I explain it in the sentence you quote
Yes. You explain all such clearly that it need years to understand
(Sorry to be not really intelligent like you)...
In this very example, you totally miss the point
I miss all the point, see above...
of what the text goal is
but it is normal ;though you stripped the meaning of the text of its islamic content, you still read it through the muslim narrative and take the meaning of the word in their islamic sense rather than what they truly mean.
You mean like you do here
Examples ? Any other examples ?
637 is sufficient. The nature of the event speak for itself (date, etc) and has nothing to see with adding verses to a text whose no one knows when it was done, by who, etc. (Whereas it is, without doubt, an addition... but you're unable to add another one to validate what it could appear to what you said : "Muslim have add many thing to link the texts with a prophet"...)
You tie up two things which have nothing to see because of their nature and you do not even perceive it. Like the Bishapur coin with the figure of MBH. But no one of the contemporary sources speak of that guy whereas they speak of others who were even not on coins. And that does not even trouble you. All is normal! Keep on ! You're an amateur Marc. You fool people here.
No I asked you to reply to this
that you label as meagre and you haven't. So I ask again. Why is it meagre ?
"Sectarian disputes" means nothing as it is not enlighten by sources ; none dates is meagre. It is nonsense statement as an argument to respond to the anti rabbinic and Christian stance in the text. You're really an amateur... The worst is you did not even realize it.
Unfortunately, you don't read and/or understand what I say.
Because it is not understandable. Moreover, nobody apart me try to understand you thesis. Mundi just ask you about (very) detailed things. One word, one phrase.
The rest, they do not address it. You do not even realized it.
It does show how your mind work and why you get many things wrong.
Sebeos, John and the Amir, and MBH/Bishapur...
Deus is a great and bright guy who went through a ton of sources, some of which you have no clue they exist nor are interested in (as they don't fit your theory) but I can admit his narrative of the beginning of Islam shows confusion in his thoughts when trying to crack it ; he still brings interesting stuff to the field.
I'm interested in all sources. My issue is that a source has to be examined.Sebeos is the perfect example of this. You take it at face value (like Crone, Gallez ). I do not. I've said (already) why in many pages here. Same with John and the Amir. You were not able to articulate something convincing. Each time there are things which do not work in your thesis regarding these texts. Sebeos and John say something : "Yes yes what they say its true, yes yes... "
You're an amateur.
First there was Raymond Dequin
now it is the poor AJ... who read the Talmud in its own way and who is such incapable to make things clear, that (even!) you, you say that I can admit his narrative of the beginning of Islam shows confusion in his thoughts when trying to crack it
Hahaha! You fool yourself and you do not perceive it : you continue with AJ, etc.
Is that a joke?
I said once on this forum that though sources seem to prove Muhammad existed, I don't believe in it and here I never mentioned what you said ; I only spoke about a prophet figure, not an actual living being.
MBH is not the rasul on Bishapur coin? The rasul is not the "prophet" then? MBH is not real?
Of course (you never said that...)
End of story.