Did Muhammad really exist? Supposedly his body is at the mosque in Medina. Will they ever excavate it?

Did Muhammad really exist? Supposedly his body is at the mosque in Medina. Will they ever excavate it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zzKk0L6H1ms
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Ridha
youtube.com/watch?v=9gcWJ_m_G00
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Muhammad 100% existed.
As did Jesus.

What is the purpose of this conversation? These threads are posted all the time and they all end the same

>Did Muhammad really exist?
No it was all a Jewish plot to shift the power from Byzantines and Persians to assbackwards Bedouins so that they could live under relative peace in Judea, without the Temple mount being used as a Christian garbage dump.

The real Prophet was a Jew named Moshehammad ibn Hashimstein

That's like asking if Genghis Khan actually existed?

didn't he ascend into heaven like Mary?

We know Muhammad existed because there is actual evidence for him unlike Jesus/Jewish prophets

>Hashimstein

That's my lawyer's name....... What's going on here

they say his bones rose from their grave when his tomb was excavated in SA...

Yes. He did.

>unlike Jesus

This is a bizarre meme. Even Tacitus, probably one of the top 3 finest Latin sources we have mentions him.

>Citing Christian forgeries as evidence

>written in 64AD

Is that when the paper it was written on dates to?

>forgery
The passages are recognised as authentic by most academics you nonce. It's josephus' accounts which are considered a bit more dubious but the jury is still out on this one and generally considered also anthentic until proven otherwise.

Not even sure why it would trigger fedoras. All those sources say is that he was baptised, was crucified, was brother of james and that's about it. No mention of superpowers and shiet. It just places him historically at a certain point in time and does corroborate that he led some sort of cult which ended terribly for him.

Does it matter? Herodotus wrote his account of the persian wars 40years after the fact, doesnt mean they didn't happen.

Tacitus is probably even more reliable because he thought christfags were absolutely shit-tier. Don't see why he would seek to embellish or give them credence.

>most academics

Who are forced to placate Christfags or lose their jobs.

Are you fucking kidding?

Jesus, you fedoras are as insufferable as evangelical proddies.

Actually Genghis Khan didn't exist. You heard this from me first, screencap this

fuck dude my whole world is collapsing around me

You obviously don't know much about ancient history, so i'll explain.

A 34 year gap between an event happening, and a historian writing about it, by ancient standards, is phenomenal.

Most shit we know about the ancient world is by people 100-300 years later.

>Will they ever excavate it?
Probably not anytime soon. Not while Islam is a major world religion anyway

Don't bother, this board is unsalvageable

Aye, it's full of people who do not know history is people writing about past events.

It's true, Christfags don't allow any dissent on a large scale because then the sheep would stop giving them money.

>it's another fedoras still think it's the spanish inquisition episode

What delusional earth are you living on

America, the last stubborn holdout of these con artists in the civilized world.

rethink your life

I've thought about it more than any christfag, that's for sure.

Unlike you we are taught to turn our brains off.

you gotta be living in some backwoods town in tennessee or uganda for 'muh stupid christians' to actually be an institutional problem.

>le false flag
EPIC!!!!!

Nope. Christfags run the U.S. government.

You can't hold office without being a Christian in most places and being an atheist is outright social/political suicide.

Except for once it's true.

watch this, OP: youtube.com/watch?v=zzKk0L6H1ms

So let me get this straight
>josephus is fake
>tacitus is fake
>academics are on it
>fear of reprisal by physical or economic means
>media does not report on it
You unironically think Dan Brown is 100% srs dont you

You have problems my dude

The average US Citizen expects cultural Christianity in most politicians.

Academia is not in any way shape or form controlled by Christians and you are a fucking retard for even suggesting that it is.

well we are a democracy.

You mean to tell me that Christians vote for other Christians? Next you'll be telling me that blacks are more likely to vote for other blacks.

Mary died and was interred in a sepulcher.

dumbest thing ever

Parts of Josephus and tacitus are fake, this has been proven. Unfortunately we'll never know how much Christians forged so it's basically impossible to say how much is accurate.

Academics are kept in line by Christian politicians, same with the media (except for a few based voices).

Except they want a theocracy in everything but name.

Academics are forced to be quiet.

Theocracy waiting to happen more like.

Yeah, only there's more Christians than blacks so they're the main problem.

>Parts of Josephus and tacitus are fake, this has been proven

You're right. But medieval Christian monks would not have criticised Christianity in the way that Tacitus does.

fucking kek I can't believe people like you exist. Neck yourself.

You've never heard of reverse psychology I see.

I can't believe people still believe christfaggotry, but here you are.

Parts of josephus' account were doctored I already stated that. However the whole "james brother of jesus" and his baptism segments are irrevocably true and have been reviewed and confirmed by non-christian academics time and time again. The doctoring was mostly found in latter parts where Jesus is referred as Christos to lend credence to Jesus as divine, not the context of him actually existing.
The Tacitus account however is basically uncontested. Why would an anti-christian roman senator who's butthurt about christian sects emerging in the empire lie about them?

You realise that if you paint either Josephus or Tacitus as unreliable, then you also put into question our common knowledge about the destruction of the second jerusalem temple, the existence of Herod, the reigns of Nero, Tiberius, Vespasian, etc etc? You can't have your cake and eat it.

>academics are kept quiet
You're a retard.

>irrevocably true

Except any of it being a forgery throws it all into question. It's basically inadmissible as credible evidence.

>The Tacitus account however is basically uncontested. Why would an anti-christian roman senator who's butthurt about christian sects emerging in the empire lie about them?

Already explained, intentional dissent to throw off the trail and add legitimacy.

The emperors are indisputably real as confirmed by credible sources.

Knowing that a person named jesus existed around 0-40AD and led a disastrous cult doesn't make you a christfag. Nor knowing that a humble desert merchant gone schizo named Mohammad existes makes you muslim. Atheists+ morons are literally the most insecure faggots in the world I fucking swear.

Picrelated is you

>tacitus is not a reliable source
I'm fucking done with this thread

aww poor atheists

Pretty much nothing the Christfags have gotten their hands on is credible, not just Tacitus.

>books that had to be copied down constantly by Christian monks might have a pro-Christian bent to it
That's it, I'm fucking done, feelsman.jpg

So basically history is fake in general

Only post-Christfag history is questionable.

what are you talking about, all secular academics know that the bible isnt completely historical yet that jesus existed.

There's nothing credible to suggest that he even existed.

>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

>Fedoras think this has a pro christian bent

The best evidence is logic. It is much more reasonable to assume that someone named Jesus did exist and a (largely fanciful) cult developed around his personality than to assume that he didn't exist and people made up Christianity out of whole cloth. As I always point out when asked this question: if Jesus didn't exist, the easiest way for a non-Christian to debunk Christianity in the first century would have been to go to Nazareth and show that no one had ever heard of the man. But no 1st-2nd century non-Christians (specifically Jews) ever argued that Jesus didn't exist; they only argued that he wasn't Messiah.

Furthermore, two of the gospels deal with the birth of Jesus. Without going into too much detail, it's easy to make the argument that both Matthew and Luke did not get their information for this narrative from the same source. They are constantly at odds with each other over many specific areas of this story (example: in Matthew, Mary and Joseph already lived in bethlehem and then had to move to Egypt and then, years later, move to Nazareth. In Luke, Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth, traveled to Bethlehem for a theoretical tax registration, waited there for 32 days after Jesus was born, and then returned immediately to Nazareth).
Most historians believe it is likely that both of them made up nearly all (if not all) of the parts to their stories because they were trying to fulfill the prophecies from the Old Testament. See, in the book of Micah, it was predicted that a savior would be born in the city of David (Bethlehem), so these writers wanted to make sure that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy. But wait, they had a real issue to deal with. It was probably well-known that Jesus was from some small town called Nazareth, thus he didn't fulfill that part of the prophecy. So, to deal with this, early gospel writers created these narratives to explain how this person from Nazareth could have still been from the city of David.

If Jesus was a mythological figure that sprung up out of thin air, there would be no reason to say he was from Nazareth, they would have said he was from Bethlehem and just left it at that. This is what we typically see for made up figures. Keep in mind that this is one of dozens of examples where the writers did this to meet personal agendas of their time.

>making out your source to be an evil anti-Christian Roman to give credibility to the existence of your savior
That makes sense, doesn't it? Can you prove that Christian monks didn't insert bias into their copies?

If it seems anti-Christian, it's them trying to throw you off by making it seem like they were oppressed.

No reliable sources confirm his existence at all is the problem you're having.

>MUH CONSPIRACY
Not an argument. Prove it is fake or gtfo

>No reliable sources confirm his existence at all is the problem you're having.
No reliable sources confirm the existence of any Jew living there at the time. Hell, the only reason we know that Pontius Pilate exists (the prefict of Judea at the time) is because of a single inscription found in the 60s. If we only have that one scant piece of evidence for him, how much evidence would you expect from a poor, possibly illiterate Jewish preacher at the time?

>how much evidence would you expect from a poor, possibly illiterate Jewish preacher at the time?

None, because he didn't exist.

you didnt address the argument.

The argument is you can't expect to find evidence for something that didn't exist.

>thinking that Christian monks copying works will get rid of all the anti-Christian shit is a conspiracy
Yeah man that's why the monks took such pains to copy works such as Against the Galileans

>Fedora thinks that Jesus was a myth and historical records making mention of his religious following are all forgeries
>Thinks that this conspiracy is maintained by Christians in the US because apparently they have total control over all spheres of life
>Ignoring scholarship outside the US

The free exchange of ideas was a mistake.

ok everyone its either a troll or stupid. dont take bait further

It's global really, look at the Vatican.

So the Vatican controls every single country? Even ones with small to non existent Catholic populations? How have you not drowned in the aquarium of idealism yet?

This

Doesn't matter, the protestant/catholic thing is just a show like all other politics.

you're just seeing conspiracies everywhere
one might say you're spooked.

I'm not the one believing in a jewish wizard because some fake documents mention him off-handedly.

you just assume they're fake because it suits your worldview. get over yourself.

Typical Christfag self-delusion

If Jesus was a Jew, was Muhammad a Christian?

Ibn Nawfal is arguably the first peraon to teach Mohammad about Abrahamic faith, and he was a christian. So....maybe for a bit?

>Not even sure why it would trigger fedoras.
What's with Veeky Forums and this tendency to assume that atheists = fedoras?

Muhammad was a Muslim. Islam is the original religion given by Allah to Adam the first man.

Not true, you're just fundamentally wrong on this one. Genghis Khan (Greatest Khan) was just his title.

Your pic is Ali fucking idiot

>Supreme Court is 1/3 Jewish
>every chairman of the Fed in recent memory has been Jewish
>John Kerry, an ethnic Jew, nearly became president in 2004
>Jews are overrepresented in both houses of congress
>"Christfags run the U.S. government."

I'm not even mentioning other non-Christians. You're paranoid beyond belief.

...

That's true, though.

Actually it's Imam Reza you faggot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Ridha

>death by poisoning
what did the sunni mean by this?

didn't he ascend into heaven like mary?

>Muhammad 100% existed.
>As did Jesus.
>What is the purpose of this conversation? These threads are posted all the time and they all end the same

Isn't it obvious why this is happening?

The historical evidence for Jesus is relatively scant and there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus. This leads some people, incorrectly, to claim Jesus did not exist. These people are almost certainly wrong but they are not being ridiculous.

There is just about enough evidence for some kind of a a historical Jesus to say he almost certainly existed, but not enough for some people to, incorrectly, posit he never existed.

Obviously this sends Christfags into a butthurt panic so they start making ridiculous, ludicrous, butthurt threads such as "prove the Roman Empire existed!!" and "did Julius Caesar exist?" and "did Mohammad exist?".

Yes, user, yawn,

Mohammad existed, the Roman Empire existed, Julius Caesar existed, Jesus existed. I hate to break it to your poor broken heart but there is an enormous amount more evidence for the first three, though.

King James Bible

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

Projection, Christfags are the real fedoras

This

That's just saying that nobody ascends to heaven without having come down to Earth also. Learn to read English retard

King James Bible

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."

King James Bible

"It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."

King James Bible

"Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount."

King James Bible

"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."

King James Bible

"And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,"

>There is just about enough evidence for some kind of a a historical Jesus to say he almost certainly existed, but not enough for some people to, incorrectly, posit he never existed.
That is basically the truth.

It does help a lot that Tacitus, one of the best roman historians, wrote about his existence and helped place him historically around the "right" time. Since Jesus was basically an irrelevant pleb who caused a bit of a stir in one of rome's faraway colonies, there is technically very little reason for the scribes of the time to take note of him. It's just a chain of people and facts corroborating each other:
Tacitus gives him legitimacy and mentions Pontius Pilates; the Quirinius Census confirms the existence of a said Pontius Pilates; Josephus adds more meat to the story and acts as a secondary, local source since he actually lived in Judea for a time.

So yes, when compared to more "immediately" relevant historical characters like Julius Caesar who left a much bigger trace, Jesus almost goes by unnoticed and as we know only gets seriously written about at least a century or so after his death.
Therefore we have to assume Jesus existed because the coincidences are too strong and some of the sources (namely Tacitus) are held in high regards by historians.

It's a bit like Socrates, which we will never truly know with 100% certainty whether he existed but the chain of accounts leads to assume that he must have.

Riddle me this, euphorics.

If Jesus didn't exist, then why would the authors bother with some convoluted plot about sojourning to Bethlehem for the purposes of giving birth? Why not, oh, I don't know, have the whole thing take place in Bethlehem?

Basically Jesus is a meme, even if he was sent by God and sometimes I think God knows memes work on humans and made the biggest amount of meme magic ever to work for sure.

Jesus was a real person but nobody ever cared to look for his corpse except his immediate family and alleged wife. Some dudes who heard all these awesome words Jesus said came around and wanted to make this meme not a dream and were killed, eventually 50-70 years later because memes worked slower back then it got to become spammed on "RomanChan" and then they got kek to give them a leader who made the meme legit.

Eventually all the bros logged into IRC:Fishsymbol and banned some Gnostic trolls and made a proper forum.

Now plebs say "Praise Jesus I got dubs" and destroyed the Roman Empire through post 888888. It was dank.

Okay, well, hmmm, now hol' up, did this user just annihilate the "Jesus didn't real" meme?

>Some dudes who heard all these awesome words Jesus said came around and wanted to make this meme not a dream
Christianity was definitely a forced meme.
Not usually one to agree with /pol/ stormcucks, but that faggot here pretty much nailed it.

youtube.com/watch?v=9gcWJ_m_G00

>using Islamic historians
Read Haag m8, great Templars book
South Africa, or Saudi Arabia