Christian/Muslim ThreadsNo Proof Quran Copied from Bible, Gnostic or Jewish Sourcesrelaxjack you can repeat a hundreds of times over and over again'... that doesn't make it so, your failed rhetoric are no rebutals against the evidence thrown at you. the only thing you do is ask more questions and ask more proof, time and time again... up to the point that I or Liberate tell you that your demand for proof becomes absurd... and then you think the discussion is in favor of you... sadly i got to dissapoint you. plagiarism is fairly simple noticed, and isn't that difficult to proof, you only make it harder then it is. plagiarism: = two different authors writing the same or similar thing in two different books. two different authors: - Muhammed - Early gnostic/syriac/coptic/arabian christian (a heretic noteably) two similar or exact stories: (for example) - the sleepers of the cave - the seven sleepers of Eusebius two different books: - known apocrypha - the quran ever head of Occam's razor? if you haven't, try looking up it's rule... i don't think you can get more objective and practical then that! once you looked that up, adapt it to the issue of borrowing. 1. Muhammed had heretic stories revealed to him by God, when Mecca and Medina was infested with heretic christians (banned to the arabian pensulina by the catholic church). 2. Or Muhammed repeated heretic stories of those heretic christians in Mecca and Medina. what do you consider proof? you need a paper of muhammed admitting he copied, with his autograph underneath it? actually that is what i've been doing all along, maybe if you'd stop reading what you want to read, you'd notice that i quote the Quran and then quote a apocryphal gospel, and then show the overwhelming resemblances between the two. A man trying to proof a Shakespeare plagiarism in one of Milton's book, would do exaclty the same to proof it that way... comparing one with the other.
the reason for that is because the only Arabic muslim know today is the dialect of the qurash tribe... the apocryphal gospel is probably written by another dialect and maybe a much older one then the qurash tribe knew to their day... neither does that change anything, the arabic gospel is only a arabic version of coptic and syriac infancy gospels... jesus and the clay birds still remains an old folklore story, with or without the arabic infancy gospel, the quran would still be obsolete. read the full sentence you word twisting weasel... i can't proof WHERE he got his sources from! But i do know WICH SOURCES that he used, THAT I CAN PROOF ! And by being able to proof that, you can fairly assume without doubt that he got his sources from someone or somewhere. (whoever that may be is unimportant really). Too put it in analogy: If the kids hands are dirty of chocolate, then i don't need to find the chair he used to reach above the kitchen sink, in order to know that he got his hands of the cookies. acctually it would be difficult and i have explained you that allready... neither is it important... and thirdly alltough we can't proof for certain their is a large list of suspects who could of fitteth that picture... that alone (a list of people who knew judeo-christian gospels and knowledge) is an argument that muhammed was surrounded with people who had knowledge about 'the people of the book' happy hollidays!! |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame