- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,324
- Reaction score
- 915
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proving Jesus: The Case for the Historical Jesus
Anyways, back to the nerd stuff--never played D&D or WoW but I do other less nerdy things (by society's definition i suppose)
My kids, my brother, sister in law, and niece/nephew all play. I just can't get into it.
They aren't there yet. But the Christians have had several hundred years more to mellow out.
I'll say it again real slow this time for the theists, there is absolutely 0 evidence coming from non-Muslim and non-Christian primary sources proving their existence.
Not really as the Christians didn't obtain a position of authority until much later on.
WHy I could never play WoW...
Yep...I'd be Leroy...
Incorrect. Regardless, it is a non-Muslim primary source that affirms the historicity of Muhammad.I already commented on that he was relaying stories that he heard from the Muslims,
No crap? It is a work entitled "History"...and it doesn't give a date for when he wrote about Mohammad it could have been decades after his supposed death.
But I wished to concisely write down and narrate to you [information] about all the following [events]: all the evil which transpired in Peroz' time; Vardan's rebellion against Xosrov; the rebellion of the Iranian troops from Ormizd; Ormizd's death and the enthronement of Xosrov; Maurice's death and the reign of Phocas; the taking of Egypt; [3] the destruction of Alexandria; the appeal of Heraclius to the king of the T'eatalats'ik' in the Northern parts and the sending of countless multitudes of peoples [in response to Heraclius' appeal]; the Byzantines' raiding in Atrpatakan, the loot and booty; the return via P'aytakaran; the coming of Iranian troops from the east to strike at him; the war which occurred in the land of [Caucasian] Aghbania; the emperor's turn to the city of Naxchewan and the fight at Archish; the emperor's departure thence to his own borders; the other attack on Xosrov; the warfare which occurred at Ninue; the raid upon the city of Ctesiphon (Tisbon); the return to Atrpatakan; Xosrov's death; the enthronement of Kawad; the reconciliation which occurred between the two kingdoms [Byzantium and Iran]; then the ceding of borders to the Byzantines; the return of the divine Cross to the Holy City. [Then I shall describe] the arousal of fathomless [divine] anger and the final disasters [brought on] by the marauders from the Southern parts [the Arabs]; how the armies of the Ishmaelites unexpectedly moved forth and, in a moment's time, overthrowing the might of both kings, seized [territories extending] from Egypt to this side of the great Euphrates river and to the border of the Armenians [ts' sahman Hayastaneayts'], from the shores of the great sea in the West [the Atlantic] to the gate/court of the Iranian kingdom, [taking] all the [4] cities of Mesopotamia of the Syrians, and Ctesiphon, Veh Artashir, Marand, Hamatan as far as the city of Gandzak, and the great Hrat which is located in the district of Atrpatakan.
Incorrect. Regardless, it is a non-Muslim primary source that affirms the historicity of Muhammad.
No crap? It is a work entitled "History"...
Source for this assertion?A) It is not a primary source he was reciting things that he had heard from Muslims
Most historians have suggested 661 AD.B) Unless you provide the date which he wrote it then it is not even a contemporary source.
Do you have any evidence you would like to provide that Sebeos was told "stories" by Muslims? Otherwise, your assertions are baseless.And what is that "history" based on besides stories told by Muslims?
You have absolutely 0 evidence for the nonexistence of Muhammad.You have absolutely 0 evidence for the existence of Mohammad,
So? We don't have paintains made of numerous historical figures. That doesn't mean they didn't exist. What asinine reasoning.you don't have paintings made of him from the time as it was commanded not to have portraits of human figures (gee how convenient)
Why don't you accept Muslim primary sources? Or do you have selective source bias?you don't have any non-Muslim primary source recounting first hand events and you haven't even proven that you have a secondary contemporary source speaking about Mohammad before his supposed death. Why no mention of Mohammad by the Sassanids or the Byzantines until long after his death if he was such an important figure?
Source for this assertion?
Most historians have suggested 661 AD.
Do you have any evidence you would like to provide that Sebeos was told "stories" by Muslims? Otherwise, your assertions are baseless.
You have absolutely 0 evidence for the nonexistence of Muhammad.
So? We don't have paintains made of numerous historical figures.
That doesn't mean they didn't exist. What asinine reasoning.
Why don't you accept Muslim primary sources? Or do you have selective source bias?
In case you forgot, you were the one who asserted that Muhammad did not exist. The burden of proof on proving that is on you.
You could have said you had no source for your asinine assertion and that all you had was your own speculative opinions. Lucky that doesn't mean crap when discussing historicity.He had to have been because he did not live in the same area as Mohammad, wrote the text 30 years after Mohammad supposedly died, and his story matches the Muslim narrative which according to you he didn't write until he came into contact with the Muslims after their Imperialist Expansionist war in which they conquered Armenia.
Are you that obtuse? Anything written after a person's death is a contemporary source. Stop being disingenuous and try to have an honest debate for once.That's 3 decades after Mohammads supposed death thus it is not even a contemporary source let alone a primary source.
You could have said you had no source for your asinine assertion and that all you had was your own speculative opinions. Lucky that doesn't mean crap when discussing historicity.He never lived in the ****ing Arabian penninsula, he wrote the text 30 years after Mohammad supposedly died, and his is the Muslim narrative which he wrote after the Muslims conquered Armenia where he lived.
No, you're the only one making ANY type of claim. I BELIEVE Muhammad existed. You CLAIM he did not (and provided no evidence to substantiate the absurd claim). YOU were the one who brought up Muhammad's nonexistence in this thread. The burden of proof lies on you.I'm not the one making the positive claim.
There's plenty. The one off the top of my head is the Socratic problem. All we have are Plato's and Xenophon's writings to confirm that he existed. The general consensus is that Socrates was a historical figure who existed. The only visual record of Socrates came centuries after his "supposed" death.Really, which famous historical figures do we not have some sort of visual record of?
Read above.I'm still trying to think of an important historical figure who we don't have some sort of contemporary visual record of.
Identify that bias? To prove that Muhammad ACTUALLY did exist? I'm sure the companions of Muhammad had insight that ignorant people wouldn't believe he was a real person.I don't accept Muslim primary sources because they have a clear bias.
Substantiate your assertions. Otherwise it remains as baseless drivel.I don't accept Greek sources for the existence of Achilles. Achilles like Mohammad is a mythical not a historical figure.
Logical fallacy. Not to mention this: Muqawqis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIf Mohammad existed then there would have been a contemporary record of him by the Sassanids and/or the Byzantines.
No, we BELIEVE he existed. That is part of our religion. You are a militant atheist who came into this thread and asserted that Muhammad did not exist. The burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. The person who needs to prove their unsubstantiated words is you.Are you out of your bloody mind, it is you and all Muslims who claim that Mohammad existed, it is up to the person making the positive claim to prove it.
You could have said you had no source for your asinine assertion and that all you had was your own speculative opinions. Lucky that doesn't mean crap when discussing historicity.
Are you that obtuse? Anything written after a person's death is a contemporary source. Stop being disingenuous and try to have an honest debate for once.
You could have said you had no source for your asinine assertion and that all you had was your own speculative opinions. Lucky that doesn't mean crap when discussing historicity.
No, you're the only one making ANY type of claim. I BELIEVE Muhammad existed. You CLAIM he did not (and provided no evidence to substantiate the absurd claim). YOU were the one who brought up Muhammad's nonexistence in this thread. The burden of proof lies on you.
There's plenty. The one off the top of my head is the Socratic problem. All we have are Plato's and Xenophon's writings to confirm that he existed. The general consensus is that Socrates was a historical figure who existed. The only visual record of Socrates came centuries after his "supposed" death.
Your suspicion of disbelief is not a valid proof that none of these people existed. It is merely doubt in a mind that still needs education.
Read above.
Identify that bias?
To prove that Muhammad ACTUALLY did exist? I'm sure the companions of Muhammad had insight that ignorant people wouldn't believe he was a real person.
Substantiate your assertions. Otherwise it remains as baseless drivel.
Logical fallacy.
Not to mention this: Muqawqis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No, we BELIEVE he existed. That is part of our religion. You are a militant atheist who came into this thread and asserted that Muhammad did not exist. The burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. The person who needs to prove their unsubstantiated words is you.
Until you actually back up your claims, your points will remain baseless and meaningless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?