Mohammad Never Existed

[Winston Smith]

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

Fixed it for you.

 

[Agent Ferris]

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.

It could have been the leadership of one of the local Arab pagan tribes adopting some of the Jewish and Christian settler's traditions, modifying them for their own ends and using them to unify the other tribes under a central theocratic leadership. Once again we are not even given "Mohammad's" real name but only his title IE "praise worthy."

 

[Agent Ferris]

Fixed it for you.

lol ya there's non-Roman and non-American primary sources for the existence of Rome and America. :roll:

 

[Agent Ferris]

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

"The Christ" wouldn't have had the same meaning for Tacitus as it would have for a devout Jew. :roll:

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.

O.K. then I suppose we have to accept Achilles as a historical rather than a mythical figure based on your standards of historicity. It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny to suggest that a man with a large following claiming to be the descendent of David and rightful heir to the throne would have been ignored not just by the Romans but by the Jewish scribes as well.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

They were supposedly not obscure.

Now they are, but right after Jesus died, Christianity was just another tiny cult. There were dozens across the empire, and one more doesn't really warrant a message.

Arabia was a sparsely inhabited wasteland in the early 7th century. Nobody really cared about some internal tribal disputes.

 

[Agent Ferris]

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

There isn't mention of Jesus by the Romans or the Jews until long after Jesus died, it is very easy to see how they could have just been restating the Christians own narrative. It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny to suggest that a man with a sizable following claiming to be the direct descendent of David and rightful heir to the thrown of Judea would have been ignored not just by the Roman sources but by the Jewish scribes as well.

 

[Winston Smith]

There isn't mention of Jesus by the Romans or the Jews until long after Jesus died, it is very easy to see how they could have just been restating the Christians own narrative. It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny to suggest that a man with a sizable following claiming to be the direct descendent of David and rightful heir to the thrown of Judea would have been ignored not just by the Roman sources but by the Jewish scribes as well.

First of all, he was mentioned by non-Christian sources very shortly after his death. You can keep saying he wasn't, but that doesn't make it true. Second, as Asparagus said, Christianity began as one of many cults that were not considered particularly significant at the time.

 

[Agent Ferris]

First of all, he was mentioned by non-Christian sources very shortly after his death.

Try 50-200 years after his death.

You can keep saying he wasn't, but that doesn't make it true.

If there was mention of him shortly after his death say within 10 years then we might be able to assume that they were relying on primary non-Christian sources, but since it came more than 50 years after his death we can safely assume that their testimonies were merely relying on the already established Christian narratives.

Second, as Asparagus said, Christianity began as one of many cults that were not considered particularly significant at the time.

You're just wrong, it was a huge social movement within Judea led by a man claiming to be the direct descendent of David and rightful heir to the crown, that is according to the Christian narratives themselves; such as, Jesus's triumphant entrance into Jerusalem where he was greeted by huge crowds singing Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father, David .

Furthermore; cults and cult leaders in Judea were in fact depicted by primary Roman sources; such as, the Zealots.

 

[Winston Smith]

Try 50-200 years after his death.




If there was mention of him shortly after his death say within 10 years then we might be able to assume that they were relying on primary non-Christian sources, but since it came more than 50 years after his death we can safely assume that their testimonies were merely relying on the already established Christian narratives.




You're just wrong, it was a huge social movement within Judea led by a man claiming to be the direct descendent of David and rightful heir to the crown, that is according to the Christian narratives themselves; such as, Jesus's triumphant entrance into Jerusalem where he was greeted by huge crowds singing Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father, David .

Furthermore; cults and cult leaders in Judea were in fact depicted by primary Roman sources; such as, the Zealots.

Jesus never claimed the right to any earthly crown. He didn't set out to be a political figure, and unlike the Zealots, he wasn't involved in a political revolution.

Your assumptions are just that--assumptions. We'll never know for sure what the original sources were. What we do know, and what matters, is that non-Christian historians considered them reliable enough.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Jesus never claimed the right to any earthly crown.

lol, by claiming to be the direct descendent of David he was claiming to be the rightful heir to the crown. Anyways according to the Christian narrative when questioned by Pilate if he was the King of the Jews, Jesus answered yes. In fact the entire Christian mythology is based on the fact that the Messiah must be a descendent of David and would be the rightful heir to the crown of David. The whole point of Christianity was that Jesus was the promised Messiah, descendent of David, and righful King of the Israelites.

Acts 2:29-30:

Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.
But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.


Luke 1:30-33:

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God.
And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

He didn't set out to be a political figure, and unlike the Zealots, he wasn't involved in a political revolution.

It was a social revolution.

Your assumptions are just that--assumptions. We'll never know for sure what the original sources were. What we do know, and what matters, is that non-Christian historians considered them reliable enough.

Sorry but this doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny, he was a man with a large following claiming to be the direct descendent of David, according to the Christian's own narrative he had a huge following who believed him righful heir to the throne as depicted in the seen now commemorated on Palm Sunday.

 

[Winston Smith]

lol, by claiming to be the direct descendent of David he was claiming to be the rightful heir to the crown. Anyways according to the Christian narrative when questioned by Pilate if he was the King of the Jews, Jesus answered yes. In fact the entire Christian mythology is based on the fact that the Messiah must be a descendent of David and would be the rightful heir to the crown of David. The whole point of Christianity was that Jesus was the promised Messiah, descendent of David, and righful King of the Israelites.

Acts 2:29-30:

Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.
But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.


Luke 1:30-33:

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God.
And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.




It was a social revolution.



Sorry but this doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny, he was a man with a large following claiming to be the direct descendent of David, according to the Christian's own narrative he had a huge following who believed him righful heir to the throne as depicted in the seen now commemorated on Palm Sunday.

Your opinions. For the most part, historians and theologians would disagree.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Your opinions. For the most part, historians and theologians would disagree.

Then they must not have that elusive power of common sense.

 

[GarzaUK]

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

lol thank you orion, I try my best

 

[GarzaUK]

There is 3 options regarding the historicity of Yeshua (Jesus), to save all the bickering.

a) he was the son of god, did lots of miracles, his biography was however very poorly written and seems bordering on plagerism with other stories. Historians of the time (both Jew and Gentile) did the mother of all cover ups and didn't write anything about the man, even though naming lesser characters of time such as John the Baptist and Pontius Pilatus.

b) he was a man, an angry preacher upset with the establishment (jewish temple), he spoke parables, maybe did the common faith healing schtick, maybe even claimed he was the messiah (like a few others). No-one except his followers took any notice of him though, he didn't feature on the richter scale at all.

c) he didn't exist, Paul never mentions any miracles, any parables, and stories about the historical christ at all despite living in the same time period, he only mentions crucification, resurrection and ascention - and these can be interepted not taking place in the physical world. Paul also wrote that some fellow Christains believed that Christ did not exist in the flesh a mere 10-15 years after his supposed death. Mark later wrote an allegorical story about this spiritual figure called Jesus (like Greeks used to do for Zeus, Apollo etc) and loosely copy a whole range of miracles and storylines from other pagan religions. Eg. Jesus rose a man called Lazarus from the dead, Horus rose a man called El-Lazarus from the dead. Terms like "The Good Shephard" and "The Alpha and Omega" were also copied from pagan texts.

It could also be a mixture of b and c.

 

[Geo Patric]

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.

perhaps, if he was the prince of 17th c. CE france... or even 3rd c. BCE India... but there was no India in the 3rd c. BCE. there was a large, literate Vedic culture wherein, yes, the line of royal descent likely would have been kept for those tribal groups in the upper tier. But that is not where Siddartha came from either. He comes from a disparately populated area outside the Vedic regions known as the Śākyas. General literacy is unlikely, his own is unknown, it is suspected that his parents did not even use the same aryan dialect. As was common in MOST of the world at the time, very little was written down because almost no one could read.

but this is pointless.your reasonings are seriously flawed. that something is not written down within 5 mins of occurring AND not written down by someone who had no connection to the event being recorded does not qualify the event as myth.

it's like taking the Roman historians word for the story of Rome without using any other evidentiary material or outside sources.

no, it isn't. If is more like accepting the premise that a place called Gaul existed and would have existed even if Caesar had not written of it. It is like accepting that other Celtic places (Ireland, for instance) and peoples existed even though Caesar did not write about them and the Celtic people of the time had a cultural proscription against writing down their own history in their own language. they still existed.

by your 'reasoning', lessee...

Aristotle wrote nothing himself that we know of, the earliest reliable reference to Aristotle comes nearly 200 years after he died and was written by a Greek (Dionysius of Halicarnassus), ergo, Aristotle is myth.

Socrates wrote nothing himself that we know of and the only reference to him we have is by a disciple (who cannot, by your 'reasoning' be considered dependable); ergo, socrates never existed.

your are criticizing those that sublimate reason to faith while you are rejecting reason in favor of absolute empiricism.

not any better.
geo.

 

[Winston Smith]

There is 3 options regarding the historicity of Yeshua (Jesus), to save all the bickering.

a) he was the son of god, did lots of miracles, his biography was however very poorly written and seems bordering on plagerism with other stories. Historians of the time (both Jew and Gentile) did the mother of all cover ups and didn't write anything about the man, even though naming lesser characters of time such as John the Baptist and Pontius Pilatus.

b) he was a man, an angry preacher upset with the establishment (jewish temple), he spoke parables, maybe did the common faith healing schtick, maybe even claimed he was the messiah (like a few others). No-one except his followers took any notice of him though, he didn't feature on the richter scale at all.

c) he didn't exist, Paul never mentions any miracles, any parables, and stories about the historical christ at all despite living in the same time period, he only mentions crucification, resurrection and ascention - and these can be interepted not taking place in the physical world. Paul also wrote that some fellow Christains believed that Christ did not exist in the flesh a mere 10-15 years after his supposed death. Mark later wrote an allegorical story about this spiritual figure called Jesus (like Greeks used to do for Zeus, Apollo etc) and loosely copy a whole range of miracles and storylines from other pagan religions. Eg. Jesus rose a man called Lazarus from the dead, Horus rose a man called El-Lazarus from the dead. Terms like "The Good Shephard" and "The Alpha and Omega" were also copied from pagan texts.

It could also be a mixture of b and c.

But of course it couldn't possibly be a mixture of a and b.

 

[Winston Smith]

Then they must not have that elusive power of common sense.

Common sense would suggest that even if Tacitus et al. relied on Christian sources, the fact that they considered them worthy of inclusion says something about their validity. You demand primary sources or non-Christian references and then proceed to reject not only the Christian writings that are the closest thing we have to primary sources but also any non-Christian writings that could possibly be tainted by them. Hardly a common sense approach.

 

[Agent Ferris]

perhaps, if he was the prince of 17th c. CE france... or even 3rd c. BCE India... but there was no India in the 3rd c. BCE. there was a large, literate Vedic culture wherein, yes, the line of royal descent likely would have been kept for those tribal groups in the upper tier. But that is not where Siddartha came from either. He comes from a disparately populated area outside the Vedic regions known as the Śākyas. General literacy is unlikely, his own is unknown, it is suspected that his parents did not even use the same aryan dialect. As was common in MOST of the world at the time, very little was written down because almost no one could read.

but this is pointless.your reasonings are seriously flawed. that something is not written down within 5 mins of occurring AND not written down by someone who had no connection to the event being recorded does not qualify the event as myth.

So let's see we have no archaelogical evidence, we have no contemporary visual evidence, and we have no written record from the time of his supposed existence. Tell me what do you use as the determining factor to differentiate between mythical and historical figures?

no, it isn't. If is more like accepting the premise that a place called Gaul existed and would have existed even if Caesar had not written of it.

There is archaelogical evidence for the existence of Gaul in addition to a written record.

It is like accepting that other Celtic places (Ireland, for instance) and peoples existed even though Caesar did not write about them and the Celtic people of the time had a cultural proscription against writing down their own history in their own language. they still existed.

Again there is archaelogical evidence for their existence.

by your 'reasoning', lessee...

Aristotle wrote nothing himself that we know of, the earliest reliable reference to Aristotle comes nearly 200 years after he died and was written by a Greek (Dionysius of Halicarnassus), ergo, Aristotle is myth.

WTF are you talking about, I know personally of a book written by Aristotle because I've personally read it, IE Nicomachean Ethics. He has numerous other surviving works as well.

Furthermore; Lysippos made a bronze bust of Aristotle in 330 BC, 8 years before his death.

Socrates wrote nothing himself that we know of and the only reference to him we have is by a disciple (who cannot, by your 'reasoning' be considered dependable); ergo, socrates never existed.

The trial of Socrates is well recorded much of what we know of him is likely mythical.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Common sense would suggest that even if Tacitus et al. relied on Christian sources, the fact that they considered them worthy of inclusion says something about their validity. You demand primary sources or non-Christian references and then proceed to reject not only the Christian writings that are the closest thing we have to primary sources but also any non-Christian writings that could possibly be tainted by them. Hardly a common sense approach.

I asked for non-Christian contemporary sources, the best you could come up with were sources from 50-200 years after his supposed death which are nearly identical to the already established Christian narratives. Are we really to believe that not one Roman or Jewish scribe would have written about a giant social revolution led by a man claiming to be the direct descendent of David come to fullfill the roll of Messiah as King of the Israelites? Perhaps the Romans wouldn't have cared but the Jews of the time would certainly have recorded it and to suggest otherwise is to request our suspencion of disbelief.

 

[Geo Patric]

So let's see we have no archaelogical evidence, we have no contemporary visual evidence, and we have no written record from the time of his supposed existence. Tell me what do you use as the determining factor to differentiate between mythical and historical figures?

there is plenty of archaeological evidence that people lived in those places at those times. there is no archaeological evidence of any identifiable PERSON living there. Was vortigern a really person? people used to question the 'reality' of Boudicea, of Arthur. Not so much any more. The stories are, in their essence, PLAUSIBLE even if in places, fantastic. So a rational person acccepts the plausible while dismissing the fantastic as hyperbolic.

WTF are you talking about, I know personally of a book written by Aristotle because I've personally read it, IE Nicomachean Ethics. He has numerous other surviving works as well.

i read his ethics and othes too (i recommend his treatise on Esthetics)... now, kindly point to the original hand scribed source. there is none, of course, all were transcriptions, the originals (if there were any) long lost. no empirical evidence that he wrote anything, anymore than we have empirical evidence of jesus or buddha or.. or.. or...

Furthermore; Lysippos made a bronze bust of Aristotle in 330 BC, 8 years before his death.

how do you know that? someone TOLD you. if that statue exists and can be verified as having been sculpted in the 3rd c BCE, perhaps you can tell me where i can go to see it?

or, perhaps, you mean this:

a ROMAN era copy of a statue PURPORTEDLY made by Lysippos. there are lots and lots of statutes of buddha, jesus... hell there are statues of Apollo.

The trial of Socrates is well recorded much of what we know of him is likely mythical.

yep, i know. I wrote a paper comparing the trial of Socrates and that of Jesus... remarkably similar men that lived remarkably similar lives and died in remarkably similar circumstances.

you know what i bet.... i bet that Jesus got a LOT of his thinking from Socrates and that the folks that wrote his story may have borrowed heavily from Socrates' story. but that we have second hand reports of both denies the existence of neither.

the trial of Socrates is well recorded by a disciple who, according to you, cannot be trusted.

it is, in fact, very difficult to differentiate truly historical and purely mythical figures because history tends to be NOT truly true and mythical figures tend to be drawn from quite real men and women.

we KNOW that George Washington was a real man that really lived. we also have an appreciable body of myth that surrounds him. that is why learning to separate fact from fiction is important. and accepting that fictions do not spring from earht wholly formed. they are built up, usually from nonfictions.

myth tends to be gross embellishment and only rarely true fiction. Beowulf... probably really existed, probably really was a Geat and likely had a hand in rescuing some tribal chief in denmark. he may well have succeeded him. NO... he there was no Grendel. THAT part was made up to make him look to others as great as he SEEMED to his own folk.

that was a common theme. it still is. we still do it.
geo.

 

[mac]

This isn't prior to the invention of writing, and my objection is not that it was not written but that it was not written down by outside contemporary sources.



Ya and the Greeks new that long before them, and guess what? They wrote it down.

It's not uncommon that in that time people and events that weren't in-line with those in power were neglected in written histories.

most of the lives of these men were relatively common and not necessarily worthy of any historical note. It's only in the end of their mundane existences did they do anything that might have attracted the attention of anyone other then their own compatriots.

 

[Agent Ferris]

It's not uncommon that in that time people and events that weren't in-line with those in power were neglected in written histories.

The Zealots and their leadership were extensively covered, they existed during the same time frame as the Essene Nazarean's.

most of the lives of these men were relatively common and not necessarily worthy of any historical note. It's only in the end of their mundane existences did they do anything that might have attracted the attention of anyone other then their own compatriots.

Once again according to the Christians own narrative Jesus had a huge following as depicted in his triumphant entrance into Jeruslamen where large crowds gathered and sung his praises as rightful heir to the crown of David. This would not have gone unrecorded by the Jewish scribes of the day.

 

[Geo Patric]

Once again according to the Christians own narrative Jesus had a huge following as depicted in his triumphant entrance into Jeruslamen where large crowds gathered and sung his praises as rightful heir to the crown of David. This would not have gone unrecorded by the Jewish scribes of the day.

that's absurd. there is no basis for that statement. it would only have meaning if you could qualify to what detail these scribes recorded daily life. what do YOU know of judean life from these scribes?

geo.

 

[Agent Ferris]

there is plenty of archaeological evidence that people lived in those places at those times. there is no archaeological evidence of any identifiable PERSON living there.
Was vortigern a really person?

Maybe. The evidence is inconclusive.

people used to question the 'reality' of Boudicea,

She was recorded by Tacitus who would have been a contemporary.

of Arthur.

He is most likely an amalgamation of several different people but not a real individual person.

Not so much any more. The stories are, in their essence, PLAUSIBLE even if in places, fantastic. So a rational person acccepts the plausible while dismissing the fantastic as hyperbolic.

i read his ethics and othes too (i recommend his treatise on Esthetics)... now, kindly point to the original hand scribed source. there is none, of course, all were transcriptions, the originals (if there were any) long lost. no empirical evidence that he wrote anything, anymore than we have empirical evidence of jesus or buddha or.. or.. or...

But they are direct transcriptions which can be traced back to an original even if the original is now lost.

how do you know that? someone TOLD you. if that statue exists and can be verified as having been sculpted in the 3rd c BCE, perhaps you can tell me where i can go to see it?

or, perhaps, you mean this:

a ROMAN era copy of a statue PURPORTEDLY made by Lysippos. there are lots and lots of statutes of buddha, jesus... hell there are statues of Apollo.

The Roman copy is traced back to an original even though the original is now lost. Are those statues of Buddha and Jesus traced back to an original? What books did Buddha or Jesus or Apollo write? Where is the historical written accounts from primary sources (not including followers) attesting to their existence as real rather than mythical people?

yep, i know. I wrote a paper comparing the trial of Socrates and that of Jesus... remarkably similar men that lived remarkably similar lives and died in remarkably similar circumstances.

you know what i bet.... i bet that Jesus got a LOT of his thinking from Socrates and that the folks that wrote his story may have borrowed heavily from Socrates' story. but that we have second hand reports of both denies the existence of neither.

the trial of Socrates is well recorded by a disciple who, according to you, cannot be trusted.

It was, also, recorded by Polycrates.

it is, in fact, very difficult to differentiate truly historical and purely mythical figures because history tends to be NOT truly true and mythical figures tend to be drawn from quite real men and women.

we KNOW that George Washington was a real man that really lived. we also have an appreciable body of myth that surrounds him. that is why learning to separate fact from fiction is important. and accepting that fictions do not spring from earht wholly formed. they are built up, usually from nonfictions.

myth tends to be gross embellishment and only rarely true fiction. Beowulf... probably really existed, probably really was a Geat and likely had a hand in rescuing some tribal chief in denmark. he may well have succeeded him. NO... he there was no Grendel. THAT part was made up to make him look to others as great as he SEEMED to his own folk.

that was a common theme. it still is. we still do it.
geo.

I'm pretty sure Beowulf was fictional.

 

[Agent Ferris]

that's absurd. there is no basis for that statement. it would only have meaning if you could qualify to what detail these scribes recorded daily life. what do YOU know of judean life from these scribes?

geo.

The Zealots were recorded in great detail as were their leadership; such as, Judas of Galilee. Unfortunately the Jospehus account of Jesus is highly suspect.