Posted on 01/15/2024 6:39:19 PM PST by SunkenCiv
>Strangely enough - there is no primary evidence for a Muhammad - no writings of him for the first 150 years after he allegedly died.
Raymond Ibrahim stated that in 650, the Egyptian Copt, John of Niklu said that “Muslims”, were not only “enemies of God” but followers of “the detestable doctrine of the beast, that is, Mohammed.” Also, in 634, just two years after Mohammad’s death, the oldest known parchment mentioning a militant prophet has a man asking a learned Jewish scribe his knowledge of “the prophet who has appeared among the Saracens.” The old man, “with much groaning,” replied: “He is deceiving. For do prophets come with swords and chariot? Verily, these events of today are works of confusion…. you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed.”
No, it probably wasn’t.
“When the candidatus 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, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: “What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?” He replied, groaning deeply: “He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared.” So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men’s blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.”Note:
=====================
Next, for John of Nikiou - the chronicle is dated to 690 AD, not 650. And the earliest primary dates from 1602 in an Ethiopic translation from ARABIC -- meaning that the primary document is a translation from (potentially) a transation.
Yet in other documents from the 690s to 750 we don't see ANYONE writing about "Muslims". John may well have used the term "Saracen" as other contemporary writers did and the that is, Mohammed" is highly likely to have been added in
That was years ago though so things might have changed.
The thing that was weird was that Sally was probably his dead wife's half sister. Which under the morays of the time would have meant she should have been off limits to him.
Who knows if he followed that rule though.
I don’t think it’s a particularly unusual thing that Jefferson fathered children with a woman he owned. The manic denial that it happened is probably just a manifestation of the more general denial that it was a common practice among slaveowners.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3566404/posts
Would he? Possibly even probable. Did he? DNA says a man of his family did. So him or his brothers. Either is kind of skeevy. But saying that it was him for sure? Eh. Not enough evidence to be able to say for sure.
I know he freed other members of the family, like James who was Sally's brother and undoubtedly not his kid so saying that he freed them because they were his children also is something that is still a maybe.
The only reason the BS about his brother was dreamed up in the first place was to get Thomas Jefferson off the hook.
He did have a brother. Three I think but I seem to remember only one lived to adulthood.
The way to settle the question would be to get his DNA but that will probably never happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.