almost certain that at some point I will mistakenly type LSD, ignore it when I do) teach that men can attain co-equal attributes with God. I claim that teaching to be irrational and unbiblical.

Okay, well I think I do understand your position at least. Perhaps you can explain why it is (1) irrational and why it is (2) unbiblical.

I think I finally figured out what your counter argument has been this whole time. I did not think you were arguing about something that trivial. I have been defending my position while you have been denying my Grammar. Give me a little while to adjust.

Take all the time you want. But lets agree not to continue until we are on the same page: "God" does not equal "gods."

It appears we agree concerning Lewis. If I do not see anything to disagree with I do not know what to say about him.

So I'm curious... Do you believe his statement to be "irrational and unbiblical," too? If not, why are you okay with his position but not with the LDS position as they are almost identical in meaning.

In summary

1. I only now see that your arguing with a grammatical mistake. I see so few people willing to spend this much time on something that trivial it never occurred to me our disagreement was about semantics.

It's not as trivial as you insist. For the third time (in this post alone): "God" is not the same as "gods" (and I have explained why). Mormonism does not teach that we can become "God;" it teaches that we can become like God; we can become "gods." We will never, however, be equal to God and we can only become what He wants us to become.

2. I am not pedantic. I am so bad at grammar I rarely point it out of others when seen and I never spend much time on it. I care about concepts not semantic technicalities, as long as others can understand me, and I them I just roll with it.

So do I, but when when you arbitrarily use two different words (God and gods) that have different meanings, I shouldn't be expected to just "roll with it." I need to make sure you know that I make a very important distinction between them.

3. I am actually relieved. What I thought you were doing was far worse than splitting hairs about my grammar.

I'm relived to know that you're relieved.

4. I do not see a point of disagreement concerning Lewis so I do not know what to discuss about him.

So can we talk about his statement in more detail. I'd like to know why you find no points of disagreement with what he said, but you find Mormon theology "irrational and unbiblical."

5. We both desire to cover fewer issues in more depth than we have so I leave it to you to choose.

Let's compare C.S. Lewis's statement to mine (the LDS position).

Lewis: "The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were 'gods' and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said." (Mere Christianity; pages 205-206)

Katzpur: "Mormons believe that human beings, as God's own offspring, may progress in the next life (i.e. after we are resurrected), to have the same divine attributes He has. This is possible only with His blessing and would be in fulfillment of His Son's commandment to us to 'be perfect... as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect'. He will, however, always continue to be our 'God' and we will always continue to worship Him."

 

[1robin]

Do you a) believe Muhammad flew to Jerusalem on Buraq? b) believe Muhammad split the moon in half?

Ibn Kathir does...

No, but that is irrelevant. All claims do not get lumped into a monolithic block which must all stand or fall together. I have almost no faith in any Islam sources (with the exception of a few more modern ones) however the sources I did used are accepted by most Muslim scholars. In this case I have far more confidence in hostile testimony to a natural event which records a common enough type of event, than one about a supernatural event that was of a very uncommon type. Apologists from every faith have unique characteristics, for Muslims it seems to be to deny the credibility of anything that sounds inconvenient. Even Shabir Ally (the best I know of) has said that his criteria for what he considers reliable from the bible is simply if it agrees with the Quran which came hundreds of years later.

What I tend to find is that people who want to criticise Islam do so by cherry picking the sources. I prefer to be consistent in my approach.

That is why I wanted to let the thing I cherry picked in a conversation with a person who was not defending Islam drop, so we could have a chronological debate. Might as well start at the beginning.

The sources you are citing as the apogee of historical accuracy are the same ones that said Muhammad split the moon, flew around on Buraq and claimed Heraclius told his court he wanted to convert to Islam and wash Muhammad's feet, then passed it of as a 'test' when it caused too much discontent and he backtracked.

Yes, Islam may be more filled with bad theologians and historians as Christianity, but we must use some texts or some kind. I think the sources I quoted are also well accepted within Islam (at least the convenient parts). However I will only use the sources you your self name, if (and only if) you can show my why they are reliable and why the sources (for the quotes I gave) are not reliable.

So, why do you find such sources to be trustworthy when it suits you yet you probably don't believe half of what they write?

I am beginning to enjoy your posts. You are right, I believe very little in any early Islamic texts. For one thing no one can go back beyond Uthman for even the Quran. However if I am debating a Muslim is using well established Islamic sources out of bounds?

Just for fun:

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

Is your argument that Islam's early history is such a textual and historical train wreck no one can have any reliability in it's texts. If so I can agree to that even though my own position is less extreme than the one I described.

Well it wouldn't be new or almost impossible to figure out if you were remotely familiar with academic literature on early Islam.

I am certainly no scholar on Islamic textual traditions, that is why I quote from mainstream Islamic texts and scholars.

Sirah often developed to explain the Quran see splitting the moon, Abu Lahab, Surat al-fil, etc.

I have been through that one in detail with several Muslims, I think every one of them had a unique understanding about the "splitting of the moon". I do not think there is a bottom to this particular rabbit hole.

Medieval exegetes often clearly don't have a clue what they are talking about. Tabari, for example, often has 10+ contradictory explanations for the same passage.

I must have quoted 2 dozen well establish Islamic sources in debates with Muslims, every single one of them denied whatever it was I quoted if it was unflattering. I got to where I do not even bother debating Islam because of this. You will notice I was not debating Islam in what you responded to, you did post a mistake I made so I had to fix it, plus I was curious to see what you would do. So far, no surprises. Why don't you give me a list of authoritative texts and why only they are authoritative, then I can see if there is enough left to have a debate about any specific issue.

Not differentiating between sirah and Quran is significant.

Not in the context I used them. It only matters which, if any, are true (or at the very least well accepted among Muslims). One of the links I gave you was to an Islamic site in which several Muslims were defending either Tabari, Bukhari, or both. I also notice that my sourcing and quotes are never copied in your replies, with one exception.

Am happy to if you want to discuss history rather than theology. You'd struggle to get back to a cave though, so you might not want to.

Are you saying that Muhammad's cave experience is not a part of actual history? Not a part of recorded history? Or even if it did actually occur, even if it was recorded by someone, it has been lost forever?

 

[1robin]

No, it was mockery.

Oh come on. Why is there such an epidemic of victims nowadays? If I mocked anything it was the concept as I have always heard it described, not of a person.

Thank you.

Anything for the snow flakes, just kidding.

The only other think I have to say is that the temple garment is ordinarily expected to be worn day and night. There are, however, exceptions. It can and certainly ought to be removed when bathing or showering. It can be removed for sexual intimacy. It can be removed when undergoing a medical procedure or surgery. It can be removed when participating in a sport where the normal clothing worn for that sport would interfere with it; swimming would obviously be a good example of that. We are not anal about wearing the garment, but we do wear it whenever it is both possible and reasonable to do so.

Not quite so pedantic in this one. That is why I normally do not point out mistakes in other's grammar (unless it drastically changes the meaning), because I usually wind up making them myself within a few sentences.

I was wanting to concentrate, but now I am curious, can you quote me a paragraph of "official" LDS doctrine that describes them?

 

[1robin]

As much as you would like to think that punctuation and capitalization do not affect meaning, Robin, they do. That's why they are so essential to good writing.

Then your only going to feel sillier at having made a mistake your self in your previous post. If I am examining the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek that the original scriptures were revealed in. Not so much when I am trying to trouble shoot an F-15, reply to family emails, and responding to a half dozen long winded posts are the same time. If what I say isn't clear (and pure clarity is necessary) then just let me know.

I apologized for being pedantic, and I meant it. On the other hand, there definitely is a difference in meaning between the words "God" (singular and capitalized) and "gods" (plural and not capitalized). Since there is, if you continue to use them interchangeably, I can guarantee that we're not going to get very far.

So I am still wrong? I thought your were countering the claim that Mormons have taught we can become (G) gods, then I thought you were saying that wasn't LDS doctrine, to believing you were faulting my use of apostrophes, to now see it was the use of capitalization. There is no objective standard as to when to capitalize the G in God. Every rule concerning it is subjective and seemingly arbitrary. Forget the semantic technicalities. I am trying to concede everything I can as long as my position isn't compromised. Capitalize the G or not. I do not care.

I claim that anyone teaching that mortal humans can ever possess any of the divine attributes of God (Yahweh) is teaching unbiblical and irrational doctrines. I believe and have shown that Mormons have taught that. Those would be the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscience, etc...... qualities which make Yahweh (God). If you want more detailed look up the philosophical principles of great making properties and tell me which one of them any mortal human will ever have.

As I already stated, we cannot become "God" because He already exists and we cannot turn into Him. We can, however, become like Him. He has ordained this to be possible. And you may forget about the difference between "becoming" and "being reincarnated," if you wish, but that difference is very real to me and I can't pretend it doesn't exist.

You are pedantic. Your devotion is worthy of a better cause.

1. I was not implying Mormons taught that a mortal man can become Yahweh (if you want to be specific), I was saying that we can become like Yahweh (God). IOW to have co-equal attributes with God.
2. I specifically gave Christianity, LDS, and Hinduism because they make mutually exclusive claims. If I thought Hinduism was like LDS I would not have used them as examples.

Okay, well I think I do understand your position at least. Perhaps you can explain why it is (1) irrational and why it is (2) unbiblical.

It was so exhausting getting to this base camp I can barely think about the summit. This is not how this is supposed to work. The one making positive claims has the burden but I will respond anyway.

Irrational:
1. We will have physical resurrection bodies, so we cannot be omnipresent.
2. Even if we existed for eternity after death we would still only be unbounded finites. We would not have dwelt eternally, as God has. He never began to exist, we did.
3. God is the only uncaused first cause to have ever existed, we will always lack at least that compared to him. See Aquinas' 5 ways.
4. You cannot have even two entities that hold universal sovereignty over everything. God does, so we can't.
etc.......

Unbiblical:
1. The bible does not teach anything along the lines of us being equal to the father at any point. You do not prove universal negatives. It is the one claiming the positive that must show that it teaches that.
2. There is only one biblical issue that contains anything about men being Gods. It is a very misunderstood verse that is actually using an analogy concerning a legal issue.

New International Version
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

This is obviously not about men being co-equal in anyway with God's attributes, the verse he was quoting is in the Psalms, it is talking about a group of men who sat in judgment of others. If it isn't obvious enough he followed in Psalms with “But you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes".

Take all the time you want. But lets agree not to continue until we are on the same page: "God" does not equal "gods."

Well this is going to needlessly overcomplicate things.

I mean no disrespect but I consider the god you have faith in to be one of the ones that people usually use a little (g) for. Since you wanted to stop here until we agreed I will let you decide what we do at this point. It will also allow me some time to think whether my using a capital G for the being you believe in is worth holding up the debate for. Do you believe the being you call the father, is Yahweh? If so I will probably just use the capital G to keep this moving along. Once you respond to the above I will go back and respond to everything you said in the rest of your post.

BTW don't expect my grammar to get any better, I am low on time.

 

[Katzpur]

I mean no disrespect but I consider the god you have faith in to be one of the ones that people usually use a little (g) for.

In that case, we're done.

 

[Augustus]

No, but that is irrelevant. All claims do not get lumped into a monolithic block which must all stand or fall together. I have almost no faith in any Islam sources (with the exception of a few more modern ones) however the sources I did used are accepted by most Muslim scholars

If you want to start a thread about what you believe to be historically accurate and why then I will happily contribute to it.

That is why I wanted to let the thing I cherry picked in a conversation with a person who was not defending Islam drop, so we could have a chronological debate. Might as well start at the beginning.

The chronology is very dubious though as the quote I provided suggests. That there is a consensus now reflects a medieval orthodoxy being established rather than something that has been agreed on since the 7th C.

Yes, Islam may be more filled with bad theologians and historians as Christianity, but we must use some texts or some kind. I think the sources I quoted are also well accepted within Islam (at least the convenient parts). However I will only use the sources you your self name, if (and only if) you can show my why they are reliable and why the sources (for the quotes I gave) are not reliable.

Outside of the Quran there are no sources that can be uncontroversially dated back to the 7th C (unless you have faith in the hadith)

I am certainly no scholar on Islamic textual traditions, that is why I quote from mainstream Islamic texts and scholars.

Fine for theological discussions, less so if you are interested in studying history from a critical perspective.

Those texts are rely on certain axioms that are antithetical to the axioms that critical history relies on. That's why I don't like discussing theology because I have little interest in challenging other people's axioms relating to their religion.

I must have quoted 2 dozen well establish Islamic sources in debates with Muslims, every single one of them denied whatever it was I quoted if it was unflattering. I got to where I do not even bother debating Islam because of this. You will notice I was not debating Islam in what you responded to, you did post a mistake I made so I had to fix it, plus I was curious to see what you would do. So far, no surprises. Why don't you give me a list of authoritative texts and why only they are authoritative, then I can see if there is enough left to have a debate about any specific issue.

As I just said, when people start with different axioms and hermeneutical frameworks there is little productive to be gained. If I discuss Early Islam then I usually clarify the basic assumptions my arguments rely on and if others disagree with these axioms then they should just consider me to be wrong and leave it at that.

Not in the context I used them. It only matters which, if any, are true (or at the very least well accepted among Muslims). One of the links I gave you was to an Islamic site in which several Muslims were defending either Tabari, Bukhari, or both. I also notice that my sourcing and quotes are never copied in your replies, with one exception.

Theologically something appearing in the Quran is different from something that is not in the Quran.

For Muslims, the Quran cannot be denied only contextualised. Anything outwith the Quran is open to discussion in a completely different way which varies greatly between different people.

Are you saying that Muhammad's cave experience is not a part of actual history? Not a part of recorded history? Or even if it did actually occur, even if it was recorded by someone, it has been lost forever?

It's part of recorded history, but then again so are many other things of uncertain veracity.

Recorded history also claims the Quran was revealed in a society of Pagans whereas the text itself seems to assume the audience is already familiar with the Abrahamic narratives as it references Biblical characters and narratives without bothering to explain them. These would make no sense to an audience ignorant of the stories and context.

Recorded history goes into minute detail about trivialities of how the believers lived yet also manages to forget very basic things like who the Sabians were despite them being protected people of the book.

The only evidence any of this happened is tradition, and if you don't trust the tradition...

Were this a thread on the reliability of the tradition then I'd go into more detail but plenty of reading here if you are interested in the topic.

Academic resources for Early Islam

 

[1robin]

In that case, we're done.

If the use of an arbitrary capitalization is all that is required to make a discussion untenable for you, then you must have not really have wanted to the debate to begin with. Especially when I said I was considering using the capitalized form of the word God once I thought about it for a bit, anyway. So I will leave you to it.

 

[1robin]

If you want to start a thread about what you believe to be historically accurate and why then I will happily contribute to it.

This thread is "historically" themed.

The consensus of NT historians (those best trained to know) conclude the following events (among many others) are historically reliable.

1. Christ appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. That he practiced a ministry of miracle working and exorcism.
3. That he died by crucifixion, at the hand of the Romans, and at the request of the Hebrew priestly class.
4. His tomb was found empty.
5. Even his enemies claimed to have spoken with him post mortem.

The chronology is very dubious though as the quote I provided suggests. That there is a consensus now reflects a medieval orthodoxy being established rather than something that has been agreed on since the 7th C.

it appears you keep posting reasons to doubt anyone today knows anything about official Islamic doctrine. I am not sure what position you actually hold.

Outside of the Quran there are no sources that can be uncontroversially dated back to the 7th C (unless you have faith in the hadith)

We can know very little about even the Quran because Uthman compiled his own and burned the rest. There are differences in even modern Quranic versions. I personally have no confidence in any early Islamic text, but if I am in a debate with someone about Islam, then the common ground of mainstream accepted Islamic sources is where that debate must take place. If your limiting resource to the Quran alone, then you need to show me why the Quran can be trusted and why all other texts Islamic texts can't be.

Fine for theological discussions, less so if you are interested in studying history from a critical perspective.

Those texts are rely on certain axioms that are antithetical to the axioms that critical history relies on. That's why I don't like discussing theology because I have little interest in challenging other people's axioms relating to their religion.

I am using well established Islamic sources. I am using the standards Muslims use, why should I be restricted to only using the sources Augustus accepts?

As I just said, when people start with different axioms and hermeneutical frameworks there is little productive to be gained. If I discuss Early Islam then I usually clarify the basic assumptions my arguments rely on and if others disagree with these axioms then they should just consider me to be wrong and leave it at that.

Debates almost always occur between people who hold differing positions. If two people agree that is usually called a discussion. This is a debate thread not a discussion thread.

Theologically something appearing in the Quran is different from something that is not in the Quran.

I am not required to be bound by your statement of faith, until you show me good evidence that what you stated is true. You must show that the Quran is the sole source of reliable Islamic history, and why other texts are not.

For Muslims, the Quran cannot be denied only contextualised. Anything outwith the Quran is open to discussion in a completely different way which varies greatly between different people.

I am not a Muslim. My goal is truth, not Islamic apologetics. In this case that truth would be that Muhammad was a very immoral person and the Quran is a very unreliable text in pretty much every category, from math to theology.

It's part of recorded history, but then again so are many other things of uncertain veracity.

That is true concerning every historical claim made in every book in history. The goal is to determine what conclusion is the most reliable.

Recorded history also claims the Quran was revealed in a society of Pagans whereas the text itself seems to assume the audience is already familiar with the Abrahamic narratives as it references Biblical characters and narratives without bothering to explain them. These would make no sense to an audience ignorant of the stories and context.

If your position is that Islamic history is too unreliable and too inconsistent to have any faith in, then I agree and we have little more to discuss. Again, I really do not see what your debating for. You seem to be writing off the standards used by most Muslim apologists, what is left?

Recorded history goes into minute detail about trivialities of how the believers lived yet also manages to forget very basic things like who the Sabians were despite them being protected people of the book.

If history is such an unreliable teacher why do you want to create an entire thread about Islamic history?

The only evidence any of this happened is tradition, and if you don't trust the tradition...

Were this a thread on the reliability of the tradition then I'd go into more detail but plenty of reading here if you are interested in the topic.

Academic resources for Early Islam

The sources I will use are:

1. W.H.T. Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, (Foreign Mission Committee of the Church of Scotland, 1911) p. 158
2. Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (Harper Collins Books, 1993), 46
3. A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, (Oxford University Press, 2001) p. 106
4. At-Tabari Vol. 9, page 167, note 1151
5. Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478
6. John Gilchrist, Jesus to the Muslims, 1986,
7. Ibid. (Gilchrist)
8. Sahih Buhkari Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660

If your going to cry foul concerning every source I post lets see what evidence you have that they are unreliable sources before I waste a lot of time quoting them. IOW why should I take the sources at your link to be reliable, but my own (some of which most Muslim scholars accept) as unreliable?

 

[Augustus]

it appears you keep posting reasons to doubt anyone today knows anything about official Islamic doctrine. I am not sure what position you actually hold.

As I've said, I'm not discussing doctrine, but history.

My position is that it is a very opaque period due to the lack of uncontroversial sources. Trying to reconstruct what happened from a 'secular academic' perspective is very complex and there is very little consensus in the field.

We can know very little about even the Quran because Uthman compiled his own and burned the rest. There are differences in even modern Quranic versions. I personally have no confidence in any early Islamic text, but if I am in a debate with someone about Islam, then the common ground of mainstream accepted Islamic sources is where that debate must take place. If your limiting resource to the Quran alone, then you need to show me why the Quran can be trusted and why all other texts Islamic texts can't be.

What I said was the Quran can be pretty reliably dated to the 7th C.

Things get more complicated beyond that. None of the Muslim sources records that Christians and Jews took part in the 'Islamic' conquests for example.

I am using well established Islamic sources. I am using the standards Muslims use, why should I be restricted to only using the sources Augustus accepts?

You can use what you like. Doesn't mean I have to believe they are accurate though.

Debates almost always occur between people who hold differing positions. If two people agree that is usually called a discussion. This is a debate thread not a discussion thread.

It's actually in a discussion forum.

Different positions is not the same as starting from different axioms. I prefer to discuss history starting with the assumption that nothing can be explained by supernatural events. Whether or not that is the correct methodology is a completely different discussion.

I am not a Muslim. My goal is truth, not Islamic apologetics. In this case that truth would be that Muhammad was a very immoral person and the Quran is a very unreliable text in pretty much every category, from math to theology.

If you are interested in the truth, what do you think you know about him that reflects reality?

If your position is that Islamic history is too unreliable and too inconsistent to have any faith in, then I agree and we have little more to discuss. Again, I really do not see what your debating for. You seem to be writing off the standards used by most Muslim apologists, what is left?

I pointed out a mistake you made and then you replied with numerous other points which I presumably disagreed with, can't really remember now.

If history is such an unreliable teacher why do you want to create an entire thread about Islamic history?

Because I find it interesting as I like late antique history. Discussing it tends to motivate me to read more and I've got hundreds of sources that I haven't got round to reading yet as I accumulate a lot faster than I read.

The opacity of the period makes it especially interesting to me.

The sources I will use are:

1. W.H.T. Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, (Foreign Mission Committee of the Church of Scotland, 1911) p. 158
2. Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (Harper Collins Books, 1993), 46
3. A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, (Oxford University Press, 2001) p. 106
4. At-Tabari Vol. 9, page 167, note 1151
5. Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478
6. John Gilchrist, Jesus to the Muslims, 1986,
7. Ibid. (Gilchrist)
8. Sahih Buhkari Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660

If your going to cry foul concerning every source I post lets see what evidence you have that they are unreliable sources before I waste a lot of time quoting them. IOW why should I take the sources at your link to be reliable, but my own (some of which most Muslim scholars accept) as unreliable?

Perhaps they might be of use if you were debating theology with a Muslim.

Otherwise you could try reading some of them and see what you think. The 1st one is pretty short.

What do we actually know about Mohammed? P. Crone
What do we actually know about Mohammed?

History and Heilsgeschichte in early Islam: Some observations on prophetic history and biography C. Robinson
President's Office

Muhājirūn as a Name for the First/Seventh Century Muslims I. Lindstedt
https://www.academia.edu/11682900/Muhājirūn_as_a_Name_for_the_First_Seventh_Century_Muslims_JNES_

This is a great book which compiles all of the earliest non-Muslim historical texts :

Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam - Robert Hoyland

Seeing Islam as Others saw it by Robert G Hoyland