It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Quran a fabrication of the Catholic Church?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 03:04 AM
link   
No, no no.

Facts that are screwed up in that first video

  • The assumption that Mary is a Catholic invention - the completely independent church of Ethiopia venerates her also. in fact all the ancient Christian churches do. The belief that she was born without sin and remained a virgin is shared too.

  • The Koran says things like Jesus spoke at the age of 2 and made a bird out of clay - not biblical and not Catholic Doctrine.

    I'm sorry, but whoever created that video has taken a Muslim convert talking about Jesus and the Koran, presenting some very good points on why Christianity is the true faith over Islam and twisted it because the man talks about the Virgin Mary - whom Islam also holds in high esteem as he explains.




  • posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 03:07 AM
    link   
    a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

    Simple answer is No!

    If however we entertain the notion then the same could be true of the Sun/nature worship that proceeded Judaism or Christianity.

    Point of fact just about all organised religion can be traced back to Sun/nature worship.

    Its how "They" spell control construct, do this or do that or the Sun wont come up being replaced with do this or that or God will punish you in the next verse type mentality.
    edit on 31-3-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



    posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 03:12 AM
    link   
    a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
    The simpler explanation is that Mohammed picked up ideas from the Christians and Jews and semi-Christians who might have been encountered in the trading community.
    That would account for any similarities, and the mixture of different features.

    In other words, he was doing a bit of "culture appropriation". Nobody needed to manipulate him into it.


    edit on 31-3-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



    posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 03:37 AM
    link   

    originally posted by: DISRAELI
    a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
    The simpler explanation is that Mohammed picked up ideas from the Christians and Jews and semi-Christians who might have been encountered in the trading community.
    That would account for any similarities, and the mixture of different features.

    In other words, he was doing a bit of "culture appropriation". Nobody needed to manipulate him into it.




    The simpler explanation is that Mohammed picked up plagiarised ideas from the Christians and Jews and semi-Christians who might have been encountered in the trading community.


    FTFY


    He tried to present himself as the second coming of Jesus to the Christians. He had to have known a thing or two about Christian Doctrine.

    Islam is not even very original - Christianity is the logical progression of the Jewish teaching if one accepts Jesus as Christ. The Jewish narrative is part stolen from Mesopotamia, part story of the self determination of a slave race. All Mohammed does is rehash stories and contradict them, making to suit his own sulky agenda after being rejected first as the Jewish Messiah and then as the return of Christ.
    edit on 31-3-2016 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



    posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 04:23 AM
    link   
    a reply to: Akragon

    You're lost because your information is incorrect -- in the sense that it superficial and lacking in detail, not that it is entirely wrong. There is, for instance, a great deal of difference between the 'Catholic Church' and the Roman Catholic Church.

    By the way, the idea that Islam is an outgrowth of Christianity is not exactly new. Gibbon made the case that Islam grew out of the Monophysite heresy in The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire . Which was published in 1776.



    posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 05:15 AM
    link   
    a reply to: Astyanax


    You're lost because your information is incorrect -- in the sense that it superficial and lacking in detail, not that it is entirely wrong. There is, for instance, a great deal of difference between the 'Catholic Church' and the Roman Catholic Church.


    Incorrect?

    In the 1st century and the few decades that followed the "catholic church" was those that were closest to the apostles of Jesus... mainly James, (Paul).. Peter, and John... Ignatius was apparently a follower of John... and being first to coin said term... that was the starting point... after which many sects of the emerging religion used the term catholic... which is actually the issue of this entire thread.

    Even today there is tons of "catholic" sects which all claim to be the true church... pretty sure all of them do actually... some just don't like the word

    Theres even an Arian Catholic church....

    arian-catholic.org...

    Which is actually closer to what Jesus taught then the RCC...

    Roman Catholicism originated with Constantine


    By the way, the idea that Islam is an outgrowth of Christianity is not exactly new. Gibbon made the case that Islam grew out of the Monophysite heresy in The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire . Which was published in 1776.


    Religion tends to grow from religion... nothing is new




    posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 05:33 AM
    link   
    Abrahamic religions everyone, duuuuh



    posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 05:36 AM
    link   
    a reply to: Akragon




    Theres even an Arian Catholic church....


    You know the part when you get your hopes up, and start believing someone actually made a "pure teaching" and then you go into the website and see another scam..
    The american way..



    posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 09:52 AM
    link   
    I've always thought it was fairly common knowledge that Islam started while Rome was trying to conquer the middle east. I've always just assumed it was started as a way for the Romans to control the populace there, thrle same way they used Christianity with their own people.

    That's pretty much what Rome did everywhere, took people's customs and beliefs in places they conquered, bastardized them into something they could control and let the people there have their new 'religion'
    edit on 31/3/2016 by dug88 because: (no reason given)



    posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 10:28 AM
    link   
    a reply to: Akragon


    Incorrect?

    I'm afraid so. You ascribe a uniformity and monolithic character to early Christianity than it absolutely never had. It was not until the third century that what we now call Christianity began to emerge. And the Roman Catholic Church, a specific sect of Christianity, was founded much, much later, by an entirely different civilization.

    You are aware that the Roman Empire has ceased to exist in the West by the fifth century, don't you? The Roman Catholic Church had nothing to do with the Roman Empire, which was run by Greeks.



    posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 10:46 AM
    link   
    a reply to: dug88




    I've always thought it was fairly common knowledge that Islam started while Rome was trying to conquer the middle east. I've always just assumed it was started as a way for the Romans to control the populace there, thrle same way they used Christianity with their own people.


    Your common knowledge differs very much from my common knowledge.
    Not going into details, but it is fairly common knowledge that Antique Rome, Republican Rome, Imperial Rome was pretty much over by 4-5 th century. Arabian peninsula was never part of Roman Empire, it always remained the place where uncivilized tribes lived. Areas of modern day Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Israel/Palestine on the other hand were parts of one culture, politically united under Roman rule. At the time when Islam was born, out of South Arabia, all those areas belonged to Byzantine.



    posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 09:53 PM
    link   
    a reply to: kitzik



    There you go, Akragon!



    posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 10:46 PM
    link   
    a reply to: Astyanax

    Well... Just because the empire was desolved does not necessarily mean the religion was as well...

    They went through reformations and schisms all over the place... But the roman church that came from the early few centuries remained intact




    posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 10:56 PM
    link   

    originally posted by: Astyanax
    a reply to: Akragon


    Incorrect?

    I'm afraid so. You ascribe a uniformity and monolithic character to early Christianity than it absolutely never had. It was not until the third century that what we now call Christianity began to emerge. And the Roman Catholic Church, a specific sect of Christianity, was founded much, much later, by an entirely different civilization.

    You are aware that the Roman Empire has ceased to exist in the West by the fifth century, don't you? The Roman Catholic Church had nothing to do with the Roman Empire, which was run by Greeks.



    As far as I'm concerned, totalitarian uniformity came to Rome in 495 AD, when Pope Gelasius I declared papal authority to be higher than that of the Emperor. As Akragon said, Rome may have fallen, but the Papal Order remained.
    edit on 31-3-2016 by BELIEVERpriest because: typo



    posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 11:21 PM
    link   
    This video tells the story of how the Vatican allegedly created Islam. Take it with a grain of salt.




    posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 03:38 AM
    link   
    a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

    One GIANT problem with that video - Islam hates catholicism as much as any other Christian denomination. They crucify them.

    I'm gonna need more than a story from a dead and probably bitter when he was alive Jesuit priest defector to believe anything in that video.



    posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 09:42 AM
    link   
    a reply to: Akragon


    Well... Just because the empire was desolved does not necessarily mean the religion was as well...

    Please. I have already quoted two historians who were students of the period. I am familiar with the details and so are other people. I do not propose to argue the facts with you.


    They went through reformations and schisms all over the place... But the roman church that came from the early few centuries remained intact

    No, it did not. You have swallowed the Official Story put about by all Christian dominations — each of which traces itself back to the source and claims to be the only True Church. I am not at all interested in persuading you otherwise, though. I’ve given you the facts, as historians understand them. If you don’t wish to accept them, that’s perfectly good with me.



    posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 09:53 AM
    link   
    a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


    As Akragon said, Rome may have fallen, but the Papal Order remained.

    An order you trace back to Peter?


    495 AD, when Pope Gelasius I declared papal authority to be higher than that of the Emperor...

    There you go, Akragon, once again. This is the official story you have unfortunately taken for the truth. In fact, evidence for the Apostolic succession of early 'popes' is nonexistent outside of the highly dubious list of sources cherished by the Roman Catholic Church.


    Although the election of bishops in other early Christian communities is often described in contemporary sources, the earliest Roman sources date from 400, claiming that Peter himself appointed Linus, Anacletus, and Clement—in that order—as his successors. The early official lists of Bishops of Rome are considered problematic by scholars because of their bias towards enhancing papal authority and anachronistically imposing continuity; for example, the earliest, the Liber Pontificalis, dating probably from 354, is notoriously unreliable for the first two centuries. Papal selection before 1059AD.



    edit on 1/4/16 by Astyanax because: of a preposition.



    posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:16 PM
    link   
    a reply to: Astyanax

    I don't believe in Apostolic succession, so I don't trace anything back to Peter. However, the Popes established their totalitarian authority in 495 AD, but the Quran wasn't written until 632 AD. So the Catholic Church was well established long before Mohammed was born.



    posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 08:48 PM
    link   
    a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

    Here is the Jewish version of how Islam came to be, basically, Mohammed is viewed as a pseudo Messiah by them.
    Here is the opening paragraph



    The context of the formation of Islam is important to understand, because it is makes it possible for its adherents to interpret Islam today either as "a war against greed, immorality and idolatry; a battle between good and evil" - or as "a war on Jews and Christians, and a battle between East and West" - depending on which historical facts you choose to emphasize. In any event, the concept of a literal, physical battle exists throughout.


    www.eretzyisroel.org...

    As you can see, there is more to this story than a Catholic conspiracy against the Jews.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    8
    << 1    3  4  5 >>

    log in

    join