Minimalist

adren@line

I doubt it.

Mohhamed "wrote" the Quran. He is documented in the Hadiths.
Before Mohhamed, (or whoever), Arabia was all pagan and polytheistic sans some random jewish and christian tribes. the 180 flip that occurred historically to dogmatic monotheism within such a short time-frame had to come from somewhere, specifically someone. That someone is Mohhamed.

Pretty simple.

The case for Jesus is much more complex.

ApostateAbe

You may like to review that video Minimalist posted. The arguments against the existence of Muhammad really do emulate the arguments against the existence of Jesus. There is even more silence concerning Mohammad than there is about Jesus, and the gap in time between Muhammad and the earliest written attestation is much greater for Muhammad than for Jesus. The debate comes off as about as complex. Maybe the best explanations are much simpler, but of course bizarre speculations would needlessly complicate it all.

adren@line

that doesnt really matter.

A flip from flagrant polytheism to dogmatic monotheism in a specific area of the planet (Arabia) in such a short period of time (hardly a few decades) does not occur magically or naturally. It needed an external driving force or some sort of revolutionary. Its just common sense.

Whether that person was named Mohhamed, Akmed, or Abdul, it doesnt really matter. Someone wrote the Quran, propagated Islam and spread it amongst the Arabs in a relatively short period of time. The successors of this person (whoever that may be) led armies that conquered large parts of Eurasia within 60-100 years of his death.

Its fairly black and white.

The history of Christianity is much older and much harder to pin down since Christianity didn't even originate with Christ, but with others who interpreted the teachings of Christ at a much later period. The religion was then adopted by a completely foreign peoples (Europeans) who twisted it and molded it further and then spread it from one corner of the earth to the other.

aa5874

Your claim is quite remarkable that "the gap in time between Muhammad and the earliest written attestation is much greater for Muhammad than for Jesus".

So, it is virtually certain that Jesus was not ever considered a human being if the stories about Jesus as the Son of a Ghost were already composed by the very supposed contemporaries.

If HJers argue that Paul is an early writer and contemporary of King Aretas c 37-41 CE then Paul has confirmed that the Jesus character was NOT considered human and that he personally knew nothing of any human character called Jesus.

Galatians 1:1 KJV Unlike Mohammed, if it is argued that Paul lived during the time of Aretas, c 37-41, then we have a most embarrassing scenario--a supposed early Christian evangelist and writer DENIED the historicity of Jesus.

Throughout all the Pauline letters, the authors did NOT ever come in contact with a human Jesus.

Again, unlike Mohammed, the supposed early Christian writer admitted he ONLY witnessed the non-human Jesus.

The argument that Paul was a contemporary of King Aretas c 37-41 CE has destroyed the HJ argument.

There is no evidence that any supposed early writer of the Muslim religion DENIED the historicity of Mohammed and claimed he was NOT human.

ApostateAbe

The evidence that Christianity began in the first century CE really is black and white, since all the evidence related to Christianity can be dated no earlier, and all Christian traditions are rooted in characters in a first-century social context. The period from the first century to the fourth century likewise marks a remarkable shift from polytheism to monotheism in the Roman world. The issue is muddled only with bizarre speculations and improbable interpretations of the evidence. The same can be done--and is done--with Muhammad and Islam. See the following video.

Underseer

Mohammed was just another conqueror.

I am no historian, but given all the conquering he did, I imagine there is plenty of corroborating historical evidence if he was real, and if he wasn't real, it would be trivial to point to the lack of historical evidence a conqueror like that should have left behind.

aa5874

Your claim is mere propaganda. There is NO recovered evidence whatsoever of any 1st century Jesus character who was called Messiah of the Jews and was considered the Savior of all mankind by his crucifixion and resurrection.

The Jesus story had ZERO impact on 1st century non-apologetic writer and the Roman Empire.

Vespasian the Emperor was the Prophesied Messiah according to Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio.

The Jesus story had IMPACT on Non-Apologetic writers in the mid 2nd century and later in the writing of Lucian of Samosata and Celsus in "True Discourse".

All recovered DATED Texts show a Big Black hole in the 1st century for a human Jesus and Paul a supposed contemporary of the time of Jesus DENIED the historicity of a Human Jesus.

And even more devastating, early Muslim Writers claimed a man name Mohammed wrote the Quran--Paul claimed he did NOT get his gospel from a human being.

Supposed early Christian writer DENIED the humanity of Jesus--See Galatians 1.

Galatian1

Toto

There is no evidence of Christianity that can be reliably dated to the first century. I don't know what you mean by "all Christian traditions" - many Christian traditions date much later.

Actually, it didn't. Jews were monotheist, and Roman pagans were tending towards a form of monotheism, with one supreme god. But monotheism never completely prevailed - Christians converted the pagan gods and goddesses into saints.

How is it muddled? No standard historians contend that there is any evidence outside the gospels for Christianity in the first century. The standard explanation is that Christianity was a small underground movement that hid itself from authorities.

I don't see how anything in that video supports what you said.

ApostateAbe

Well, OK, sure, like the traditions of the saints?