Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Blood_Sacrifice

Honest question to atheists

137 posts in this topic

Illiterate, uneducated buffoons don't start mighty empires. This isn't the logical conclusion to Occam's razor.

Why not? Obviously some do. That Mohammed was illiterate, by the way, is something that every mohammedan will proudly confirm to you. They actually take this as proof for the greatness of the Koran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this. The Father/Son/Holy Spirit is the Trinity in protestantism too, and in mainstream Christian consciousness for the better part of 2000 years. I am arguing that Mohammed's contact with Christianity was not with mainstream Trinitarian Christians but with small heretical sects that held Mary to be part of the Trinity. Mohammed therefore mistakenly believed that this is what the rest of Christendom believed also, and such it made its way into Qu'ranic literature.

What you have said I think could well be true... I looked into this and I found the following..

We might go on to show that many other of the doctrines of the Qur'an such as the denial of the death of Christ, the resolving the Christian Trinity into a tri-theism consisting of the Father, the Son and the Virgin Mary were derived by Muhammad from the Gnostic and other heretical sects of Christians who flourished in Arabia in his time. Enough, however, has been written to show that much of the Qur'an can be traced to Apocryphal Christian sources; whilst the Christian reader will also perceive how false is the claim that the former "confirms" the preceding scriptures - the Taurat and Injil.

Source - http://www.answering...urces/chap3.htm

I was thinking that Muhammed had seen early catholic churches who had statues of Mary the mother of God.. I think maybe he thought they worshipped her like a god ( when in fact they didn't because Mary is not taught in the catholic faith as a goddess ) ....So he mistakes this and thinks Mary was part of the trinity.. But like I said, that was just a thought I had myself.. Like you said, he was in contact with heretical sects of Christians

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I

Illiterate, uneducated buffoons don't start mighty empires. This isn't the logical conclusion to Occam's razor.

I'm afraid they do, far too often. Besides, the empire wasn't until after he died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions posed

And why would Mohammed even NEED to argue against a divine Mary unless it was what he thought Christians believed?

Let me recap the three possibilities I have already described. We have Jewish witness that ancient Jews commented on Christian teaching and the facts of Jesus' career, sometimes giving "alternative readings" of their own. We have Epiphanius' witness that there was a pagan-Chrisitan syncretism in his time which deified Mary. We have Muslim witness that Jesus and Mary were both among the Arab pagan idols in the Kabbah.

Let me introduce a fourth. The charitable reading of 53: 19 ff. is that Mohammed is responding to an anonymous contemporary's question about where Abrahamic teaching fits in with more traditional Arab religion. Answering questions like that is an occupational hazard of religious teachers, as your own scriptures attest.

Mohammed enthusiastically promoted both Mary and Jesus as ideal figures, whose lives were directly intertwined with Allah's will. It would be unsurprising if some lifelong polytheist inquired of Mohammed whether he was teaching that Jesus and his mother had attained divine status in light of their exemplary piety.

is it possible that such a group existed at the time of Mohammed also?

Of course. It is also possible that somebody merely thought such a group might have existed at the time of Mohammed, and asked him what he thought about that.

The idea that Mary is divine, or is copied from a divine model (the contemporary Christ myther's theory), or that somebody might err and ascribe divinity to her (possibly leading to false accusations of doing just that) are all surface ideas. In her one and only canonical dealing with Jesus as an ambulatory adult, Mary tells him what to do and he does it, despite his own mission-requirement objections to her demand (John 2: 1-12). Jesus is God, on a mission from God. How hard is it to think that many people have independently done the math?

But as you pointed out regarding my quoting of 4:171, that is a completely different sermon.

And, as I also pointed out, the whole religion is about the oneness of Allah. This verse addesses one aspect of that, just as the other verses we have discussed address other aspects of it.

In any case, I see that the answer to the question that I asked you is "No." Which, of course, I fully agree with. My point is that the Christian Trinity is not the unqiue three-fold alternative to a unitary Allah which Mohammed rejects with literary flair. It also illustrates that threesomes occur within pantheons much larger than just the three mentioned by name in the Koran. That three are mentioned is not a reliable indication that only three belong in whoever's idea is being discussed.

Since the Koran is a singly authored work, it is entirely appropriate to draw from anywhere in the work to support such points. Of course, the example also illustrates that just because the Christian Trinity is discussed in some places, it is not being discussed everywhere Mohammed mentions something with some features in common with the Christian Trinity but with other features which are different.

BM

Protip: Going to Christian apologetics sites to find out what Islam teaches is like going to a Protestant Fundie site to learn what's in the Catholic Catechism.

Like? Often enough, it's the same site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BM

Protip: Going to Christian apologetics sites to find out what Islam teaches is like going to a Protestant Fundie site to learn what's in the Catholic Catechism.

Like? Often enough, it's the same site.

I often find that if someone ( myself included ) does not like the answer given, they will claim it came from a biased source...

I went on to Wiki and found this....

Collyridianism was an obscure Early Christian heretical movement whose adherents apparently worshipped the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, as a goddess. The main source of information about them comes from their strongest opponent, Epiphanius of Salamis, who wrote about them in his Panarion of about 375 AD. According to Epiphanius,[1] certain women in then-largely-pagan Arabia syncretized indigenous beliefs with the worship of Mary, and offered little cakes or bread-rolls (Greek κολλυρις – a word occurring in the Septuagint) to her. Epiphanius states that Collyridianism originated in Thrace andScythia, although it may have first travelled to those regions from Syria or Asia Minor. Little else is known.

The Collyridians have become of interest in some recent Christian–Muslim religious discussions in reference to the Islamic concept of the Christian Trinity. The debate hinges on some verses in the Qur'an, primarily [Quran5:73], [Quran5:75], and [Quran5:116] in the sura Al-Ma'ida, which have been taken to imply that Muhammad believed that Christians considered Mary part of the Trinity. This idea has never been part of mainstream Christian doctrine, and is not clearly and unambiguously attested among any ancient Christian group (including the Collyridians). But there has been some modern speculation thatMuhammad might have confused heretical Collyridian beliefs with those of orthodox Christianity. There is no evidence that Collyridianism still existed in Muhammad's time (the 6th and 7th centuries AD), but perhaps the idea of the divinity of Mary might have been associated with Christian belief in Arabia because of the heritage of the Collyridian heresy.http://en.wikipedia..../Collyridianism

So with that I still feel PA was right, and you know that my replies to this are not a result of bias on my behalf

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BM

I often find that if someone ( myself included ) does not like the answer given, they will claim it came from a biased source...

I often find that if someone posts something from a biased source, then the quality of the information posted is less than I would like. Funny how we have parallel experiences like that.

We're several posts ahead of you on Collyridianism. I assume your posting from Epiphanius' Panarion, of course. Are you using the Williams translation? The original Greek?

Obviously, Epiphanius' mention of them had nothing whatsoever to do with Mohammed, who came centuries after the Panarion was composed. Also, nobody here has proposed that the specific group discussed by Epiphanius survived long enough to come in contact with Mohammed. That's the sort of thing you'd expect to find on Wikipedia... oh, I see that it is Wikipedia.

The form of their worship, however, predates Christianity. Jeremiah 7: 18 says:

The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes to offer to the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to arouse my anger.

The Christian innovation, if there actually was one, would be to associate Mary with the "Queen of Heaven." It is, of course, absolutely impossible that pagans would ever be persecuted by Christians, so we can eliminate the possibility of any pagans doing what pagans have done for centuries and saying to Christians, perhaps under torture, that they were worshipping Mary.

Nevertheless, if a Jew writing in Old Testament times witnesses the same ritual as Epiphanius in conciliar Christian times, would it be completely surprising that Mohammed might have met somebody who witnessed the same ritual in some later, but still ancient time?

But that is not my argument. No, the argument here is that Mohammed doesn't say who he's writing about. Which is a fact; he doesn't. The uncertainty is whether PA has guessed correctly which of the unboundedly many reasons Mohammed might have had for observing that Jesus didn't teach that his mother is a goddess.

My own favorite is that the Muslim tradition is correct. They say Mohammed found her portrait among the pagan idols in Mecca. My second favorite is that one of his critics heckled Mohammed about his strident praise of Mary, featuring direct concern shown about her by Allah personally, her having a child, not fathered by some god, but rather with no father at all, and the consequent title of Jesus, according to Mohammed, as "Son of Mary."

BTW, we find that same title in Jewish sources. Except it's not a title there, but rather a claim that Jesus was illegitimately conceived, or possibly the offspring of rape. Then again, in these sources, maybe an occupational hazard of Mary's profession or hobby.

Anyway, Christians call him "Son of God." Can you think of a way to heckle Mohammed that plays on the difference between the formulaic titles "Son of God," which Mohammed never uses, and "Son of Mary,' which he does use, but uses differently than some other people use the same title? I'll bet you can, BM.

But the text of the Koran is silent on why Allah is said to have asked Jesus whether he taught this about Mary. So, unlike PA, I say that I don't know why Mohammed wrote that question. That's because, unlike PA, I can think of many other ways to explain Mohammed's interest in Jesus' answer.

Edited by eight bits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me recap the three possibilities I have already described. We have Jewish witness that ancient Jews commented on Christian teaching and the facts of Jesus' career, sometimes giving "alternative readings" of their own. We have Epiphanius' witness that there was a pagan-Chrisitan syncretism in his time which deified Mary. We have Muslim witness that Jesus and Mary were both among the Arab pagan idols in the Kabbah.

Thanks, sorry I must have missed that in your earlier post. I read about Epiphanius, that's where the idea of the Collyridians came in. Of the other two, I think perhaps the "alternative readings" may have merit. However, does the Qu'ran anywhere mention Father/Son/Holy Spirit? If not, then we are left with a conundrum still. Why wouldn't Mohammed go into further detail on the mainstream Christian view?

Of course. It is also possible that somebody merely thought such a group might have existed at the time of Mohammed, and asked him what he thought about that.

Possible, but again suffers the same flaw as above - why didn't anyone ask about more mainstream Christian belief and question the Father/Son/Spirit relationship? Perhaps he did, and if so the entire debate is over.

And, as I also pointed out, the whole religion is about the oneness of Allah. This verse addesses one aspect of that, just as the other verses we have discussed address other aspects of it.

Since the Koran is a singly authored work, it is entirely appropriate to draw from anywhere in the work to support such points. Of course, the example also illustrates that just because the Christian Trinity is discussed in some places, it is not being discussed everywhere Mohammed mentions something with some features in common with the Christian Trinity but with other features which are different.

And yet when I brought up 4:171 your counter to that was that it was in a totally different sermon???? Sure, the whole religion of Islam is about Allah's oneness, however, each Surah is not necessarily revolving primarily around that subject. Surah 5 definitely is. Surah 53, definitely isn't. A quick read of both Surah's show one of them with repeated phrases such as "Allah is one", the other does not. Its purpose is different. It's still about the same God, so it is still about one God, but the subject isn't directly about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many alien worlds are out there to visit? How many bizzare star systems and beautiful galaxies? If I got that afterlife I would pity those who go to heaven to gaze at Gods ankles.

We wouldn't be gazing at Gods ankles, and He wouldn't want us to. We would be seeing all the beautiful galaxies that you dream of as a ghost. And much much more. More than we could ever imagine. And by the way, I also visit other worlds in my sleep. Not as a ghost though. As a spirit.

Maybe I've met you! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, an afterlife would be cool as long as I can terminate it any time I wish. I'm really hoping for of course the reuniting with loved ones, but also hoping to be able to time travel maybe in spirit form (or even in physical form), there's a lot of concerts/events I missed that I'd like to witness.

Praising and worshipping? I don't think so. I'm christian and my belief is that the afterlife holds so much more than that for us.

All your loved ones will be there, and all your pets too. You can see all the concerts you've missed. Read all the books you didn't have time for. See all the movies that you haven't seen here (but they won't be on a DVD player lol). Watch the history of our planet and peoples unfold as though they were movies as well as the history of all other planets and their peoples. And there will be things to do that we have no idea of here on this planet. Things that will put you into rapture. Your heart will soar.

The question of eternal life here on earth has been posed to me and I say no. But eternity in the afterlife - yes

Edited by SpiritTraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. Double post. Don't know how I did that. lol

Edited by SpiritTraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PA

However, does the Qu'ran anywhere mention Father/Son/Holy Spirit? If not, then we are left with a conundrum still.

I don't know anywhere where the Koran goes into any detail about Christian beliefs. The "Holy Spirit" appears alone four times (in the translation used at the University of Michigan site), three times in connection with "strengthening" Isa (2: 87, 2: 253, and 5: 110), and once as the vehicle of revelation (16: 102), that one possibly a reference to Gabriel personally.

Just plain "Spirit" seems to parallel Jewish usage: God's action in time and space. You can use word or phrase search at the University of Michigan site I gave earler. Obviously, that is limited by the translation.

Why wouldn't Mohammed go into further detail on the mainstream Christian view?

I am unaware that Mohammed had much Christian opposition to speak of. He is mostly busy converting pagans to his variety of Abrahamic faith. His successors surely found use for Christian counterapologetics, but Mohammed had immediate local concerns.

And yet when I brought up 4:171 your counter to that was that it was in a totally different sermon?

You keep saying that. I have also objected to long ellipsis within the same sermon.

In either case, textual separation is supportive of, but not the basis of, the inference it supports. I infer that Mohammed is talking about different things in different places, because his descriptions are different. That the "places" are not adjacent is a reasonable follow-on observation to make. In each case, I chose to describe just how non-adjacent they are. So what?

Surah 53, definitely isn't.

53: 19ff surely are. Allah is not part of the Arab pantheon. Elsewhere in 53, Allah emphasizes, at length, his continuity with the Jewish God. The theory of Islam is that it does not institute Arab monotheism, nor does it import it from elsewhere, but rather restores it. The truly Arabic true God isn't suddenly One, but rather has always been One, and Seventh Century Arab pagans' ancestors had gone astray.

The book would certainly be a lot shorter if all Mohammed had to say was that there is no god but God, and Mohammed is his messenger. That statement plainly calls for some elaboration and specification, not just repetition of it, but that statement is the key to the whole book, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in reincarnation and I hope there is another life after this one, so yes. I don't know why, altrough. I think I just like having the choise of doing something with my current life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.