Mohammad Never Existed

[Agent Ferris]

Furthermore, if the great religious figures never existed, how does that make their moral stories of any less value?

Just because Jesus/Mohammad never existed doesn't suddenly make it wrong to donate to charity.

Kind of ridiculous to base your lifestyle on the teachings of fictional characters IMHO. Especially since there are verifiably real people with so much more to teach.

 

[Degreez]

Actually you have no evidence that he is anything more than a fictional character.

You're the one who initially asserted that he did not exist (you are the person who started this thread). The burden of proof lies on you to substantiate your assertion.

Otherwise, your belief that Muhammad did not exist is not grounded in factual evidence and is completely baseless and meaningless.

 

[obvious Child]

Kind of ridiculous to base your lifestyle on the teachings of fictional characters IMHO. Especially since there are verifiably real people with so much more to teach.

So you are saying that the moral teachings aren't worth following purely because the original speakers may not have existed?

 

[Orion]

How about a non-Buddhist contemporary historian making mention of Buddha?

So you basically want someone outside of the Buddhist tradition - whose followers have more accurate records than anyone - to verify the existence of Buddha?

I think you should do some research because it's already been done. Any contemporary historians who want to research the life of Buddha MUST seek the scriptures, especially the Pali Cannon (the original source texts) which is over 80,000 books in volume. The Buddha taught a lot of stuff over the course of his lifetime. People kept religious recollections as well as daily observations.

 

[Agent Ferris]

You're the one who initially asserted that he did not exist (you are the person who started this thread). The burden of proof lies on you to substantiate your assertion.

Otherwise, your belief that Muhammad did not exist is not grounded in factual evidence and is completely baseless and meaningless.

Your belief that he does exist is based on nothing. My belief in his non-existence is based on the fact that there is as much evidence for his having existed as there is for the existence of any mythical figure. There is no reason whatsoever to elevate Mohammad to the position of historial rather than mythical figure.

 

[Agent Ferris]

So you basically want someone outside of the Buddhist tradition - whose followers have more accurate records than anyone - to verify the existence of Buddha?[

I think you should do some research because it's already been done.

Really then provide the non-Buddhist primary source who wrote of Buddha. It is asserted that Buddha lived around 500 BC, the trouble is that there is absolutely 0 evidence for this, he simply did not appear in the art, archaelogy, or the written record of the time.

 

[Agent Ferris]

So you are saying that the moral teachings aren't worth following purely because the original speakers may not have existed?

Well I don't consider their teachings to be moral to begin with but that they probably never even existed just makes it all the more laughable.

 

[Orion]

Really then provide the non-Buddhist primary source who wrote of Buddha. It is asserted that Buddha lived around 500 BC, the trouble is that there is absolutely 0 evidence for this, he simply did not appear in the art, archaelogy, or the written record of the time.

Then, at best, it's unproven that he existed, at least by your unattainable standard. It doesn't mean he didn't exist. It's also important to know that "Buddha" was the name he attained later on in life. He wasn't born under that name.

You're just here to discredit religion in general. Whatever I provide, you will look for some small flaw. If you really want to know, use Google. It shouldn't be too hard.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Then, at best, it's unproven that he existed, at least by your unattainable standard.

My standards are the same used to make the distincition between any historical and mythical figure. The only exception to this rule seem to be religious figures.

It doesn't mean he didn't exist. It's also important to know that "Buddha" was the name he attained later on in life. He wasn't born under that name.

Siddhārtha Gautama was supposedly a prince but if that is true then why are there no paintings, archaelogical evidence, or written record of him for the time period for when he apparently existed?

You're just here to discredit religion in general.

It does a pretty good job of discrediting itself.

 

[GarzaUK]

I don't know about Muhammed or Buddha, but the historicity of Jesus can certainly be questioned.

The fact that many historians who lived at the same time as Jesus in the same area with the same interests did not mention a man performing incredible miracles claiming to be the messiah did not seem to mention Jesus at all is certainly a dent.

But then we have sources saying they actually was quite a few people claiming to be the messiah at the time of Jesus, and faith healers were actually quite common in those days. So maybe it wasn't that unusual.

The gopsels are unrealiable as hell, because they definitely have political goals, conflicting messages and events - I mean John goes way out and is clearly anti-semitic in tone. The Q document is the best evidence that Jesus was real, this is a number of teachings that is present in Matthew and Luke, but not present in Mark - which means it is seperate from Mark. But the Q document does not include any miracles of any kind, and just have a list of parables. Which means Jesus could have been a preacher, but not a miracle worker. In Mark, Jesus nowhere claims to be the son of God, in fact "son of God" does not actually mean a divine breeding has taken place at all in Judaism. In Judaism, "son of God" simply means close to god - just like King David was called the son of God.

 

[Winston Smith]

Well there you go. You don't have a single contemporary non-Christian source for the existence of Jesus. At the most you have secondary sources.

Strictly speaking, very little of what we know about the ancient world comes from primary sources.

No actually it is not, at least in terms of the passage referring to Jesus, it's authenticity is at the very least suspect. It is almost certainly a forgery:


Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not according to your Wiki article. If you read it carefully, you'll see that the evidence of corruption in the text is actually fairly weak.

lol if we don't know what it originally said then how do we know it said anything about him at all?

Because we have reason to doubt some specific parts of the passage but not others.

Just as I dismiss Greek writings about the existence of Achilles. Societies have their mythical figures, and there is no reason to believe that Jesus or Mohammad were anything more than that.

Jesus is much better documented than Achilles. He's a more recent figure, written about by people who were closer to him in time, some of whom were professional historians rather than poets. And Achilles may well have been real. We didn't think Troy was real, either, until it turned out that it was.

lol ya because the Romans didn't chronicle the existence of important non-Roman historical figures; such as, Hannibal, or Attila the Hun.

Hannibal was a significant military figure who inflicted serious defeats on the empire and was almost in a position to overrun Rome itself. Jesus was an obscure provincial cult leader who was executed in a humiliating fashion only three years into his career. No one would expect similar treatment of the two by Roman historians. The same goes for a figure like Attila.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Strictly speaking, very little of what we know about the ancient world comes from primary sources.

O.K. then where is the archaelogical record of Jesus then?

Not according to your Wiki article. If you read it carefully, you'll see that the evidence of corruption in the text is actually fairly weak.

Um no actually it says that it fails even though most basic authentication tests. He doesn't use the same writing style and it starts and stops.

Because we have reason to doubt some specific parts of the passage but not others.

Apparently not the ones you want to believe are genuine. The bottom line is if it is corrupted then the whole article must be disregarded as a forgery.

Jesus is much better documented than Achilles. He's a more recent figure, written about by people who were closer to him in time, some of whom were professional historians rather than poets. And Achilles may well have been real. We didn't think Troy was real, either, until it turned out that it was.

At least Achilles was known to numerous Greek city states and not just by a few members of a fledgling cult.

Hannibal was a significant military figure who inflicted serious defeats on the empire and was almost in a position to overrun Rome itself. Jesus was an obscure provincial cult leader who was executed in a humiliating fashion only three years into his career. No one would expect similar treatment of the two by Roman historians. The same goes for a figure like Attila.

You could expect some treatment of Jesus even if not on par with Hannibal. There are no contemporary Jewish or Roman sources in relation to Jesus, maybe the Romans could have ignored it but it is highly doubtful that a man with a large Jewish following claiming to be the descendent of David and rightful heir to the throne would have been ignored by the Jewish chroniclers.

 

[Orion]

I don't know about Muhammed or Buddha, but the historicity of Jesus can certainly be questioned.

The fact that many historians who lived at the same time as Jesus in the same area with the same interests did not mention a man performing incredible miracles claiming to be the messiah did not seem to mention Jesus at all is certainly a dent.

But then we have sources saying they actually was quite a few people claiming to be the messiah at the time of Jesus, and faith healers were actually quite common in those days. So maybe it wasn't that unusual.

The gopsels are unrealiable as hell, because they definitely have political goals, conflicting messages and events - I mean John goes way out and is clearly anti-semitic in tone. The Q document is the best evidence that Jesus was real, this is a number of teachings that is present in Matthew and Luke, but not present in Mark - which means it is seperate from Mark. But the Q document does not include any miracles of any kind, and just have a list of parables. Which means Jesus could have been a preacher, but not a miracle worker. In Mark, Jesus nowhere claims to be the son of God, in fact "son of God" does not actually mean a divine breeding has taken place at all in Judaism. In Judaism, "son of God" simply means close to god - just like King David was called the son of God.

I was really hoping you'd show up in this thread. Good post, as usual.

 

[Winston Smith]

O.K. then where is the archaelogical record of Jesus then?




Um no actually it says that it fails even though most basic authentication tests. He doesn't use the same writing style and it starts and stops.



Apparently not the ones you want to believe are genuine. The bottom line is if it is corrupted then the whole article must be disregarded as a forgery.



At least Achilles was known to numerous Greek city states and not just by a few members of a fledgling cult.



You could expect some treatment of Jesus even if not on par with Hannibal. There are no contemporary Jewish or Roman sources in relation to Jesus, maybe the Romans could have ignored it but it is highly doubtful that a man with a large Jewish following claiming to be the descendent of David and rightful heir to the throne would have been ignored by the Jewish chroniclers.

Have you ever read Latin or Greek literature? Textual problems are a constant. They don't mean you automatically disregard something as a forgery, otherwise we wouldn't know anything about anything. In this case, most scholars believe the passage is either authentic or a corrupt version of an authentic original.

There was extensive treatment of Jesus within a century of his life, some of it by non-Christian sources, some of it by sources other than Josephus. And again, outright disregarding of Christian sources is not good historical practice, anyway. The argument that Jesus didn't exist is a fanciful exercise, nothing more. It has little to no credence among scholars of any persuasion, religious or secular.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Have you ever read Latin or Greek literature? Textual problems are a constant. They don't mean you automatically disregard something as a forgery, otherwise we wouldn't know anything about anything. In this case, most scholars believe the passage is either authentic or a corrupt version of an authentic original.

WTF would a Jew who remained a Jew refer to Jesus as "the Christ"???

There was extensive treatment of Jesus within a century of his life, some of it by non-Christian sources, some of it by sources other than Josephus.

The wiki article listed like 5 sources all born after he died, why would there not be a single non-Christian source testifying to his existence at the time he supposedly lived?

And again, outright disregarding of Christian sources is not good historical practice, anyway. The argument that Jesus didn't exist is a fanciful exercise, nothing more. It has little to no credence among scholars of any persuasion, religious or secular.

If he existed then it would not have gone unwritten by at the least the Jewish historians living at the time.

 

[Geo Patric]

IMHO.

key letter: O

you have become as inflexible and anti-intellectual in your anti-religionism as any religious person, ferris. you honestly are not making much sense. you cannot take buddhist history because the folks that wrote it were buddhist? you reject american history written by americans?

geo.

 

[Winston Smith]

WTF would a Jew who remained a Jew refer to Jesus as "the Christ"???

That's one of the issues addressed in the Wiki article you posted. It could mean the passage is corrupt. Or it could mean he was referring to him as "Jesus Christ" for the same reason non-Christians call him that today, simply because that's what he's typically called. For the historian, the "Christ" title served to specify him and distinguish him from some other Jesus.

The wiki article listed like 5 sources all born after he died, why would there not be a single non-Christian source testifying to his existence at the time he supposedly lived?

Why would there be? He was completely unknown until the last three years of his life. And the Romans didn't have teams of journalists flying around in helicopters looking for a live interview every time a colorful local personality turned up in the backwaters of the empire.

If he existed then it would not have gone unwritten by at the least the Jewish historians living at the time.

Not necessarily within his lifetime. As mentioned above, his career may well have been too short to draw the attention of historians before he died. Of course he was mentioned in a wealth of popular writings almost immediately afterward, such as the Gospels, but you ignore that along with the mention by Josephus.

 

[UtahBill]

The measure of any group of people, including the religions, should be determined by what GOOD they do.
The religlions don't have to be "true" or need proof that their originator existed, as much as their actions need to be worthy of praise.

 

[Agent Ferris]

That's one of the issues addressed in the Wiki article you posted. It could mean the passage is corrupt. Or it could mean he was referring to him as "Jesus Christ" for the same reason non-Christians call him that today, simply because that's what he's typically called. For the historian, the "Christ" title served to specify him and distinguish him from some other Jesus.

Oh please for a Jew living in that time "The Christ" had a very different meaning, he would not have said "The Christ" he would have said "Jesus son of Joseph," or "Jesus of Nazareth," etc.

Why would there be? He was completely unknown until the last three years of his life. And the Romans didn't have teams of journalists flying around in helicopters looking for a live interview every time a colorful local personality turned up in the backwaters of the empire.



Not necessarily within his lifetime. As mentioned above, his career may well have been too short to draw the attention of historians before he died. Of course he was mentioned in a wealth of popular writings almost immediately afterward, such as the Gospels, but you ignore that along with the mention by Josephus.

I ignore Jospehus's writings because their authenticity is highly suspect. Once again a man claiming to be the descendent of David and rightful heir to the crown with a large following would not have been ignored by historians living at the same time. Once again I ignore the gospels for the same reason I ignore Greek writings of Achilles. There is no reason for me to believe that Jesus was anything more than a mythical figure along the lines of Achilles and there is simply no compelling evidence suggesting otherwise.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Strictly speaking, very little of what we know about the ancient world comes from primary sources.

Wrong. Judea was a Roman territory, and Roman sources kept fairly good documentation. We know a considerable amount about the politics of that area, and who was who. No contemporary mention of Jesus is ever made by Roman sources.

 

[Winston Smith]

Wrong. Judea was a Roman territory, and Roman sources kept fairly good documentation. We know a considerable amount about the politics of that area, and who was who. No contemporary mention of Jesus is ever made by Roman sources.

Yeah, but for the most part we're relying on historians, not first-hand sources.

 

[Captain America]

Some scholars reason that “Yeshu ben Pantera” was the same as Jesus "The Christ." They place him as the illigitimate son of a Roman soldier. Other's disagree. It's "iffy" at best.

The “Jesus son of Panthera” Traditions

As I understand it the Qumrans, one of the first messianic sects, closest to the actual time of "Jesus" actually believed "The Christ" was James "The Just" (brother to Yeshu (Jesus,) but it was later decided that Jesus was to be the "savior" with a lot of help from Constitine (and his mother) and the Council of Nicea.

Much adoo about nothing...

 

[Winston Smith]

Oh please for a Jew living in that time "The Christ" had a very different meaning, he would not have said "The Christ" he would have said "Jesus son of Joseph," or "Jesus of Nazareth," etc.

Different from what? Tacitus called him "Christ," too. That doesn't mean he had any particular opinion about him. It's just a title.

I ignore Jospehus's writings because their authenticity is highly suspect. Once again a man claiming to be the descendent of David and rightful heir to the crown with a large following would not have been ignored by historians living at the same time. Once again I ignore the gospels for the same reason I ignore Greek writings of Achilles. There is no reason for me to believe that Jesus was anything more than a mythical figure along the lines of Achilles and there is simply no compelling evidence suggesting otherwise.

I've known two guys who called themselves Jesus and one who called himself God. As far as I know, there hasn't been a single scholarly work published on any of them.

You're simply inventing a set of standards that allow you to reach your desired conclusion. If you're interested in how historians work, start by reading the Wiki article on the historicity of Jesus. Your thesis is dead and has been for a long time.

 

[Tashah]

A marked shift occurred in the Arabian peninsula which transformed it from a pagan/tribal society to a Muslim/tribal society. I see no compelling reason to believe that Mohammad was not the major catalyst in this societal transformation.

 

[Agent Ferris]

key letter: O

you have become as inflexible and anti-intellectual in your anti-religionism as any religious person, ferris. you honestly are not making much sense. you cannot take buddhist history because the folks that wrote it were buddhist?

No I reject that their is credible evidence that Buddha existed because all sources for his existence are Buddhists, there is no written, artistic, or archaelogical evidence for him having existed at the time and place Buddhists say he did, nor is there any non-Buddhist primary sources. If he was a prince as they claim then that simply doesn't add up.

you reject american history written by americans?

American written history of America by itself? Kind of ya, it's like taking the Roman historians word for the story of Rome without using any other evidentiary material or outside sources.