Jesus Christ the Man: Does the Physical Evidence Hold Up?

[Chloe]

And if other family members were in the guest room, they wouldn't move for a woman massively pregnant?

[Richard W]

It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be any historical doubt that Mohammed existed, and was pretty much the person he is presented as.

Is that 600 years (between Jesus and Mohammed) enough to eliminate doubt? Or is it that there aren't as many hard-to-believe claims made about Mohammed? I don't think Muslims claim Mohammed as God, for one thing. I may be wrong.

[crocoduck_hunter]

I think it might just be that it's not be as big an issue for Christians.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

I think it might just be that it's not be as big an issue for Christians.

I don't understand what you mean.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Originally Posted by Richard W

It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be any historical doubt that Mohammed existed, and was pretty much the person he is presented as.

Is that 600 years (between Jesus and Mohammed) enough to eliminate doubt? Or is it that there aren't as many hard-to-believe claims made about Mohammed? I don't think Muslims claim Mohammed as God, for one thing. I may be wrong.

Some things, like being a warlord who built a significant empire, which grew to a huge empire after his death, no doubt are well documented - the Byzantines, as good Romans, kept excellent records. The Persians and Egyptians (if then independent) probably have records as well. Of course, the Muslim Empire probably started making records soon after they started ruling stuff, but outside sources are usually preferred. OTOH, things like receiving the various revelations which became the Koran in visions while meditating, and ascending to heaven on a white horse upon death, are matters of faith.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by Lainie

I don't understand what you mean.

I mean that for Christians, whether or not Mohammed was a real person isn't as important as whether or not Jesus was a real person simply because of the respective importance of the two in Christianity- Jesus is central to the religion, Mohammed is completely superfluous.

[Lainie]

That doesn't explain why non-Christians -- who outnumber Christians -- don't question Mohammed's historical existence.

[ganzfeld]

What makes you think they don't?

[Lainie]

I don't actually know if they don't or not -- I was harkening back to Richard's question. Change that to "wouldn't explain." I just didn't understand why crockoduck_hunter would answer that question only in terms of what Christians would care about.

ETA: Here's what Richard said:

It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be any historical doubt that Mohammed existed, and was pretty much the person he is presented as.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Because we're in a thread about whether or not Jesus existed. Why would I or some other non-Christian person bring up whether or not Mohammed existed? It's irrelevant to the discussion.

[ganzfeld]

In any case, the question has been considered in quite a bit of detail. So, again, it's not as if people are picking on Jesus.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

Because we're in a thread about whether or not Jesus existed. Why would I or some other non-Christian person bring up whether or not Mohammed existed? It's irrelevant to the discussion.

I assume Richard brought it up because the question interested him. Threads evolve. For example, you're no longer posting in a Christian-centric manner.

ETA: It never occurred to me to think that Richard was suggesting people were picking on Jesus.

[ganzfeld]

Oh I didn't think Richard was. It's just that some people say "well there's as much evidence for him as these famous people" as if their existence hasn't been questioned as well. So I was using RW's comment to reiterate.

[Lainie]

It's also worth mentioning that some of the people questioning the historical existence of Jesus are self-identified Christians who don't find his literal existence necessary to their belief.

[ganzfeld]

Or even those for whom it is but feel that the evidence is what matters in history, not their own faith, and the facts are no threat to their own faith to begin with.

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

OTOH, things like receiving the various revelations which became the Koran in visions while meditating, and ascending to heaven on a white horse upon death, are matters of faith.

Of course, and I would discount similar stories about Jesus when considering his historical existence. And I guess I don't know enough about Islamic scholarship (or middle-eastern history) to say one way or the other how much people have questioned Mohammed's existence. I have the impression that modern Islam, at least, wouldn't encourage that sort of speculation. But modern Christianity hardly encourages speculation about the existence of Jesus, either.

And to be fair, I've not seen many actual historians questioning the historical existence of Jesus (as an influential preacher in first-century Palestine). I certainly don't question his existence myself. I wouldn't be surprised if some of his recorded teachings were an amalgamation of various preachers or other influential sources, but that's not necessary for me to accept his existence.

One thing that Islam was very careful about from the beginning - perhaps learning from the example of Christianity, and the various difficulties in the early church - was to record the provenance of every story or phrase or command that was attributed to Mohammed.

There was a dedicated movement of scholarship, while writing the Koran and its commentaries, to trace everything back to Mohammed himself - "We know He said this because I, as the writer, heard it from Fred, who said that George told him, and we know that George studied under Bert who could have heard Mohammed Himself preaching on this particular occasion." (The names I have used are examples only and may not accurately reflect Islamic scholarship at the time. I'm also not sure how many generations would have been necessary at the time of writing - probably no more than in Christian scholarship, though, and early Islamic scholars were a lot more methodical about it, which might be why there's less doubt.)