Discussion:
Jesus Was King Tut?
(too old to reply)
b***@shout.net
2006-08-30 07:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Jesus Was King Tut?

(Conspiracy Nation, 08/30/06) -- This may not sit well. There is
persuasive evidence that Jesus, not historically present during the
time of Herod and Pontius Pilate, in fact existed centuries earlier.

Ahmed Osman, in his book, Jesus In The House Of The Pharaohs (ISBN:
1-59143-027-5), emphasizes that he approaches the subject from an
historical, not a theological, perspective.

The Bible began as an oral tradition, later written down. Further
distortion occurred due to disparate sources, for example an "Elohistic
source" and a "Jehovistic source." The Biblical narrative is therefore
confusing. Lurking within are actual happenings, hidden "between the
lines."

Usually, writes Osman, Egyptian history tends to be squeezed into a
Biblical framework. He has taken a different approach, fitting the
Bible into Egyptian history.

In 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls, remains of an Essene library, were
found. The Scrolls are now under the control of the Israeli Antiquity
Department. For over fifty years now, most of the contents of these
Scrolls remain unpublished. Why? There is the hint of a cover-up. Could
photos of the Scrolls' contents, at least, be made available to the
public? The Israeli government has formed a committee to look into the
request.

In 1922, Howard Carter had recovered documents from the newly
discovered tomb of King Tutankhamun. Whatever those papyri had to say
is not known to us. They, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, remain closeted.
The King Tut papyri gave Carter leverage, however, when dealing with
Egyptian bureaucrats. Whatever their contents, there was apprehension
lest Carter might let such be known. (See "Curse Of King Tut,"
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/KingTut.html)

The Dead Sea Scrolls pre-date the Biblical Jesus. These Essene texts
tell of a Christ and a Christian Church dating to before 200 B.C. They
relate the story of a "Teacher of Righteousness" who had been killed by
"the Wicked Priest." The word "Essene" itself is from "Essa," the
Arabic name of Jesus.

The Jews have Jesus (Yeshu in the Talmud, also called Balaam and Ben
Pandira) as a "Nazarene" who "practised magic" in Egypt. (b. Sanh.
107b). "Nazarene" does not mean "of Nazareth" but rather means
belonging to a particular gnostic sect. Also known as Ben Pandira,
Jesus in other words was the son of Pandira, who may have been the
lover, not the husband, of Mary. According to Osman, the Rabbinical
writings nowhere place the execution of Jesus during the Herodian era.

A different author, James D. Tabor, suggests "Pandira" was actually a
Roman soldier named Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera. He may have raped
Mary, or may have been redeployed elsewhere before he could be married
to her. "Mary might well have become pregnant first, and her engagement
then subsequently arranged by the family and accepted by Joseph with
knowledge of the situation." (The Jesus Dynasty. Simon & Schuster,
2006)

But Jesus ben Pandira (son of Pandira) was, according to Osman, born
much earlier than the heretofore presumed time, thus eliminating
Pantera as the biological sire. The Gospel of Matthew (1:1) is much
truer than realized: Jesus, "the son of David, the son of Abraham" is a
lineage existing as stated, within a limited time frame. This
necessarily places the actual Jesus circa 1400 B.C.

The true story of Jesus was adapted into the later, Roman period, if
Osman's theory is correct. (Participating in the adaptation was Roman
sycophant Flavius Josephus. See "Gospel Of Titus,"
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/Titus.html) The Talmud reportedly has
neither Rome nor Pontius Pilate as the killer of Yeshua, but Pinhas, an
Israelite priest and contemporary of Moses. "Pinhas... killed him
[Jesus]." (b. Sanh. 106b) Pinhas is, in other words Phinehas, son of
Eleazar, the son of Aaron. He, therefore, is the Essene's "Wicked
Priest." In the Egyptian perspective, he is Panehesy, High Priest of
the Aten at the Amarna Temple.

In "Where Is Akhenaten?"
(http://www.shout.net/~bigred/Ankhenaten.html), Moses is identified as
Amenhotep IV, i.e. Akhenaten.

In "Mystery Of Yuya and Tuya"
(http://www.shout.net/~bigred/YuyaTuya.html), the Biblical Joseph of
the "Coat of Many Colors," sold into Egyptian slavery by his jealous
brothers, is shown to be Yuya, vizier to the Pharaoh. An obvious
connection was at first missed by Conspiracy Nation. Joseph, made
"father to Pharaoh," was in other words "father-in-law to Pharaoh,"
since his daughter Tiye married Amenhotep III.

Also in "Mystery Of Yuya and Tuya," the story of Abraham and Sarah in
Egypt was reconsidered. Isaac, Sarah's son, had been fathered by the
Pharaoh. Abraham was not Isaac's father. His real father was Tuthmosis
III, i.e., David.

The Biblical David, identified as Tuthmosis III (1490-1436 B.C.), is
derived from dwd in the Bible, which becomes twt, Tuth, in Egyptian.

Tuthmosis III marched with his army into what is today known as the
Holy Land. They carried with them an Ark, containing the image of
Tuthmosis III's "father," Amun, an Egyptian god. (The "Amen" with which
various faiths conclude their prayers is traced to the Egyptian Amun.)

Enemies of Tuthmosis III, under the King of Qadesh, were entrenched at
Har Meggiddon. There, David (Tuthmosis III) scored a brilliant
battlefield victory. The enemy retreated inside the fortress of Har
Meggiddon. A lengthy siege began.

Tuthmosis III and his guards retired to a "fortress to the east" --
Jerusalem, the "City of David." David (Tuth) purchased the threshing
floor of Mount Moriah, paying 50 shekels of silver. There he built, not
"an altar for the Lord," but a shrine for Amun-Ra, whose image was
carried in the Ark.

"Solomon," for whom there is no historical record, was great-grandson
of "David." Solomon was, in other words, Amenhotep III.

Joshua (Tutankhamun) proceeded from the conjugal union of Amun-Ra and
the consort of the Pharaoh. He is therefore, like other Pharaohs, the
"Son of God." Nefertiti, his mother, is "Mary," from the Egyptian mery,
meaning "the beloved."

Aye (Ephraim) warned Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten/Moses) about discontent
resulting from his promotion of Aten worship. Aten, a monotheistic god,
had pushed aside Amun, whose loyal followers were furious about it.
There was a plot to assassinate Akhenaten (Moses), and so he fled to
Sinai.

Tutankhamun (Yeshua, Joshua, Jesus) served as Pharaoh while his father
yet lived. Under King Tut, Amun worship was again permitted. Tut
(Jesus) hoped to gradually woo the "gentiles" to the new Aten faith.

A few years thereafter, Tutankhamun (Yeshua) journeyed to Sinai. He
hoped to persuade his father, Akhenaten (Moses) to return to Egypt. He
promoted his compromise plan to Akhenaten, whereby worship of Amun was
permitted. But upon hearing this, Pinhas (Phineas), the "Wicked
Priest," became furious. Outraged that King Tut (Jesus) had "betrayed
the faith," Pinhas, High Priest of Aten, slew or caused to be slain the
"Son of God."

Tutankhamun (Jesus) may have died at the foot of Mount Sinai, site of
today's St. Catherine monastery.

-------
Conspiracy Nation
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html
r***@gmail.com
2018-06-11 06:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thank you for doing this research. Ill be discarding the Roman inclusion in this, given white people always seem to find a way to put themselves in black history. I have always thought that tut was Jesus for obvious reasons. The fall of African sovereignty, goes with both of these men.. now I just need to see where this all fits in our enslavement, how much of what Jesus said was tuts actual words.. seems we were aware of our enemies and their desire to enslave and destroy our kingdoms
Thomas Heger
2018-06-18 15:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@gmail.com
Thank you for doing this research. Ill be discarding the Roman inclusion in this, given white people always seem to find a way to put themselves in black history. I have always thought that tut was Jesus for obvious reasons. The fall of African sovereignty, goes with both of these men.. now I just need to see where this all fits in our enslavement, how much of what Jesus said was tuts actual words.. seems we were aware of our enemies and their desire to enslave and destroy our kingdoms
No, 'Jesus' was a Greek name for a Jew, that lived near the dead sea in
what is today Jordania. The Jews in the bible were actually 'black'
people and most likely stem from what is today Ethiopia.

Tut was a Pharaoh and the Jews were slaves in Egypt. So it is unlikely,
the Greek meant Tutankhamun with 'Jesus'.

The real name of this person is not known. But the name had to be in
Aramaic, since that was the main language of that region and time.

The Amaramaic name is actually not known. What is known is the title
'mahmed', what means (in Aramaic) 'the one to be praised'.

The early Christians were actually a splinter group derived from the
Jews in the Dead Sea region called 'Essenes', to which Jesus belonged
(most likely).

Those were prosecuted by the Romans after the Council of Nicea. They
fled from Syria along the Silk Road to the town Merv in the Empire of
the Sassanides.

After the Arabs conquered the town and the Empire, they adopted the
believe system, but relocated it to the Arabian peninsula, added some
centuries and made 'Mohammed' out of 'mahmed'.


TH
KWills Shill #3
2018-06-19 09:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Thank you for doing this research. Ill be discarding the Roman inclusion in this, given white people always seem to find a way to put themselves in black history. I have always thought that tut was Jesus for obvious reasons. The fall of African sovereignty, goes with both of these men.. now I just need to see where this all fits in our enslavement, how much of what Jesus said was tuts actual words.. seems we were aware of our enemies and their desire to enslave and destroy our kingdoms
No, 'Jesus' was a Greek name for a Jew, that lived near the dead sea in
what is today Jordania. The Jews in the bible were actually 'black'
people and most likely stem from what is today Ethiopia.
Tut was a Pharaoh and the Jews were slaves in Egypt. So it is unlikely,
the Greek meant Tutankhamun with 'Jesus'.
As you already KNOW, the Jews were not slaves during the time of
Tutankhamun. If they ever were, and it's important to note the ONLY
source for the claim they were is the Old Testament, they would have
been there during the rein of Seqenenre Tao, Kamose, and Ahmose.
Ahmose being the Pharaoh most scholars believe would have been in
power during the exodus.
Tut was born in 1341 BCE. The exodus is supposed to have occurred
in 1450 BCE. That's 109 years between the two. If the Jews were ever
slaves in Egypt, they were long gone before Tut was around.
Post by Thomas Heger
The real name of this person is not known. But the name had to be in
Aramaic, since that was the main language of that region and time.
The Amaramaic name is actually not known. What is known is the title
'mahmed', what means (in Aramaic) 'the one to be praised'.
You keep bringing this up while KNOWING Mahmed (Mohammed) and
Jesus were separated by about 600 years.
Post by Thomas Heger
The early Christians were actually a splinter group derived from the
Jews in the Dead Sea region called 'Essenes', to which Jesus belonged
(most likely).
As I already proved, they were not. What do you hope to gain from
your flat out lying? I really want to know.
Post by Thomas Heger
Those were prosecuted by the Romans after the Council of Nicea. They
fled from Syria along the Silk Road to the town Merv in the Empire of
the Sassanides.
After the Arabs conquered the town and the Empire, they adopted the
believe system, but relocated it to the Arabian peninsula, added some
centuries and made 'Mohammed' out of 'mahmed'.
No, they did not. And you KNOW they did not. This has already
been proved.
What do you hope to gain from your lying? I really want to know.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
Loading Image...
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
Thomas Heger
2018-06-20 17:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Am 19.06.2018 um 11:21 schrieb KWills Shill #3:
...
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
Tut was a Pharaoh and the Jews were slaves in Egypt. So it is unlikely,
the Greek meant Tutankhamun with 'Jesus'.
As you already KNOW, the Jews were not slaves during the time of
Tutankhamun. If they ever were, and it's important to note the ONLY
source for the claim they were is the Old Testament, they would have
been there during the rein of Seqenenre Tao, Kamose, and Ahmose.
Ahmose being the Pharaoh most scholars believe would have been in
power during the exodus.
Tut was born in 1341 BCE. The exodus is supposed to have occurred
in 1450 BCE. That's 109 years between the two. If the Jews were ever
slaves in Egypt, they were long gone before Tut was around.
Well, yes, maybe...
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
The real name of this person is not known. But the name had to be in
Aramaic, since that was the main language of that region and time.
The Amaramaic name is actually not known. What is known is the title
'mahmed', what means (in Aramaic) 'the one to be praised'.
You keep bringing this up while KNOWING Mahmed (Mohammed) and
Jesus were separated by about 600 years.
Well, actually I don't know.

The idea stems from a German historian and Islam scientist named
Karl-Heinz Ohlig.

He had shown in great detail, that the Islam emerged out of a certain
variant of early Christianity, which itself should be regarded as a
variant of Judaism.

The six centuries you miss are apparently added. Also the story was
relocated from the Dead Sea to the Arabian peninsula.

But the real location (of that prophet) was - in my opinion - the
ancient town 'Qumran' at the Dead Sea. There are a few reasons to think
so. E.g. there is a location mentioned called 'Lot's wife'. That is a
rock near the ancient city of Sodom (also at the Dead Sea).

In Qumran lived the Essenes, to which the person belonged, which the
Greek and Romans called 'Jesus'.

But the Romans added a few other ingredients into the mixture we call
'Christianity' now. So we now cannot see the similarities any more.

But they are there.

E.g. the Qu'ran is written in ancient Arabic, what not many can
understand. In a German translation I have the text addresses a people
called 'children of Israel'.

There are also more than a few similarities between Judaism and Islam.

This would be extremely odd, if there were no common root.
..

TH
KWills Shill #3
2018-06-21 09:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Heger
...
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
Tut was a Pharaoh and the Jews were slaves in Egypt. So it is unlikely,
the Greek meant Tutankhamun with 'Jesus'.
As you already KNOW, the Jews were not slaves during the time of
Tutankhamun. If they ever were, and it's important to note the ONLY
source for the claim they were is the Old Testament, they would have
been there during the rein of Seqenenre Tao, Kamose, and Ahmose.
Ahmose being the Pharaoh most scholars believe would have been in
power during the exodus.
Tut was born in 1341 BCE. The exodus is supposed to have occurred
in 1450 BCE. That's 109 years between the two. If the Jews were ever
slaves in Egypt, they were long gone before Tut was around.
Well, yes, maybe...
Not maybe. Definitely.
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
The real name of this person is not known. But the name had to be in
Aramaic, since that was the main language of that region and time.
The Amaramaic name is actually not known. What is known is the title
'mahmed', what means (in Aramaic) 'the one to be praised'.
You keep bringing this up while KNOWING Mahmed (Mohammed) and
Jesus were separated by about 600 years.
Well, actually I don't know.
Well, actually, you do know. We've discussed this already.
Post by Thomas Heger
The idea stems from a German historian and Islam scientist named
Karl-Heinz Ohlig.
He had shown in great detail, that the Islam emerged out of a certain
variant of early Christianity, which itself should be regarded as a
variant of Judaism.
Once again, and I'll type slowly so you can keep up, Islam did NOT
emerge from any variant, sect, flavor or version of Christianity.
Post by Thomas Heger
The six centuries you miss are apparently added. Also the story was
relocated from the Dead Sea to the Arabian peninsula.
Neither of those claims are true.
Post by Thomas Heger
But the real location (of that prophet) was - in my opinion - the
ancient town 'Qumran' at the Dead Sea. There are a few reasons to think
so. E.g. there is a location mentioned called 'Lot's wife'. That is a
rock near the ancient city of Sodom (also at the Dead Sea).
Your opinions mean nothing.
Post by Thomas Heger
In Qumran lived the Essenes, to which the person belonged, which the
Greek and Romans called 'Jesus'.
But the Romans added a few other ingredients into the mixture we call
'Christianity' now. So we now cannot see the similarities any more.
But they are there.
E.g. the Qu'ran is written in ancient Arabic, what not many can
understand. In a German translation I have the text addresses a people
called 'children of Israel'.
There are also more than a few similarities between Judaism and Islam.
Islam is based on Judaism.
Post by Thomas Heger
This would be extremely odd, if there were no common root.
Yet there is NO connection between Jesus and Mohammed. They are
NOT the same person.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
e***@hotmail.com
2018-06-21 12:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Heger
There are also more than a few similarities between Judaism and Islam.
Islam is based on Judaism.
Post by Thomas Heger
This would be extremely odd, if there were no common root.
Yet there is NO connection between Jesus and Mohammed. They are
NOT the same person.
******
Christianity and Islam are both based on Judaism. There’s your “common root.” Mohammed does not have to have been Jesus, any more than he had to be Joseph for him to fit elements of Judaism into Islam.
Thomas Heger
2018-06-21 16:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
There are also more than a few similarities between Judaism and Islam.
Islam is based on Judaism.
Post by Thomas Heger
This would be extremely odd, if there were no common root.
Yet there is NO connection between Jesus and Mohammed. They are
NOT the same person.
******
Christianity and Islam are both based on Judaism. There’s your “common root.” Mohammed does not have to have been Jesus, any more than he had to be Joseph for him to fit elements of Judaism into Islam.
The story of a) Mohammed has actually the same origin as the story about
b) Jesus, but altered in space, time and language by the Arabs in case
a) and by the Romans in case b).

The origin is the exact same myth, which has its roots in a certain form
of Judaism and stems from the Dead Sea (possibly Qumran).

From there it went to what is today Syria (after the wars of the Romans
against the Jews in Palestine).

The Greeks/Romans mixed in the Roman version of Zaroastrism and the
Arabs 'arabified' the story.

But if you would turn back the clocks to a few centuries A.C. (before
the Concil of Nicea) and compare the believes of the early
Syrian/Aramaic Christians called 'Arians' with that of the Essenes and
that with the early versions of Islam (from 7th century), you will find
many similarities.

The differences came later by e.g. Emperor Constantine and the Concil of
Nicea.

TH
KWills Shill #3
2018-06-22 09:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
There are also more than a few similarities between Judaism and Islam.
Islam is based on Judaism.
Post by Thomas Heger
This would be extremely odd, if there were no common root.
Yet there is NO connection between Jesus and Mohammed. They are
NOT the same person.
******
Christianity and Islam are both based on Judaism. There’s your “common root.” Mohammed does not have to have been Jesus, any more than he had to be Joseph for him to fit elements of Judaism into Islam.
The story of a) Mohammed has actually the same origin as the story about
b) Jesus,
This is simply not true.
Post by Thomas Heger
but altered in space, time and language by the Arabs in case
a) and by the Romans in case b).
The origin is the exact same myth,
They're not even in the same area code.
Post by Thomas Heger
which has its roots in a certain form
of Judaism and stems from the Dead Sea (possibly Qumran).
The Islamic faith has no connection to the Dead Sea.
Post by Thomas Heger
From there it went to what is today Syria (after the wars of the Romans
against the Jews in Palestine).
The Greeks/Romans mixed in the Roman version of Zaroastrism and the
Arabs 'arabified' the story.
But if you would turn back the clocks to a few centuries A.C. (before
the Concil of Nicea) and compare the believes of the early
Syrian/Aramaic Christians called 'Arians' with that of the Essenes and
that with the early versions of Islam (from 7th century), you will find
many similarities.
No, we really won't.
Post by Thomas Heger
The differences came later by e.g. Emperor Constantine and the Concil of
Nicea.
And the 600+ years between when Jesus died and Mohammad was born.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
Thomas Heger
2018-06-22 19:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
There are also more than a few similarities between Judaism and Islam.
Islam is based on Judaism.
Post by Thomas Heger
This would be extremely odd, if there were no common root.
Yet there is NO connection between Jesus and Mohammed. They are
NOT the same person.
******
Christianity and Islam are both based on Judaism. There’s your “common root.” Mohammed does not have to have been Jesus, any more than he had to be Joseph for him to fit elements of Judaism into Islam.
The story of a) Mohammed has actually the same origin as the story about
b) Jesus,
This is simply not true.
Well, I actually know, that you don't believe me.

But the idea was not mine. It stems from a historian and Islam scientist
named Karl-Heinz Ohlig.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Heinz_Ohlig

"Ohlig and Puin's thesis propounds that according to the evidence of
Arab coinage, and the inscription in the Dome of the Rock in the late
7th century, with the letters MHMT and the term Muhammad meaning "the
revered" or "the praiseworthy" and the Dome's bearing Christian symbols
such as crosses, it suggests that the term Muhammad was a Christian
honorific title referring to Jesus, as in the hymn of the mass ("praise
be to he that comes...")"



He wrote this:

http://inarah.de/sammelbaende-und-artikel/inarah-band-4/geschichte-rueckwaerts-gelesen/

It's a little longish and all in German. But eventually someone reading
this is able to read the text. So I provide this link here.

I personally cannot tell, whether or not his theories are true. But I
actually like his idea. I also think, the idea does make sense.
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
but altered in space, time and language by the Arabs in case
a) and by the Romans in case b).
The origin is the exact same myth,
They're not even in the same area code.
You would be surprise to find out, what the Romans made with the
believes of the early Christians.

So what do you have against the idea, the Arabs changed space and time a
bit ?

..

TH
KWills Shill #3
2018-06-23 14:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
There are also more than a few similarities between Judaism and Islam.
Islam is based on Judaism.
Post by Thomas Heger
This would be extremely odd, if there were no common root.
Yet there is NO connection between Jesus and Mohammed. They are
NOT the same person.
******
Christianity and Islam are both based on Judaism. There’s your “common root.” Mohammed does not have to have been Jesus, any more than he had to be Joseph for him to fit elements of Judaism into Islam.
The story of a) Mohammed has actually the same origin as the story about
b) Jesus,
This is simply not true.
Well, I actually know, that you don't believe me.
You have rarely offered anything valid. Because of this, I
presume what ever claim you're making is wrong unless I already know
it to be true, or you offer valid, verifiable evidence.
Post by Thomas Heger
But the idea was not mine. It stems from a historian and Islam scientist
named Karl-Heinz Ohlig.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Heinz_Ohlig
Old news.
Post by Thomas Heger
"Ohlig and Puin's thesis propounds that according to the evidence of
Arab coinage, and the inscription in the Dome of the Rock in the late
7th century, with the letters MHMT and the term Muhammad meaning "the
revered" or "the praiseworthy" and the Dome's bearing Christian symbols
such as crosses, it suggests that the term Muhammad was a Christian
honorific title referring to Jesus, as in the hymn of the mass ("praise
be to he that comes...")"
http://inarah.de/sammelbaende-und-artikel/inarah-band-4/geschichte-rueckwaerts-gelesen/
It's a little longish and all in German. But eventually someone reading
this is able to read the text. So I provide this link here.
I personally cannot tell, whether or not his theories are true. But I
actually like his idea. I also think, the idea does make sense.
It makes no sense at all. Jesus and Muhammad had hundreds of
years between them. There is no possible way for Jesus and Mohamed to
be the same person. It is impossible.
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
but altered in space, time and language by the Arabs in case
a) and by the Romans in case b).
The origin is the exact same myth,
They're not even in the same area code.
You would be surprise to find out, what the Romans made with the
believes of the early Christians.
No, I wouldn't. I would be surprised if you offered evidence that
Islam and Christianity have their origins in "the exact same myth."
Post by Thomas Heger
So what do you have against the idea, the Arabs changed space and time a
bit ?
The Arabs had nothing to do with it. Not all Muslims were or are
Arab. Just as not all Arabs were or are Muslims.
What I have a problem with is your claiming something that you
KNOW is not possible. Muhammad's birth is documented. By the modern
calendar, he was born in the year 570. This was long after Jesus was
to have died.
This is well established. There is no room for you to wiggle.
But provide the valid, verifiable evidence that Muhammad and
Jesus are the same person. Otherwise, you're just spouting babble that
you know isn't true.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
Thomas Heger
2018-06-24 18:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Am 23.06.2018 um 16:48 schrieb KWills Shill #3:
..
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
The story of a) Mohammed has actually the same origin as the story about
b) Jesus,
This is simply not true.
Well, I actually know, that you don't believe me.
You have rarely offered anything valid. Because of this, I
presume what ever claim you're making is wrong unless I already know
it to be true, or you offer valid, verifiable evidence.
Post by Thomas Heger
But the idea was not mine. It stems from a historian and Islam scientist
named Karl-Heinz Ohlig.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Heinz_Ohlig
Old news.
???

Now its 'old news'...
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
"Ohlig and Puin's thesis propounds that according to the evidence of
Arab coinage, and the inscription in the Dome of the Rock in the late
7th century, with the letters MHMT and the term Muhammad meaning "the
revered" or "the praiseworthy" and the Dome's bearing Christian symbols
such as crosses, it suggests that the term Muhammad was a Christian
honorific title referring to Jesus, as in the hymn of the mass ("praise
be to he that comes...")"
http://inarah.de/sammelbaende-und-artikel/inarah-band-4/geschichte-rueckwaerts-gelesen/
It's a little longish and all in German. But eventually someone reading
this is able to read the text. So I provide this link here.
I personally cannot tell, whether or not his theories are true. But I
actually like his idea. I also think, the idea does make sense.
It makes no sense at all. Jesus and Muhammad had hundreds of
years between them. There is no possible way for Jesus and Mohamed to
be the same person. It is impossible.
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
but altered in space, time and language by the Arabs in case
a) and by the Romans in case b).
The origin is the exact same myth,
They're not even in the same area code.
You would be surprise to find out, what the Romans made with the
believes of the early Christians.
No, I wouldn't. I would be surprised if you offered evidence that
Islam and Christianity have their origins in "the exact same myth."
I have quoted this longish text from Karl Heiz Ohlig. Unfortunately it
is in German, what you cannot read. But eventually you could ask
Google.translator for help.
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
So what do you have against the idea, the Arabs changed space and time a
bit ?
The Arabs had nothing to do with it. Not all Muslims were or are
Arab. Just as not all Arabs were or are Muslims.
The word 'Arabs' is meant for a certain set of people, which are also
called 'Saracens'.

That were the people which conquered the Empire of the Sassanides around
630.

They also conquered the city 'Merv' at the Silk Road. That was at that
time the largest city in the world. Merv was the town to which the so
called 'Arians' went, after they were prosecuted by the Romans.

The Arabs allowed the Arians to continue with their religious practice
and partly adopted this believe.

Around the year 850 there were new powers in the Empire of the Arabs,
which wanted more control (afaik the 'Umayades').

They translated the holy scripts of the Araimaic speaking Arians into
Arabic. With this they translated the Aramaic title 'Mahmed' (for
Jesus) into the Arabic name 'Mohamed' (and added a few centuries).

This would kind of sense (at least politically), since it gave them (the
Kalifs) a lot of additional power.
Post by KWills Shill #3
What I have a problem with is your claiming something that you
KNOW is not possible. Muhammad's birth is documented. By the modern
calendar, he was born in the year 570. This was long after Jesus was
to have died.
The historian Karl-Heinz Ohlig said, there are no historic documents
from second sources (other than the Quran itself).

But feel free to show such documents, if you have, have access or even
knowledge about them.
Post by KWills Shill #3
This is well established. There is no room for you to wiggle.
But provide the valid, verifiable evidence that Muhammad and
Jesus are the same person. Otherwise, you're just spouting babble that
you know isn't true.
'is well established' is just hearsay and does not count as proof.


TH
e***@hotmail.com
2018-06-24 20:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
'is well established' is just hearsay and does not count as proof.
*****
So, you’ll accept hearsay if it supports your argument, but not if it threatens it. Good to know.
Thomas Heger
2018-06-25 05:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Heger
'is well established' is just hearsay and does not count as proof.
*****
So, you’ll accept hearsay if it supports your argument, but not if it threatens it. Good to know.
I provide at least a quote to some kind of source, from where I have a
certain idea. Such arguments are legal and valid.

But 'is well established' is just nothing.

TH
KWills Shill #3
2018-06-25 09:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Thomas Heger
'is well established' is just hearsay and does not count as proof.
*****
So, you’ll accept hearsay if it supports your argument, but not if it threatens it. Good to know.
I provide at least a quote to some kind of source, from where I have a
certain idea. Such arguments are legal and valid.
But 'is well established' is just nothing.
I provided the evidence before. You KNOW this, but for some
reason, you avoid any and all forms of honesty.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
joeturn
2018-06-29 07:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Thomas Heger
'is well established' is just hearsay and does not count as proof.
*****
So, you’ll accept hearsay if it supports your argument, but not if it threatens it. Good to know.
I provide at least a quote to some kind of source, from where I have a
certain idea. Such arguments are legal and valid.
But 'is well established' is just nothing.
I provided the evidence before. You KNOW this, but for some
reason, you avoid any and all forms of honesty.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
I see your still worshiping Amen Ra?
Government Shill #2
2018-06-29 07:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by joeturn
I see your still worshiping Amen Ra?
I see you're still an idiot.

Shill #2
--
Resonant Frequency,Radio Frequency and Radiant Energy are all one in
the same,Tesla called it aether.
slowjoe (***@yahoo.com)
alt.conspiracy 03Apr12
KWills Shill #3
2018-06-29 09:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by joeturn
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Thomas Heger
'is well established' is just hearsay and does not count as proof.
*****
So, you’ll accept hearsay if it supports your argument, but not if it threatens it. Good to know.
I provide at least a quote to some kind of source, from where I have a
certain idea. Such arguments are legal and valid.
But 'is well established' is just nothing.
I provided the evidence before. You KNOW this, but for some
reason, you avoid any and all forms of honesty.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
I see your still worshiping Amen Ra?
Your lying is not benefiting you.
What did you hope to gain with your lying? I really want to know.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
KWills Shill #3
2018-06-25 09:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Heger
..
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
The story of a) Mohammed has actually the same origin as the story about
b) Jesus,
This is simply not true.
Well, I actually know, that you don't believe me.
You have rarely offered anything valid. Because of this, I
presume what ever claim you're making is wrong unless I already know
it to be true, or you offer valid, verifiable evidence.
Post by Thomas Heger
But the idea was not mine. It stems from a historian and Islam scientist
named Karl-Heinz Ohlig.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Heinz_Ohlig
Old news.
???
Now its 'old news'...
You've cited Heinz debunked claims in the past. I'm surprised,
since the claims have been PROVED wrong, that you still use him as a
cite.
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
"Ohlig and Puin's thesis propounds that according to the evidence of
Arab coinage, and the inscription in the Dome of the Rock in the late
7th century, with the letters MHMT and the term Muhammad meaning "the
revered" or "the praiseworthy" and the Dome's bearing Christian symbols
such as crosses, it suggests that the term Muhammad was a Christian
honorific title referring to Jesus, as in the hymn of the mass ("praise
be to he that comes...")"
http://inarah.de/sammelbaende-und-artikel/inarah-band-4/geschichte-rueckwaerts-gelesen/
It's a little longish and all in German. But eventually someone reading
this is able to read the text. So I provide this link here.
I personally cannot tell, whether or not his theories are true. But I
actually like his idea. I also think, the idea does make sense.
It makes no sense at all. Jesus and Muhammad had hundreds of
years between them. There is no possible way for Jesus and Mohamed to
be the same person. It is impossible.
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
but altered in space, time and language by the Arabs in case
a) and by the Romans in case b).
The origin is the exact same myth,
They're not even in the same area code.
You would be surprise to find out, what the Romans made with the
believes of the early Christians.
No, I wouldn't. I would be surprised if you offered evidence that
Islam and Christianity have their origins in "the exact same myth."
I have quoted this longish text from Karl Heiz Ohlig. Unfortunately it
is in German, what you cannot read. But eventually you could ask
Google.translator for help.
Offer something that hasn't been discredited.
What is truly sad is you KNOW Heinz's claims have been proved
false. Sadly, you are unable to accept reality.
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
So what do you have against the idea, the Arabs changed space and time a
bit ?
The Arabs had nothing to do with it. Not all Muslims were or are
Arab. Just as not all Arabs were or are Muslims.
The word 'Arabs' is meant for a certain set of people, which are also
called 'Saracens'.
That were the people which conquered the Empire of the Sassanides around
630.
They also conquered the city 'Merv' at the Silk Road. That was at that
time the largest city in the world. Merv was the town to which the so
called 'Arians' went, after they were prosecuted by the Romans.
The Arabs allowed the Arians to continue with their religious practice
and partly adopted this believe.
Around the year 850 there were new powers in the Empire of the Arabs,
which wanted more control (afaik the 'Umayades').
They translated the holy scripts of the Araimaic speaking Arians into
Arabic. With this they translated the Aramaic title 'Mahmed' (for
Jesus) into the Arabic name 'Mohamed' (and added a few centuries).
This would kind of sense (at least politically), since it gave them (the
Kalifs) a lot of additional power.
This has nothing to do with your position that all Arabs are
Muslim.
Nice attempt at diversion. 10 out of 10 for the effort. But
negative several million for your lack of honesty.
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
What I have a problem with is your claiming something that you
KNOW is not possible. Muhammad's birth is documented. By the modern
calendar, he was born in the year 570. This was long after Jesus was
to have died.
The historian Karl-Heinz Ohlig said, there are no historic documents
from second sources (other than the Quran itself).
But feel free to show such documents, if you have, have access or even
knowledge about them.
So he admits he has nothing to base his foolish claim upon. Well,
at least he is honest enough to admit he had nothing.
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
This is well established. There is no room for you to wiggle.
But provide the valid, verifiable evidence that Muhammad and
Jesus are the same person. Otherwise, you're just spouting babble that
you know isn't true.
'is well established' is just hearsay and does not count as proof.
It's better than your assumptions, ideas, guesses, etc., that you
dishonestly present as established facts.
What do you have against being honest? I really want to know.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
Thomas Heger
2018-07-01 18:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Am 25.06.2018 um 11:45 schrieb KWills Shill #3:
...
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
The Arabs had nothing to do with it. Not all Muslims were or are
Arab. Just as not all Arabs were or are Muslims.
The word 'Arabs' is meant for a certain set of people, which are also
called 'Saracens'.
That were the people which conquered the Empire of the Sassanides around
630.
They also conquered the city 'Merv' at the Silk Road. That was at that
time the largest city in the world. Merv was the town to which the so
called 'Arians' went, after they were prosecuted by the Romans.
The Arabs allowed the Arians to continue with their religious practice
and partly adopted this believe.
Around the year 850 there were new powers in the Empire of the Arabs,
which wanted more control (afaik the 'Umayades').
They translated the holy scripts of the Araimaic speaking Arians into
Arabic. With this they translated the Aramaic title 'Mahmed' (for
Jesus) into the Arabic name 'Mohamed' (and added a few centuries).
This would kind of sense (at least politically), since it gave them (the
Kalifs) a lot of additional power.
This has nothing to do with your position that all Arabs are
Muslim.
I have not said this. Of course not all Arabs are Muslims. This is so
because 'Muslim' is the name of the believers in Islam, which is a religion.

'Arabs' is a rather loose term, meaning 'people living on the Arabian
peninsula'.

These groups are correlated, but not identical.
Post by KWills Shill #3
Nice attempt at diversion. 10 out of 10 for the effort. But
negative several million for your lack of honesty.
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
What I have a problem with is your claiming something that you
KNOW is not possible. Muhammad's birth is documented. By the modern
calendar, he was born in the year 570. This was long after Jesus was
to have died.
The historian Karl-Heinz Ohlig said, there are no historic documents
from second sources (other than the Quran itself).
But feel free to show such documents, if you have, have access or even
knowledge about them.
So he admits he has nothing to base his foolish claim upon. Well,
at least he is honest enough to admit he had nothing.
No, you are wrong.

Karl-Heinz Ohlig is a historian and had searched extensively through
historic documents from the seventh century for mentioning of the early
Islam.

But he did not find that. Instead the believes of the Arabs in that time
were described as a variant of Christianity.

If the stories would be true, then second sources would have mentioned
these events, since they had also people, who had documented historic
events in that time.

But such manuscripts from that time didn't mention the early Islam or
any related stories.

This changed about 850. From that time on the Quran was mentioned.

So Karl-Heinz Ohlig asks: where are such documents, which would mention
the early Islam (in the seventh century)?

If you have, then please let us know.

TH
KWills Shill #3
2018-07-02 02:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 20:57:59 +0200, Thomas Heger <***@web.de>
wrote:

[...]
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
What I have a problem with is your claiming something that you
KNOW is not possible. Muhammad's birth is documented. By the modern
calendar, he was born in the year 570. This was long after Jesus was
to have died.
The historian Karl-Heinz Ohlig said, there are no historic documents
from second sources (other than the Quran itself).
But feel free to show such documents, if you have, have access or even
knowledge about them.
So he admits he has nothing to base his foolish claim upon. Well,
at least he is honest enough to admit he had nothing.
No, you are wrong.
So you LIED when you wrote, "The historian Karl-Heinz Ohlig said,
there are no historic documents from second sources (other than the
Quran itself)."?
Post by Thomas Heger
Karl-Heinz Ohlig is a historian and had searched extensively through
historic documents from the seventh century for mentioning of the early
Islam.
But he did not find that. Instead the believes of the Arabs in that time
were described as a variant of Christianity.
If the stories would be true, then second sources would have mentioned
these events, since they had also people, who had documented historic
events in that time.
But such manuscripts from that time didn't mention the early Islam or
any related stories.
This changed about 850. From that time on the Quran was mentioned.
So Karl-Heinz Ohlig asks: where are such documents, which would mention
the early Islam (in the seventh century)?
If you have, then please let us know.
I could certainly go into detail, but this wiki page does it very
well itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Islam
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
Thomas Heger
2018-07-02 18:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by KWills Shill #3
[...]
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
What I have a problem with is your claiming something that you
KNOW is not possible. Muhammad's birth is documented. By the modern
calendar, he was born in the year 570. This was long after Jesus was
to have died.
The historian Karl-Heinz Ohlig said, there are no historic documents
from second sources (other than the Quran itself).
But feel free to show such documents, if you have, have access or even
knowledge about them.
So he admits he has nothing to base his foolish claim upon. Well,
at least he is honest enough to admit he had nothing.
No, you are wrong.
So you LIED when you wrote, "The historian Karl-Heinz Ohlig said,
there are no historic documents from second sources (other than the
Quran itself)."?
Post by Thomas Heger
Karl-Heinz Ohlig is a historian and had searched extensively through
historic documents from the seventh century for mentioning of the early
Islam.
But he did not find that. Instead the believes of the Arabs in that time
were described as a variant of Christianity.
If the stories would be true, then second sources would have mentioned
these events, since they had also people, who had documented historic
events in that time.
But such manuscripts from that time didn't mention the early Islam or
any related stories.
This changed about 850. From that time on the Quran was mentioned.
So Karl-Heinz Ohlig asks: where are such documents, which would mention
the early Islam (in the seventh century)?
If you have, then please let us know.
I could certainly go into detail, but this wiki page does it very
well itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Islam
Wikipedia is not a source.

Historic documents are books or similar.

But since you insist on that Wikipedia page, I will have a look.

The page contains a list of 7th century authors, which (allegedly)
provide proof for the existence of Islam at that time.

It starts with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_of_Jacob

Quote:
"When the candidatus [i.e., Sergios, commander of the Byzantine army in
Palestine] was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off
by boat to Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been
killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the
prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was
proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. "

I wouldn't count this as a proof of existence of Islam.

second:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophronius_of_Jerusalem

the article mixes 'Arabs' (Saracens) with 'Muslims'.

This is illegal, since 'Muslims' refers to a religion and 'Saracens' to
an ethnic group. And you must not mix one term with the other.

Sophronius of Jerusalem was - of course - a Christian. If he had written
something about Islam, this would count as proof from secondary sources.

But I can't see a link to any of his books (mentioning Islam).


third:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Gabriel_of_Qartmin

Quote:

"This lord Gabriel went to the ruler (ahid shultana) of the sons of
Hagar, who was Umar bar Khattab, in the city of Gezirta. He (Umar)
received him with great joy, and after a few days the blessed man
petitioned this ruler and received his signature to the statutes and
laws, orders and prohibitions, judgements and precepts pertaining to the
Christians, to churches and monasteries, and to priests and deacons that
they do not give the poll tax, and to monks that they be freed from any
tax (madatta). Also that the wooden gong should not be banned and that
they might chant hymns before the bier when it comes out from the house
to be buried, together with many [other] customs. This governor
(shallita) was pleased at the coming to him of the blessed man and this
holy one returned to the monastery with great joy."

That's it. No mentioning of Islam.


fourth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Fredegar

Quote:
"The Chronicle of Fredegar is the conventional title used for a
7th-century Frankish chronicle that was probably written in Burgundy.
The author is unknown and the attribution to Fredegar dates only from
the 16th century.

The chronicle begins with the creation of the world and ends in AD 642."

So how could he have written about early Islam?

fifth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishoyahb_III

"As for the Arabs, to whom God has at this time given rule (shultana)
over the world, you know well how they act towards us. Not only do they
not oppose Christianity, but they praise our faith, honour the priests
and saints of our Lord, and give aid to the churches and monasteries. "

This article says, the Arabs were Christians (or at least sympathizers).

...


TH
KWills Shill #3
2018-07-03 09:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
[...]
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
What I have a problem with is your claiming something that you
KNOW is not possible. Muhammad's birth is documented. By the modern
calendar, he was born in the year 570. This was long after Jesus was
to have died.
The historian Karl-Heinz Ohlig said, there are no historic documents
from second sources (other than the Quran itself).
But feel free to show such documents, if you have, have access or even
knowledge about them.
So he admits he has nothing to base his foolish claim upon. Well,
at least he is honest enough to admit he had nothing.
No, you are wrong.
So you LIED when you wrote, "The historian Karl-Heinz Ohlig said,
there are no historic documents from second sources (other than the
Quran itself)."?
Post by Thomas Heger
Karl-Heinz Ohlig is a historian and had searched extensively through
historic documents from the seventh century for mentioning of the early
Islam.
But he did not find that. Instead the believes of the Arabs in that time
were described as a variant of Christianity.
If the stories would be true, then second sources would have mentioned
these events, since they had also people, who had documented historic
events in that time.
But such manuscripts from that time didn't mention the early Islam or
any related stories.
This changed about 850. From that time on the Quran was mentioned.
So Karl-Heinz Ohlig asks: where are such documents, which would mention
the early Islam (in the seventh century)?
If you have, then please let us know.
I could certainly go into detail, but this wiki page does it very
well itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Islam
Wikipedia is not a source.
Yes, it is. Maybe not the best when writing an academic paper,
but this is Usenet.
Post by Thomas Heger
Historic documents are books or similar.
And the wiki article cites many of them.
Post by Thomas Heger
But since you insist on that Wikipedia page, I will have a look.
The page contains a list of 7th century authors, which (allegedly)
provide proof for the existence of Islam at that time.
It's not an allegation. The authors wrote about the religion
existing at the time.
Post by Thomas Heger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_of_Jacob
Liar. As anyone who visits will see, the first cite is the
Qur'anic Mosaic on the Dome of the Rock from 621CE.
Second is The Book of Sulaym ibn Qays; by Sulaym ibn Qays.
Post by Thomas Heger
"When the candidatus [i.e., Sergios, commander of the Byzantine army in
Palestine] was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off
by boat to Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been
killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the
prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was
proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. "
I wouldn't count this as a proof of existence of Islam.
Since what you quote isn't found anywhere on the page I linked
to, your deception fails.
Post by Thomas Heger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophronius_of_Jerusalem
the article mixes 'Arabs' (Saracens) with 'Muslims'.
Do TRY to be honest, as much as you hate the idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophronius_of_Jerusalem#Muslim_views

If the religion of Islam did not exist, he could not have written
about it.
Post by Thomas Heger
This is illegal, since 'Muslims' refers to a religion and 'Saracens' to
an ethnic group. And you must not mix one term with the other.
Please cite statutory and/or case law. If you're lying you won't
because neither will exist.
Post by Thomas Heger
Sophronius of Jerusalem was - of course - a Christian. If he had written
something about Islam, this would count as proof from secondary sources.
As I point out above, he did write about it. Though he focused
more on the followers of the religion than the religion itself.
Post by Thomas Heger
But I can't see a link to any of his books (mentioning Islam).
Try reading the Pact of Umar.
It would be impossible to have a treaty between two religions if
one doesn't yet exist.
Post by Thomas Heger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Gabriel_of_Qartmin
"This lord Gabriel went to the ruler (ahid shultana) of the sons of
Hagar, who was Umar bar Khattab, in the city of Gezirta. He (Umar)
received him with great joy, and after a few days the blessed man
petitioned this ruler and received his signature to the statutes and
laws, orders and prohibitions, judgements and precepts pertaining to the
Christians, to churches and monasteries, and to priests and deacons that
they do not give the poll tax, and to monks that they be freed from any
tax (madatta). Also that the wooden gong should not be banned and that
they might chant hymns before the bier when it comes out from the house
to be buried, together with many [other] customs. This governor
(shallita) was pleased at the coming to him of the blessed man and this
holy one returned to the monastery with great joy."
That's it. No mentioning of Islam.
Just aspects of the religion. You foolishly quoted, "Also that
the wooden gong should not be banned and that they might chant hymns
before the bier when it comes out from the house to be buried,
together with many [other] customs."

As you will already know, Christianity has never used wooden
gongs, but Islam did (and in more fundamentalist branched does) use
them.
Way to include the evidence that you're lying.
Post by Thomas Heger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Fredegar
"The Chronicle of Fredegar is the conventional title used for a
7th-century Frankish chronicle that was probably written in Burgundy.
The author is unknown and the attribution to Fredegar dates only from
the 16th century.
The chronicle begins with the creation of the world and ends in AD 642."
So how could he have written about early Islam?
You include it in your quote. "The Chronicle of Fredegar is the
conventional title used for a 7th-century Frankish chronicle that was
probably written in Burgundy."
As you already know, Islam was founded in 610CE.
Post by Thomas Heger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishoyahb_III
"As for the Arabs, to whom God has at this time given rule (shultana)
over the world, you know well how they act towards us. Not only do they
not oppose Christianity, but they praise our faith, honour the priests
and saints of our Lord, and give aid to the churches and monasteries. "
This article says, the Arabs were Christians (or at least sympathizers).
No claim of Christianly is made, or even implied. The Arabs
mentioned were following the teachings of Islam. It teaches to respect
all other religions, except, for some reason, Judaism.

All you've managed to do is further prove my position correct
while adding more evidence that your claim of Jesus and Mohamed being
the same person to be wrong.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
joeturn
2018-07-03 22:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
[...]
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by KWills Shill #3
What I have a problem with is your claiming something that you
KNOW is not possible. Muhammad's birth is documented. By the modern
calendar, he was born in the year 570. This was long after Jesus was
to have died.
The historian Karl-Heinz Ohlig said, there are no historic documents
from second sources (other than the Quran itself).
But feel free to show such documents, if you have, have access or even
knowledge about them.
So he admits he has nothing to base his foolish claim upon. Well,
at least he is honest enough to admit he had nothing.
No, you are wrong.
So you LIED when you wrote, "The historian Karl-Heinz Ohlig said,
there are no historic documents from second sources (other than the
Quran itself)."?
Post by Thomas Heger
Karl-Heinz Ohlig is a historian and had searched extensively through
historic documents from the seventh century for mentioning of the early
Islam.
But he did not find that. Instead the believes of the Arabs in that time
were described as a variant of Christianity.
If the stories would be true, then second sources would have mentioned
these events, since they had also people, who had documented historic
events in that time.
But such manuscripts from that time didn't mention the early Islam or
any related stories.
This changed about 850. From that time on the Quran was mentioned.
So Karl-Heinz Ohlig asks: where are such documents, which would mention
the early Islam (in the seventh century)?
If you have, then please let us know.
I could certainly go into detail, but this wiki page does it very
well itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Islam
Wikipedia is not a source.
Historic documents are books or similar.
But since you insist on that Wikipedia page, I will have a look.
The page contains a list of 7th century authors, which (allegedly)
provide proof for the existence of Islam at that time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_of_Jacob
"When the candidatus [i.e., Sergios, commander of the Byzantine army in
Palestine] was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off
by boat to Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been
killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the
prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was
proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. "
I wouldn't count this as a proof of existence of Islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophronius_of_Jerusalem
the article mixes 'Arabs' (Saracens) with 'Muslims'.
This is illegal, since 'Muslims' refers to a religion and 'Saracens' to
an ethnic group. And you must not mix one term with the other.
Sophronius of Jerusalem was - of course - a Christian. If he had written
something about Islam, this would count as proof from secondary sources.
But I can't see a link to any of his books (mentioning Islam).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Gabriel_of_Qartmin
"This lord Gabriel went to the ruler (ahid shultana) of the sons of
Hagar, who was Umar bar Khattab, in the city of Gezirta. He (Umar)
received him with great joy, and after a few days the blessed man
petitioned this ruler and received his signature to the statutes and
laws, orders and prohibitions, judgements and precepts pertaining to the
Christians, to churches and monasteries, and to priests and deacons that
they do not give the poll tax, and to monks that they be freed from any
tax (madatta). Also that the wooden gong should not be banned and that
they might chant hymns before the bier when it comes out from the house
to be buried, together with many [other] customs. This governor
(shallita) was pleased at the coming to him of the blessed man and this
holy one returned to the monastery with great joy."
That's it. No mentioning of Islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Fredegar
"The Chronicle of Fredegar is the conventional title used for a
7th-century Frankish chronicle that was probably written in Burgundy.
The author is unknown and the attribution to Fredegar dates only from
the 16th century.
The chronicle begins with the creation of the world and ends in AD 642."
So how could he have written about early Islam?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishoyahb_III
"As for the Arabs, to whom God has at this time given rule (shultana)
over the world, you know well how they act towards us. Not only do they
not oppose Christianity, but they praise our faith, honour the priests
and saints of our Lord, and give aid to the churches and monasteries. "
This article says, the Arabs were Christians (or at least sympathizers).
...
TH
Pay no attention to wikipedia it can and is being edited by the government shills to reflect false information.
d***@gmail.com
2018-07-04 02:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From: Tutankhamun Timeline

http://www.datesandevents.org/people-timelines/37-tutankhamun-timeline.htm

<http://www.datesandevents.org/people-timelines/37-tutankhamun-timeline.htm>


1343 BC
The Tutankhamun timeline starts in 1343BC when he was born in Amarna, the new capital of Egypt built by his father Pharaoh Akhenaten to replace Thebes. The chief wife of Akhenaten was Nefertiti. The mother of Tutankhamun was another wife of the Pharaoh, called Kiya.

BC = Before Christ. At least, before Christ's known presence on Earth.
joeturn
2018-07-05 02:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
From: Tutankhamun Timeline
http://www.datesandevents.org/people-timelines/37-tutankhamun-timeline.htm
<http://www.datesandevents.org/people-timelines/37-tutankhamun-timeline.htm>
1343 BC
The Tutankhamun timeline starts in 1343BC when he was born in Amarna, the new capital of Egypt built by his father Pharaoh Akhenaten to replace Thebes. The chief wife of Akhenaten was Nefertiti. The mother of Tutankhamun was another wife of the Pharaoh, called Kiya.
BC = Before Christ. At least, before Christ's known presence on Earth.
Exactly all the rulers in that time period demanded them be thought of as Gods.

https://ehrmanblog.org/the-god-julius-caesar/

Mr. Man-wai Chang
2018-06-20 17:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@gmail.com
Thank you for doing this research. Ill be discarding the Roman inclusion in this, given white people always seem to find a way to put themselves in black history. I have always thought that tut was Jesus for obvious reasons. The fall of African sovereignty, goes with both of these men.. now I just need to see where this all fits in our enslavement, how much of what Jesus said was tuts actual words.. seems we were aware of our enemies and their desire to enslave and destroy our kingdoms
If Jesus was just a symbol...
Anyway...
Can you turn guns and stones into bread? :)
--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不賭錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
Loading...