Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

What would constitute "direct evidence?" Perhaps if an eye witness wrote down their account in a book, and we have that book? Like, the Bible?

Were any the “eye witnesses” literate?

Why don't you ask them

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

I was just commenting on the nature of the evidence. It's not strong, but I'm not a denier either.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

So those who deny Christ was a historical figure know more than every scholar in the Western world?

It’s really arrogant to think you know more than the academics and scholars who overwhelmingly agree Christ was a historical figure. They accept the evidence; why don’t you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

What would constitute "direct evidence?" Perhaps if an eye witness wrote down their account in a book, and we have that book? Like, the Bible?

Were any the “eye witnesses” literate?

Anonymous wrote:Or do you disbelieve all history that pre-dates cameras + video?

They are willing to accept contemporary accounts written by unbiased persons.

Or do you disbelieve all history that pre-dates cameras + video?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

What would constitute "direct evidence?" Perhaps if an eye witness wrote down their account in a book, and we have that book? Like, the Bible?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

PP didn’t deny he existed. No need to get so hysterical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed but the main record keepers of the time, the Romans, didn’t care about Obscure Jewish carpenters. Most historians do believe he was a real person.

Tacitus and Josephus, writing from Rome, documented Jesus a few decades later.

More than a few decades…

The Essenes?

Humans make meaning through myth and allegory. A virgin birth, a sacrificial lamb, a wise teacher or hero who could pull a sword from a stone, I mean, walk on water . . . every culture and tradition has these stories. They are how we make sense of the world, how we warn our children to be good citizens, how we mark the seasons of our lives and the earth.

Believing that Jesus was a historical figure really has nothing to do with believing that one single religion isn't based in myth but is true, real, and accurate, while the rest aren't. The former is a pretty safe assumption. The latter is a pretzel of logical fallacy. And I really think it's a shame that the modern interpretation of Christianity has staked out this "our way or the hell way" territory because there are plenty of beautiful things about Christianity, just as there are about other religions. But the number of people who have good feelz from their religion and who then imbue their feelings with solid belief that they have found The Truth (TM) while everyone is a deluded nitwit is just sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

I was just commenting on the nature of the evidence. It's not strong, but I'm not a denier either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

Anonymous wrote:There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed but the main record keepers of the time, the Romans, didn’t care about Obscure Jewish carpenters. Most historians do believe he was a real person.

Tacitus and Josephus, writing from Rome, documented Jesus a few decades later.

There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed but the main record keepers of the time, the Romans, didn’t care about Obscure Jewish carpenters. Most historians do believe he was a real person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.