Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Where is the “Christ” in “Christianity?”
1 view
Skip to first unread message
kolw...@astromail.com
Apr 19, 2012, 4:40:25 PM4/19/12
to
On Apr 12, 5:35 pm, mov_nov <movn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Religious scholars have long attributed the tenets of Christian faith more to Paul’s teachings than to those of Jesus. But as much as I would like to jump into that subject, I think it best to back up and take a quick, speculative look at the Old Testament.
Which one would you rather have as God?
Messiah/Christ or Caesar August the sole ruler of Mankind, the Son of
the Divine
>
> The Old Testament teaches that Jacob wrestled with God. In fact, the Old Testament records that Jacob not only wrestled with God, but that Jacob prevailed (Genesis 32:24-30). Now, bear in mind, we’re talking about a tiny blob of protoplasm wrestling the Creator of a universe 240,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles in diameter, containing over a billion galaxies of which ours—the Milky Way Galaxy—is just one (and a small one, at that), and prevailing? I’m sorry, but someone was a couple pages short of a codex when they scribed that passage. The point is, however, that this passage leaves us in a quandary. We either have to question the Jewish concept of God or accept their explanation that “God” does not mean “God” in the above verses, but rather it means either an angel or a man (which, in essence, means the Old Testament is not to be trusted). In fact, this textual difficulty has become so problematic that more recent Bibles have tried to cover it up by changing the translation from “God” to “man.” What they cannot change, however, is the foundational scripture from which the Jewish Bible is translated, and this continues to read “God.”
>
> Unreliability is a recurring problem in the Old Testament, the most prominent example being the confusion between God and Satan! II Samuel 24:1 reads:
>
> “Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’”
>
> However, I Chronicles 21:1 states: “Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.”
>
> Uhhh, which was it? The Lord, or Satan? Both verses describe the same event in history, but one speaks of God and the other of Satan. There is a slight (like, total) difference.
>
> Christians would like to believe that the New Testament is free of such difficulties, but they are sadly deceived. In fact, there are so many contradictions that authors have devoted books to this subject. For example, Matthew 2:14 and Luke 2:39 differ over whether Jesus’ family fled to Egypt or Nazareth. Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 differ over the wording of the “Lord’s Prayer.” Matthew 11:13-14, 17:11-13 and John 1:21 disagree over whether or not John the Baptist was Elijah.
>
> Things get worse when we enter the arena of the alleged crucifixion: Who carried the cross—Simon (Luke 23:26, Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21) or Jesus (John 19:17)? Was Jesus dressed in a scarlet robe (Matthew 27:28) or a purple robe (John 19:2)? Did the Roman soldiers put gall (Matthew 27:34) or myrrh (Mark 15:23) in his wine? Was Jesus crucified before the third hour (Mark 15:25) or after the sixth hour (John 19:14-15)? Did Jesus ascend the first day (Luke 23:43) or not (John 20:17)? Were Jesus’ last words, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit my spirit’” (Luke 23:46), or were they “It is finished” (John 19:30)?
>
> These are only a few of a long list of scriptural inconsistencies, and they underscore the difficulty in trusting the New Testament as scripture. Nonetheless, there are those who do trust their salvation to the New Testament, and it is these Christians who need to answer the question, “Where is the ‘Christ’ in ‘Christianity?’ “This, in fact, is a supremely fair question. On one hand we have a religion named after Jesus Christ, but on the other hand the tenets of orthodox Christianity, which is to say Trinitarian Christianity, contradict virtually everything he taught.
>
> I know, I know—those of you who aren’t screaming “Heretic!” are gathering firewood and planting a stake. But wait. Put down the high-powered rifle and listen. Trinitarian Christianity claims to base its doctrines on a combination of Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings. The problem is, these teachings are anything but complementary. In fact, they contradict one another.
>
> Take some examples: Jesus taught Old Testament Law; Paul negated it. Jesus preached orthodox Jewish creed; Paul preached mysteries of faith. Jesus spoke of accountability; Paul proposed justification by faith. Jesus described himself as an ethnic prophet; Paul defined him as a universal prophet.[1] Jesus taught prayer to God, Paul set Jesus up as intercessor. Jesus taught divine unity, Pauline theologians constructed the Trinity.
>
> For these reasons, many scholars consider Paul the main corrupter of Apostolic Christianity and Jesus’ teachings. Many early Christian sects held this view as well, including the second-century Christian sects known as “adoptionists”– “In particular, they considered Paul, one of the most prominent authors of our New Testament, to be an arch-heretic rather than an apostle.”[2]
>
> Lehmann contributes:
>
> “What Paul proclaimed as ‘Christianity’ was sheer heresy which could not be based on the Jewish or Essene faith, or on the teaching of Rabbi Jesus. But, as Schonfield says, ‘The Pauline heresy became the foundation of Christian orthodoxy and the legitimate church was disowned as heretical.’ … Paul did something that Rabbi Jesus never did and refused to do. He extended God’s promise of salvation to the Gentiles; he abolished the law of Moses, and he prevented direct access to God by introducing an intermediary.”[3]
>
> Bart D. Ehrman, perhaps the most authoritative living scholar of textual criticism, comments:
>
> “Paul’s view was not universally accepted or, one might argue, even widely accepted …. Even more striking, Paul’s own letters indicate that there were outspoken, sincere, and active Christian leaders who vehemently disagreed with him on this score and considered Paul’s views to be a corruption of the true message of Christ …. One should always bear in mind that in this very letter of Galatians Paul indicates that he confronted Peter over just such issues (Gal. 2:11-14). He disagreed, that is, even with Jesus’ closest disciple on the matter.”[4]
>
> Commenting on the views of some early Christians in the Pseudo-Clementine literature, Ehrman wrote:
>
> “Paul has corrupted the true faith based on a brief vision, which he has doubtless misconstrued. Paul is thus the enemy of the apostles, not the chief of them. He is outside the true faith, a heretic to be banned, not an apostle to be followed.”[5]
>
> Others elevate Paul to sainthood. Joel Carmichael very clearly is not one of them:
>
> “We are a universe away from Jesus. If Jesus came “only to fulfill” the Law and the Prophets; If he thought that “not an iota, not a dot” would “pass from the Law,” that the cardinal commandment was “Hear, O Israel, the Lord Our God, the Lord is one,” and that “no one was good but God”….What would he have thought of Paul’s handiwork! Paul’s triumph meant the final obliteration of the historic Jesus; he comes to us embalmed in Christianity like a fly in amber.”[6]
>
> Dr. Johannes Weiss contributes:
>
> “Hence the faith in Christ as held by the primitive churches and by Paul was something new in comparison with the preaching of Jesus; it was a new type of religion.”[7]
>
> A new type of religion, indeed. And hence the question, “Where is the ‘Christ’ in ‘Christianity?’ “If Christianity is the religion of Jesus Christ, where are the Old Testament laws and strict monotheism of the Rabbi Jesus’ Orthodox Judaism? Why does Christianity teach that Jesus is the son of God when Jesus called himself the “son of Man” eighty-eight times, and not once the “son of God?” Why does Christianity endorse confession to priests and prayers to saints, Mary and Jesus when Jesus taught his followers:
>
> “In this manner, therefore, pray: ‘Our Father …’” (Matthew 6:9)?
>
> And who appointed a pope? Certainly not Jesus. True, he may have called Peter the rock upon which he would build his church (Matthew 16:18-19). However, a scant five verses later, he called Peter “Satan” and “an offense.” And let us not forget that this “rock” thrice denied Jesus after Jesus’ arrest—poor testimony of Peter’s commitment to the new church.
>
> Is it possible that Christians have been denying Jesus ever since? Transforming Jesus’ strict monotheism to the Pauline theologians’ Trinity, replacing Rabbi Jesus’ Old Testament law with Paul’s “justification by faith,” substituting the concept of Jesus having atoned for the sins of mankind for the direct accountability Jesus taught, discarding Jesus’ claim to humanity for Paul’s concept of Jesus having been divine, we have to question in exactly what manner Christianity respects the teachings of its prophet.
>
> A parallel issue is to define which religion does respect Jesus’ teachings. So let’s see: Which religion honors Jesus Christ as a prophet but a man? Which religion adheres to strict monotheism, God’s laws, and the concept of direct accountability to God? Which religion denies intermediaries between man and God?
>
> If you answered, “Islam,” you would be right. And in this manner, we find the teachings of Jesus Christ better exemplified in the religion of Islam than in Christianity. This suggestion, however, is not meant to be a conclusion, but rather an introduction. Those who find their interest peaked by the above discussion need to take the issue seriously, open their minds and then … read on!
>
> Copyright © 2007 Laurence B. Brown.
>
> About the author:
> Laurence B. Brown, MD, can be contacted at Brown...@yahoo.com. He is the author of The First and Final Commandment (Amana Publications) and Bearing True Witness (Dar-us-Salam). Forthcoming books are a historical thriller, The Eighth Scroll, and a second edition of The
> ...
>
> read more »
> Religious scholars have long attributed the tenets of Christian faith more to Paul’s teachings than to those of Jesus. But as much as I would like to jump into that subject, I think it best to back up and take a quick, speculative look at the Old Testament.
Which one would you rather have as God?
Messiah/Christ or Caesar August the sole ruler of Mankind, the Son of
the Divine
>
> The Old Testament teaches that Jacob wrestled with God. In fact, the Old Testament records that Jacob not only wrestled with God, but that Jacob prevailed (Genesis 32:24-30). Now, bear in mind, we’re talking about a tiny blob of protoplasm wrestling the Creator of a universe 240,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles in diameter, containing over a billion galaxies of which ours—the Milky Way Galaxy—is just one (and a small one, at that), and prevailing? I’m sorry, but someone was a couple pages short of a codex when they scribed that passage. The point is, however, that this passage leaves us in a quandary. We either have to question the Jewish concept of God or accept their explanation that “God” does not mean “God” in the above verses, but rather it means either an angel or a man (which, in essence, means the Old Testament is not to be trusted). In fact, this textual difficulty has become so problematic that more recent Bibles have tried to cover it up by changing the translation from “God” to “man.” What they cannot change, however, is the foundational scripture from which the Jewish Bible is translated, and this continues to read “God.”
>
> Unreliability is a recurring problem in the Old Testament, the most prominent example being the confusion between God and Satan! II Samuel 24:1 reads:
>
> “Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’”
>
> However, I Chronicles 21:1 states: “Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.”
>
> Uhhh, which was it? The Lord, or Satan? Both verses describe the same event in history, but one speaks of God and the other of Satan. There is a slight (like, total) difference.
>
> Christians would like to believe that the New Testament is free of such difficulties, but they are sadly deceived. In fact, there are so many contradictions that authors have devoted books to this subject. For example, Matthew 2:14 and Luke 2:39 differ over whether Jesus’ family fled to Egypt or Nazareth. Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 differ over the wording of the “Lord’s Prayer.” Matthew 11:13-14, 17:11-13 and John 1:21 disagree over whether or not John the Baptist was Elijah.
>
> Things get worse when we enter the arena of the alleged crucifixion: Who carried the cross—Simon (Luke 23:26, Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21) or Jesus (John 19:17)? Was Jesus dressed in a scarlet robe (Matthew 27:28) or a purple robe (John 19:2)? Did the Roman soldiers put gall (Matthew 27:34) or myrrh (Mark 15:23) in his wine? Was Jesus crucified before the third hour (Mark 15:25) or after the sixth hour (John 19:14-15)? Did Jesus ascend the first day (Luke 23:43) or not (John 20:17)? Were Jesus’ last words, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit my spirit’” (Luke 23:46), or were they “It is finished” (John 19:30)?
>
> These are only a few of a long list of scriptural inconsistencies, and they underscore the difficulty in trusting the New Testament as scripture. Nonetheless, there are those who do trust their salvation to the New Testament, and it is these Christians who need to answer the question, “Where is the ‘Christ’ in ‘Christianity?’ “This, in fact, is a supremely fair question. On one hand we have a religion named after Jesus Christ, but on the other hand the tenets of orthodox Christianity, which is to say Trinitarian Christianity, contradict virtually everything he taught.
>
> I know, I know—those of you who aren’t screaming “Heretic!” are gathering firewood and planting a stake. But wait. Put down the high-powered rifle and listen. Trinitarian Christianity claims to base its doctrines on a combination of Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings. The problem is, these teachings are anything but complementary. In fact, they contradict one another.
>
> Take some examples: Jesus taught Old Testament Law; Paul negated it. Jesus preached orthodox Jewish creed; Paul preached mysteries of faith. Jesus spoke of accountability; Paul proposed justification by faith. Jesus described himself as an ethnic prophet; Paul defined him as a universal prophet.[1] Jesus taught prayer to God, Paul set Jesus up as intercessor. Jesus taught divine unity, Pauline theologians constructed the Trinity.
>
> For these reasons, many scholars consider Paul the main corrupter of Apostolic Christianity and Jesus’ teachings. Many early Christian sects held this view as well, including the second-century Christian sects known as “adoptionists”– “In particular, they considered Paul, one of the most prominent authors of our New Testament, to be an arch-heretic rather than an apostle.”[2]
>
> Lehmann contributes:
>
> “What Paul proclaimed as ‘Christianity’ was sheer heresy which could not be based on the Jewish or Essene faith, or on the teaching of Rabbi Jesus. But, as Schonfield says, ‘The Pauline heresy became the foundation of Christian orthodoxy and the legitimate church was disowned as heretical.’ … Paul did something that Rabbi Jesus never did and refused to do. He extended God’s promise of salvation to the Gentiles; he abolished the law of Moses, and he prevented direct access to God by introducing an intermediary.”[3]
>
> Bart D. Ehrman, perhaps the most authoritative living scholar of textual criticism, comments:
>
> “Paul’s view was not universally accepted or, one might argue, even widely accepted …. Even more striking, Paul’s own letters indicate that there were outspoken, sincere, and active Christian leaders who vehemently disagreed with him on this score and considered Paul’s views to be a corruption of the true message of Christ …. One should always bear in mind that in this very letter of Galatians Paul indicates that he confronted Peter over just such issues (Gal. 2:11-14). He disagreed, that is, even with Jesus’ closest disciple on the matter.”[4]
>
> Commenting on the views of some early Christians in the Pseudo-Clementine literature, Ehrman wrote:
>
> “Paul has corrupted the true faith based on a brief vision, which he has doubtless misconstrued. Paul is thus the enemy of the apostles, not the chief of them. He is outside the true faith, a heretic to be banned, not an apostle to be followed.”[5]
>
> Others elevate Paul to sainthood. Joel Carmichael very clearly is not one of them:
>
> “We are a universe away from Jesus. If Jesus came “only to fulfill” the Law and the Prophets; If he thought that “not an iota, not a dot” would “pass from the Law,” that the cardinal commandment was “Hear, O Israel, the Lord Our God, the Lord is one,” and that “no one was good but God”….What would he have thought of Paul’s handiwork! Paul’s triumph meant the final obliteration of the historic Jesus; he comes to us embalmed in Christianity like a fly in amber.”[6]
>
> Dr. Johannes Weiss contributes:
>
> “Hence the faith in Christ as held by the primitive churches and by Paul was something new in comparison with the preaching of Jesus; it was a new type of religion.”[7]
>
> A new type of religion, indeed. And hence the question, “Where is the ‘Christ’ in ‘Christianity?’ “If Christianity is the religion of Jesus Christ, where are the Old Testament laws and strict monotheism of the Rabbi Jesus’ Orthodox Judaism? Why does Christianity teach that Jesus is the son of God when Jesus called himself the “son of Man” eighty-eight times, and not once the “son of God?” Why does Christianity endorse confession to priests and prayers to saints, Mary and Jesus when Jesus taught his followers:
>
> “In this manner, therefore, pray: ‘Our Father …’” (Matthew 6:9)?
>
> And who appointed a pope? Certainly not Jesus. True, he may have called Peter the rock upon which he would build his church (Matthew 16:18-19). However, a scant five verses later, he called Peter “Satan” and “an offense.” And let us not forget that this “rock” thrice denied Jesus after Jesus’ arrest—poor testimony of Peter’s commitment to the new church.
>
> Is it possible that Christians have been denying Jesus ever since? Transforming Jesus’ strict monotheism to the Pauline theologians’ Trinity, replacing Rabbi Jesus’ Old Testament law with Paul’s “justification by faith,” substituting the concept of Jesus having atoned for the sins of mankind for the direct accountability Jesus taught, discarding Jesus’ claim to humanity for Paul’s concept of Jesus having been divine, we have to question in exactly what manner Christianity respects the teachings of its prophet.
>
> A parallel issue is to define which religion does respect Jesus’ teachings. So let’s see: Which religion honors Jesus Christ as a prophet but a man? Which religion adheres to strict monotheism, God’s laws, and the concept of direct accountability to God? Which religion denies intermediaries between man and God?
>
> If you answered, “Islam,” you would be right. And in this manner, we find the teachings of Jesus Christ better exemplified in the religion of Islam than in Christianity. This suggestion, however, is not meant to be a conclusion, but rather an introduction. Those who find their interest peaked by the above discussion need to take the issue seriously, open their minds and then … read on!
>
> Copyright © 2007 Laurence B. Brown.
>
> About the author:
> Laurence B. Brown, MD, can be contacted at Brown...@yahoo.com. He is the author of The First and Final Commandment (Amana Publications) and Bearing True Witness (Dar-us-Salam). Forthcoming books are a historical thriller, The Eighth Scroll, and a second edition of The
> ...
>
> read more »
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Apr 19, 2012, 4:59:28 PM4/19/12
to
Mt 1:23 -Behold, a virgin shall be with child,
and shall bring forth a son,
and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
which being interpreted is,
God with us.
Isa 9:6 -For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
and the government shall be upon his shoulder:
and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Mt 14:33 -Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him,
saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
Mt 16:16 -And Simon Peter answered and said,
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mt 27:54 -Now when the centurion, and they that were with him,
watching Jesus, saw the earthquake,
and those things that were done,
they feared greatly, saying,
Truly this was the Son of God.
Mr 3:11 -And unclean spirits, when they saw him,
fell down before him, and cried, saying,
Thou art the Son of God.
Mr 5:7 - And cried with a loud voice, and said,
What have I to do with thee,
Jesus, thou Son of the most high God?
I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Lu 1:32 - He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the
Highest:
and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of
his
father David:
Joh 1:18 -No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.
Joh 3:16 -For God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 - For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
world;
but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 - He that believeth on him is not condemned:
but he that believeth not is condemned already,
because he hath not believed
in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:36 - He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:
and he that believeth not the Son
shall not see life;
but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Joh 5:25 -Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming, and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God:
and they that hear shall live.
Joh 6:69 -And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ,
the Son of the living God.
Joh 10:36 - Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified,
and sent into the world,
Thou blasphemest; because I said,
I am the Son of God?
Joh 5:18 - Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,
because he not only had broken the sabbath,
but said also that God was his Father,
making himself equal with God.
and shall bring forth a son,
and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
which being interpreted is,
God with us.
Isa 9:6 -For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
and the government shall be upon his shoulder:
and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Mt 14:33 -Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him,
saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
Mt 16:16 -And Simon Peter answered and said,
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mt 27:54 -Now when the centurion, and they that were with him,
watching Jesus, saw the earthquake,
and those things that were done,
they feared greatly, saying,
Truly this was the Son of God.
Mr 3:11 -And unclean spirits, when they saw him,
fell down before him, and cried, saying,
Thou art the Son of God.
Mr 5:7 - And cried with a loud voice, and said,
What have I to do with thee,
Jesus, thou Son of the most high God?
I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Lu 1:32 - He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the
Highest:
and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of
his
father David:
Joh 1:18 -No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.
Joh 3:16 -For God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 - For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
world;
but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 - He that believeth on him is not condemned:
but he that believeth not is condemned already,
because he hath not believed
in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:36 - He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:
and he that believeth not the Son
shall not see life;
but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Joh 5:25 -Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming, and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God:
and they that hear shall live.
Joh 6:69 -And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ,
the Son of the living God.
Joh 10:36 - Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified,
and sent into the world,
Thou blasphemest; because I said,
I am the Son of God?
Joh 5:18 - Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,
because he not only had broken the sabbath,
but said also that God was his Father,
making himself equal with God.
Smiler
Apr 19, 2012, 7:45:56 PM4/19/12
to
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:40:25 -0700, kolwezzi wrote:
> On Apr 12, 5:35 pm, mov_nov <movn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Religious scholars have long attributed the tenets of Christian faith
>> more to Paul's teachings than to those of Jesus. But as much as I
>> would like to jump into that subject, I think it best to back up and
>> take a quick, speculative look at the Old Testament.
>
> Which one would you rather have as God?
Neither.
> On Apr 12, 5:35 pm, mov_nov <movn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Religious scholars have long attributed the tenets of Christian faith
>> more to Paul's teachings than to those of Jesus. But as much as I
>> would like to jump into that subject, I think it best to back up and
>> take a quick, speculative look at the Old Testament.
>
> Which one would you rather have as God?
> Messiah/Christ or Caesar August the sole ruler of Mankind, the Son of
> the Divine
>
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Jun 3, 2012, 9:20:37 AM6/3/12
to
Did Muhammad Exist?:
An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins [Hardcover]
Robert Spencer (Author)
Book Description
Publication Date: April 23, 2012
Are jihadists dying for a fiction? Everything you thought you knew
about Islam is about to change.
Did Muhammad exist?
It is a question that few have thought—or dared—to ask. Virtually
everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, takes for granted that the
prophet of Islam lived and led in seventh-century Arabia.
But this widely accepted story begins to crumble on close examination,
as Robert Spencer shows in his eye-opening new book.
In his blockbuster bestseller The Truth about Muhammad, Spencer
revealed the shocking contents of the earliest Islamic biographical
material about the prophet of Islam. Now, in Did Muhammad Exist?, he
uncovers that material’s surprisingly shaky historical foundations.
Spencer meticulously examines historical records, archaeological
findings, and pioneering new scholarship to reconstruct what we can
know about Muhammad, the Qur’an, and the early days of Islam. The
evidence he presents challenges the most fundamental assumptions about
Islam’s origins.
Did Muhammad Exist? reveals:
How the earliest biographical material about Muhammad dates from at
least 125 years after his reported death
How six decades passed before the Arabian conquerors—or the people
they conquered—even mentioned Muhammad, the Qur’an, or Islam
The startling evidence that the Qur’an was constructed from existing
materials—including pre-Islamic Christian texts
How even Muslim scholars acknowledge that countless reports of
Muhammad’s deeds were fabricated
Why a famous mosque inscription may refer not to Muhammad but,
astonishingly, to Jesus
How the oldest records referring to a man named Muhammad bear little
resemblance to the now-standard Islamic account of the life of the
prophet
The many indications that Arabian leaders fashioned Islam for
political reasons
Far from an anti-Islamic polemic, Did Muhammad Exist? is a sober but
unflinching look at the origins of one of the world’s major religions.
While Judaism and Christianity have been subjected to searching
historical criticism for more than two centuries, Islam has never
received the same treatment on any significant scale.
The real story of Muhammad and early Islam has long remained in the
shadows. Robert Spencer brings it into the light at long last.
http://www.amazon.com/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/161017061X
An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins [Hardcover]
Robert Spencer (Author)
Book Description
Publication Date: April 23, 2012
Are jihadists dying for a fiction? Everything you thought you knew
about Islam is about to change.
Did Muhammad exist?
It is a question that few have thought—or dared—to ask. Virtually
everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, takes for granted that the
prophet of Islam lived and led in seventh-century Arabia.
But this widely accepted story begins to crumble on close examination,
as Robert Spencer shows in his eye-opening new book.
In his blockbuster bestseller The Truth about Muhammad, Spencer
revealed the shocking contents of the earliest Islamic biographical
material about the prophet of Islam. Now, in Did Muhammad Exist?, he
uncovers that material’s surprisingly shaky historical foundations.
Spencer meticulously examines historical records, archaeological
findings, and pioneering new scholarship to reconstruct what we can
know about Muhammad, the Qur’an, and the early days of Islam. The
evidence he presents challenges the most fundamental assumptions about
Islam’s origins.
Did Muhammad Exist? reveals:
How the earliest biographical material about Muhammad dates from at
least 125 years after his reported death
How six decades passed before the Arabian conquerors—or the people
they conquered—even mentioned Muhammad, the Qur’an, or Islam
The startling evidence that the Qur’an was constructed from existing
materials—including pre-Islamic Christian texts
How even Muslim scholars acknowledge that countless reports of
Muhammad’s deeds were fabricated
Why a famous mosque inscription may refer not to Muhammad but,
astonishingly, to Jesus
How the oldest records referring to a man named Muhammad bear little
resemblance to the now-standard Islamic account of the life of the
prophet
The many indications that Arabian leaders fashioned Islam for
political reasons
Far from an anti-Islamic polemic, Did Muhammad Exist? is a sober but
unflinching look at the origins of one of the world’s major religions.
While Judaism and Christianity have been subjected to searching
historical criticism for more than two centuries, Islam has never
received the same treatment on any significant scale.
The real story of Muhammad and early Islam has long remained in the
shadows. Robert Spencer brings it into the light at long last.
http://www.amazon.com/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/161017061X
Zacharias Mulletstein
Jun 3, 2012, 1:42:42 PM6/3/12
to
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a0de80dc-cba6-449b...@p13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Birric Forcella
Jun 3, 2012, 10:08:48 PM6/3/12
to
Spencer goes much over ground that has been known for a long time.
Spencer's book is a good read, but, as head of Islam Watch, he does
have an axe to grind.
I would suggest that instead you read Ibn Warraq's book "Why I Am not
a Muslim,' or at least buy it along with Spencer's book. It's quite
cheap on Amazon's secondary market since it is a bit older.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Not-Muslim/dp/1591020115/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338774656&sr=1-1
Ibn Warraq's book relates much the same objections to the traditional
stories about Muhammad, in very well documented, more careful detail.
Moreover, Ibn Warraq puts it all in a much greater context which
would be very profitable for Westerners to read and know. He goes
into detail about Islam's dismal toxic violent history of conquest
which destroyed innumerable great cultures from Spain to China. He
also discusses all the absurdities of Islamic faith. In addition, he
discusses the philosophical influences that went into Islam and
emanated from Islam.
All this is documented and quoted in almost excruciating detail. Ibn
Warraq lets the sources speak for themselves, which is pretty much all
that is needed to get a picture of this abominable religion. Of
course, that's all that would be needed for Christianity, too.
Birric Forcella
Better explanations rule !
Spencer's book is a good read, but, as head of Islam Watch, he does
have an axe to grind.
I would suggest that instead you read Ibn Warraq's book "Why I Am not
a Muslim,' or at least buy it along with Spencer's book. It's quite
cheap on Amazon's secondary market since it is a bit older.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Not-Muslim/dp/1591020115/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338774656&sr=1-1
Ibn Warraq's book relates much the same objections to the traditional
stories about Muhammad, in very well documented, more careful detail.
Moreover, Ibn Warraq puts it all in a much greater context which
would be very profitable for Westerners to read and know. He goes
into detail about Islam's dismal toxic violent history of conquest
which destroyed innumerable great cultures from Spain to China. He
also discusses all the absurdities of Islamic faith. In addition, he
discusses the philosophical influences that went into Islam and
emanated from Islam.
All this is documented and quoted in almost excruciating detail. Ibn
Warraq lets the sources speak for themselves, which is pretty much all
that is needed to get a picture of this abominable religion. Of
course, that's all that would be needed for Christianity, too.
Birric Forcella
Better explanations rule !
SkyEyes
Jun 4, 2012, 2:49:00 AM6/4/12
to
On Jun 3, 7:08 pm, Birric Forcella <erniec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Spencer goes much over ground that has been known for a long time.
>
> Spencer's book is a good read, but, as head of Islam Watch, he does
> have an axe to grind.
>
> I would suggest that instead you read Ibn Warraq's book "Why I Am not
> a Muslim,' or at least buy it along with Spencer's book. It's quite
> cheap on Amazon's secondary market since it is a bit older.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Not-Muslim/dp/1591020115/ref=sr_1_1?s=...
> Spencer goes much over ground that has been known for a long time.
>
> Spencer's book is a good read, but, as head of Islam Watch, he does
> have an axe to grind.
>
> I would suggest that instead you read Ibn Warraq's book "Why I Am not
> a Muslim,' or at least buy it along with Spencer's book. It's quite
> cheap on Amazon's secondary market since it is a bit older.
>
>
> Ibn Warraq's book relates much the same objections to the traditional
> stories about Muhammad, in very well documented, more careful detail.
>
> Moreover, Ibn Warraq puts it all in a much greater context which
> would be very profitable for Westerners to read and know. He goes
> into detail about Islam's dismal toxic violent history of conquest
> which destroyed innumerable great cultures from Spain to China. He
> also discusses all the absurdities of Islamic faith. In addition, he
> discusses the philosophical influences that went into Islam and
> emanated from Islam.
>
> All this is documented and quoted in almost excruciating detail. Ibn
> Warraq lets the sources speak for themselves, which is pretty much all
> that is needed to get a picture of this abominable religion. Of
> course, that's all that would be needed for Christianity, too.
>
> Birric Forcella
>
> Better explanations rule !
I've read _Why I Am Not a Muslim_, and I have to agree with you on
> Ibn Warraq's book relates much the same objections to the traditional
> stories about Muhammad, in very well documented, more careful detail.
>
> Moreover, Ibn Warraq puts it all in a much greater context which
> would be very profitable for Westerners to read and know. He goes
> into detail about Islam's dismal toxic violent history of conquest
> which destroyed innumerable great cultures from Spain to China. He
> also discusses all the absurdities of Islamic faith. In addition, he
> discusses the philosophical influences that went into Islam and
> emanated from Islam.
>
> All this is documented and quoted in almost excruciating detail. Ibn
> Warraq lets the sources speak for themselves, which is pretty much all
> that is needed to get a picture of this abominable religion. Of
> course, that's all that would be needed for Christianity, too.
>
> Birric Forcella
>
> Better explanations rule !
Warraq's sound scholarship. Good read, I recommend it.
I think I shall be getting the Spencer book in addition, however,
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Birric Forcella
Jun 4, 2012, 3:13:13 AM6/4/12
to
I was merely suggesting that you read Ibn Warraq's book along with
Spencer's or in addition to it.
And if you only want to read one book on the subject, I think Ibn
Warraq's is preferable.
Birric Forcella
Spencer's or in addition to it.
And if you only want to read one book on the subject, I think Ibn
Warraq's is preferable.
Birric Forcella
0 new messages