Did Muhammad exist?

[MrMan]

Did Muhammad ever really exist?

The oldest mosques face toward Petra, then they faced another location, then finally toward Mecca. At different points in time, where mosques faced may have had a lot to do with who was in power and the political alliance of those building the mosque. Petra was a Nabataean outpost during the time in question. There is no evidence that Mecca was a trading center during the time Muhammad was supposed to live, with it not showing up on maps. It may not have existed. The Al-Qur'an mentions olive trees, which exist around Petra, but not Mecca.

According to the speaker in this video, who apparently has a doctorate in the field, the evidence points to the story of the life of Islam as a later creation. The Al-Qur'an mentions people-groups that existed around Petra, not Mecca.
Nabatean



He is not sure that Muhammad actually existed. It seems unlikely that the story about him in Mecca and the Medina down in Saudi Arabia.

It also seems evident that the Al-Qur'an was cobbled together from various sources, including sectarian Christian written sermons, with the words being changed a bit. Also, he speaks of poetry from the Al Qur'an taken from Christian hymns.

He talks about the various versions of the Al-Qur'an that existed throughout history, also.


@69ixine what do you think?

[Cornfed]

In this perspective Islam would be an Arian-like Christian sect arising among the Nabateans that was subsequently given a backstory about 200 years after its initial success.

[69ixine]

You know the same exact criticism is leveled frequently against the Lord Jesus christ?

stop worrying about converting souls,enjoy your life with the free grace given to you by Jesus the true God.

the bible says because he justified us thru faith we have peace with God.

Enjoy your life,instead of being some automaton bible nut lol

you know you want to,

your false soteriology is your issue and is what makes you the way you are right now.

nothing can sep0erate me from God's approval,aslong as I have faith.

I am not the least scared of meeting my Lord in death in any state.

[Cornfed]

You know the same exact criticism is leveled frequently against the Lord Jesus christ?

Yes, that's the point. The argument is that Christianity comes through this scrutiny very well whereas Islam really doesn't.

[69ixine]

You know the same exact criticism is leveled frequently against the Lord Jesus christ?

Yes, that's the point. The argument is that Christianity comes through this scrutiny very well whereas Islam really doesn't.

it is against recorded history,that the sahabah conquered the roman and sassanian empires.

Withou someone like khalid ibn waleed or umar this could never have happened.it was truly a miracle of history,having some of the best generals and tacticians in history due to history of battle hardening warfare under muhammed's saudi empire.

[69ixine]

that doesn't mean hadeethian islam and sunnism weren't later developments,they clarly were.islam was more primitive during the sahabah and salaf's time and likely radically 'other'than the current versions.

but the saudis under muhammed's companions conquered most of the world in a period of a few years,due to the conditioning of battle experience muhammed's bloody conquests and struggles for the control of the arab peninsula.

[Cornfed]

You know the same exact criticism is leveled frequently against the Lord Jesus christ?

Yes, that's the point. The argument is that Christianity comes through this scrutiny very well whereas Islam really doesn't.

it is against recorded history,that the sahabah conquered the roman and sassanian empires.

The idea is that a form of Arian Christianity got started among the Nazoreans who then recruited a bunch of Arabs, which would explain the seemingly fanatical hatred of the Byzantine empire and their Nicene Christianity. When there was a regime change within Islam, some of the conquered people were only too happy to seize victory from the jaws of defeat by creating an alternative backstory, so only then do you get the Koran etc. and Mecca (which didn't exist in the seventh century) and Mohammad (i.e. "The Blessed One", which originally referred to Jesus).

[MrMan]

I'd have to check the authenticity of sources, but I was able to find supposed 7th century references to Muhammad, that weren't Arab, one from an Armenian bishop.

The evidence for the mosques facing the different locations, if legit, seems to indicate the religion might have developed in Petra and then the headquarters moved south and story got revised as the Caliphate shifted to what is not Saudi Arabia. A lot of that history with the lineage the Shi'i are faithful to from Ali is probably based on some real historical events. But the retelling of them is so late, who knows what the exact real story is? Apparently there were older versions of the Al Qur'an. He quotes a version that said that Jesus died and rose from the dead, though the current version implies that His death was faked.

My wife and children are supposed to be descendants of Muhammad, btw.

There was a proto-Islamic Ishmaelite monotheistic religion, apparently. Islam may have drawn from that a bit.

[MrMan]

You know the same exact criticism is leveled frequently against the Lord Jesus

The man in the video makes that point about Jesus and the Bible and discusses how they stand up to the same type of test.

[69ixine]

You know the same exact criticism is leveled frequently against the Lord Jesus

The man in the video makes that point about Jesus and the Bible and discusses how they stand up to the same type of test.

there are apparent contradictions in the bible and the textus receptus is faulty.

That shouldn't diminish your faith.

Exodus and king david also don't have archeology to back it up,in fact the area was ruled by pharoahs during that time period if we go by archeological evidence.

[MrMan]

You know the same exact criticism is leveled frequently against the Lord Jesus

The man in the video makes that point about Jesus and the Bible and discusses how they stand up to the same type of test.

Exodus and king david also don't have archeology to back it up,in fact the area was ruled by pharoahs during that time period if we go by archeological evidence.

What is your evidence for Egypt ruling Israel and Judah during the time of David?

Here is some evidence for David from archeology.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... ble-story/

[69ixine]

[quote=MrMan post_id=399155 time=1685834573 user_id=10227

The man in the video makes that point about Jesus and the Bible and discusses how they stand up to the same type of test.
[/quote]

Exodus and king david also don't have archeology to back it up,in fact the area was ruled by pharoahs during that time period if we go by archeological evidence.

What is your evidence for Egypt ruling Israel and Judah during the time of David?

Here is some evidence for David from archeology.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... ble-story/
[/quote]



oke,I stand corrected.
I meant david didn't exist,which is my fault,but pharoah ruled israel during moses time.

however David was a cohen wearing the ephod,and the later biblical pentateuch text said anyone that offers sacrifices outside the temple by the seed of aaron(or tent of meeting and then tabernacle before the solomonic temple)would be killed by YHWH,or atleast is commiting a horrible sin liable for Qareth.
samuel and solomon did the same thing.

Joshua entered the tent of meeting,he was supposed to be dead.

Aaron was enconsed in the tent of meeting but at the same time was offering sacrifices for the 12 tribes.

The book of Judges claims the israelites never entered moabite territory,or crossed the arnon,but the entire book of deutereonomy is in moab across the arnon.

other books of the pentateuch say after the children of israel left Qadesh,they entered moabite territory.

the levites were not supposed to touch the ark,but they did etc

the bible too is corrupted.

the new testament text is only 63% accurate,in the sense that the 'oriignal'can be reconstructed from all the earliest texts.

the most important prophets,isaiah,ezekiel and jeremiah and also daniel are false prophets but jeremiah claims Yahweh can repent of his prophecies,when the torah before jeremiah would disqualify him as a prophet based on his false prophecies,so this apologetic of his for the failed prophets of the Jews is mute.

He was never a spokesperson for jehovah to make such a apologetic.

and jehovah claims many times he cannot repent,and what he says is always true.

yet his 'prophets'make false predictions and he deceives.

Yahweh also deceives.He explicity told isaiah to deceive israel lest they shall be repent and be saved.Jesus also says the same thing for why he speaks in parables,yet peter claims god wants everyone to be saved.

then paul says god sends delusions so the 'wicked'will believe a lie.

He in the original greek also says Jesus will come with all lying signs and lying wonders during his second coming.