Did Muhammad Exist? - Robert Spencer lays out his argument that maybe he didn't exist

[Cobra Enorme]

The british are finally waking up to the fact that islamic terrorists are invading every country and taking advantage of laws that dont allow people to discriminate based on religion. They're slowly changing the laws from within and then boom! Good luck trying to go to their countries and saying you dont want to conform to their religious beliefs and customs. we're all screwed unless we revisit the 'religious beliefs' clause for discrimination.

 

[canada-man]

Regarding Jesus, Bart Ehrman wrote a really good book (at least according to me) - "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth". Spoiler alert for anyone interested in reading it - Jesus was a real guy.

There is no hard, physical evidence for Jesus." [p.42]

"No Greek or Roman author from the first century mentions Jesus." [p.43]

"I need to stress that we do not have a single reference to Jesus by anyone---pagan, Jew, or Christian---who was a contemporary eyewitness, who recorded things he said and did." [p.46]

"The Gospels of the New Testament are not eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. Neither are the Gospels outside the New Testament, of which we have over forty, either in whole or in fragments. In fact, we do not have any eyewitness report of any kind about Jesus, written in his own day." [p.49]

"And how many eyewitness reports of Pilate do we have from his day? None. Not a single one. The same is true of Josephus." [p.49]

 

[nlt76]

This thread is useless without pics.

 

[rld]

Regarding Jesus, Bart Ehrman wrote a really good book (at least according to me) - "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth". Spoiler alert for anyone interested in reading it - Jesus was a real guy.

Bart is an agnostic and an impeccable scholar. His is the latest, and perhaps best book in a long line of serious works that looked at the issue and came to the same conclusion.

I have his courses from the Teaching Company, he is a great lecturer.

 

[rld]

There is no hard, physical evidence for Jesus." [p.42]

"No Greek or Roman author from the first century mentions Jesus." [p.43]

"I need to stress that we do not have a single reference to Jesus by anyone---pagan, Jew, or Christian---who was a contemporary eyewitness, who recorded things he said and did." [p.46]

"The Gospels of the New Testament are not eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. Neither are the Gospels outside the New Testament, of which we have over forty, either in whole or in fragments. In fact, we do not have any eyewitness report of any kind about Jesus, written in his own day." [p.49]

"And how many eyewitness reports of Pilate do we have from his day? None. Not a single one. The same is true of Josephus." [p.49]

Care to attribute your cherry picked cut and paste and play with the big boys? Or are you planning to stay in the kiddie pool?

 

[blackrock13]

There is no hard, physical evidence for Jesus." [p.42]

"No Greek or Roman author from the first century mentions Jesus." [p.43]

"I need to stress that we do not have a single reference to Jesus by anyone---pagan, Jew, or Christian---who was a contemporary eyewitness, who recorded things he said and did." [p.46]

"The Gospels of the New Testament are not eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. Neither are the Gospels outside the New Testament, of which we have over forty, either in whole or in fragments. In fact, we do not have any eyewitness report of any kind about Jesus, written in his own day." [p.49]

"And how many eyewitness reports of Pilate do we have from his day? None. Not a single one. The same is true of Josephus." [p.49]

CM, various members have been through this on a couple of occasion, in great detail especially in you personal tome, long since closed, so why you keep trying to push it is almost beyond me. Just because there hasn't been any 'written' evidence discovered or none survived the various sackings of some amazing large libraries and depositories of knowledge, in an around the Mediterranean, which is the more likely scenario, doesn't mean there isn't/wasn't any. Your lack of knowledge and understanding of history has been shown almost boundless over and over in various threads, but you keep trying. Keep up the good work puddle.

 

[mandrill]

The british are finally waking up to the fact that islamic terrorists are invading every country and taking advantage of laws that dont allow people to discriminate based on religion. They're slowly changing the laws from within and then boom! Good luck trying to go to their countries and saying you dont want to conform to their religious beliefs and customs. we're all screwed unless we revisit the 'religious beliefs' clause for discrimination.

Well, no. Ontario banned Sharia Law arbitrations a few years ago and outlawed them. But the major newspapers didn't give it much coverage because simple, common-sense stuff like that doesn't generate controversy or sell copies of the Sun or Star.

 

[rld]

There is no hard, physical evidence for Jesus." [p.42]

"No Greek or Roman author from the first century mentions Jesus." [p.43]

"I need to stress that we do not have a single reference to Jesus by anyone---pagan, Jew, or Christian---who was a contemporary eyewitness, who recorded things he said and did." [p.46]

"The Gospels of the New Testament are not eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. Neither are the Gospels outside the New Testament, of which we have over forty, either in whole or in fragments. In fact, we do not have any eyewitness report of any kind about Jesus, written in his own day." [p.49]

"And how many eyewitness reports of Pilate do we have from his day? None. Not a single one. The same is true of Josephus." [p.49]

Don't bother. I found the source, it was this crazy guy:

http://nobeliefs.com/Ehrman2.htm

It is really funny if you read it. Downright dishonest at many points, but very funny. But I cannot help myself in engaging in CM's tactics, I will quote, selectively from the same article:

"Jesus, he certainly did exist"

"that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet"

"Jesus did exist"

"but he did exist"

"there was a Jesus of Nazareth"

"He really existed"

"he certainly lived"

So once again we see CM logic. Instead of reading the book, or relying on the conclusions of "virtually every expert on the planet" CM says...believe me and some guy who does Amazon book reviews.

With such powerful logic it is only a matter of time until CM wins a nobel prize.

 

[blackrock13]

Don't bother. I found the source, it was this crazy guy:

http://nobeliefs.com/Ehrman2.htm

It is really funny if you read it. Downright dishonest at many points, but very funny. But I cannot help myself in engaging in CM's tactics, I will quote, selectively from the same article:


So once again we see CM logic. Instead of reading the book, or relying on the conclusions of "virtually every expert on the planet" CM says...believe me and some guy who does Amazon book reviews.

With such powerful logic it is only a matter of time until CM wins a nobel prize.

Not the first time he's done this and it won't be the last time.

 

[jjbee62]

Every religion has its "proof". None of the proof is what the scientific world would consider proof, but still it is considered valid to those who believe that religion. Debating the existence of someone who (supposedly) lived in the distant past makes as much sense as declaring to know what your great-great-great grandson Oliver is going to wear when he watches the Chicago Cubs win the world series.

Every prominent figure throughout history has had their lives, accomplishments and even deaths questioned. In the end it doesn't matter. Whether or not Elvis faked his own death won't change any of the music he made. Whether or not Mohammed (or Jesus) existed won't change the effect the religion has had and will continue to have on the world. Acceptance of any religion requires faith, or belief without any proof or even evidence. Disproving or proving a religion is futile, since a religion is only a religion as long as there is no proof.

What is even more ridiculous is trying to discredit one religion while supporting another. "Your lack of any proof to substantiate your beliefs isn't as good as our lack of proof to substantiate our beliefs".

 

[canada-man]

THE GREAT HERESIES

by Hilaire Belloc

Chapter Four

The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT

Mohammedanism was a <heresy>: that is the essential point to grasp
before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It
was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It
was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It vitality and endurance soon
gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary
with its rise saw it for what it was_not a denial, but an adaptation and a
misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all)
heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian
Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most
heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He
sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic
doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world_on the frontiers
of which he lived, whose influence was all around him and whose
territories he had known by travel_which inspired his convictions. He came
of, and mixed with, the degraded idolaters of the Arabian wilderness, the
conquest of which had never seemed worth the Romans' while.

He took over very few of those old pagan ideas which might have
been native to him from his descent. On the contrary, he preached and
insisted upon a whole group of ideas which were peculiar to the Catholic
Church and distinguished it from the paganism which it had conquered in
the Greek and Roman civilization. Thus the very foundation of his teaching
was that prime Catholic doctrine, the unity and omnipotence of God. The
attributes of God he also took over in the main from Catholic doctrine:
the personal nature, the all-goodness, the timelessness, the providence of
God, His creative power as the origin of all things, and His sustenance of
all things by His power alone. The world of good spirits and angels and
of evil spirits in rebellion against God was a part of the teaching, with
a chief evil spirit, such as Christendom had recognized. Mohammed preached
with insistence that prime Catholic doctrine, on the human side_the
immortality of the soul and its responsibility for actions in this life,
coupled with the consequent doctrine of punishment and reward after death.

If anyone sets down those points that orthodox Catholicism has in
common with Mohammedanism, and those points only, one might imagine if one
went no further that there should have been no cause of quarrel. Mohammed
would almost seem in this aspect to be a sort of missionary, preaching and
spreading by the energy of his character the chief and fundamental
doctrines of the Catholic Church among those who had hitherto been
degraded pagans of the Desert. He gave to Our Lord the highest reverence,
and to Our Lady also, for that matter. On the day of judgment (another
Catholic idea which he taught) it was Our Lord, according to Mohammed, who
would be the judge of mankind, not he, Mohammed. The Mother of Christ, Our
Lady, "the Lady Miriam" was ever for him the first of womankind. His
followers even got from the early fathers some vague hint of her
Immaculate Conception.[1]

But the central point where this new heresy struck home with a
mortal blow against Catholic tradition was a full denial of the
Incarnation.

Mohammed did not merely take the first steps toward that denial,
as the Arians and their followers had done; he advanced a clear
affirmation, full and complete, against the whole doctrine of an incarnate
God. He taught that Our Lord was the greatest of all the prophets, but
still only a prophet: a man like other men. He eliminated the Trinity
altogether.

With that denial of the Incarnation went the whole sacramental
structure. He refused to know anything of the Eucharist, with its Real
Presence; he stopped the sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore the
institution of a special priesthood. In other words, he, like so many
other lesser heresiarchs, founded his heresy on simplification.

Catholic doctrine was true (he seemed to say), but it had become
encumbered with false accretions; it had become complicated by needless
man-made additions, including the idea that its founder was Divine, and
the growth of a parasitical caste of priests who battened on a late,
imagined, system of Sacraments which they alone could administer. All
those corrupt accretions must be swept away.

There is thus a very great deal in common between the enthusiasm
with which Mohammed's teaching attacked the priesthood, the Mass and the
sacraments, and the enthusiasm with which Calvinism, the central motive
force of the Reformation, did the same. As we all know, the new teaching
relaxed the marriage laws_but in practice this did not affect the mass of
his followers who still remained monogamous. It made divorce as easy as
possible, for the sacramental idea of marriage disappeared. It insisted
upon the equality of men, and it necessarily had that further factor in
which it resembled Calvinism_the sense of predestination, the sense of
fate; of what the followers of John Knox were always calling "the
immutable decrees of God."

Mohammed's teaching never developed among the mass of his
followers, or in his own mind, a detailed theology. He was content to
accept all that appealed to him in the Catholic scheme and to reject all
that seemed to him, and to so many others of his time, too complicated or
mysterious to be true. Simplicity was the note of the whole affair; and
since all heresies draw their strength from some true doctrine,
Mohammedanism drew its strength from the true Catholic doctrines which it
retained: the equality of all men before God_"All true believers are
brothers." It zealously preached and throve on the paramount claims of
justice, social and economic.

 

[blackrock13]

THE GREAT HERESIES

by Hilaire Belloc

Chapter Four

The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT

This changes what's been posted in the previous 50 posts how?

 

[IM469]

IM469 stated: "There is way more factual information (including birth, children, etc) about Mohammad than Jesus" ...and your proof of that statement is where?? You sound like Obama...just make things up and state them as truth and people will buy it. ha!

Just happened upon this pointed intellectual response so I respond in kind:

There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot"

Mohammed is the only founder of a world religion who is attested in a contemporary source. But in any case, this source gives us pretty irrefutable evidence that he was an historical figure. Moreover, an Armenian document probably written shortly after 661 identifies him by name and gives a recognisable account of his monotheist preaching.

Source: Patricia Crone is professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton.

The children (he never had a son) is the source of the Sunni / Shi-ite split and hatred following his death:

What's the Shi'ite-Sunni split really about?
It's about who should lead Islam, and it began at the moment of Muhammad's death. As the founder of Islam, he was the undisputed leader. And if he had had a son, the split might never have happened — a son would automatically have inherited his father's authority. But he died without sons and without leaving a clear will. His closest male relative was his cousin and son-in-law, the philosopher-warrior Ali, whose followers — the Shiat Ali [followers of Ali], or Shi'ite for short — say that he was the only one with the spiritual authority to succeed Muhammad. The Sunnis believed that the caliphate should go to whoever would be best equipped politically to maintain the burgeoning Muslim empire, backing Muhammad's father-in-law Abu Bakr.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1924116,00.html#ixzz2VPKpCdJg

Kind of hard to picture a serious division occurring over the leadership change of a non-existent prophet. (I figure he was just a man - I'm not Muslim)

As for your weird 'Obama makes things up' .. I'm not American but maybe you should turn off Fox News and go out into the real world and get a life.

 

[highpark]

Could there have been a rabble rouser in ancient Israel during the time of the Romans of course. Was he named Jesus and was he the son of the Virgin Mary ? I highly doubt it. They're all myths. A shadow of a fraction of truth exaggerated over thousands of years.
Should the world be fighting over this ? OF COURSE NOT. But we're humans and were fucked up. So those of us lucky enough to b. psychologically above the fray don't take it personally. Of course it upsetting if u over analyze it. But try not too. As George carlin said. It's a afresh show and you've got a free ticket. So just try an enjoy the show.

 

[highpark]

A freak show rather per George carlin.

 

[rld]

Every religion has its "proof". None of the proof is what the scientific world would consider proof, but still it is considered valid to those who believe that religion. Debating the existence of someone who (supposedly) lived in the distant past makes as much sense as declaring to know what your great-great-great grandson Oliver is going to wear when he watches the Chicago Cubs win the world series.

Every prominent figure throughout history has had their lives, accomplishments and even deaths questioned. In the end it doesn't matter. Whether or not Elvis faked his own death won't change any of the music he made. Whether or not Mohammed (or Jesus) existed won't change the effect the religion has had and will continue to have on the world. Acceptance of any religion requires faith, or belief without any proof or even evidence. Disproving or proving a religion is futile, since a religion is only a religion as long as there is no proof.

What is even more ridiculous is trying to discredit one religion while supporting another. "Your lack of any proof to substantiate your beliefs isn't as good as our lack of proof to substantiate our beliefs".

Actually you are simply dead wrong.

Whether or not a person existed in the past is a historic question, perfectly capable of the application of the usual rules of historic evidence.

Whether or not that person was divine or a prophet is not something that is determinable by the application of the usual rules of historic evidence.

I am not a member of any faith. But the questions of whether or not Jesus or Mohammed existed are of historic interest to me.

 

[rld]

Could there have been a rabble rouser in ancient Israel during the time of the Romans of course. Was he named Jesus and was he the son of the Virgin Mary ? I highly doubt it. They're all myths. A shadow of a fraction of truth exaggerated over thousands of years.
Should the world be fighting over this ? OF COURSE NOT. But we're humans and were fucked up. So those of us lucky enough to b. psychologically above the fray don't take it personally. Of course it upsetting if u over analyze it. But try not too. As George carlin said. It's a afresh show and you've got a free ticket. So just try an enjoy the show.

Actually there were many rabble rousers in ancient Israel. And there were may apocolyptic Jewish prophets in that period to be more specific for you.

Almost every credible expert in the world who has commented on the subject suggests Jesus existed as a historic person. I don't see why it is hard to believe his mother's name was Mary. I don't see why you have any reason to doubt one of the rabble rousers was named Jesus. Do you prefer "Bob" for your rabble rousers?

Whether or not she was a virgin is a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[IM469]

Actually there were many rabble rousers in ancient Israel. And there were may apocolyptic Jewish prophets in that period to be more specific for you.

Almost every credible expert in the world who has commented on the subject suggests Jesus existed as a historic person. I don't see why it is hard to believe his mother's name was Mary. I don't see why you have any reason to doubt one of the rabble rousers was named Jesus. Do you prefer "Bob" for your rabble rousers?

Whether or not she was a virgin is a whole other kettle of fish.

I'm not religious and I'm confident that Jesus (a man/ leader of a cult) existed. It is hard to imagine a religion sprouting up without the seed. Keep in mind that if a second child of God arrived here - a black woman from Alabama - the Christians would forget the 'thou shall not kill' rule and likely shoot her. Who knows, maybe 500 years from now the new Christians will talk about their murdered prophet - David Koresh. Maybe an award winning playwright will give a little extra pizzaz to his birth story too.

If Mary was a virgin, they had a curious perception of marriage. I can see the root of the fable - sex is a sin ... a baby out of wedlock is a sin (and a bastard) ... some creative writing required to bring it in line with morality. It is an obvious indication that in the eyes of the church - a woman who has had sex is tarnished goods. Of course if you do cling to the virgin angle, I guess Joeseph wasn't interested in vaginas .. possibly he was a strictly anal lover .. or .. gay.

 

[rld]

I'm not religious and I'm confident that Jesus (a man/ leader of a cult) existed. It is hard to imagine a religion sprouting up without the seed. Keep in mind that if a second child of God arrived here - a black woman from Alabama - the Christians would forget the 'thou shall not kill' rule and likely shoot her. Who knows, maybe 500 years from now the new Christians will talk about their murdered prophet - David Koresh. Maybe an award winning playwright will give a little extra pizzaz to his birth story too.

If Mary was a virgin, they had a curious perception of marriage. I can see the root of the fable - sex is a sin ... a baby out of wedlock is a sin (and a bastard) ... some creative writing required to bring it in line with morality. It is an obvious indication that in the eyes of the church - a woman who has had sex is tarnished goods. Of course if you do cling to the virgin angle, I guess Joeseph wasn't interested in vaginas .. possibly he was a strictly anal lover .. or .. gay.

I think you are right that it is very hard to predict the future and how the future will view the events of today. Having said that, other than perhaps Catholic Saints, the christians have not added any serious doctrinal documents or characters in about 2,000 years so it seems pretty stable, interpretation of their core documents aside.

Your comments on Mary fall into a fairly typical fallacy or two. One is that you are placing today's views of a subject on a historical culture, almost always a mistake.

It also shows that you are not famaliar with the ancient apocrapha about her. By tradition Mary was Joesph's second wife and he had six children with his first wife. She then died. I won't bore you with the whole story, you can track it down easily enough, but Joesph married Mary when he was quite old, and was in fact more than a little concerned about their age difference. There is some debate as to whether or not he had children with Mary after Joseph was born. No need for any fudge packing for the tale to work.

 

[IM469]

It also shows that you are not famaliar with the ancient apocrapha about her. By tradition Mary was Joesph's second wife and he had six children with his first wife. She then died. I won't bore you with the whole story, you can track it down easily enough, but Joesph married Mary when he was quite old, and was in fact more than a little concerned about their age difference. There is some debate as to whether or not he had children with Mary after Joseph was born. No need for any fudge packing for the tale to work.

I did track it down and as I suspected the ancient aporapha is not recognized by church scholars and they admit that the origins were based on an attempt to put a positive spin on the holy event.

"And now, in one of the most beautiful tributes to St. Joseph to be found anywhere in the literature of the Church, Jerome proceeds to affirm that Joseph, like Mary, was perpetually virginal: "…we can contend that Joseph had several wives because Abraham and Jacob had several wives, and that from these wives the brethren of the Lord were born - a fiction which most people invent with not so much pious as presumptuous audacity."

Joseph's Age : "Let's get right to the facts. The only sources for the age of St. Joseph are the apocryphal accounts previously quoted. They are just as unreliable in this instance too. The apocryphal stories were not meant to portray Joseph as old and senile, but basically to safeguard the universal belief in Mary's virginity in the face of heretical opposition and insinuations. "

Source: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9298

If you have faith, I don't think you have to try to find reasons to justify your belief. I'll send you a telegram from Hell formally acknowledging your correct assumptions. :hail: