After the Circumcised Jews were expelled from Palestine they moved to neighboring land and one of them was Arabia were Mohamed grew up ( Correct me If I am wrong : Mohamed grew up in Medina a city of Jewish population ).. What is interesting what Muslims embraced circumcision which is an identification for Judaism

Any additional information to shear ?

Probably about the time they embraced the idea that Abram's house landed from heaven, like where Dorothy went from B&W to color. You know, the monolith at the shrine? You know they are touching it believing God's (Eli, Eloi, Elohim, Allah) grace will transmit into their being, so they may be saved (praise the lord/Halleluia/Enchallah).

I would also note that Islam derives from some of the earliest Christian heretics who were driven into Syria and eastward as the First Amendment hadn't been invented yet.

Even more striking is the parallel between the continual branching religions have made, one evolving out of the other, almost ad infinitum, most minor branches being pruned by bloody persecutions.

PLUS if you start with Zoroastrianism, and work your way to Islam, you go through I guess at least five evolutionary branches, ending up back where you started, Iran, where the Zoroastrians - remember them? - had to be put down as being anathema to the then present incarnation of Islam.

Or if you want to trace Judaism through Islam, I guess you start in Ur (Iraq), migrate, invent Judaism, antagonize/be-antagonized-by your progeny/ancestors, then evolve Christianity, heresy, then Islam, then go back to Iraq and get rid of the sects there until Islam is official. Another cycle of the same. No?

Oh, then there's the Anabaptist cycle, which is more an intellectual loop (or anti-intellectual some say) rather than conquest since the Crusades kind of killed the idea of that (except for Spain of course, which went straight into genocide of americans as soon as they got rid of "the moor").

Yeah well anyway the Anabaptists have this virtual slaughter instead, where, having evolved from Catholicism, through a few stages, they branch into some anti-Catholic sects that will swear on the Holy Bible that the Devil sits on the throne in Rome (really just an old usually italian guy). What makes that "loopey" is that they already forgot that the thing they call Bible is entirely sourced from Catholic works. Aint that crazy? Hey, you gotta believe, brother.

Probably about the time they embraced the idea that Abram's house landed from heaven, like where Dorothy went from B&W to color. You know, the monolith at the shrine? You know they are touching it believing God's (Eli, Eloi, Elohim, Allah) grace will transmit into their being, so they may be saved (praise the lord/Halleluia/Enchallah).

I would also note that Islam derives from some of the earliest Christian heretics who were driven into Syria and eastward as the First Amendment hadn't been invented yet.


I think it us incorrect to call Christian those Jews who embraced Yasua ,
they were called " the way or Nazarim " the name Christian come from the north Greek speaking.

[QUOTE
Even more striking is the parallel between the continual branching religions have made, one evolving out of the other, almost ad infinitum, most minor branches being pruned by bloody persecutions.

PLUS if you start with Zoroastrianism, and work your way to Islam, you go through I guess at least five evolutionary branches, ending up back where you started, Iran, where the Zoroastrians - remember them? - had to be put down as being anathema to the then present incarnation of Islam.

Or if you want to trace Judaism through Islam, I guess you start in Ur (Iraq), migrate, invent Judaism, antagonize/be-antagonized-by your progeny/ancestors, then evolve Christianity, heresy, then Islam, then go back to Iraq and get rid of the sects there until Islam is official. Another cycle of the same. No?

Oh, then there's the Anabaptist cycle, which is more an intellectual loop (or anti-intellectual some say) rather than conquest since the Crusades kind of killed the idea of that (except for Spain of course, which went straight into genocide of americans as soon as they got rid of "the moor").

Yeah well anyway the Anabaptists have this virtual slaughter instead, where, having evolved from Catholicism, through a few stages, they branch into some anti-Catholic sects that will swear on the Holy Bible that the Devil sits on the throne in Rome (really just an old usually italian guy). What makes that "loopey" is that they already forgot that the thing they call Bible is entirely sourced from Catholic works. Aint that crazy? Hey, you gotta believe, brother.[/QUOTE]

Sorry you are mistaken. Muhammed was born in 570 in the Arabian city of Mecca, he was orphaned at an early age and brought up under the care of his uncle Abu Talib. He later worked mostly as a merchant, as well as a shepherd, and was first married by age 25. Discontented with life in Mecca, he retreated to a cave in the surrounding mountains for meditation and reflection. According to Islamic beliefs it was here, at age 40, in the month of Ramadan, where he received his first revelation from God. Three years after this event Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, proclaiming that "God is One", that complete "surrender" to Him (lit. islām) is the only way acceptable to God, and that he himself was a prophet and messenger of God, in the same vein as other Islamic prophets.
Muhammad gained few followers early on, and was met with hostility from some Meccan tribes; he and his followers were treated harshly. To escape persecution, Muhammad sent some of his followers to Abyssinia before he and his remaining followers in Mecca migrated to Medina (then known as Yathrib) in the year 622. This event, the Hijra, marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, which is also known as the Hijri Calendar. In Medina, Muhammad united the conflicting tribes, and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to 10,000, conquered Mecca.

The Quran is heresy because it contradicts itself, Muslim scholars must use the Bible to interpret certain passages because complete information is not found in its pages, it mentions people who have no historic proof of existence, while the people and places of the Bible have historic and archeological evidence. Further the Quran is heresy because it borrows information from both Judaism and Christianity and leaves out the most important reason God intervened in human history. Which is that all men have done wrong and deserve punishment. We have all not only sinned against God's commands but also have sinned against our own consciences - our own standard of what we believe is right and wrong. Unfortunately the punishment for all our sin is death (which is why we all die) but God in His love paid the penalty for our sin by sending His Son as a man (the incarnation and the reason we celebrate Christmas). This payment for sin is given to all who will believe and place their trust in Jesus. For God so loved the world that He sent His one and only Son that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have eternal life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might have life. (and) God showed His love for us in this, while we were still sinners Christ died for us.

If you recognize that you have disobeyed your own conscience, if you recognize that you have suffered the consequences of your actions that have been unpleasant then maybe you can also recognize your need for forgiveness. Forgiveness is found in Jesus Christ's sacrifice - the fulfillment of all the Jewish sacrifices (made once for all). If you ask Him to forgive you and confess your faith in Him God will give you His Spirit which will teach you and lead you into the truth that sets you free from your sin.

The Quran is heresy
Er, not to its followers.


because it contradicts itself
As does the bible. Does that mean the bible is heretical also?


while the people and places of the Bible have historic and archeological evidence.
Except for Jesus. And god. And a few others...

The rest of your post appears to be preaching.
Please read the forum rules: it's not allowed and can get you banned.

If you ask Him to forgive you and confess your faith in Him God will give you His Spirit which will teach you and lead you into the truth that sets you free from your sin.* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

Preaching is forbidden on this website. If you do it again you will be banned.

Er, not to its followers.


As does the bible. Does that mean the bible is heretical also?


Except for Jesus. And god. And a few others...

The rest of your post appears to be preaching.
Please read the forum rules: it's not allowed and can get you banned.


Would you stop bashing , the man have corrected me an I have learned something about Mohamed

Would you stop bashing , the man have corrected me an I have learned something about Mohamed
Yet the man posted misinformation.
And preached. :shrug:

Yes of course Muhammed was visited by the angel ...Gabriel? after (some say) a long deprivation of food and water ...I went thru that recently, being evicted by my spouse... nevertheless I would hope that you would take from the idea of evolutionary religion that when GABRIEL came to call, Muhammed had obviously already heard the name. From who? I don't think too many Jews were in the area. But these evicted (like me) christians.. I want to say they were Marcionites... They were likely the sect that brought the name "Gabriel" (and a lot of other names he heard in his stupor). Muhammed did not grow up in a bubble. He was the product of everything around him. Just a guy. (Peace be upon him).

Sorry uh you fundamentalist guys up there but I just can't see my way into any of the denial that is required to adopt your position. I may be dumb, but I 'm not stupid. Or is it the other way around. Always get it backwards. But I think I'm right about the Marcionites. I didn't look it up before blabbering.

Even when I'm wrong, it's not about me. It's about evidence. I can't understand why some of yall still insist the world is flat, magicians walk on water, and today is the first day that may soul can be saved because you've got a formula that overrides all of reality as I understand -and yes- believe it.

So is the world really flat? Do tell.

I think it us incorrect to call Christian those Jews who embraced Yasua ,
they were called " the way or Nazarim " the name Christian come from the north Greek speaking.

no I meant muslims. you started by noting muslims circumcise, thus derivative of judaism. I was noting that islam contains a lot of other influence from judaism, beginning with adam and eve, and having abraham as their patriarch.
check out the story of the Kabah (the black box at the shrine):

The Qur'an states that Abraham, together with Ishmael, raised the foundations of the holy house.[18] God had shown Abraham the exact site, very near to the Well of Zamzam, where Abraham and Ishmael began work on the Kaaba's construction or, according to tradition, reconstruction as Muslims generally believe that Adam had made it first and that it had been rebuilt by Noah after the Deluge.[19] After Abraham had built the Kaaba, an angel brought to him the Black Stone, a celestial stone that, according to tradition, had fallen from Heaven on the nearby hill Abu Qubays.[20] According to a saying attributed to Muhammad, the Black Stone had "descended from Paradise whiter than milk but the sins of the sons of Adam had made it black".[21]

Now where did they get circumcision? Same place they got all of these other names, places, stories, myths, superstitions, ideas and, of course, morals. All of the religions of the regions accessible to wanderers blended and evolved and influenced each other forever and a day. All those parallels between Greek and Roman gods/godesses - same same. Here you have a region that blended with really exotic stuff - sumerian, persian, ethiopian, their own local pre-islamic religions. then came judaism, and christianity to the mix. cook for a few hundred years, and what do you get? Islam. Not bad. Old, yes, but bad, no. Like what I had for dinner, by the way.

Speaking of which, here's more food for thought: what else was going on around the time Muhammad arose out of obscurity? the vulgate bible had just been around a few generations - 170 yrs? anyway this phenomenon of a creeping liturgy on the frontier had to impact his world view. the fall of rome, stuff like that. religions (e.g. christianity) are forged out of turmoil and the transfusions between cultures that takes place when they bleed all over each other.

I think it us incorrect to call Christian those Jews who embraced Yasua ,
they were called " the way or Nazarim " the name Christian come from the north Greek speaking.

[QUOTE
Even more striking is the parallel between the continual branching religions have made, one evolving out of the other, almost ad infinitum, most minor branches being pruned by bloody persecutions.

PLUS if you start with Zoroastrianism, and work your way to Islam, you go through I guess at least five evolutionary branches, ending up back where you started, Iran, where the Zoroastrians - remember them? - had to be put down as being anathema to the then present incarnation of Islam.

Or if you want to trace Judaism through Islam, I guess you start in Ur (Iraq), migrate, invent Judaism, antagonize/be-antagonized-by your progeny/ancestors, then evolve Christianity, heresy, then Islam, then go back to Iraq and get rid of the sects there until Islam is official. Another cycle of the same. No?

Oh, then there's the Anabaptist cycle, which is more an intellectual loop (or anti-intellectual some say) rather than conquest since the Crusades kind of killed the idea of that (except for Spain of course, which went straight into genocide of americans as soon as they got rid of "the moor").

Yeah well anyway the Anabaptists have this virtual slaughter instead, where, having evolved from Catholicism, through a few stages, they branch into some anti-Catholic sects that will swear on the Holy Bible that the Devil sits on the throne in Rome (really just an old usually italian guy). What makes that "loopey" is that they already forgot that the thing they call Bible is entirely sourced from Catholic works. Aint that crazy? Hey, you gotta believe, brother.[/QUOTE]

Sumerians , Ur all that . I think it started in South Africa and there became trade roots more ancient than the written word . Then Migrated north and found the fertile crescent. It was way after this the Sumerian culture was formed in what we think and explore today . The King list is intriguing . I mean people don't live 30,000 years . That sounds biblical kind of talk . What if it was an unbroken succession of king Dink. Meaning if you were ruler-ship you were named the same name as the last king . Like Popes when they take there new Pope name .

Fuck I just want to interject " Mah wo ee I can play guitar . The Mary really brings it out of Me . Listening Right now . God I got to get more of that shiot
Sorry Unbelievable . Fuck . I think I am a guitar player

Yes of course Muhammed was visited by the angel ...Gabriel? after (some say) a long deprivation of food and water ...I went thru that recently, being evicted by my spouse... nevertheless I would hope that you would take from the idea of evolutionary religion that when GABRIEL came to call, Muhammed had obviously already heard the name. From who? I don't think too many Jews were in the area. But these evicted (like me) christians.. I want to say they were Marcionites... They were likely the sect that brought the name "Gabriel" (and a lot of other names he heard in his stupor). Muhammed did not grow up in a bubble. He was the product of everything around him. Just a guy. (Peace be upon him).

Sorry uh you fundamentalist guys up there but I just can't see my way into any of the denial that is required to adopt your position. I may be dumb, but I 'm not stupid. Or is it the other way around. Always get it backwards. But I think I'm right about the Marcionites. I didn't look it up before blabbering.

Even when I'm wrong, it's not about me. It's about evidence. I can't understand why some of yall still insist the world is flat, magicians walk on water, and today is the first day that may soul can be saved because you've got a formula that overrides all of reality as I understand -and yes- believe it.

So is the world really flat? Do tell.

what do you mean by ( Like Me) and what does May Soul mean . Can you clarify that for Me . It is kind of strange verbiage. Who are the Marcionites ? Backward Christians ? Peasants ? Were they peasants . I am going to google those rascals

After the Circumcised Jews were expelled from Palestine they moved to neighboring land and one of them was Arabia were Mohamed grew up ( Correct me If I am wrong : Mohamed grew up in Medina a city of Jewish population ).. What is interesting what Muslims embraced circumcision which is an identification for Judaism

Any additional information to shear ?

Many moons before Jews adopted circumcision, Egyptians were doing it as a matter of course.


Sixth Dynasty (2345–2181 BC) tomb artwork in Egypt is thought to be the oldest documentary evidence of circumcision, the most ancient depiction being a bas-relief from the necropolis at Saqqara (ca. 2400 BC) with the inscriptions reading: "The ointment is to make it acceptable." and "Hold him so that he does not fall".[10] In the oldest written account, by an Egyptian named Uha, in the 23rd century BC, he describes a mass circumcision and boasts of his ability to stoically endure the pain: "When I was circumcised, together with one hundred and twenty men...there was none thereof who hit out, there was none thereof who was hit, and there was none thereof who scratched and there was none thereof who was scratched."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision

There is no evidence (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2678020&postcount=245) of Jewish tribes in Arabia, except from later traditions quoting ONLY one Jewish person after the Arabs conquered Palestine. There is however evidence that Arabs were trading spice and silk with Egypt since antiquity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incense_Route

Its quite possible that circumcision is something which Arabs didn't give up, rather than something they adopted after Islam. The Qur'an itself is against body mutilation and does not speak of circumcision anywhere

Wow just got back from google myster . That Marcion Guy he be like an ancient " I Am The Greatest " Unbelievable . Doppelganger. I wonder if "I am The Greatsest" will see him self in that guy ? God as Satan all over that one

The Quran is heresy because it contradicts itself, Muslim scholars must use the Bible to interpret certain passages because complete information is not found in its pages, it mentions people who have no historic proof of existence,...namely: Mohammad, Mosses and Jesus. There is NO contemporary evidence for any of those people ever having lived.

Sorry you are mistaken. Muhammed was born in 570 in the Arabian city of Mecca, he was orphaned at an early age and brought up under the care of his uncle Abu Talib. He later worked mostly as a merchant, as well as a shepherd, and was first married by age 25. Discontented with life in Mecca, he retreated to a cave in the surrounding mountains for meditation and reflection. According to Islamic beliefs it was here, at age 40, in the month of Ramadan, where he received his first revelation from God. Three years after this event Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, proclaiming that "God is One", that complete "surrender" to Him (lit. islām) is the only way acceptable to God, and that he himself was a prophet and messenger of God, in the same vein as other Islamic prophets.
Muhammad gained few followers early on, and was met with hostility from some Meccan tribes; he and his followers were treated harshly. To escape persecution, Muhammad sent some of his followers to Abyssinia before he and his remaining followers in Mecca migrated to Medina (then known as Yathrib) in the year 622. This event, the Hijra, marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, which is also known as the Hijri Calendar. In Medina, Muhammad united the conflicting tribes, and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to 10,000, conquered Mecca.

The Quran is heresy because it contradicts itself, Muslim scholars must use the Bible to interpret certain passages because complete information is not found in its pages, it mentions people who have no historic proof of existence, while the people and places of the Bible have historic and archeological evidence. Further the Quran is heresy because it borrows information from both Judaism and Christianity and leaves out the most important reason God intervened in human history. Which is that all men have done wrong and deserve punishment. We have all not only sinned against God's commands but also have sinned against our own consciences - our own standard of what we believe is right and wrong. Unfortunately the punishment for all our sin is death (which is why we all die) but God in His love paid the penalty for our sin by sending His Son as a man (the incarnation and the reason we celebrate Christmas). This payment for sin is given to all who will believe and place their trust in Jesus. For God so loved the world that He sent His one and only Son that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have eternal life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might have life. (and) God showed His love for us in this, while we were still sinners Christ died for us.

If you recognize that you have disobeyed your own conscience, if you recognize that you have suffered the consequences of your actions that have been unpleasant then maybe you can also recognize your need for forgiveness. Forgiveness is found in Jesus Christ's sacrifice - the fulfillment of all the Jewish sacrifices (made once for all). If you ask Him to forgive you and confess your faith in Him God will give you His Spirit which will teach you and lead you into the truth that sets you free from your sin.

Don't include me in you bunch of sinners . I live in the perfect will of him who sent Me . You should know by now I am all about my fathers business

what do you mean by ( Like Me) and what does May Soul mean . Can you clarify that for Me . It is kind of strange verbiage. Who are the Marcionites ? Backward Christians ? Peasants ? Were they peasants . I am going to google those rascals

Hi mi-ki.


neither answer will help. the first (like me) was referring to my eviction in a divorce. way off the point and I guess ego-something. the second one "may soul" is a typoed rendition of "my soul"


I think I was wrong about the Marcionites - I think they tended more to the north and east of Israel, and I guess in the places Paul went.

You will indeed be scandalized by Marcion especially if you are a fundamentalist. Same with the Gnostics. Let's face it, by the time Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) shows up on the scene, heresies have sprung up all over the region like wildfire. It's all secondary information, but you can see how, during a purge of heretics, there will be refugees and this would certainly increase the odds of a christian wandering into Arabia. Regardless of all that, the very utterance of "Adam", "Abraham", "Gabriel", etc. indicates that these people had prior contact with the Bible story. They adopted it into their own story. It's the pattern of cultural development that repeats itself over and over throughout history. I say christian not jew also because Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) also knew the Jesus story.

Of course, if you are a fundamentalist, the issue goes away, because all you have to do is deny evidence of every kind and nothing matters anyway because there's a Big Plan and we're all doomed, those of us who ate an apple or something.

When was the camel domesticated in Arabia? Cos that would probably help to pinpoint when people were able to survive crossing the desert from the Levant into Arabia


we're all doomed, those of us who ate an apple or something.

Like Sleeping Beauty?

Sumerians , Ur all that . I think it started in South Africa and there became trade roots more ancient than the written word . Then Migrated north and found the fertile crescent. It was way after this the Sumerian culture was formed in what we think and explore today . The King list is intriguing . I mean people don't live 30,000 years . That sounds biblical kind of talk . What if it was an unbroken succession of king Dink. Meaning if you were ruler-ship you were named the same name as the last king . Like Popes when they take there new Pope name .

Fuck I just want to interject " Mah wo ee I can play guitar . The Mary really brings it out of Me . Listening Right now . God I got to get more of that shiot
Sorry Unbelievable . Fuck . I think I am a guitar player[/QUOTE]


It would be hard to get to Irag from South Africa by going due noth, but I guess you meant north then way way to the east?

I guess you know Ur has been excavated. So we can't deny it, right? Also the Sumerians/Assyrians/Babylonians left 10s of 1000s of tablets. my favorite is the Epic of Gilgamesh and it pertains to this discussion because it makes clear that the Noah story was imported from Iraq.

I would offer that humans evolved wherever the oldest remains have been found, maybe Somalia? but not sure about S. Africa. But that's millions of years ago. Not sure how bronze age S. Africans figure into this.

Are you a fundamentalist Christian? How come so many religious people like to randomly say "fuck"? Because they don't get to say it in church? Play guitar? Me 2. Ok bye.

When was the camel domesticated in Arabia? Cos that would probably help to pinpoint when people were able to survive crossing the desert from the Levant into Arabia



Like Sleeping Beauty?


Seems like camels are mentioned in the old testament. Not sure. But for sure they were abundant in the 6th C. in the reign of Muhammad (pbuh).

and yes, Eve and Sleeping Beauty, and Brunhilde and no telling how many other fabled vixen have hamstrung all of humanity one way or another.

Stories, stories, stories. When will they invent a religion that cares about evidence? Not your fabricated versions. real stuff. There's megatons of evidence of every kind. Why must it be discarded to favor some magical mystery tour of reality?

Seems like camels are mentioned in the old testament. Not sure. But for sure they were abundant in the 6th C. in the reign of Muhammad (pbuh).

A lot of the OT is anachronistic, but do they have camels in the Levant?

* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

Preaching is forbidden on this website. If you do it again you will be banned.



How about your atheist preaching OS THAT OK ?

namely: Mohammad, Mosses and Jesus. There is NO contemporary evidence for any of those people ever having lived.



How hard di you searched, perhaps you are one of those ME TO. who depend
on what is put on your plate.

[QUOTE=S.A.M.;2851459]When was the camel domesticated in Arabia? Cos that would probably help to pinpoint when people were able to survive crossing the desert from the Levant into Arabia




I doubt camels were necessary the east coast of South Arabia us not a desert

[QUOTE=S.A.M.;2851459]When was the camel domesticated in Arabia? Cos that would probably help to pinpoint when people were able to survive crossing the desert from the Levant into Arabia




I doubt camels were necessary the east coast of South Arabia us not a desert



Sorry I meant west coast

How hard di you searched, perhaps you are one of those ME TO. who depend
on what is put on your plate.The point has been made on these boards for, what, 8 or 9 years? Tens of thousands of posts later and what we know is this: There is NO contemporary evidence for Mosses, Jesus or Mohammad.

Considering the silliness of the mythology, this shouldn't be all that surprising :shrug: The "Jews" built the Pyramids :p hehe... yeah, that's a good one. "Noah" (not Gilgamesh... "Noah") built the ark and saved humanity from the flood ... :p

Judaism is the basis for Christianity and Islam.


I can see Jews from 1500 years ago holding up signs "It's all the Egyptians fault we live in mud huts" Oh, and we built the Pyramids and and and ... ah, oh, we saved humanity from the flood (ducks into mud hut to see just what other wondrous things him pappy did)

How about your atheist preaching OS THAT OK ?
Are you still pushing this stupid claim?
Please point out where there is any "atheist preaching".

Are you still pushing this stupid claim?
Please point out where there is any "atheist preaching".


There is an inverse way to forward your point and this is how the atheist is bringing teaching forward
You are not dumb , you know what I mean.

The point has been made on these boards for, what, 8 or 9 years? Tens of thousands of posts later and what we know is this: There is NO contemporary evidence for Mosses, Jesus or Mohammad.

Considering the silliness of the mythology, this shouldn't be all that surprising :shrug: The "Jews" built the Pyramids :p hehe... yeah, that's a good one. "Noah" (not Gilgamesh... "Noah") built the ark and saved humanity from the flood ... :p

Judaism is the basis for Christianity and Islam.


I can see Jews from 1500 years ago holding up signs "It's all the Egyptians fault we live in mud huts" Oh, and we built the Pyramids and and and ... ah, oh, we saved humanity from the flood (ducks into mud hut to see just what other wondrous things him pappy did)



No one is saying Jews build the pyramids beside you .
You could not even mention the name in Gilgamesh poem the man who saved his family in the flood .
I don't think you have much to offer beside derragatory remarks .

There is an inverse way to forward your point and this is how the atheist is bringing teaching forward
You are not dumb , you know what I mean.
Yes, what you mean is that presenting evidence, allowing questions and letting someone examine that evidence is, somehow, classed as "preaching" by you.
Is that because it's easier than actually trying to show where we're wrong or presenting your own case? :rolleyes:

No one is saying Jews build the pyramids beside you .
You could not even mention the name in Gilgamesh poem the man who saved his family in the flood .
I don't think you have much to offer beside derragatory remarks .My apologies if I sounded a bit too facetious.

On a serious note: Post the contemporary evidence for the existence of Moses, Jesus or Mohammad. If you can not, then we will agree that you have conceded the argument in my favor and there is NO contemporary evidence that any of these people ever existed.

arauca,

Just wondering if you've found any contemporary evidence yet?

Anything?
Michael

arauca,

Just wondering if you've found any contemporary evidence yet?

Anything?
Michael



Why don't you check http://www.netzarim.co.il/

Pronunciation Table Hear it! [Updated: 2007.01.29]

Pâ•qid′, pl. פְּקִידִים (pәqid•im′); Biblical Hebrew: overseer, supervisor, monitor, auditor or commissioner as found in bә-Reish•it′ 41.34; Mәlâkh•im′ Beit 25.19; Di•vәr•ei′ ha-Yâm•im′ Beit 31.13; Yi•rәmәyâh′u 29.26; et al. In modern Hebrew, a Pâ•qid′ is a clerk. This is the Hebrew term Hellenized in LXX Greek as επισκοπος (episkopos; inquisitioner, critical-examiner) and later rendered in Vulgar Latin as ebiscopus—which was then anglicized to "bishop."

Notice that for the first few centuries—until the 3rd century, documented below—there were only bishops—no "popes"!!!

The Hebrew derives from the verb פָּקַד (pâ•qad′; he supervised, oversaw—i.e., exacted accountability [Ho•shei′a 1.4], held accountable, mustered, monitored or audited). This was understood in the Hellenist community as επισκεπτομαι (episkeptomai; judge critically, examine).

The fem. noun cognate, פּקֻדָּה (pәqud•âh′), an overseeing, supervision, mustering or auditing.

The first 15 pәqid•im′ are listed by the earliest extant Church historian, (EH loc. cit. and "Jerusalem," EJ 9:1405). More documentation and details are found in Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)
The first 15 pәqid•im′ ha-Nәtzâr•im′ were:
(Dates of Tenure Approximated)

30—ca. 62 C.E. (according to Josephus, see History Museum, Suk•âh′ 6)—Pâ•qid′ Ya•a•qov′ "ha-Tza•diq′" Bën-Dâ•wid′—brother of Rib′i Yәho•shu′a Bën-Dâ•wid′—the Mâ•shi′akh
ca. 63—ca. 107 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Shim•on′ "ha-Tza•diq′" Bën-Khël′ëph (Hellenized to "Clopas"), murdered by Trajan for being a royal descendent of Dâ•wid′ (Hegesippus according to Eusebius EH III.xii.19-20, 32; xxxii.1-6). From this point, Hellenist Romans appear to have consistently hunted them down and assassinated them.
ca. 107—ca. 110 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Tzi•dәq•i•yâh′ "ha-Tza•diq′" (the first)
ca. 110—ca. 113 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Zәkhar•yah′ "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 113—ca. 115 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Tov•i•yâh′ "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 115—ca. 117 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Bin•yâ•min′ "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 117—ca. 119 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Yo•khâ•nân′ "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 119—ca. 121 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Ma•tit•yâh′u "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 121—ca. 123 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Për′ësh "ha-Tza•diq′" (Hellenized by Eusebius to 'Philip')
ca. 123—ca. 125 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Sәna•âh′ "ha-Tza•diq′" (Hellenized by Eusebius to 'Seneca')
ca. 125—ca. 127 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Tzi•dәq•i•yâh′ "ha-Tza•diq′" (the second)
ca. 127—ca. 129 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Lei•wi′ "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 129—ca. 131 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Ë•phәr•ay′im "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 131—ca. 133 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Yo•seiph′ "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 133 –135 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Yәhud•âh′ "ha-Tza•diq′," who was ousted and exiled from Yәru•shâ•lay′im by the gentile Hellenist Romans in 135 C.E. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV.v.3), being usurped by Markos, the first gentile "bishop," who is the only documented (not retroactively fabricated) origin of the tradition of "popes," who thereby are documented to have arrogated rightful authority from the Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′ and are, therefore, counterfeit displacers of the Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′ (see section on "Papal Succession" in our History Museum, click on "Apostasy" in menu at top). Legitimate authority remains unchanged—in the Eyes of the Ël•oh•im′ of Israel—with the Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′, restored in the generation of the reemergence of the State of Israel; like Israel itself, after a long hiatus concluding the Age of the Expulsion from Israel (the 'Dark-Age of the Gentiles').

Thus, there have only been 15 pәqid•im′ in the legitimate (Pharisee ⇒ Orthodox) Jewish community in which Rib′i Yәho•shu′a and the original Nәtzâr•im′ lived and taught until our generation—when, for the first time since 135 C.E., a Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′, the 16th, has again been accepted in good standing, restoring the Nәtzâr•im′ to the same legitimate (Pharisee ⇒ Orthodox) Jewish community in which Rib′i Yәho•shu′a and the original Nәtzâr•im′ lived and taught!!!

Unlike any of the fakes, Pâ•qid′ Yi•rәmәyâh′u has been an Orthodox Israeli Jew in good standing in an Orthodox synagogue (Moreshet Avot in Ra'anana, Israel) since 1998.

No others claiming to be "Netzarim" are accepted in the legitimate (Pharisee ⇒ Orthodox) Jewish community in which Rib′i Yәho•shu′a and the original Nәtzâr•im′ lived and taught. Thus, all others claiming to be "Netzarim" without being recognized by our Beit-Din are fakes and deceivers!
Hadrian (117-138 C.E.)
Hadrian (117-138 C.E.)

The earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius, documents (EH IV.v.3) that in 135 C.E. Hellenist proto-Christians, collaborating with the Hellenist Roman occupiers under Hadrian, forcibly ousted and expelled the 15th Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′ from Yәru•shâ•lay′im with the other Jews, displacing him with the first Roman gentile—Christian—bishop: Επισκοπος Μαρκος (Episkopos Markos; Bishop Markos)—thereby usurping the Nәtzâr•im′ paqid with the first gentile Christian "bishop." This marks the true birth of Christianity and the Church.

Until Hegesippus in the 3rd century, there were only bishops—no popes!!! Hegesippus himself documents that he fabricated the Papal Succession: εποιησαμην, (epoieisamein; "I made) the list of the succession…." This is the first aorist indicative middle singular of ποιεω (poieo, "I make" or "I do"). Even this is documented no earlier than the 4th century C.E., by Eusebius (EH IV.xxii.3). See also, inter alia, "Pius I," Smith & Wace, "A Dictionary of Christian Biography," IV.416 and Yi•rәmәyâh′u Bën- Dâ•wid′, Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)). Hegesippus then projected his fabrication of the 3rd century back to "Simon Peter."

Why don't you check http://www.netzarim.co.il/

Pronunciation Table Hear it! [Updated: 2007.01.29]

Pâ•qid′, pl. פְּקִידִים (pәqid•im′); Biblical Hebrew: overseer, supervisor, monitor, auditor or commissioner as found in bә-Reish•it′ 41.34; Mәlâkh•im′ Beit 25.19; Di•vәr•ei′ ha-Yâm•im′ Beit 31.13; Yi•rәmәyâh′u 29.26; et al. In modern Hebrew, a Pâ•qid′ is a clerk. This is the Hebrew term Hellenized in LXX Greek as επισκοπος (episkopos; inquisitioner, critical-examiner) and later rendered in Vulgar Latin as ebiscopus—which was then anglicized to "bishop."

Notice that for the first few centuries—until the 3rd century, documented below—there were only bishops—no "popes"!!!

The Hebrew derives from the verb פָּקַד (pâ•qad′; he supervised, oversaw—i.e., exacted accountability [Ho•shei′a 1.4], held accountable, mustered, monitored or audited). This was understood in the Hellenist community as επισκεπτομαι (episkeptomai; judge critically, examine).

The fem. noun cognate, פּקֻדָּה (pәqud•âh′), an overseeing, supervision, mustering or auditing.

The first 15 pәqid•im′ are listed by the earliest extant Church historian, (EH loc. cit. and "Jerusalem," EJ 9:1405). More documentation and details are found in Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)
The first 15 pәqid•im′ ha-Nәtzâr•im′ were:
(Dates of Tenure Approximated)

30—ca. 62 C.E. (according to Josephus, see History Museum, Suk•âh′ 6)—Pâ•qid′ Ya•a•qov′ "ha-Tza•diq′" Bën-Dâ•wid′—brother of Rib′i Yәho•shu′a Bën-Dâ•wid′—the Mâ•shi′akh
ca. 63—ca. 107 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Shim•on′ "ha-Tza•diq′" Bën-Khël′ëph (Hellenized to "Clopas"), murdered by Trajan for being a royal descendent of Dâ•wid′ (Hegesippus according to Eusebius EH III.xii.19-20, 32; xxxii.1-6). From this point, Hellenist Romans appear to have consistently hunted them down and assassinated them.
ca. 107—ca. 110 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Tzi•dәq•i•yâh′ "ha-Tza•diq′" (the first)
ca. 110—ca. 113 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Zәkhar•yah′ "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 113—ca. 115 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Tov•i•yâh′ "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 115—ca. 117 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Bin•yâ•min′ "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 117—ca. 119 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Yo•khâ•nân′ "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 119—ca. 121 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Ma•tit•yâh′u "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 121—ca. 123 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Për′ësh "ha-Tza•diq′" (Hellenized by Eusebius to 'Philip')
ca. 123—ca. 125 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Sәna•âh′ "ha-Tza•diq′" (Hellenized by Eusebius to 'Seneca')
ca. 125—ca. 127 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Tzi•dәq•i•yâh′ "ha-Tza•diq′" (the second)
ca. 127—ca. 129 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Lei•wi′ "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 129—ca. 131 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Ë•phәr•ay′im "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 131—ca. 133 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Yo•seiph′ "ha-Tza•diq′"
ca. 133 –135 C.E.—Pâ•qid′ Yәhud•âh′ "ha-Tza•diq′," who was ousted and exiled from Yәru•shâ•lay′im by the gentile Hellenist Romans in 135 C.E. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV.v.3), being usurped by Markos, the first gentile "bishop," who is the only documented (not retroactively fabricated) origin of the tradition of "popes," who thereby are documented to have arrogated rightful authority from the Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′ and are, therefore, counterfeit displacers of the Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′ (see section on "Papal Succession" in our History Museum, click on "Apostasy" in menu at top). Legitimate authority remains unchanged—in the Eyes of the Ël•oh•im′ of Israel—with the Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′, restored in the generation of the reemergence of the State of Israel; like Israel itself, after a long hiatus concluding the Age of the Expulsion from Israel (the 'Dark-Age of the Gentiles').

Thus, there have only been 15 pәqid•im′ in the legitimate (Pharisee ⇒ Orthodox) Jewish community in which Rib′i Yәho•shu′a and the original Nәtzâr•im′ lived and taught until our generation—when, for the first time since 135 C.E., a Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′, the 16th, has again been accepted in good standing, restoring the Nәtzâr•im′ to the same legitimate (Pharisee ⇒ Orthodox) Jewish community in which Rib′i Yәho•shu′a and the original Nәtzâr•im′ lived and taught!!!

Unlike any of the fakes, Pâ•qid′ Yi•rәmәyâh′u has been an Orthodox Israeli Jew in good standing in an Orthodox synagogue (Moreshet Avot in Ra'anana, Israel) since 1998.

No others claiming to be "Netzarim" are accepted in the legitimate (Pharisee ⇒ Orthodox) Jewish community in which Rib′i Yәho•shu′a and the original Nәtzâr•im′ lived and taught. Thus, all others claiming to be "Netzarim" without being recognized by our Beit-Din are fakes and deceivers!
Hadrian (117-138 C.E.)
Hadrian (117-138 C.E.)

The earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius, documents (EH IV.v.3) that in 135 C.E. Hellenist proto-Christians, collaborating with the Hellenist Roman occupiers under Hadrian, forcibly ousted and expelled the 15th Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′ from Yәru•shâ•lay′im with the other Jews, displacing him with the first Roman gentile—Christian—bishop: Επισκοπος Μαρκος (Episkopos Markos; Bishop Markos)—thereby usurping the Nәtzâr•im′ paqid with the first gentile Christian "bishop." This marks the true birth of Christianity and the Church.

Until Hegesippus in the 3rd century, there were only bishops—no popes!!! Hegesippus himself documents that he fabricated the Papal Succession: εποιησαμην, (epoieisamein; "I made) the list of the succession…." This is the first aorist indicative middle singular of ποιεω (poieo, "I make" or "I do"). Even this is documented no earlier than the 4th century C.E., by Eusebius (EH IV.xxii.3). See also, inter alia, "Pius I," Smith & Wace, "A Dictionary of Christian Biography," IV.416 and Yi•rәmәyâh′u Bën- Dâ•wid′, Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)). Hegesippus then projected his fabrication of the 3rd century back to "Simon Peter."
OK, you've provided some contemporary evidence to support your hypothesis there were no popes in the 2nd century. That's not contemporary evidence for Moses, Jesus or Mohammad.

OK, you've provided some contemporary evidence to support your hypothesis there were no popes in the 2nd century. That's not contemporary evidence for Moses, Jesus or Mohammad.



Can you provide contemporary evidence of Guaycaypuro, Caboto , Atahualpa , who come up with the Pythagorean theorem and were it come from ? What was the true last name of Columbus ? Who discovered North America ?
I pointed to you about Yashua Y can find the beginning of the way = halaka ---> Nazarene ------> Christianity

Perhaps you want a picture of his birthday party and a birth certificate

When was the camel domesticated in Arabia?

Camels were domesticated in the Horn of Africa at least 4000 years ago. One would presume that they made it over to Arabia in fairly short order, given the proximity.



Cos that would probably help to pinpoint when people were able to survive crossing the desert from the Levant into Arabia

Why is that relevant? Plenty of ways to get from the Levant to Arabia other than going directly across nasty deserts.

Can you provide contemporary evidence of Guaycaypuro, Caboto , Atahualpa , who come up with the Pythagorean theorem and were it come from ? What was the true last name of Columbus ? Who discovered North America ?
I pointed to you about Yashua Y can find the beginning of the way = halaka ---> Nazarene ------> Christianity

Perhaps you want a picture of his birthday party and a birth certificateThere is contemporary evidence for many, MANY, historical figures.

There is no contemporary evidence of Moses, Jesus or Mohammad. It's that simple. That doesn't mean these people did not exist, only that the evidence for them existing is no different than the evidence that, say, Hercules, Thor or The Pixie King existed. There is evidence of wives-tales being passed on down the ages. But only that. And, for me, that's just not good enough :shrug:



Essentially, based on our responses, I would surmise that had we been born in medieval Japan, you'd be praying and giving offerings to your local Shinto Tree God, worrying about the whether the water Gods would bring rain (along with most everyone else) and I'd probably be questing the existence of those things.

OK, you've provided some contemporary evidence to support your hypothesis there were no popes in the 2nd century. That's not contemporary evidence for Moses, Jesus or Mohammad.



What more do you want ?



30—ca. 62 C.E. (according to Josephus, see History Museum, Suk•âh′ 6)—Pâ•qid′ Ya•a•qov′ "ha-Tza•diq′" Bën-Dâ•wid′—__brother of Rib′i __Yәho•shu′a Bën-Dâ•wid′—the Mâ•shi′akh

I really could care less if you don't want to accept , you are entitle to your opinion

What more do you want ?



30—ca. 62 C.E. (according to Josephus, see History Museum, Suk•âh′ 6)—Pâ•qid′ Ya•a•qov′ "ha-Tza•diq′" Bën-Dâ•wid′—__brother of Rib′i __Yәho•shu′a Bën-Dâ•wid′—the Mâ•shi′akh

I really could care less if you don't want to accept , you are entitle to your opinionIt really matters not what either of us "want". Opinion isn't really that important either. It basically comes down to IS there contemporary evidence or not?

Josephus is close. He didn't know Jesus and wasn't his contemporary. Some versions of Testimonium mention Jesus while other do not, some mention Jesus as "Christ" and others mention Jesus as a good man.

Regardless, there are not contemporary accounts. They're not good contemporary evidence.

One would think that, oh I don't, God, creator of the Universe and reality itself, would have left some sort of contemporary evidence of his presence here on Earth. Not to do so, would only have been to purposefully to fool around with people in the future.

It really matters not what either of us "want". Opinion isn't really that important either. It basically comes down to IS there contemporary evidence or not?

Josephus is close. He didn't know Jesus and wasn't his contemporary. Some versions of Testimonium mention Jesus while other do not, some mention Jesus as "Christ" and others mention Jesus as a good man.

Regardless, there are not contemporary accounts. They're not good contemporary evidence.

One would think that, oh I don't, God, creator of the Universe and reality itself, would have left some sort of contemporary evidence of his presence here on Earth. Not to do so, would only have been to purposefully to fool around with people in the future.



i SUPPOSE if I mention the the Act of Apostols Ch, 4 verse,5 There it mentioned a high priest Anas , Caifas who interrogate John and Peter.
The same persons Caifas and Anas in mentioned is mentioned un St John ch.18 verse 24. Those high priest are who condemned Yhashua to death.
were definitively contemporary.
You have to go to read in the Talmud or Mishna in that period . The Talmud definitively mentions Yhashua ( Jesus )

Why is that relevant? Plenty of ways to get from the Levant to Arabia other than going directly across nasty deserts.Between 8500 and 3500BCE the Sahara Desert underwent a long period of monsoons and became a fertile region teeming with human settlements, before drying out again. Other deserts have also been altered by dramatic changes in weather patterns. In addition, some deserts such as the Sonora and the Gobi have been affected by human activity, particularly unsustainable agricultural practices.

Somewhat infuriatingly, I can't find any information about the history of the Arabian Desert specifically. But it's quite possible that it, too, has toggled back and forth between wasteland and breadbasket, so that at some time in the past perhaps it was not all that difficult to traverse.

Perhaps you want a picture of his birthday party and a birth certificate


You have that?

What more do you want ?

Birth cerificaties, current eyewitnesses, photos..... :D:)

thank you
jan.

Birth cerificaties, current eyewitnesses, photos..... :D:)

thank you
jan.



I was born over 1900 after Jesus in a eastern village , I did not have a bityh certificate , I was registered no-were . During the ww2 I did not have any identity, except what was concocted .
Now think how were the registration 1900 years back in a small village like Nazaret, Even now you go to Arab country , go among the Bedouins ask them for birth certificate .

i SUPPOSE if I mention the the Act of Apostols Ch, 4 verse,5 There it mentioned a high priest Anas , Caifas who interrogate John and Peter.
The same persons Caifas and Anas in mentioned is mentioned un St John ch.18 verse 24. Those high priest are who condemned Yhashua to death.
were definitively contemporary.
You have to go to read in the Talmud or Mishna in that period . The Talmud definitively mentions Yhashua ( Jesus )Perhaps you are confused as to what "Contemporary" Evidence is? :shrug:

The New Testament was not a contemporary account and was written much later.

The Talmud "definitively mentions" Yhashua.
- Provide the contemporary evidence of the Talmud having been written during the lifetime of Yhashua and that it specifically mentions him.

Birth cerificaties, current eyewitnesses, photos..... :D:)There's contemporary evidence of various Egyptian Pharaohs, Roman Emperors, Chinese Emperors, Persian Emperors, etc.... No, there are no photos, but there are statues. There are, at times, records of birth.


None of this exits for Moses, Jesus or Mohammad which strongly suggests these people did not actually exist. More likely, like Hercules or Zeus, they're just myths.

Perhaps you are confused as to what "Contemporary" Evidence is? :shrug:

The New Testament was not a contemporary account and was written much later.

The Talmud "definitively mentions" Yhashua.
- Provide the contemporary evidence of the Talmud having been written during the lifetime of Yhashua and that it specifically mentions him.

Well if you want to play a game , you can play, nut I quit .

Did Alexander Pushkin of Pythagoras existed you tell me

Well if you want to play a game , you can play, nut I quit .

Did Alexander Pushkin of Pythagoras existed you tell meFirstly, an abusive ad hominem is a logical fallacy. A person can be "nutty" and still be perfectly correct. I'm sure there were plenty of Christians who thought Galileo Galilei was a "nut".

Secondly, I asked if there was contemporary evidence that Mosses, Jesus or Mohammad existed. I didn't ask: Did Mosses or Jesus or Mohammad exist. This is of course an unanswerable question. IOWs, your question is ignorant. It doesn't even resemble a logical question.

Lastly, Mosses, Jesus, Mohammad, Hercules, Zeus, Xenu, Santa Clause, etc... all of these people may have existed. There is no good evidence of any of them having existed. I'm sure if you were born in Japan 100 years ago you'd care less if Jesus existed and would worry more about what your God-Emperor was thinking instead. What I mean by that, I case you missed it, is that from your responses, you seem to be more interested in pushing your own agenda rather than finding out the truth. How typically Christian/Jewish/Muslim of you.

Sorry, but that's just not the way the world works. Things aren't true just because you really really really desperately wish they were true. It's highly likely that neither Mosses, Jesus or Mohammad existed. The historical record is replete with evidence of all sorts of long lost Prophets, Gods, Goddesses, Messiahs and now even Alien Overlords. Historically Mosses, Jesus and Mohammad aren't even that new, the Egyptians had gods thousands of years OLDER and worshiped them for thousands of years LONGER. The Mosses, Jesus and Mohammad stories aren't even that novel OR interesting. Most are just rehashed mashups of other people's stories. I've seen better on YouTube.

All of this suggests, these people did not exist.




Regardless, the nice thing here is this, (and this is something we can at least agree on) NO CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE EXISTS FOR ANY OF THEM!!! :D

There's contemporary evidence of various Egyptian Pharaohs, Roman Emperors, Chinese Emperors, Persian Emperors, etc.... No, there are no photos, but there are statues. There are, at times, records of birth. None of this exits for Moses, Jesus or Mohammad which strongly suggests these people did not actually exist. More likely, like Hercules or Zeus, they're just myths.If Jesus had been a normal person without supernatural powers, then the absence of records of him would not be remarkable. If a Palestinian came forth and said that his family has for twenty centuries been carrying the story of an ancient uncle named Jehoshuah who was a generous, hard-working carpenter in Nazareth with a flair for offering wise solutions to people's problems and everyone loved him... Well now that would not be enough evidence to prove that he existed. Yet at least it would be evidence. The Rule of Laplace would not apply to an assertion that is not extraordinary, and we would not argue with this family and insist that their beloved ancestor was imaginary. We would not petition the government to celebrate him on a postage stamp, but neither would we call these people deluded liars. We'd let them have their own version of their family history and we'd go home and say to each other, "Yeah okay, it could be true."

This is not the case with Jesus. For starters he was an extraordinary man who performed extraordinary feats, and it's ridiculous to assume that no contemporary records mention him. But furthermore, since he was an extraordinary man who performed extraordinary feats, the Rule of Laplace must be invoked. Extraordinary evidence is mandatory before we have any obligation to treat this assertion with respect.

To assume that something extraordinary is true, without evidence, can cause damage to civilization itself.

This should be rather obvious by now. Look at the incredible damage that the Jesus myth had done to this planet. His advocates are still fighting to the death with the advocates of Moses and Mohammed, over which version of a preposterous fairytale is the correct one.

Firstly, an abusive ad hominem is a logical fallacy. A person can be "nutty" and still be perfectly correct. I'm sure there were plenty of Christians who thought Galileo Galilei was a "nut".

Secondly, I asked if there was contemporary evidence that Mosses, Jesus or Mohammad existed. I didn't ask: Did Mosses or Jesus or Mohammad exist. This is of course an unanswerable question. IOWs, your question is ignorant. It doesn't even resemble a logical question.

Lastly, Mosses, Jesus, Mohammad, Hercules, Zeus, Xenu, Santa Clause, etc... all of these people may have existed. There is no good evidence of any of them having existed. I'm sure if you were born in Japan 100 years ago you'd care less if Jesus existed and would worry more about what your God-Emperor was thinking instead. What I mean by that, I case you missed it, is that from your responses, you seem to be more interested in pushing your own agenda rather than finding out the truth. How typically Christian/Jewish/Muslim of you.

Sorry, but that's just not the way the world works. Things aren't true just because you really really really desperately wish they were true. It's highly likely that neither Mosses, Jesus or Mohammad existed. The historical record is replete with evidence of all sorts of long lost Prophets, Gods, Goddesses, Messiahs and now even Alien Overlords. Historically Mosses, Jesus and Mohammad aren't even that new, the Egyptians had gods thousands of years OLDER and worshiped them for thousands of years LONGER. The Mosses, Jesus and Mohammad stories aren't even that novel OR interesting. Most are just rehashed mashups of other people's stories. I've seen better on YouTube.

All of this suggests, these people did not exist.




Regardless, the nice thing here is this, (and this is something we can at least agree on) NO CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE EXISTS FOR ANY OF THEM!!! :D



I am trying to digest digest for you contemporary people of Yashua who do not have any thing to do with Christianity and who condemed him to the
death specially on my post # 40 ( Caifas and Anas ). Now if you don't know how things are written into the Talmud,that is an other problem of your ignorance. The incidence are written as diary by the scribe at that time . Now if this does not satisfy. Then please don't preach to me your atheism.

This should be rather obvious by now. Look at the incredible damage that the Jesus myth had done to this planet. His advocates are still fighting to the death with the advocates of Moses and Mohammed, over which version of a preposterous fairytale is the correct one.[/QUOTE]


Answer this question since I dint know technically which person are we referring . Do you mean Jesus or Yashua

What do you mean by Jesus myth ?
What preposterous fairytale do you mean ?

I am trying to digest digest for you contemporary people of Yashua who do not have any thing to do with Christianity and who condemed him to the
death specially on my post # 40 ( Caifas and Anas ). Now if you don't know how things are written into the Talmud,that is an other problem of your ignorance. The incidence are written as diary by the scribe at that time . Now if this does not satisfy. Then please don't preach to me your atheism.There's controversial evidence for the existence of Caiaphas. That's not the same as having evidence for the existence of Jesus/Yahshua. Julius Caesar is mentioned in the Bible too, he's not evidence for Jesus either :shrug: (although, some would argue, the Iēsous mythology is a metaphor for Julius [Romans like to make these sorts of in-jokes regarding the ignorant masses and their idiotic superstitions])

There's controversial evidence for the existence of Caiaphas. That's not the same as having evidence for the existence of Jesus/Yahshua. Julius Caesar is mentioned in the Bible too, he's not evidence for Jesus either :shrug: (although, some would argue, the Iēsous mythology is a metaphor for Julius [Romans like to make these sorts of in-jokes regarding the ignorant masses and their idiotic superstitions])



Do you understand the Talmud or Midrash are not bible ?
Look you take your way and I will take my way, because we don' understand each other

Understanding one another really doens't factor at all into answering the question: Is there ANY contemporary evidence for the existence of Mosses, Jesus or Mohammad.

As it stands, unless you can provide some, the answer is nope.
All I can say is deal with it.

Understanding one another really doens't factor at all into answering the question: Is there ANY contemporary evidence for the existence of Mosses, Jesus or Mohammad.

As it stands, unless you can provide some, the answer is nope.
All I can say is deal with it.


Do you really understand why I am bringing the Talmud and why I am bringing the persons Anas and Caifas ?


The contemporary of Jesus were Caifas and Anas they prosecuted Jesus
The same persons Anas and Caifas procecured Peter and John several years later.. Anas and Caifas were important personality , so their Judgement is recorded in the Talmud.
So this people are contemporary of Jesus.
About Moses of Mohamed I have not looked into

Do you really understand why I am bringing the Talmud and why I am bringing the persons Anas and Caifas ?


The contemporary of Jesus were Caifas and Anas they prosecuted Jesus
The same persons Anas and Caifas procecured Peter and John several years later.. Anas and Caifas were important personality , so their Judgement is recorded in the Talmud.
So this people are contemporary of Jesus.
About Moses of Mohamed I have not looked intoHere's what you need to do. Provide evidence that either of these two people existed. Provide evidence for the date these particular stories in the Talmud were recorded. Then, you'll at least have that much.


Do you know how Rome was founded? It was founded by Aeneas as he escaped from Troy with help from Aphrodite. See, these stores were written much later and there is no contemporary evidence that either Aeneas OR Aphrodite ever existed. Is this making some sense yet? Now try and think about your own mythology. I'll await the citations with contemporary evidence of Jesus.

Why would the Jews who are not Jews kill Jesus, then not destroy all record of him? Don't you think Jesus would have written the bible himself?

Why would the Jews who are not Jews kill Jesus, then not destroy all record of him? Don't you think Jesus would have written the bible himself?



Jesus was a simple man who lived in Galilee a province influenced by Hwelenism. At his preaching time , there were several uprising against the Jewish ruling system which was in collaboration with the Romans. So the Jewish elders did not wanted that some one will tick the boat.
Jesus apparently had a large followers. So the ruling Jews decided to get rid of him . ( you remove the lieder and the sheep go astray ).

Here's what you need to do. Provide evidence that either of these two people existed. Provide evidence for the date these particular stories in the Talmud were recorded. Then, you'll at least have that much.


Do you know how Rome was founded? It was founded by Aeneas as he escaped from Troy with help from Aphrodite. See, these stores were written much later and there is no contemporary evidence that either Aeneas OR Aphrodite ever existed. Is this making some sense yet? Now try and think about your own mythology. I'll await the citations with contemporary evidence of Jesus.

I am familiar about myth ,
You are missing my point . A diary is written by the person describing daily events. What us written into the Talmud it was written on the time of the event by the scribes at that time.

Jesus was a simple man who lived in Galilee a province influenced by Hwelenism. At his preaching time , there were several uprising against the Jewish ruling system which was in collaboration with the Romans. So the Jewish elders did not wanted that some one will tick the boat.
Jesus apparently had a large followers. So the ruling Jews decided to get rid of him . ( you remove the lieder and the sheep go astray ).

Isn't funny these same Romans started the Holy Roman Catholic (*Christian?) Church? They kill the man, then 150 years later the dedicate a church of liars to him? I smell something, and its fishy.

Jesus was a simple man who lived in Galilee a province influenced by Hwelenism. At his preaching time , there were several uprising against the Jewish ruling system which was in collaboration with the Romans. So the Jewish elders did not wanted that some one will tick the boat.
Jesus apparently had a large followers. So the ruling Jews decided to get rid of him . ( you remove the lieder and the sheep go astray ).There's no evidence that Jesus ever existed. As a matter of fact, the Archetype his relatively common. A young man is called upon to led a Rebel Army against the forces of evil... and etc...

I am familiar about myth ,
You are missing my point . A diary is written by the person describing daily events. What us written into the Talmud it was written on the time of the event by the scribes at that time.Ah, no, that's not the case. The Talmud was written down well and truly after the (supposed) events with most of the characters having been made-up and/or copied from other people's more interesting myths.

Sorry I meant west coast

I've been there and it looks like a desert to me. In fact if you look at Mecca from the air, the city itself is very tiny. I think you could go across in less than 15 minutes by car if it were not so crowded. Its surrounded by barren lands and shrub

http://gulfnews.com/polopoly_fs/hotels-in-the-vicinity-of-makkah-1.848668!image/719834050.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_475/719834050.jpg

Medina is where Mohammed moved to when the Quraysh kicked him out, and its surrounded by desert too although its an important oasis

http://l.yimg.com/ea/img/-/110304/desert_escarpment_16n0pfg-16n0pfo.jpg?x=469&y=306&xc=1&yc=1&wc=627&hc=409&q=60&n=1&sig=7sYQq0cdBu5u59qYBcgTqQ--

From the air most of Saudi Arabia looks like this

http://www.easyvoyage.co.uk/images/destination/ARABIE_SAOUDITE/ARABIE_SAOUDITE0/3_big.jpg

except where there are mountains, where it looks like the vicinity of Mecca and Medina p travelling into Jeddah is quite an experience, the mountains are so desolate. Going into the cities is sometimes a sudden, shocking contrast.

I would say the absence of water would be a significant deterrent to traveling across the Arabian desert and probably explains why Arab traders used shipping lanes to reach Egypt and India

Wish I could add more pics, but here is an Arab lateen or dhow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhow)

http://nabataea.net/s3.jpg

I speculate that the first Arabs might have been immigrants from Indian shores since it makes more sense to me that they came to the desert in boats.

Provide the contemporary evidence of the Talmud having been written during the lifetime of Yhashua and that it specifically mentions him.The tradition of a written Talmud did not begin until about 200CE, long after the time when Jesus is said to have lived. When the Second Temple was destroyed ca 70CE, the Jews lost their center of scholarship. As time wore on, they became uncomfortable with the tradition of rabbis arguing the points of their religion and culture orally, so the tradition of writing them down eventually came about.
There's contemporary evidence of various Egyptian Pharaohs, Roman Emperors, Chinese Emperors, Persian Emperors, etc.... No, there are no photos, but there are statues. There are, at times, records of birth. None of this exits for Moses, Jesus or Mohammad which strongly suggests these people did not actually exist. More likely, like Hercules or Zeus, they're just myths.As I noted in a previous post, it is unremarkable for no record of a normal flesh-and-blood human being, who lived in the era before printing, to exist more than a thousand years later, especially if he lived in a region noted for tumultuous discontinuities in government.

Therefore, it's possible that Mohammed existed. I'm not going to accuse anyone who believes that he did of being deluded. The supernatural aspects of his life can easily be embellishments added to "make a good story better," as we Americans put it.

But supernatural embellishments are not merely accretions to Jesus's biography, they are the essence of it. If he did not actually rise from the dead, then there's no point in perpetuating his legend!

As for Moses... As I've noted in other discussions, the entire story of the "bondage in Egypt" and the "wandering in the desert" is now regarded with intense skepticism. It's much more likely that the Jews in Egypt were simply what today we call "guest workers," recruited by the Pharaoh's managers to keep a project on schedule, paid whatever was considered a fair wage by despotic rulers in those days, and dismissed when the project was completed. Moses is a part of that exaggerated story and, like Jesus, supernatural embellishments are the meat-and-potatoes of his biography too. We don't doubt Moses's existence because we can't find his chiseled-in-stone birth certificate; we doubt it because everything that is written about that existence invokes the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect.
Do you mean Jesus or Yashua.The original Hebrew name is יְהוֹשֻׁעַ , pronounced Ye-ho-shu-ah. It means "Yahweh delivers/rescues."

The Greeks transcribed this name as Ἰησοῦς, transliterated Iesous and pronounced ye-SOOS. In Greek it's impossible to have an H in the middle of the word, so it vanished. Greek also lacks the phoneme we write as SH, so they changed it to S. I'm not quite sure why they added the S to the end of the name; perhaps to conform to the grammatical rules of their language.

The Romans were already familiar with the name Yehoshuah. In vernacular speech the first H had already been elided so it became Yoshuah. The Romans wrote this as Joshua, since they used Y to transliterate Greek ypsilon, an umlauted vowel, whereas their J was the equivalent of our Y.

I would have expected the Romans to use their own name Joshua. But for reasons I don't understand, they borrowed the Greek equivalent ye-SOOS, which they spelled phonetically as Jesus. Notice that in modern Spanish the accent is still on the second syllable. We anglophones moved the accent to the first syllable because: A) The coincidental ending -us makes it look like a normal Latin name and Latin names are not accented on the last syllable; and B) English is a Germanic language and we have a strong tendency to accent words on the first syllable.

Aramaic was the common language of the Middle East in biblical times (and for almost two thousand years after). Aramaic is a Semitic language, closely related to Hebrew and Arabic, and the Aramaic version of this name is Yeshua.

So to answer your question: Jesus, Iesous, Joshua, Yeshua and Yehoshuah are all different renderings of the same name in various languages.
What do you mean by Jesus myth ?All of the extraordinary events in his life, which are unsupported by extraordinary evidence and therefore put us under no obligation to treat them with respect: the virgin birth, the walking on water, the loaves and the fishes, the resurrection, etc. The rude word for this kind of stuff is bullshit, but a more polite way to refer to it is a myth. This confers to it much more respect than it deserves, but still rejects all claims that it is literally true.

Myths are metaphors, and as scholars are quick to point out, a metaphor lies halfway between a truth and a lie.
What preposterous fairytale do you mean ?The whole Bible. It is one long series of extraordinary assertions for which there is... not just no extraordinary evidence, but no respectable evidence of any kind at all!

Sure, it contains bits of factual history, but the majority of it is metaphors, or simply fiction created by the storytellers of the various eras.

I've been there and it looks like a desert to me. In fact if you look at Mecca from the air, the city itself is very tiny. I think you could go across in less than 15 minutes by car if it were not so crowded. Its surrounded by barren lands and shrub

http://gulfnews.com/polopoly_fs/hotels-in-the-vicinity-of-makkah-1.848668!image/719834050.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_475/719834050.jpg

Medina is where Mohammed moved to when the Quraysh kicked him out, and its surrounded by desert too although its an important oasis

http://l.yimg.com/ea/img/-/110304/desert_escarpment_16n0pfg-16n0pfo.jpg?x=469&y=306&xc=1&yc=1&wc=627&hc=409&q=60&n=1&sig=7sYQq0cdBu5u59qYBcgTqQ--

From the air most of Saudi Arabia looks like this

http://www.easyvoyage.co.uk/images/destination/ARABIE_SAOUDITE/ARABIE_SAOUDITE0/3_big.jpg

except where there are mountains, where it looks like the vicinity of Mecca and Medina p travelling into Jeddah is quite an experience, the mountains are so desolate. Going into the cities is sometimes a sudden, shocking contrast.

I would say the absence of water would be a significant deterrent to traveling across the Arabian desert and probably explains why Arab traders used shipping lanes to reach Egypt and India

Wish I could add more pics, but here is an Arab lateen or dhow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhow)

http://nabataea.net/s3.jpg

I speculate that the first Arabs might have been immigrants from Indian shores since it makes more sense to me that they came to the desert in boats.

SAM your pictures are interesting.
In the time of Mohamed I would believe there were no roads which we understand now. The distance between Medina and Elatt about 800 Km.
that is a lon distance for Camel ride and If you were to conquest Levant first you might need a large number of man. So what is your view and what direction did Mohamed have taken to evangelize Islam ?

SAM your pictures are interesting.
In the time of Mohamed I would believe there were no roads which we understand now. The distance between Medina and Elatt about 800 Km.
that is a lon distance for Camel ride and If you were to conquest Levant first you might need a large number of man. So what is your view and what direction did Mohamed have taken to evangelize Islam ?

They used Arabian horses. And they travelled as an encampment. All men and women over the age of 15 could travel with the army. In those days, wars were not fought in the streets, they were fought in battlefields. So even though the Arabs were guerilla fighters, they would move as a camp not as a bunch of men, with tents and food and water probably from one Arab settlement to another. Also Muhammed did not evangelise outside the Arab tribes, although he invited all people to Islam. In his Medina declaration he defined the ummah as all people of the community, not just the Muslims. So his large number of men were actually the Arabs and other tribes which, at the time, were under Persian and Byzantine occupation. He recruited the local people where he went

For 100 years after the Arabs reached Morocco, it was only the Arabs who were Muslims. The Levant began to adopt Islam much later after the first madrassa was established by a lady of Tunisian origin.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam

[QUOTE=S.A.M.;2851408
There is no evidence (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2678020&postcount=245) of Jewish tribes in Arabia, except from later traditions quoting ONLY one Jewish person after the Arabs conquered Palestine.[/QUOTE]
:eek:
are you out of your mind?

what about banu-quraydah and banu-qaynuqa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qaynuqa) and banu-annadir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Nadir)? kaybar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaybar)and its battle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar)? what about the different sieges and wars with or concerned with the jews and the plethora* of verified sahih hadiths about them? what about abdullah ibn salam (http://www.islamicport.com/sahaba/abdullah_ibn_salam.html)? what about the jewish lady that poisoned the prophet?

it is well known in the penensula's history that jews were a major power in medina, they controlled the weapons and gold shops and were the major (only?) supplier of them. they also had a lot of palm trees. each of the arabian tribes had an ally from the jewish tribes which helped them in their wars against each other, that's how the outnumbered jews stayed in business and made a living in medina, they were also the richest in it, AND they always bragged about the final prophet who will be revealed and who they'll follow to rule the world, bragged to the barbaric paganic illiterate desert nomads always killing each other and feeding their stone statues, their assumption that the final prophet would be jew was of course because all(most) prophets of the abrahamic faith were of isreali lineage, so you can imagine how they felt when the final prophet was chosen from the good for nothing nomads they always made fun of.

anyway, jews are an important part of the arabian peninsula's history, i find it hard to believe you haven't come across them more than what you have mentioned in your linked post. arabian history without jew is well, like the animal kingdom without cats or dogs :p



------
*sahih al bukhari (http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0002P0000.aspx), i chose 3 different chapters, a (http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0002P0067.aspx),b (http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0002P0063.aspx),c (http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0002P0061.aspx), just press ctrl+f and type "jew".

Go on look it up. See the source and the year. The problem with the hadiths is that a verified hadith just tells you that the commentator[s] is[are] verified. What tells you that the source is correct but what he said has no independent verification? Show me independent verification of the presence of Jewish tribes in Mecca and Medina. For example, did any of the Jews who travelled to Mecca from Jerusalem write about them? The Romans wrote about the Arabs so we know they lived there. Who wrote about Jews in Arabia besides Bukhari born 100 years after Mohammed died? ALL the sources come back only to this ONE man. How is that credible?\

The oldest documentary evidence of Yemenite Jews is from the 9th century. They are Hebrew Bibles with Masoretic introductions and Arabic commentaries. All evidence of Jews in Arabia proper come from after Mohammed reached the Levant

Not saying that they were not there. Just saying that we have no evidence of it.

:confused:
the sources of a hadith are the prophet himself, i don't understand what you're saying.

the book of al-bukhari has been published and preserved, in it is what i like to think of is applying the[a] scientific method to verify and filter the word of mouth accounts of the prophet's words and actions..what do you mean by independent verification?

and there's something i think called "tawatur", in which something is proved for all practical purposes when the sources claiming it are alot and separate to be all decided to lie the same lie.

the sources of a hadith are the prophet himself

How did Bukhari meet the Prophet when he was born in Uzbekistan 100 years after Mohammed died? Also don't forget, Mohammed banned the collection of Hadith and so did the Rashidun. Bukhari only began collecting the Hadith after a short visit to Mecca when he was 16 - after all the Rashidun were dead and people once again began collecting Hadith - and most of his collection was collected outside Arabia from people in the Persian Empire. This is also before the sanad was codified much of which was done after the fact by Muslim and others. In fact, there is no evidence of any collection before 722

something interesting I read:


Some Muslims have suggested that the original prohibition against Hadith led to the Golden Age of Islam, as the Quran was able to stand up to critical thinking and questioning; and Muslims were thus schooled to be inquisitive and seek answers to every quandary. They posit that the increased reliance on Hadith, which was allegedly illogical and required the suspension of disbelief, led to the eventual downfall of scholastic pursuits in the religion.[15]

In 1878, Cyrus Hamlin wrote that "Tradition, rather than the Quran, has formed both law and religion for the Moslems".[19] In the early 20th century, a book was written in defence of the Hadith stating "Anyone who denies the role of Abu Hurayra denies half of the canonical law, for half of the hadiths on which judgments were based had their origin in Abu Hurayra"

How did Bukhari meet the Prophet when he was born in Uzbekistan 100 years after Mohammed died? Also don't forget, Mohammed banned the collection of Hadith and so did the Rashidun. Bukhari only began collecting the Hadith after a short visit to Mecca when he was 16 - after all the Rashidun were dead and people once again began collecting Hadith - and most of his collection was collected outside Arabia from people in the Persian Empire. This is also before the sanad was codified much of which was done after the fact by Muslim and others. In fact, there is no evidence of any collection before 722

something interesting I read:

If Bukhari lived 100 years after Mohamed and he wrot Mohameds history we should not believe because he was not a contemporary of Mohamed , I think this is a wrong concept . A person that write have an opportunity to see several steps and analyse , while the contemporary writer mighr not have all the fact because he writes only a particular segment of the action of particular event in time.

Reading that "The" Prophet did this and "The" Prophet did that... is kind of comical. There simply is no evidence "The" Prophet even existed - let alone arguing he did this or that. Which is why all your "first hand" "witnesses" are a generation or more later.

There's no sense going over that ground.

What I would like to know is if there is ANY contemporary evidence at all that Khalid exited. All armies are paid, there'd have to be minted coins at the very least.

As it stands, it seems more and more of the "glorious" Islamic battles were actually wars fought between Persians and Byzantine with the Persians names being Arabified and the stories re-written to suggest Arabs fought these wars.

What we do have evidence of is the greatest plague known to mankind at that time decimating most cities in the middle east and near east. In some cases up to 80% of city populations were lost. Now, that did happen. Seems more a case of nomadic horsemen moving into cities or rebuilding nearby, creating yet another set of hero myths based on the classic Jesus-archetype. We also know the Star and Crescent were common Zorostrian symbols (now Islamic) and the word Mohammad was being used as a Title for Jesus PRE-ISLAM. Most people thinking clearly and not deluded by their own religious bias can add two and two.



So, ANY contemporary evidence for Khalid? Surely he's not myth as well? Surely there's ample coinage as there is for all the other great military leaders from Egyptians, to Chinese, to Roman and Greek.

Anything?


Anything at all?

If Bukhari lived 100 years after Mohamed and he wrot Mohameds history we should not believe because he was not a contemporary of Mohamed , I think this is a wrong concept . A person that write have an opportunity to see several steps and analyse , while the contemporary writer mighr not have all the fact because he writes only a particular segment of the action of particular event in time.There's other forms of contemporary evidence. Coins being one of the most common. In the case of Egyptians, we even have their freaken bodies from 3500 years ago!

We know various Chinese emperor's existed because, among other things, they minted coins:
http://primaltrek.com/banliangqin1.jpg

Even the uncivilized nomadic Mongols living on the steps in tents, who drank horse blood and rode straight into battle on their third horse... minted war coins!
http://users.rcn.com/j-roberts/153x.jpg

Get this, his DNA is in about 3% of the world population. NOW, this in interesting. I can't wait to find out if all these supposed "sons of Mohammad" have a genetic leg to stand on! Haaaa! Soon we'll be able to tell the year they were last related to a common ancestor :) Ohhhh THAT is going to be ssaaaweeet!

So? Where are Khalid's coins? ANY contemporary evidence at all this person existed? Surely contemporary Persian and Byzantine historians would have all sorts of documents about this "great" general.

There's other forms of contemporary evidence. Coins being one of the most common. In the case of Egyptians, we even have their freaken bodies from 3500 years ago!

We know various Chinese emperor's existed because, among other things, they minted coins:
http://primaltrek.com/banliangqin1.jpg

Even the uncivilized nomadic Mongols living on the steps in tents, who drank horse blood and rode straight into battle on their third horse... minted war coins!
http://users.rcn.com/j-roberts/153x.jpg

Get this, his DNA is in about 3% of the world population. NOW, this in interesting. I can't wait to find out if all these supposed "sons of Mohammad" have a genetic leg to stand on! Haaaa! Soon we'll be able to tell the year they were last related to a common ancestor :) Ohhhh THAT is going to be ssaaaweeet!

So? Where are Khalid's coins? ANY contemporary evidence at all this person existed? Surely contemporary Persian and Byzantine historians would have all sorts of documents about this "great" general.

You are enjoying yourself good for you . But as for me, the teaching of Jesus is great for humanity on how to get along among us , even for me with the atheists .Atheists are a great challenge for the believers. As Jesus said and I paraphrase " when he comes back will he find many believers on the earth "

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2592438&postcount=318

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2592438&postcount=318I asked: Is there contemporary evidence that Khalid (or Mohammad) existed. I didn't ask: Did they exist.

See the difference?

Sure, we can't "prove" the flying spaghetti monster (FSM), invisible pink unicorn (IPU), Zeus, Hercules, Mohammad, Jesus, Smurfs, Leprechauns, Pixie Fairies, Mosses, and all sorts and manner of bullshit .... do not exist.

So, we instead ask is if there is any contemporary evidence such things existed.


It's not at all surprising there's no evidence of Mohammad existed. What we do have are contemporary evidence in the form of Syrian coins using the word Mohammad as a Title for Christ, PRE-Islam. Unlike ANYTHING Islamic from that period, this actually does exist. You can touch it. It's good evidence that the word Mohammad later became a person. This isn't unusual at all. Title and Names are often interchangeable. Take the name Caesar. Used by numerous Emperors as a TITLE following Caesar. But, the word itself possibly mean "Hair" long before the General who popularized it or his family who used it.

Note that the Qur'an has Christian stories mixed into it. This adds further evidence of being derived from a Christian sect. Any rational logical person can easily see the obvious.


Asking me if evidence of my mother has been published in a peer reviewed archeological journal is not my question. I said: Is there any contemporary evidence of their existence (this would of course BE published in a journal). Although it doesn't have to be. That's one measure for validity. There's no point posting Islamic propaganda hence the reason why Scientists (this form) value the peer-review manuscript process. It weeds out most (not all) of the bullshit.

Is there contemporary evidence for my mother's existence? Yes, she's still alive. You can speak to her.


So, is there any contemporary evidence for Mohammad? No, there is not.



What I would like to know is this: Is there any contemporary evidence for the existence of the "Great" Islamic military hero Khalid? I don't think so. Which is very interesting to me. Not that shocking, but interesting. It sort of makes sense. Actually, if you take a look at the middle east, it makes very good sense. If any people needed to make up a glorious "Islamic" Golden Age repeat with total "Islamic" history, a "perfect" God book, a "Perfect" prophet it'd be Arab Muslims. Without such mythology, they'd pretty much not have a history. Just nomadic people living off the scraps of truly great Empires like the Persians, Egyptians, Greeks or Romans. No wonder they attempted to emulate these nations great cultures with poorly understood facsimiles of their myths. In their rush to create an "Islamic" myth, they missed the central point in what made Christianity a powerful message. Forgiveness. Leaving them with a mix of nonsensical Bronze Age superstitions similar to what Jews used 1000 years earlier.


Anyway, the nice thing about the truth, is it finds it's way into being known. I'm really looking forward to the day when DNA tests can show explicitly and mathematically that the hundreds and thousands sons of Mohammad (haa! I even know someone who thinks he's a descendant of Mohammad) all have no common ancestor from 1300 years ago :)

Until then, any contemporary evidence for Khalid? Or was he made up bullshit as well :) By the GODS that is sooooo funny! I mean, not even Khalid is real!!! Hahahahaahaa! Too funny.




:roflmao:

haha... just thinking about it again, surely there's SOME contemporary evidence of the existence of Khalid? You can't wage war against two empires and not a single contemporary write about it. Especially the Greeks, they kept records of everything from numbers of olives eaten at dinner to great sagas. Not to mention the need for coinage to pay the army. It must be shocking to realize your entire foundation myth is just that, a myth. Actually, it's not all THAT shocking, some of the greatest Greek philosophers understood there were no Gods or Goddesses on Mount Olympus. Of course, the vast majority of people are quite simple (hence that term: simpletons) they didn't get it or they didn't want to get it. Much better to keep believing what they were taught to believe rather than question their belief. Much like the way most people today think.

michael's mom isn't real, because there are no coins from her era, then she couldn't've conceived michael, which i find interesting too :scratchin:

haha haha that is soo funny i made a joke i think i should laugh haha :roflmao:


oh scientific community!
the joke michael is claiming Galileo doesn't exist, after all, the only coin with his face on it dates to 2009, hardly contemporary.
kinda interesting, that galileo didn't exist..

time to abandon this idiocity michael and return to us a week later with a newer one..

michael's mom isn't real, because there are no coins from her era, Wow, this is a watertight argument, I guess your fairytale is real :D


Here, let me restate a couple of things.
(#1) Existence of contemporary evidence is just that.
(1A) Coins are an EXAMPLE of #1
(1B) Existence of evidence is different than existence of the individual.
(#2) This is a type of evidence (contemporary), it answers a question about the existence of evidence.

Simple enough for you? Can you understand that much scifes?


As for mother's: There IS contemporary evidence for my mother's existence. It does not have to take the form of a coin.



Get this: There IS contemporary evidence for the WORD mohammad on a coin. The word mohammad is being used as a TITLE (noun) for another fictional character, Jesus. As of now, I've yet to see any contemporary evidence of Khalid.



Think of it like this. Imagine Harry Potter (a fictional protagonist) was given the Wizardly Title of Triwizard (for winning a contest). Triwizard Harry Potter was minted a coin. A century and several generations later people are worshiping the word Triwizard as a person! Even to the point of murdering other people. That's Islam scifes. Now, imagine how messed up a society you'd create with such an idiotic foundation - as compared to, say, one based on Rational Thought (Greek Philosophy).

OK, rational thought time over, go back to your fairytale.


Triwizard (PBUH) pffff.....
:roflmao:

Wow, this is a watertight argument, I guess your fairytale is real :D


Here, let me restate a couple of things.
(#1) Existence of contemporary evidence is just that.
(1A) Coins are an EXAMPLE of #1
(1B) Existence of evidence is different than existence of the individual.
(#2) This is a type of evidence (contemporary), it answers a question about the existence of evidence.

Simple enough for you? Can you understand that much scifes?


As for mother's: There IS contemporary evidence for my mother's existence. It does not have to take the form of a coin.



Get this: There IS contemporary evidence for the WORD mohammad on a coin. The word mohammad is being used as a TITLE (noun) for another fictional character, Jesus. As of now, I've yet to see any contemporary evidence of Khalid.



Think of it like this. Imagine Harry Potter (a fictional protagonist) was given the Wizardly Title of Triwizard (for winning a contest). Triwizard Harry Potter was minted a coin. A century and several generations later people are worshiping the word Triwizard as a person! Even to the point of murdering other people. That's Islam scifes. Now, imagine how messed up a society you'd create with such an idiotic foundation - as compared to, say, one based on Rational Thought (Greek Philosophy).

OK, rational thought time over, go back to your fairytale.


Triwizard (PBUH) pffff.....
:roflmao:


What your logic about Manco Copac the founder of the Inca empire
his descendent are Athaualpa and Huascar
Do you think they are or were real. ?

What your logic about Manco Copac the founder of the Inca empire
his descendent are Athaualpa and Huascar
Do you think they are or were real. ?Your sentence is unclearly written. Is there evidence that Manco Cápac was the son of the sun god (Inti) and moon goddess (Mama Quilla)? No. Is there contemporary evidence that Manco Cápac existed? Not that I'm aware off. If I were indigenous south American and interested in my own history, I'd take a look into that. I'd be willing to accept that Manco Cápac did or did not exist. May or may not have been mythical.

But, that's the difference between you and I, isn't it?



On a side note: I'm happy to see that the wording "The Prophet Mohammad" has been altered to read "the Islamic prophet Mohammad" on numerous WIKI pages. A small step in the forward direction.

you're deluded and downright stoopid beyond repair, i always wonder why the heck do i bother with you..

Wow, this is a watertight argument, I guess your fairytale is real :D


Here, let me restate a couple of things.
(#1) Existence of contemporary evidence is just that.
(1A) Coins are an EXAMPLE of #1

but two fudging seconds later you say they're worth nothing! HERE;

Get this: There IS contemporary evidence for the WORD mohammad on a coin. The word mohammad is being used as a TITLE (noun) for another fictional character, Jesus. As of now, I've yet to see any contemporary evidence of Khalid.
and how the hell can coins be evidence for something if you don't freaking write it on them??? what, they should've grinded the prophet's bones and placed a grain in each of the coins? or did they have to make him print a finger on the coin? and even then it would be evidence of the FINGERPRINT of the prophet, and not the prophet himself.

and it was you who brought coins as proof, and showed us your picture as proof that the Mongolians existed, and here you are now contradicting yourself.


(1B) Existence of evidence is different than existence of the individual.
:bugeye:
i've changed my mind, you're not worth my time:puke:
existence of evidence is different from the existence of something, he says..so much for the scientific method..

oh, and mohammad wasn't meant in the coins, so they're not evidence for him..
mohammad was meant as jesus, so the coins become evidence for jesus, michael doesn't like jesus, so still jesus doesn't exist..

you're a disgrace to atheists, i have NO idea how they let you breath your insanity on these forums, first mohammad doesn't exist because there are no archeological coins for him, then the coins which have mohammad on them were meant for jesus, then jesus was also a fictional character because coins are not reliable, what next you idiot?

you're deluded and downright stoopid beyond repair, i always wonder why the heck do i bother with you..It's really simple so stop making it so difficult.

There is NO contemporary evidence for the existence of Mohammad or Khalid.
None scifes.
Zero.
Nada.
Zilch.

ONE more time in case you missed that: There is NO contemporary evidence for the existence of Mohammad or Khalid.

So it doesn't really matter what you feel, or what you wish, or what you want. The reality is what it is: No Contemporary Evidence.


That doesn't mean that Mohammad or Khalid didn't exist. Only that there is ZERO contemporary evidence that they ever existed. Given the word Mohammad appears on coins PRE-Islam as a title for Jesus, that's good contemporary evidence Mohammad the TITLE was later converted into Mohammad the Prophet. As for Khalid, it'd be very very very unlikely you could attack Persian, Roman, Byzantine and Egyptians and not a single person mention anything about you. It's possible, just highly unlikely.


Also, note the conflated military triumphalism.


He [Khalid] was victorious in over a hundred battles, against the numerically superior forces of the Byzantine-Roman Empire, Sassanid-Persian Empire, and their allies, in addition to other Arab tribes. His strategic achievements include the conquest of Arabia, Persian Mesopotamia and Roman Syria within several years from 632 to 636.
- He fought in over one hundred battles in 4 years.
- He was always outnumbered (was the underdog).
- He never lost a battle.
- He always lead the fight and not an inch of him was not scarred.
- The One God supported him in all of the battles (hence he never lost).

That's classical Hero mythology (even if a little cheesy a comic book way).



AND yet, there's ZERO contemporary evidence this person ever existed. More than likely he's completely fictional. Given the Qur'an was written many many decades later, and is mostly based on regional superstitions, back-filling a "Glorious" past with a "Glorious" military general is only to be expected. This is what you get with religious-political myths.

Any thinking person would draw these conclusions.



ONE last time in case all those words in between confused you: There is NO contemporary evidence for the existence of Mohammad or Khalid.

time to abandon this idiocity michael and return to us a week later with a newer one..


you're deluded and downright stoopid beyond repair, i always wonder why the heck do i bother with you..


i've changed my mind, you're not worth my time:puke: existence of evidence is different from the existence of something, he says..so much for the scientific method..


you're a disgrace to atheists,


i have NO idea how they let you breath your insanity on these forums,


what next you idiot?


Ad hominem attacks, attacking the person and not the claim, are illogical. So, let me repeat the claim so you can better understand it: There is NO contemporary evidence for the existence of Mohammad or Khalid.

So, instead of wasting your time being insolent, why don't you attempt to address the argument? Do you have any contemporary evidence for Khalid or Mohammad? If NO, then concede the point :shrug: It really is THAT SIMPLE. You either present the evidence or you do not. As a requirement for good evidence on Sciforums.com is a peer-reviewed Journal. I'm certain if there were evidence for Mohammad, it'd be in such a Journal.


Now all that is left is interpretation of said lack of evidence.
(1) For Mohammad, given the Title appears on a coin, it seems reasonable Mohammad the WORD was later converted into Mohammad the fictional Prophet. I mean come on, look at all the magical things Mohammad does (talks to ants, fly's on fairy creatures, talks to invisible angels, etc...). If this were a modern day story, it's be classified as a poorly written fiction. Harry Potter, now there's a good book you may like to read?

(2) For Khalid, as I mentioned, above, he fights over a hundred battles in 4 years, leads the charge personally, never looses a single battle, etc.. etc.. etc.. yet, not a single mention of him from Persians, Syrians, Byzantine, Egyptians, Romans. More than likely he's not real. He could be real, perhaps a Persian general combined with a few other Persians/Syrians into a single person and obviously the battles are over sold. Kind of comic book like.



It should be noted:


the Plague of Justinian was a pandemic that afflicted the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire), including its capital Constantinople, in 541–542 AD. It was one of the greatest plagues in history. The plagues' social and cultural impact during this period is comparable to that of the Black Death. In the views of 6th century Western historians, it was nearly worldwide in scope, striking central and south Asia, North Africa and Arabia, and Europe (as far north as Denmark and as far west as Ireland). Genetic studies point to China being the primary source of the contagion. Until about 750, the plague returned with each generation throughout the Mediterranean basin.
Want to know who the REAL Khalid was? He was more than likely a Gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium - the facultative anaerobe Yersinia pestis. It's not usual to see a change in superstition during times of mass dying. Suddenly a "Magic" coin becomes the fulcrum of a new superstition/religion:

Person A: Why's one coin more lucky than the other? That man there's God him a magic coin that's why him no sick.
Person B: Ohhhh, he's got the magic God-word on him's coin. Hey, bring that on over. Let me see here, it say Mud... err no, Mud Ham Rod ... Errr Mohammad. That's it! The Magic Word!
Person A: Why it sure does Ali, don't it?!?
Ali: Yup, it sure does.
Person A: What's a Mohammad?
Ali: Oh, It's a.... Errrrr.... He was a Prophet!!!

Wa La, Islam :D


And with all those cities depopulated from 300 years of the Plague, nomads would pretty much walk in a own the place. Set up there own religious-political mythology and done is done.

your arguments are too feeble for anyone to bother with, in case you haven't noticed, nobody takes your fantasies seriously.

i have destroyed the garbage you call arguments, which we can all see you've decided not to reply to, since there isn't anything you can say, except repeat your insanities and paraphrase them.

i don't know if there's a name for a sickness in which a person is obsessed with something and keeps trying over and over again to prove to himself it is real, and convinces himself everybody else is stupid for not seeing it, but you have that sickness, you're obsessed with religions and you can't help yourself trying to remove them from your world.

i mean look at this;

It's really simple so stop making it so difficult.

There is NO contemporary evidence for the existence of Mohammad or Khalid.
None scifes.
Zero.
Nada.
Zilch.

ONE more time in case you missed that: There is NO contemporary evidence for the existence of Mohammad or Khalid.

So it doesn't really matter what you feel, or what you wish, or what you want. The reality is what it is: No Contemporary Evidence.



:shrug:
your inanity still remains in shards on the floor, you've yet to notice it and attempt to put it back together.

you've got perseverance and a level head, i'll give you that..
but till a year or two from now when you develop some reasonable methodology for viewing the world..

..welcome to my ignore list :)

your arguments are too feeble for anyone to bother with, in case you haven't noticed, nobody takes your fantasies seriously.This sentence is an ad hominin attack and provides no contemporary evidence of Mohammad or Khalid.


i have destroyed the garbage you call arguments, which we can all see you've decided not to reply to, since there isn't anything you can say, except repeat your insanities and paraphrase them.You have yet to provide a single link to a peer reviewed journal.


i don't know if there's a name for a sickness in which a person is obsessed with something and keeps trying over and over again to prove to himself it is real, and convinces himself everybody else is stupid for not seeing it, but you have that sickness, you're obsessed with religions and you can't help yourself trying to remove them from your world.Another ad hominin attack again, again, no contemporary evidence of Mohammad or Khalid.



i mean look at this;And again, nothing.



your inanity still remains in shards on the floor, you've yet to notice it and attempt to put it back together.
More blathering, no link to a peer reviewed journal.


you've got perseverance and a level head, i'll give you that..
but till a year or two from now when you develop some reasonable methodology for viewing the world..
And sitll more blathering.



..welcome to my ignore list :)
considering all of your posts are a waste of time, I say thank the Gods.



Let me make this simple: Provide a link to a peer review journal or stop wasting my time. You're Muslim, you wish Mohammad and Khalid were real. Instead of accepting reality you whine and whine and whine and attack and waste time. You do this because it somehow make you think you're "winning" an argument. Whining is not winning even if both words begin with a 'w' and end in 'ing'.


Until your provide a link to a peer reviewed journal, you're basically just a whinny little theobot - I suggest you go over to the deny evolution thread or whine about America thread or blame the Jews thread....

Lets clear up a couple things here. 'The' argument being made is this: There is no contemporary evidence for the existence of either Mohammed or Khalid.

- This isn't "my" argument. "I" have nothing to do with it. It's 'an' argument. Or a position and is independent of any person. Either there is or isn't contemporary evidence.
- 'The' argument stands as there's been no contemporary evidence in a peer reviewed published article presented in this thread. Propaganda websites do not count as good evidence in a science forum.
- And yes, it's that simple. Either evidence is provided or it isn't. So, until evidence is provided the statement stands.


If we're to answer the OP, the first thing we should determine is: Did the people in the mythology even exist? Is Islam actually Judaism? I'd suggest it's more than likely a type of Christianity. One were Jesus wasn't God incarnate. A form of Christianity that didn't believe in Trinity. Evidence for this has been presented in other threads.

Michael's got this one, hands down. Scifes, you're doing nothing but engaging in ad hominem. I admit my surprise here: surely there is some evidence of Muhammad? Or is it rather like King Arthur, so easily invoked but without introspection? (Or at least not too much until recently.)

Michael's got this one, hands down. Scifes, you're doing nothing but engaging in ad hominem. I admit my surprise here: surely there is some evidence of Muhammad? Or is it rather like King Arthur, so easily invoked but without introspection? (Or at least not too much until recently.)

hands down like how you won the "science is useless" debate? -.-
you may have your dishonest moments, but at least you don't have short term memory lost..

say -before i list my evidence- is there any proof for jesus existing?

if there is, i'm sure it applies to muhammad as well.
if there isn't, yet you believe in him, and it's ok to do that for you, then surly it is so for me too.

if it's not ok to believe in someone who doesn't exist and yet you believe in him, then you don't have the right to stand there and challenge me.

hands down like how you won the "science is useless" debate? -.-

You had a leg to stand on from the start? Please, don't make me laugh.


you may have your dishonest moments, but at least you don't have short term memory lost..

I can happily say that I have neither. :D


say -before i list my evidence- is there any proof for jesus existing?
if there is, i'm sure it applies to muhammad as well.

Oh, so you want me to give you some meaningful arguments. Sorry, not going to do that. Best of luck.


if there isn't, yet you believe in him, and it's ok to do that for you, then surly it is so for me too.

That's fine: but Michael also has the right to ask what evidence there is. I expect he does the same for Christianity, and he has the right to do that too; but pointing that out doesn't help your argument, if he believes in neither. Remember, you're arguing with him, not me: and so far, you're losing.


if it's not ok to believe in someone who doesn't exist and yet you believe in him, then you don't have the right to stand there and challenge me.

It's funny that you think of it as a challenge. But, think of it that way if you like.

Mohammad (the actual name) appears in the Qur'an four times. Whereas Jesus OTOH is mentioned by name 25 times. Mosses is mentioned 502 times.

Recall that not all Christians considered Jesus to be an incarnation of God. Christians of that era had all sorts of ideas about Jesus (on the extreme end, some thought Jesus was Satan). Which makes one wonder, what then can be considered a Christian? (there's no contemporary evidence of Jesus either by the way)


Qur'anic writings were being produced much earlier (well before) invention of the protagonist Mohammad. proto-Muslims were visiting holy places as part of their religion BEFORE Mohammad. That's interesting but not that surprising. Obviously Islam did not arise in a vacuum. ANYONE who is even a tiny bit academic must take into account the types of Christianity prevalent in the region and how these beliefs evolved into Islam (that includes the invention of the protagonist Mohammad).

A conservative branch of Nestorian Christian community may be a good starting point.

Nestorius and his teachings were eventually condemned as heretical at the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451, leading to the Nestorian Schism in which churches supporting Nestorius broke with the rest of the Christian Church. Afterward many of Nestorius' supporters relocated to Sassanid Persia, where they affiliated with the local Christian community, known as the Church of the East. Over the next decades the Church of the East became increasingly Nestorian in doctrine, leading it to be known alternately as the Nestorian Church.

Here's another thing interesting about early Islamic so-called-history. The entire Persian Empire as well as half of Byzantium was "conquered" by Muslims (led by comic bookish hero Khalid) and yet, not a single Sassanid Persian or Byzantine Roman seemed to have noticed as no one makes a single mention of ANY of this happening. Isn't that interesting?

Here's something else that I find interesting:

The emperor Justinian closed the last Platonic Academy early in the 6th century. According to the sole witness, the historian Agathias, its remaining members looked for protection under the rule of Sassanid king Khosrau I in his capital at Ctesiphon (a 10 min drive from modern day Baghdad), carrying with them precious scrolls of literature and philosophy, and to a lesser degree of science. After a peace treaty between the Persian and the Byzantine empire in 532, their personal security (an early document in the history of freedom of religion) was guaranteed. Oh, but wasn't it the "Muslims" who built a library for, and preserved, Greek literature and Philosophy? (yeah, and they invented zero too :p and are directly responsible for the European Renascence and the modern day world we live in)


Haa! It's just so funny to me. ALL of the Sassan Persian empire is conquered and a full half the Roman Byzantine Empire is conquered by "Muslims" (according to "Islamic" History) and yet no one seemed to notice!?! No one mentions a thing. I mean, come on. How dense does one have to be to at least think: Hmmmm maybe something's not how I thought it was? Only religious belief can cloud one's mind to the point of not seeing what's right in front of your face.

Persians peacefully incorporating Nestorian Christian doctrine replete with traditional Zoroastrian symbolism (the star and crescent [now Islamic]) seems like a more realistic avenue of thought to peruse. No wonder none of these "Glorious" battles were ever mentioned by any contemporary, anywhere..... they never occurred.





Ask a scholar why Jesus is mentioned in the Qur'an and they'll try to discover the true historical answer. Ask a believing Muslim and you will always get the same tired old typical theobot response: God Did It. In answer to the OP, I suggest looking into different "heretical" Christian sects, particularly the Nestorians. Nestorian missionaries were firmly established in China even by the early 600s to 700s by Persian missionaries. Think about that. Because Persian was supposedly conquered by "Muslims" while at the same time sending Nestorian Missionaries to China.



It'll be interesting to see where the study of Islam is in, say, another 10 years.

. . . . and they invented zero too . . . .Not exactly. The Indians take credit for it also. The first instance of a positional number system with a symbol for zero is in a Jain text from end of the 5th century CE. The Arabs elaborated on this system and today scholars tend to refer to it as "the Hindu-Arabic number system."
. . . . and are directly responsible for the European Renaissance and the modern day world we live in . . . .Uh dude, you're really getting carried away now. I'd enjoy contemplating your reasons for saying this, but first you're going to have to provide some evidence to support your remarkable assertion.

If anyone can be credited with the Renaissance it might as well be the Ethiopians. They cultivated coffee. When the European explorers discovered it they began importing it into Europe. Because the Roman infrastructure had completely collapsed under a millennium of Christian oversight, the water was polluted and everyone drank beer. The introduction of coffee raised the continent's IQ by about 25 points. Presto: the Renaissance!

RE: Zero
I was being facetious :o


Regarding evidence, what would you consider good contemporary evidence? I'd suggest numismatic coins, carvings, histories written be people uninvolved with the actual events (the Greeks commenting on Indians for example). I'd suggest a theologian writing about his own religious history a century (or more) later would be biased non-contemporary evidence.

If anyone can be credited with the Renaissance it might as well be the Ethiopians.

Well, that's just a piece of it. There's no single people who can be credited with the Renaissance, but, in my opinion, (and others) there is one institution which can claim credit for the Renaissance, and that is the merchant class.

It was the European merchants, traders, the Florinteins , the Flemish, the Venitians, the English and the Scottish, who explored Africa, the Levant, Arabia, Russia, the Baltic. What they explored, and what they brought back laid the whole basis for the widenning of the world view that was the Renaissance.

(disclaimer: I am, at present, very much involved with the novels of Lady Dorthy Dunnett, who had been called in her time 'the worlds greatest living writer of historic fiction'. And both sets of novels, both the House of Niccolo, and her first set, the Lymond Chronicles are intimately involved with Europe in the period of 1460 thru 1550. Anyone who is interested in the Renaissance and history, I urge you to read them.)

If anyone can be credited with the Renaissance it might as well be the Ethiopians. They cultivated coffee. When the European explorers discovered it they began importing it into Europe. Because the Roman infrastructure had completely collapsed under a millennium of Christian oversight, the water was polluted and everyone drank beer. The introduction of coffee raised the continent's IQ by about 25 points. Presto: the Renaissance![/QUOTE]


"The first reliable record of the use of coffee outside Ethiopia comes from Aden, in 1451.[107]:16 The appreciation of coffee as a beverage in Europe dates from the 17th century. The first coffee house in Venice opened some time in the late 1640s.[107]:127 In Britain, the first coffee house was opened in Oxford in 1650.[107]:41 They soon became popular throughout Western Europe, and played a significant role in social relations in the 17th and 18th centuries.[108] "
How can you make such flagrant statement about water polluted in Europa . I lived there in the 1940 we used to get our drinking water from the river many peoples had there shallow wells,
Why are such a Christian hater ?
As far coffee . It come into Europa it come in the 17 century , by the America was discovered without indulging coffee, the enlightening era started we had printing and paper , while your Muslim continued drinking coffee and falling behind

You had a leg to stand on from the start? Please, don't make me laugh.
well the way i blasted you in that debate, i might've as well be hovering above the ground.




I can happily say that I have neither. :D
it's part of dishonesty to deny it, i'm starting to regret my generous ".. your moments.." phrase.



Oh, so you want me to give you some meaningful arguments. Sorry, not going to do that. Best of luck.
i gave you three.
you can't question me here.
it's dishonest of you to do so.
you believe in jesus, who supposedly lived 400 years before muhammad.
unless you're saying you know there is evidence for them but you don't want to give away the answer which i don't know and so didn't provide michael...



That's fine: but Michael also has the right to ask what evidence there is. I expect he does the same for Christianity, and he has the right to do that too; but pointing that out doesn't help your argument, if he believes in neither.
you have to be sane to put forth any argument, among other things, michael is not qualified in the least, he blathers nonesense and doesn't follow up with it, i've showed that in this page more than once..


Remember, you're arguing with him
then what exactly do you want here?


, not me: and so far, you're losing.
i'll be generous again and say that you don't read..
although i doubt it's more a case of crippled intellect and a tinge of dishonesty.

well the way i blasted you in that debate, i might've as well be hovering above the ground.

You neglected even to show.

Not what one would call a "blasting", let alone the fact that your premise was intellectually flawed. Care to try again? Or would you just pretend to forget about it again?


it's part of dishonesty to deny it, i'm starting to regret my generous ".. your moments.." phrase.

I yawn at your absurd accusations. Get a mob.


i gave you three.

You gave, as normal, no worthwhile points at all. So I can indeed question you here, and I did. What are you going to do about it?


you believe in jesus, who supposedly lived 400 years before muhammad.
unless you're saying you know there is evidence for them but you don't want to give away the answer which i don't know and so didn't provide michael...

Evidence for them? So their existence is joined now?

Why, as a believer in Jesus - and a marginal one at times - would I possibly be expected to believe in the existence of the quite possibly imaginary Mohammed? You can't counter Michael's points and you expect me to do the work for you? Good luck.


you have to be sane to put forth any argument, among other things, michael is not qualified in the least

'Qualified' in what sense? What qualifications do you think he lacks? Does he not have your board-certified degree in Comparative Religion?


i'll be generous again and say that you don't read..
although i doubt it's more a case of crippled intellect and a tinge of dishonesty.

Heh. Yes, you would indeed be wise to doubt such a list of nonsensical attributes. :D

How can you make such flagrant statement about water polluted in Europe? I lived there in the 1940 we used to get our drinking water from the river many peoples had there shallow wells.You didn't read my post very carefully. I was talking about the Dark Ages, when Europe was under the thumb of the Catholic Church. Intellectual, artistic, and engineering progress almost ground to a halt. After the Renaissance and the Reformation, and especially after the Enlightenment, they did a fabulous job of modernizing. That included cleaning up the pollution. By the time your family lived there Europe may have been cleaner than Japan, which had been the world's reference standard for hygiene for centuries.
Why are such a Christian hater?I'm not a Christian hater. There are millions of perfectly nice, intelligent, reasonable, peaceful Christians on this planet. It's the Abrahamic religions that I hate, not the people who practice them. They have inspired more war, genocide and destruction than they can ever atone for. With the encouragement and blessing of Pope Urban, Christian armies obliterated both of the civilizations in the Western Hemisphere. Admittedly they often made war on each other, but because these people were regarded as "heathens," they burned down their libraries and melted down their art. That is a "sin" that Christianity and its people will never be able to atone for, if their religion endures for another ten thousand years.

And look at the way they treated the Jews. Antisemitism was one of the defining traits of European Christendom for a thousand years, culminating in the Holocaust, during which they tried to kill them all and actually succeeded in killing half of them!

And the Jews are no better, look at how they treat the Palestinians, in the name of their religion. The only reason they haven't done more harm to civilization is that they are not evangelical, so their population grows very slowly.

As for Islam, one needn't dig very far into the history books to come up with a long list of atrocities committed in the name of Allah, with the blessing and encouragement of the religious leaders.

Today, the Christians, Jews and Muslims seem determined to start a nuclear holy war. I suppose I wouldn't mind too much if they killed each other off. I would miss many of them, but the world might at last make some progress toward peace, and we could burn down that stupid fucking "Creation Science Museum" in Kentucky. The problem is that they'll kill off the rest of us in the process.

Abrahamism reinforces humanity's tribal instincts and pits them one against the other.
. . . . while your Muslim continued drinking coffee and falling behindMy Muslim? What are you talking about. I have no more respect for Islam than I do for Judaism and Christianity. They all suck.

Fortunately, Christianity is fading away in Europe and the Antipodes. Hopefully it will do the same in the Americas now that they are becoming more prosperous and better educated. It's not clear where Judaism is headed; in America, where almost half of the world's Jews live, their younger generation is not very religious. That leaves Islam, which unfortunately seems to be stronger than ever.