Did Muhammad Exist?

A pedantic point, which I also tried to argue with another member:

Evidence is not a synonym for proof. Evidence is simply ANYTHING provided in support o fan argument. EG TheTorah, New Testament, written accounts of signs and wonders, as well as recent testimonials, are ALL evidence for the existence of God/ Jesus/Whatever.---what they are not is proof.

The question of Jesus' historicity is important in the way in which it is studied, and the way claims are made. Imo. It's important that faith does not replace facts and reasoning in historical discourse.. I think it is of peripheral interest as an area of study for the none believer. Perhaps also for the believer secure in his faith and capable of abstract thought.
Good points
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
A pedantic point, which I also tried to argue with another member:

Evidence is not a synonym for proof. Evidence is simply ANYTHING provided in support o fan argument. EG TheTorah, New Testament, written accounts of signs and wonders, as well as recent testimonials, are ALL evidence for the existence of God/ Jesus/Whatever.---what they are not is proof.
The same could be said for any history. You could claim that Hannibal was a mere invention by the Romans to explain away their defeats by the Cathsgians, a bogey man who never really existed, and all the evidence for him fabricated .

You can always claim there is no evidence if you simply declare any evidence that runs counter to your beliefs forgeries.

The question of Jesus' historicity is important in the way in which it is studied, and the way claims are made. Imo. It's important that faith does not replace facts and reasoning in historical discourse.. I think it is of peripheral interest as an area of study for the none believer. Perhaps also for the believer secure in his faith and capable of abstract thought.
It is also important to apply the same standards when evaluating facts and not apply different stardards dependinf on whether it suits your particular agenda.. Like saying that Polybius qualifies as a contemporary witness for Hannibal even though he never met the man or his most trusted subordinates, yet reject Paul who was well aquainted with Jesus brother and his lead disciple, which is more than Polybius could say for Hannibal..

It must be noted that you were not responding to others this time, yours and DiocletianIsBetterThanYou was an exchange that had nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and had no excuse by a desire to derailing the thread to promote you own agenda
 
Likes: Linschoten

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,514
Republika Srpska
It's up to you to show it has been authenticated, Not me to show it hasn't Given how wide spread forgery is these days, an analysis is necessary. This rather typical when dealing with biblical works.
Well, so far I haven't really found anyone that doubts the Fragment's authenticity.

If it was a modern fogery, it would not have to be done by a Muslim, and as I said, having it not follow the traditional Muslim accounts would make it more believable.
Just because it makes it more believable doesn't mean the Muslims would forge a document that basically shows that they don't even know when their prophet died. If they are lying about that, then someone would ask the question: what else are they lying about? Once again, it makes no sense for Muslims to forge such a document.

If the battle were a lot smaller, more like a skirmish, would it still be the Battle of Yarmouk?
Yes, it would. For example, the battle of Tours is no longer considered the battle that saved Europe from becoming Islamic, yet it is still called the battle of Tours.

But the soldiers doing the fighting were Arabs, and it was Arabs running the empire. Arabs just suddenly multiply out of thin air. There is no dence the army of 717 was .ade up of mainly non Arabs.
The Umayyad Caliphate most certainly employed non-Arabs, specifically non-Arab Muslims in their army. For example, the army of Qutayba ibn Muslim included a large number of non-Arab Muslims. Many non-Arab Muslims also rose through the Umayyad military hierarchy. For example Hayyan al-Nabati led an army of 7000 non-Arab Muslims. During the reign of Umar II, a delegation representing the Khurasan non-Arab Muslims arrived to meet the Caliph. They claimed that 20,000 Khurasanian non-Arab Muslims participated in Umayyad raids against their many enemies yet recevied no adequate pay or rewards. Since we don't know the exact composition of the Umayyad army that besieged Constantinople, we can't say that only Arabs fought there. In fact, given that the siege of the city was a personal project of the Caliph, it is more likely that the Umayyads threw everything they had at Constantinople, including their non-Arab units.

Can you give a primary source for the Battle of Antioch? I can find only a Wikipedia article with poor references to this battle, and other articles said there was a battle fought, but the details were not known.
It is true that we do not know much about the battle other than Heraclius got beaten.

In any case, Antioch is not near Jerusalem or Palestine but in Turkey.
Back then it was in Syria, just as Yarmouk.
 
Mar 2013
1,441
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Interesting response I agree with much of it.

Perhaps I've misunderstood: Yes, in the general sense an absence of evidence is not proof of absence. Trying to use it a such is perhaps ignorant.
However, such absence does IMPLY (suggest) absence. It is that suggestion which some serious scholars investigate. Try to avoid attacking the person when making a response; it is not an argument, and can reduce a rational discussion into an exchange of insults

However, to be fair, I would have found it difficult to remain civil to that member and his truly silly argument about the holocaust
Please, don’t be personal and get agitated because you and your friend Diocletianisbetterthanyou have been destroyed logically.

If you with your confused, illogical and contradictory talk are suggesting that Jesus’ existence is dubious then you are death wrong. Jesus’ existence is safely to assume taking the historical methods in consideration. It is not a coincidence that the vast scholars (BOTH Christians AND ALSO atheists) support that view when using the scientific methods the historians apply today.
 
Mar 2013
1,441
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Carrier, incidentally, does have a PhD in either Classics or classical languages, and appears to have a strong grasp of Greek.
This does not make him into a “scholar” as you asserted. Many genocide deniers also have Phd by the way.

No. it’s not. It’s just semantic nonsense to blurry out that Bboomer and you are relying on fringe-theory and using ideas of crackpot-conspirationist like Richard Carrier.
 
Nov 2018
12
Australia
The existence of such a person could have easily been verified. I mean, had someone went to Nazareth or Jerusalem and found out that the people there had no knowledge of Jesus who supposedly visited the city quite recently, the hoax would have been revealed and Christianity would have crumbled.
Really ?
When ?

The Gospel stories did not become known to anyone until mid 2nd century - the first Christian to cite and quote written Gospels was Justin Martyr around the 150s.

The first pagan to analyse the Gospels was Celsus around the 170s (and he claimed they were fiction based on myths.)

There is nothing historical in Paul to dispute, there is nothing historical in the early epistles to dispute, and the Gospel stories did not become known until well over a century after the alleged events.

Did anyone travel to those places in Greece to confirm the Greek myths ?
Did anyone show any scepticism about those Greek myths which never happened ?
Did anyone ever doubt Dionysus ?
Or Heracles ? Isis ? Osiris ?
Did anyone ever show ANY scepticism about ancient stories back then ?
Hint: No.

The Gospels were not published in Jerusalem in 70AD, no, they appeared in Rome and Antioch and elsewhere over a century after the alleged events.

It's ridiculous to suggest these myths from far away over a century ago, could have been disputed by gullible persons in an age of belief in god-men and miracles.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,514
Republika Srpska
Your comparison with the Greek myths doesn't hold up. The Greek myths talked about a time in the remote past, about a previous age, Christianity talks about someone who lived at most a century before the Gospels' writing.
 
Nov 2018
12
Australia
Your comparison with the Greek myths doesn't hold up. The Greek myths talked about a time in the remote past, about a previous age, Christianity talks about someone who lived at most a century before the Gospels' writing.
So ?
People believed in Sherlock Holmes within only a few years of being written.
 
Mar 2019
1,171
KL
historicity of every person from first millennium can be challenged, simply because as we stretch back in time, the records get stretched and non existent, how do we know that the historical records are not a concoction of the later periods? history is a very complex arena, given the influence alone one would be able to accept muhammad as historical figure, its not possible to create such an influence without any historical figure, same goes to buddhism and christianity.

regards
 

Similar History Discussions