It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 upplagiarised ideas from the Christians and Jews and semi-Christians who might have been encountered in the trading community.
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.
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.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Akragon
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.
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
As Akragon said, Rome may have fallen, but the Papal Order remained.
495 AD, when Pope Gelasius I declared papal authority to be higher than that of the Emperor...
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.
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.