7. Did Muhammad Exist? (David Wood)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 พ.ย. 2024
- For access to exclusive content and personal hangouts, visit our Patreon: / whaddoyoumeme
This is part of an interview with David Wood Interview in 2018. Whaddo You Meme?? took questions from David Wood from subscribers. To watch all of the questions, see the playlist "Interviews"
Subscribe & click the bell 🛎 for notifications of new uploads!
New videos every Sunday and Thursday!
Support our videos on Patreon: / whatdoyoumeme
Let's connect!:
Facebook.com/whaddoyoumeme
whaddoyoumeme
Hey, guys! This is one of several questions that will be rolling out over the next several days! Make sure you subscribe to this channel (Whaddo you meme??) and hit the 🛎 for notifications so that way you don't miss anything!
Awesome work that you do. God bless you very much and may your channel grow to reach millions of people and God to be known 🙏🏽
You better stop worrying about if Muhammad existed Jesus Christ the great instrument of God you don't even know the history of him because the historical Jesus is not accurate in the Bible teachingsstop worrying about what other coaches or religions believe in make sure what you believe in is legit that's what it boils down to
In the early seventh century CE, a man from the sons of Ishmael, named Muhammad bin Abdullah, who claimed to be a prophet of the Abrahamic God, well versed in history of Moses, onto whom the Quran was revealed, not just existed but the Jews made him their leader. He gradually won over all of arabia. He also sent armies out of arabia. The Jews and Christians (exept from those in Byzantine occupation) considered him to be a prophet. Or else a wise and God fearing man who brought the Arabs back to monotheism.
That is all from non muslim contemporary and near contemporary sources.
We have aprox 200 mentions of prophet Muhammad pbuh by non Muslims who had witnessed his time and the time of the successors. We have 38 Quranic manuscripts radiocarbon dated and dated on paleography to the first century of Islam, some of which may be contemporary to the prophet Muhammad pbuh. Plus there are numerous rock inscriptions which mention him PBUH in the first century of Islam and mentions his companions. Abu bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Muawiyah, ibn Zubair, Zubair, Abu Talib, Abbas, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Ayesha, Abu Ubaidah, Abdur Rahman and many others of his companions were historical figures.
What about Jesus? no mention of Jesus untill 3rd century CE? No new testement manuscript untill 2 century CE? And you say that there is a tonne of sources for Jesus? No doubt why he did not mention any. Because there isn't any from the first century CE.
I can give references to each I mentioned if you want.😊
Thank you for answering my question. I'd agree that given all the accounts of embarrassment, (Satanic Verses, First Impressions of Revelations, etc) there is something to Muhammad actually existing, but when the information all goes to one man historically, like everything about the Quran depending on whether Uthman got it right or not, makes it something too loose to base your salvation on.
How do you explain the references in the Qur'an though?
Fascinating. So the only hadiths that include embarrassing information about Muhammad, and therefore giving us historical reason to believe he existed as a human being in history at all, are all fake? So we have no historical reason to believe he existed at all then? He was just a glowing tale that Abd al-Malik made up since all archaeological, doctrinal, and historical information about Muhammad is non-existent until his reign almost a century after Muhammad's "death." Or were those accounts about Khaibar fabrications too? Is there literally no reason for us to acknowledge that he was a real person who had legitimate accounts of his life recorded including material that wouldn't have been recorded unless it was true? Or do you just not know how to test history? You're smarter than your Imam's are letting you. Please don't throw truth in exchange for loyalty to your family. We all know you care and admire the moral foundations of your upbringing. However, by throwing out anything negative about Muhammad's life, you're also throwing him out of the realm of verifiable history. Don't make that mistake. If you're interested, I'd love to share my material in testing my Messiah and Lord according to that standard alongside Muhammad if you want.
MLP ShadyOakMinistries im interested in that, so go ahead
Its called fake hadith you imbecile.
Historical Proof: Jesus vs. Muhammad
In order to know if a person really existed, we need people, places, and things that talked about them. We also need reason to trust these people, places, and things based the history behind them. If we can dig them up and read them, great. If not, the same standards need to be applied. We're going to compare the reasons we have to know whether the two central figures of the most popular modern religions were real people. We will be using these religion's own sources as well as the secular sources around their time periods to make sure this information isn't embellished. Our goal isn't to prove if these belief systems are true. We simply are testing the information we have to know if they existed.
Jesus of Nazareth: Born in Bethlehem in the 1st Century, this carpenter from Nazareth became a miracle worker who used this platform to confirm His identity as the Jewish Messiah. After being executed by crucifixion under the Roman Governor Pilate, his followers who abandoned him the moment He was arrested, all returned and endured lives of intense persecution and death for claiming Jesus had risen from the dead. These are some of the basics of what we know about the life of Jesus.
1. Archaeology: The Biblical accounts do us a lot of favors by mentioning people who were involved in these events and the where they took place. The Gospel according to Luke goes to extreme lengths to clarify when recording Jesus' birth where and when it happened.
Luke 2:1-5: And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child.
-Here we don't just have people we can confirm, but when it took place as well. Caesar Augustus ordered many censuses during his reign, so Luke specifies in his interviews of the eyewitnesses that it was during the time Qurinius was governor of Syria. According to the Lapis Tiburtinus inscription, we can confirm not just that Qurinius was a real person, but when his two separate terms as governor occurred in history. It's these reasons and more why the archeologist Sir William Ramsay referred to Luke as a historian of the first rank in his book Saint Paul: The Traveler and Roman Citizen (pg 16) The accounts of Jesus' birth are too detailed and well sourced to be a fabrication especially since they were written within the lifetime of the original eyewitnesses.
2. Writings: The Gospel accounts aren't just a collection of sayings and stories credited to Jesus. The earliest of the gospels according to even liberal scholars are dated to within 20 years of Jesus' death by crucifixion and within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses who are cited in an oral creed circulated by the church within months of Jesus' death. These gospels weren't just written as biographies, but the people who were there to see the events were still alive to be asked directly about these things.
1 Corinthians 15:3-7: For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
-These gospels are not only formatted as biographies, but the writers and witnesses to a man were willing to go to their deaths for this. You can die for a lie, but you have to believe it's true. No one dies for their lies.
3. Accounts of Embarrassment: If a story is made up, it's not going to include information that embarrasses you. Historians look for these details in historical writings to make sure the stories are sincere. The gospels include things that embarrass its most prominent figures both personally and culturally. For example, the first people to visit the Empty Tomb were women. When they later called the disciples Peter and John to see that Jesus' body was missing, Peter still didn't believe until he had a direct encounter with Jesus later on. In a culture that didn't consider a woman's testimony reliable in court, it would be odd at the most pivotal moment in Christianity for one of its central figures to doubt and have a group of women practice more faith than any of the men. Let alone have them be the first eyewitnesses to Him alive after the Crucifixion when the Apostles left. (John 20:14-17)
4. Critics: The Roman historian Tacitus was by no means a Christian. He considered them a plague and engaged in many public and formal debates with Christians denouncing the resurrection as nothing more than a fabrication.
He wrote the following in his book Annals when the Emperor Nero was suspected of burning Rome to make room for a temple dedicated to himself;
[N]either human effort nor the emperor’s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered [by Nero]. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts … whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate … Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. Translated from the Latin by Robert Van Voorst
-While his positions remain his own, he did Christianity a great favor by acknowledging Jesus had been executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. (Show Coins confirming Tiberius and tablet confirming Pilate) If Jesus never existed, then his refutation of the Resurrection would be to deny Jesus' existence altogether. Based on the criticisms of Romans like Tacitus, Jews like Josephus in Jewish Antiquities, (Show Josephus' work) and others like Celsus of the Greek Philosophers who all acknowledge Jesus' existence despite being critics of His message, We can conclude Jesus of Nazareth is a real person in history.
Compare this to Muhammad in the Next Comment.
Spencer's book is a real jaw-dropper, but at the end of the day, the most important view on this is whether Muslims believe in Muhammad. It isn't truth that cements Muslims to Islam, so truth has no bearing on any belief in Islam. As long as Muslims believe in Muhammad, that is what makes them do dangerous.
bro u okay?
I think the stories of Muhammad fit a very specific psychological profile of someone who was abandoned as a child, possessed by a demon in his adult life and his view of women is imbedded in the sources. His later rejection by his contemporaries like Christians and Jews over time fuel his hatred of them in the later chapters of the Quran. I think the psychological argument for Muhammad is a good one to prove his existence but that’s the best argument I can make.
I’d make the same argument against those who deny the existence of a historical Mohammed as against those who deny a historical Jesus (though there are a lot more secular, roughly contemporary historians giving a mention to Jesus than to Mohammed-possibly because the Muslim sources tell an inflated version of Mohammed’s importance in his own day whereas Jesus’ followers almost immediately began turning their world on its ear and were harder to ignore). But it defies belief in both cases to imagine religions forming around entirely fictional characters. So, like, a couple hundred years from now, people might be Superists and worship Superman? Religions don’t spring completely out of thin air hundreds of years after their fictional founders supposedly existed. People follow the Joseph Smiths and David Kareshes and Mohammeds and, yes, some people even followed Jesus because of the cult of personality. Movements and religions begin because of flesh and blood human beings leading them, and they centre around their leaders. And no one comes up with a system of ideologies or philosophies or moral codes and then attributes them to some entirely fictional character who they try to pass off as historical, and then people sign on, and a religion starts. The existence of Mormons today proves a historical Joseph Smith. The existence of Muslims proves a historical Muhammad. The existence of Christians proves a historical Jesus. Anything else is just rank nonsense. Sorry, Robert Spencer, much as I like a lot of things you say, denying Mohammed’s historicity is just silly.
@@ISAiah.42 The Gospels are completely riddled with extremely accurate, minuscule details that only real eye-witnesses would have gotten right.
Ergo, the only way to deny the existence of Jesus the Christ, or to deny that the Gospels are from the Apostles of Jesus Christ, is by going against the entirety of historical methodology. Ergo, to deny this is utter nonsense, great foolishness, and complete silliness.
@@ISAiah.42 hi do u believe bible n gospel n christ, u seem to disparage gospel
do u like to believe in god
@ISAiah 42 pl reply when read
@@Menzobarrenza Talk about biased...
I think you are right about the embarrassment principle, however, I would not say that they "invented" a bunch of stories about Muhammad, more than collected a bunch of stories, myths and legends about different men and combined those. If it is in fact so, then the principle of embarrassment may not be valid to use.
BESTMAHMOUD10
How do you know he’s lying?
BESTMAHMOUD10
A murderer can explain how he didn’t murder somebody, even though all the evidence points to him being the culprit behind the crime-does that mean the evidence is false?
BESTMAHMOUD10
When did you prove him wrong? All you said was ‘stop lying.’
Unless you mean David, to which I ask; where’s the comment in which you did this?
Now I’m confused. Who’s the other person here? I don’t see anybody except Laith, and he isn’t replying to this conversation.
That gold, but anyway, Islam is still the most horrifying and obviously false in history.
“Obviously false”
1) Jesus (peace be upon him): “why do you call me good, there is NOOOO Good, EXCEPT the Father”
2) Jesus (pbuh):
“ i am NOTHING, without the Father”
3)Jesus (pbuh) when the “Lews” were stoning him:
“Why are you stoning me?”
Lews : “blasphemy, you are claiming to be God Almighty”
Jesus (pbuh): “i did NOT say i was God, i said i am the son (i.e. worker/ servant) of God.
4) Jesus (pbuh): “i came TO glorify the Father ALONEEEEE(!)”
1) Literally TWICE the EXclusion of himself being a diety, and testifying that The Father ALONE carries Higher Power
2) basically excluding himself FROM ENTIRE EXISTENCE and testifying that he is COMPLETELY dependant on The Fathers existence.
3)him (pbuh) LITERALLY dismanteling the blasphemous claim that he was walking around calling himself a diety
4)testifying that he was sent with the message to worship THE ONE true God ALONE (!) withOUT any partners.
Jesus (pbuh) was a muslim BY DEFINITION (muslim =the one who submits his will to The One True God in the Heavens)
You read this in the bible, yet claim that he is God. And you dare to call islam false while YOUR CORE DOCTRINE is contradictory with what Jesus (pbuh) was teaching his companions?
None of you are christians, you are “Paul-istians”, all follow “Lewish” hypocrite Paul who has succeeded in corrupting the core doctrines of the religion from within, WHILE NEVER MEETING JESUS (pbuh). Unbelievable. Dont stay in your echo chambers of clowns who thanks to islam videos youtube money can pay their bills. They should all thank islam because of islam they’re able to pay their bills without having an actual job. None of them do it for the sake of God alone. Take away their checks and they DIP from the scene within seconds
Imma keep it a buck the Bible is fake
And Christianity isn’t?
its not weird because:-
1. Umayyad Islam was Nestorian Christianity while Abbasid Islam is the Islam of today
2. Abbasids turned Islam into a masculine, woman hungry religion from an ascetic version of Umayyads
3. Umayyads conquered so fast because they were Christians and they didn't have to make substantial chnages to the people's lives.
4. Abbasids conquered with the sword because they made Islam into a desert cult from a Nestorian Christian version
5. Hadiths were created almost exclusively in the Abbasid era. They have the highest probabilty of being corrupted at the source.
wtf are you talking about ? so the Umayyads fought in the name of christ?
Perhaps you smoked date expired weed before writing your comment.
@@bicyclekick45heterodox Christians.
😭🤣 source : paggeet Trust me
The Islamic being of ummayyad is fact that’s you can’t disprove !!!
Pageet all historical sources and Archeological sources proves that’s Ummayyad were follower of the prophet Muhammad !!!
I challenge to name just one source that’s disagree with this fact 😂 ???
Very honest answer. I've been wondering what you thought of that issue. The mosques pointing to Petra is very interesting! Also, the writings on the mosque on the temple mount!
Exodus
The biggest hipocrite
They painstakingly tried to find fault with the much hatred perfect book that is Qur'an!cos IT revealed their corruption!so there is no use to argue with them to those who are blinded!just as much they attack muslim with their Qur'an,so we also can use the similar tactics!we let them show their GENUINE HOPOCRICY using their own book!here even their book called them names:
Matthew 12:34
[34]O GENERATION OF VIPERS, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
to prove their faith, why dont we just ask them to prove this:
Matthew 17:20
[20]And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
So this time dont accuse us muslim of this n that,THIS IS YOUR OWN BOOK!I BET THEY CANT TILL ETERNITY
@@tahaalihusin5919 ??? The only thing the Qur'an reveals is the fact that it is a false book. I want you to be forgiven for your sins Taha. Only Jesus will do that for you. Only Jesus can and he WILL if you repent and believe that he died for you on the cross. His death paid what you (and I) owe. And then realize that this great hero isn't dead! He rose again from the dead Taha! And we will be with him forever.
Revelation 5:12 saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!"
@@TheNortonio
God isn't human, nor has a son
@@mohammed44_ you forget who made who because your constructed god is a lie. God made us we didn’t make him. Humans are made in the image of God.
@@TheNortonio yes, we don't make gods, we also don't give birth and crucify gods
I think he did exist, because of the fundamental difference between sunni and shiia muslims. They differ on the importance of the bloodline of muhammad, and this debate goes right back to the time when Muhammad died. Why would there be a debate about his bloodline, if there was no bloodline.
The man exist, the warlord that claimed to be prophet is real person, but not mean that all accounts and sources that describing him is accountable and credible. There are many hyperbolic story, myth, legend about his story.
TheBECK321 exactly but you take the accounts that make him look bad and ignore the good. Thats being bias and breaks the commandment of bearing false witness
@@shlovaski8393 Like what?
mrJety89 you never talk about the good things hes done (personally I believe everything hes done is good).
@@shlovaski8393 Like what
*sees David* instant sub. 👍🏾
Steph
The biggest hipocrite
They painstakingly tried to find fault with the much hatred perfect book that is Qur'an!cos IT revealed their corruption!so there is no use to argue with them to those who are blinded!just as much they attack muslim with their Qur'an,so we also can use the similar tactics!we let them show their GENUINE HOPOCRICY using their own book!here even their book called them names:
Matthew 12:34
[34]O GENERATION OF VIPERS, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
to prove their faith, why dont we just ask them to prove this:
Matthew 17:20
[20]And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
So this time dont accuse us muslim of this n that,THIS IS YOUR OWN BOOK!I BET THEY CANT TILL ETERNITY
I am agree with you my brother in GOD through JESUS CHRIST.
Napo Laguerre shut the hell up
@@Iammikeyrivers ..Tons of evidence for Jesus..If so, then I'd like to know where it all is? He should debate on the Skylar Fiction channel and try to prove his assertions.
@@materialclassified u are embarrassing yourself if u are claiming theres no evidence that jesus existed, it's a historical fact, every serious christian and jewish and atheist scholar acknowledges this lol, use google kid
The mythological figure of the dead and resurrected god-man has long been exposed as universal myth motif that has been enshrined by a long list of cultures predating Christianity as we know it today. It's simply a story that uses typology from previous myths.
@@justsomevids4541 David Wood says that there is a tonne of sources for Jesus, from the first century. Can some one tell me of any of these sources whose original manuscripts date to this time period. Because I don't know of any.
TH-cam displayed a Koran ad before watching this.
They also keep posting ads for trying to save an old mosque from turning into a restaurant in Toronto!
Amazing stuff!
Shalom
The biggest hipocrite
They painstakingly tried to find fault with the much hatred perfect book that is Qur'an!cos IT revealed their corruption!so there is no use to argue with them to those who are blinded!just as much they attack muslim with their Qur'an,so we also can use the similar tactics!we let them show their GENUINE HOPOCRICY using their own book!here even their book called them names:
Matthew 12:34
[34]O GENERATION OF VIPERS, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
to prove their faith, why dont we just ask them to prove this:
Matthew 17:20
[20]And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
So this time dont accuse us muslim of this n that,THIS IS YOUR OWN BOOK!I BET THEY CANT TILL ETERNITY
The Islamic conquests from 632 (Mohammed's death) until 732 (Battle of Tours in France and the Battle of Talas against the Chinese). Something happened that brought about the sudden unity of the Arabs.
.
One thing not brought up is whether or not there is any supporting historical evidence suggesting the wars of Apostacy. The occurance of these wars make sense. The alledged apostates thought their relationship/submission to Islam was directly to the person of Mohammed, and so once he died, they resought their independence (from tithing). However, Mohammed's companions, having inhereted a going and growing political enterprise of immense dynamism, strenght and growing wealth, had every reason to want to see it continue and perpetuate after Mohammed's death. especially the tithing part, which Abu Bakr speaks of prominently. The occurance of that war seems a logical, if not inevitable occurance resulting from Mohammed's death. Any historical data found regarding this war would be valuable in supporting or undermining the traditional account of Muslim history.
So, no doubt, opportunity played a part in establishing Arab cohesion. Not only were the metropolitan/urban empires of Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire) and Sassanian Persia depleted from fighting each other but they were depleted by plague - which was less imposing on the desert dwellers. It is worth noting that urban places such as Mecca were subject to plague, especially as it traded with the Metropolitans and also, because of need for proximity to water, they lived fairly densely. The fear of urban plague is probably why newborns in Mecca were placed with Bedouins shortly after birth (as was Mohammed) so as to reduce infant mortality. Plague helped shift the balance of power towards the desert dwellers but probably isn't sufficient alone.
An alternative suggestion is that the real history took place in and around Petra - in otherwords, the Geography is shifted radically farther north but still in Arabia, in Nabatea capital of Petra. Petra itself lies at the conjunction of the overland trade route to the south and the movement of trade coming up from the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea. Strangely, Mecca does lie on the trade route coming up from the Red Sea port of Jedda towards Taif which was directly on the north-south overland route from Yemen to Palestine with Mecca being very close to Taif. Mecca was shielded in a valley from the worst dust storms coming from the broad Arabian desert.
The problem some point out with the Meccan history is that trade was, and is, more economical over the sea route bypassing Mecca and Taif altogether. The problem with this view point was that the Red Sea was prone to piracy then as much as it is now and the only time maritime trade really took off is when there was a dominant naval power, as in Rome and later Byzantium to restrict piracy. Some accounts say that the Kaba was built up from an outdoor structure to an enclosed building while Mohammed was a young man by taking lumber from a Byzantine ship wreck near Jedda. Another problem is that the prevailing winds from Jedda north, come out of the north - a headwind to maritime trade, with the Latine sail allowing for sailing into the wind only developing about the time of Mohammed (somewhere in the Arabian peninsula). Below Jedda, seasonal winds came from the south in the summer and out of the north in the winter. This is the reason for the establishment of Jedda where it is - the farthest north port on the Arabian side of the Red Sea before the prevailing northerly winds. So, some if not most seaborn trade, as it was, had to be unloaded and moved inland - which would then take it through Mecca. But no matter if trade came to Palestine by the red sea or the overland route, it still had to pass through Petra, (which is why the city was able, for a time, to produce some significant structures).
One tricky question is, how could a backwater like Mecca gain control of the north south trade. I think a reason can be found in the Kaba. The Kaba was a shrine that housed 360 or so pagan idols. This made it a center of pilgrimage for the pagan Bedouin tribes. But we can look at this, in a slightly different way. Just as water born trade was subject to piracy, overland trade was subject to molestation by inland banditry. Caravans would have had to move through territory controlled by various tribes. Gaining control of the north south trade then meant working out agreements with all the tribes that controlled territories along the trade routes. In this sense, the housing of the pagan shrines of all the various Bedouin tribes then was a kind of proxy to an agreement between the Meccans and the Bedouin tribes that controlled territory along the caravan routes. This means, that upholding and protecting the dignity of the pagan shrines was far more important to the Meccans than just for religious pilgrimage purposes, it was, in lieu of written contracts, also the evidence of a binding contract between the Meccans and the various tribes controlling territories along the caravan routes. This would explain the hostility the Meccans had for Mohammed when he began to criticize paganism - and why Mohammed gained so few followers in Mecca.
Of course some sort of combination of this logic could have applied at Petra too. But if Petra was the center of infant Islam, then conquest of the Arabian peninsula came from the North instead of the Hijaz, as would the forces that fought in the wars of Apostacy and historical evidence, again, should be sought in regard to that war and the source of the forces that fought it.
Other aspects support the Nabatean theory (Petra was the capital of the Roman province of Arabia Nabatea). Nabatea was very close to the centers of Sabian religion which is the closest pre-islamic cousin to Islam (5 daily prayers, their is no God but God - Mohammed, mearly added "and Mohammed is his prophet"). Another point in favor of the Nabatean theory is that the monastery of St. Catherine's in the Sinai is relatively close to Petra, and the monks have a traditional account that says that Mohammed visited there frequently and created a written contract that they still have, whereby he guarantees their protection. It is highly improbable for Mohammed to visit the Sinai if he was housed in Medina once, let alone frequently, given the distances involved and the hostile climate. Also lots of temporary Empires would popup in various empires along the entire Roman periphery (in Europe and Asia) in the final couple of centuries of the Roman Empire and in Asia for the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantium after the collapse of the West. Prior to 476, these were always conquered back by Roman armies, but as the economies declined, as plagued reduced numbers, and war reduced treasuries, it became harder and longer before Roman Armies reconquered lost provinces. One of the most famous temporary empires was Edessa, which would have controlled the entire Levant, including areas adjacent to Nabatae. During the time of Mohammed, the Persians took the Levant and Egypt and held it for around 20 years before Rome conquered it back. One can easily imagine the Nabateans, having no history with the Persians, creating their own statelet around a would be leader, perhaps Mohammed, and to strengthen themselves began consolidation of Arabia. By the time Rome had reconquered Egypt and its Levantine provinces, by successfully invading the heart of Persia, the Nabatean/Meccan state had consolidated control of Arabia, and with plague reducing numbers in the metropolitan areas of Rome and Persia, with dissension from the persecuted heretical sects of Christianity in the middle east (Monophysites, Nestorian and Coptic Christians, to name just a few, for example), and a unifying ideology/religion and consolidation of Arabia, the balance of power was turned, paving the way for the Arabian break out and conquest of the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa. Still a mind boggling event, putting to an end, once and for all, the age of antiquity.
Great answer how can i store it in android using copy paste app won't allow me
Theres no such thing as "Muslim conquests" it's all a lie by racists
drink a shot every time the guy with the yellow hat says "right"
Lets ask Yasir Qadhi for the evidence! After all, he's spent his whole life as a believer!
Arab Bidouines who could not agree on anything ever, tribes constantly kept at each other's throats, suddenly united and conquered two of the greatest empires within 15 years of their leaders death.
Even the Israelites had to engage in war, violence and killing for their cause for decades, so did the Arab Ishmaelites under their leader.
It takes little knowledge but lot of compassion and rationality to get out of denial, Brother.
Take a look at history.
When the leader dies, the empire deteriorates falls but when the Ishmaelite leader died, the empire grew EXPONENTIALLY with in 15 years, think why?
I think most of the earliest references to Arabian military attacks are Christian or Jewish. Interestingly, non-Arabs sometimes seem to have believed the early conquistadors followed Jewis Torah law. I recommend "In the Shadow of the Sword" - Tom Holland.
Proof why prophet muhmad existed
1.) many claim that ibn ishaq was was the earliest Biography on Muhammad , not true , we have early records of Muhammad exist and about his life , the Armenian historian seobis wrote 24 years after the death of Muhammad, he give a short and quick page on who was Mohammad when was he born and when he died then he went in Deatail talking about the conquest of Mecca in 630 and the first two caliphs of Islam and what they did and there also non Muslim accounts of mugmad and the caliphs existing 25-50 years after Mohamed death
2.). we also have writing from eygiptains and Persians about Muslims coming to them and telling them about Islam (witch was in 628) and a known historical fact and reasons on why Muslims are in Ethiopia when Muslims came there in 615
3.) the earliest known tafsir we have record of was written by a man named mohmad ibn mujahid , he died 93 years after Mohammad and was born 13 years after the death of Muhammad witch was 1 year into the third caliphate of Uthman ibn affan and he took many notes from Ali ibn abi talib and ibn abbas and if they existed than mohmad existed bcoz they were his companions
4.) The chain of transmission that scholars use to see what muhmad said they look at the chain and see if there a reliable people in the chain , and many people say well I can just make up a chain going back to mohmad but when scholers look at the chain they look at the people and if the existed and were they honest and what there people say about them , of scholars see that they never existed than the disregard the Hadith compltly but if a Hadith is shahih or strong than the chain goes back to muhmad companions and there are reliable people narrorating it
5.) beside Robert spencer and a few little people no scholars(non Muslim ) have said this , they deeply study Islamic history and if nearly all of them say muhmad existed than I will go with them instead of Robert Spence who make wrong assumptions
6.). Had prophet muhamad lived within the Romens or Persians we would have more records about his life but he lived in a small tribe in Arabia. And when that happens historians look at the chain of transmission (4.) but when the rashidn empire started to take over we tons of records from Roman and Persian writing about Muslims comping from Arabia takings over there land and most of the Muslims taking over there land where prophet Muhammad’s companions like omur ibn al khattab and Khalid ibn al walled
7.) we have a genealogy from prophet Mohammad to adnan who live around 40BC and we have graves of his ancestors like Hashim who’s grave is in gava
8.) we have the graves of his companions like his uncle hamza ibn Abdul muttalib, and the first caliph and second caliph abu bakr albsiddiq and Imari ibn al khattab in Medina and the grave of khalid ibn al walleed in Homs Syria and many others
flo rider read my 6 point
Peasant Scrublord Muhammad existing and his biography being reliable are two different questions , if we look only at the non Muslim records, Muhammad defiantly existed , read seeing Islam as others saw it , but wether his story is true is a different issue , in my opinion I think for the most part it’s reliable though there is a lot of fabrications within it
even if I didn't know what modern historians thought on the topic, I'd side with those who point to all the embarrassing parts of he Muhammad story to say he most likely, probably existed as the evidence suggests (to use the careful language favored by historians). the arguments made by Mythers like Spencer (a non-scholar) sound interesting at first glance, but then the same can be said of Jesus Mythers. if you don't look too deeply into them and assume we must have a perfect, unbiased, non-supernatural record within a few years of that person's lifetime, then yes, pretty much every "great man" of antiquity disappears in a cloud of skepticism. those who want Muhammad to exist have a vested interest, but those who are against Islam have just as much to gain in making their argument. All religious founders are not created equal. Buddha, Muhammad, Jesus, all "probably existed" (from the standpoint of secular historians), while Krishna, Thor, Zeus, Hercules, Osirus, Lao Tzu are probably wholly mythical. this is different from amalgam legendary figures like King Arthur or Merlin. and yes, I'm pretty sure secular historians now consider Moses to be a legendary amalgam rather than a historical individual, so I'm not playing favorites.
If he never existed, Why does he insult him anyway?
He didn't
Arab Bidouines who could not agree on anything ever, tribes constantly kept at each other's throats, suddenly united and conquered two of the greatest empires within 15 years of their leaders death.
Even the Israelites had to engage in war, violence and killing for their cause for decades, so did the Arab Ishmaelites under their leader.
It takes little knowledge but lot of compassion and rationality to get out of denial.
Additinally, can you SHOW any scriptures with testimonies of people from 1 A.D. which tell that they saw or talked to Jesus. There were numerous people. Why aren’t there any materials showing people who bare witness of those past events. You’ve got only very late stories about BELIEFS of Christians and that’s sth different. In the same way you’ve got stories about the beliefs of ancient Greeks and Romans.
The historicity of the prophet continues to be a problem
Thanks
I think the evidence of Muhammad as a historical person. Is the family he left behind. There is historical records of his Grandson. Sunni vs Shia split happened almost immediately after Muhammads Death. The Shia always felt that the Ummah should be ruled through the Hereditary of Muhammad. We know they always felt strongly about this. Kinda odd if it turns out Muhammad's Family didn't exist. I am actually curious if there was a way to prove Muhammad existed through DNA recovery? Some of his early descendants are buried at known locations. However the issue is all of his current descendants come via his Daughter Fatima. So there is no Direct Male Line that is still alive.
The "early islamic sources" are so weak and so late. I don't think Mohammed existed. Robert Spencer presents some great research in his book "Did Mohammed exist?".
David Wood's point in regards to the Principle of Embarrassment is pretty strong.
Sure. But obviously nobody ever met Mohammed the Arabian prophet and nobody ever met anybody who met him personally. Mecca either did not exist in the 7th century or it was completely insignificant. If Mohammad existed the story around him is probably 95% false.
It's funny, because Islamic tradition say Mecca was were Adam and Eve fell, Therefore giving it the oldest place in the world but our
Earliest Literary Reference to Meccas Existence is
-An Historical document called the Apolalypse of pseudo-methodais
- And Continuatio Byzanti Arabia
Early reign of Caliph Hisham(741AD)
The earliest historical maps don't show Mecca until 1900AD(10th Centaury)
Greek trading documents refer to the towns of Ta'it(South East Mecca), Yathrib(Later Mecca), Kaybar, but never Mecca, Not once...Its meant to be the oldest city known to man and the earliest historical map we have that confirm Mecca is the 10th Centaury, Why?
BESTMAHMOUD10 BESTMAHMOUD10 so Mohammed is not illitrate as muslims claim? So it was he who wrote Quran. Nice way to contradict your brothers in islam.
What school teaches is a lie kid, go research and educate yourself
Where are these 1st century sources for Jesus?
The Gospels and Paul’s letters lol easy
Aswell as early church fathers who are like 1 link away from the life time of the apostles and other disciples
But none of this has anything to do with a historical Mohammed which I believe there was one
Hi David
I understand your prudent line of thinking about Muhammad historicity
I have a point regarding the criteria of embarrassment
My point can be better understood if you read Gabriel said Reynolds book “ the quran and its biblical subtext”
In the book Reynolds stresses the point that the Islamic Hadith and tafsirs tradition is based on collecting circulating stories and trying to understand what could be realistic.
In the process the Islamic scholars collected multiple mutually exclusive stories all more or less pointing back to Muhammad
And in most of these stories the muffassirun where acting as philologists
Basically the stories were made to support a specific interpretation of the rasm and provide a background
What does it mean
It mean that stories like that mentioned by zainab were probably pure exegetical exercises derived from the rasm and patched with the personal experience of the Arab trying to understand it
These stories were not initially embarrassing becouse Islam was not Islam yet and was not a threat to Christian’s and Jews so there was no need to defend them from criticism
The criticism you mention of these embarrassing stories came up way later only once Islam became an issues for Christian’s
The same concept is expressed by Muhammad Ali moezzi
But how can you explain muslim sources trying to wash away embarrasing elements about Muhammad? If they believed that Muhammad was a prophet they wouldn't try to change their narratives all the time about nonsenscial sayings of Muhammad. For example hadith says Muhammad said that a water is pure and nothing can make it impure, even a carcass of a donkey. And other hadith sources then try to wash it away by saying that he said "nothing can make water impure except the ones that change it's color, taste or smell" So a carcass of a donkey doesn't change the water's taste or smell? I agree there are some embarrasing stuff in muslim sources but it doesn't prove that muhammad existed or islam started as it is claimed today. Most of the emberrasing stories wouldn't make the 7th century arabs upset. But they may have written some things that bothers them too, but you can see that those stuff are always tried to be hidden by muslims themselves. Satanic verses are a great example for this, earliest sources talk about this embarrasing story and then we cannot find it in later sources. Why would they do that if they didn't invent all these stories themselves?
And the more than 100 non Muslim records of Muhammad shortly after his death
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ there is something in islam called false hadith u idiot some ahadith are false. Prophet muhammed didn’t want anyone to write his sayings but ppl learned them for more islamic information and for good benefits for human kind some ahadiths are wrong bcz they dont have a powerful source
Please stop talking about our religion we never talk about urs all we wish that god guides us all to the right path so please stop the hate ppl
@@SPIDY_sid unless it is stated clearly as Shahih
@@ARKAN9765 Non-Shahih can be Shahih & vice versa. Who knows?
➡️ In the same way, PROVE that Abraham & Moses were not just made-up characters like those from Greek & Roman mythology (e.g. Herakles/Hercules). You say they existed but what is your source of that knowledge? The Bible? You believe it presents the truth so then you show the CIRCULAR thinking which is an infantile method of making proving.
Wow.
Hallelujah
I understand the claim of Petra i also think that mecca is not an old city there no archiological evidence but i don't think the argument of ealry mosques( qiblahs) is a good argument even today many mosques don't face an extact direction towards mecca let alone long time ago ,
and in islamic teachings the way to determine the( qiblah) to mecca is not an acuurate method all it say turn to side of the kaaba and pray you don't have to measure where is it exactly so its very likely that they'll miss it but their prayer is still accepted unless you see the kaaba with your eyes then your direction has to accurate .
No God Man in 2024
@@HugeAndHugeCoinChannal do you wanna be my friend tell me your insta or snapchat
2023 Game Over SUN
Congrats about the video but you do not have enough details.....work on it
Jesus Christ is the sunlight
If Muhammad never existed, who wrote the Quran?
Arab traders must have made up.
Every time he debates a Muslim he doesn’t do as a good as he do alone
I don't believe in Jesus the devil or Muhammad
David, are you ok? Seems you don’t sound like your usual self. Thanks for the information your sharing
Right.. right... Right
tell me about it LOL!!!!
How is this even a question?!?!?!?!
these guys are ridiculous. one might understand that they disbelief in him but denying his existence completely is really desperate.
Did you listen to the full interview? They didn't say he didn't exist. David said that he believes he existed.
Petra is WAY cooler than a lame cube. Glad the muslims dont claim it's their holy place.
David Wood says that there is a tonne of sources for Jesus, from the first century. Can some one tell me of any of these sources whose original manuscripts date to this time period.
@Peasant Scrublord Tacitus wrote in second century CE,
There are no extant (surviving) manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century,
The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century.
Nothing survives from the first century CE.
Still Thanks.
@Peasant Scrublord There may be something regarding Jesus surving from the first century, unnoticed or undiscovered, but among all the sourses I know, there is nothing that mentions Jesus from the first century.
As for prophet Muhammad pbuh, there truly is a huge bunch of sources, 25 Quranic manuscripts, aprox 200 mentions of prophet Muhammad pbuh by non Muslims, some rock inscriptions and numerous coins bearing his name (all from first century of Islam ). Yet I was surprised when Jay Smith said 'it is shaky ground', I thought he would name some sources for Jesus but he did not. As a Muslim, Jesus is a highly respected and important figure for me as well. I would love to know if something can proove the historical existence of Jesus.
@Peasant Scrublord Then why is there no original manuscript for any of these sources from the first century CE?
And how can you consider the oldest new testement (just a small piece of papyrus which does not mention Jesus, written about a century after jesus ) to be better than 25 Quranic manuscripts (some of which were written in presence of the prophet Muhammad pbuh and all do mention him)
I mean no harm to anyone, but doubting the existance of prophet Muhammad pbuh while beliving in the historicity of Jesus is an unfair judgement.
I am not interested in the sources attributed to the first century CE but rather for the sources which were discovered and dated to the first century CE.
@Peasant Scrublord Never did I say that Jesus, Alexander, Julias Ceaser did not exist. They did exist, yes we can use internal clues to when a spesific text was written, but it is best if we have a contemporary source.
The bible and hadith are alike, written much after the events which these disscuss, the oldest versions being lost. Much of what we have today may reflect the true history but may contain fabricationd to fit later needs. I doubt the hadith too. Some turn out to be more authentic than others.
We also have several sources written by non Muslim authors living in the Caliphate, writing about their contemporary rulers including Prophet Muhammad pbuh, while the Muslims were more focused towards preserving the Quran.
"Seeing Islam as Others Saw It" is a Book by Robert G. Hoyland, it lists and quotes quiet a few of these texts.
Thanks
@Peasant Scrublord The new testement is believed to be written during the lifetime of Jesus pbuh's deciples and early Hadith also believed to be written during the life time of prophet Muhammad pbuh's companions. We don't have any manuscript for either of these from the time they should have been written.
As the hadith and sira may not be well preserved, nearly 200 mentions of prophet Muhammad pbuh by non Muslims who had wittnessed his time and the time of his successors may help fill this gap. What do you suggest?
Considering that people fabricate history, using contemporary and near contemporary records, we may find less, but comparatively more authentic.
Not a muhammad fan. However, these kind of debates are usually not constructive.
Oh your sources are good and every other source is unreliable
right right right right right right lol!! enough with the rights already lol!!!!
Nah i believe he did exist. I think islam is bs but i feel like if someone can cause a huge following like this, someone had to have been there
He exist, but he exist as a liar😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂.
Did Jesus exist where's your evidence
None of the prophets ever existed
Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) is mentioned in oldest religious books(Vedas) of Hindu as Kalki Avtar(کلکی اوتار) .
The Vedas are 4000 years old according to Hindu scholars of Vedas. One Sanskrit professor of Varansi Hindu university has written a book that all references cited in Vedas tell us that Mohammad
(PBUH) is Kalki Avtar.
The details mentioned in Hindu's
scriptures are astonishing. We do not find so much details in any other
religious scriptures like Bible.
What is the real source of these informations? Who could have given all these informations before coming of prophet Mohammad (pbuh) 2500 years ago.
Of cource no common man but a prophet to him revealed all these informations from Almighty Allah-- the crator of humankind.He knows everything.
Who is that prophet?
It is not mentioned in Vedas but نوح عليه السلام( prophet Noah).
(pbuh) may be that prophet.
He is mentioned in Torah and in Qur'an. He is oldest and well known prophet after Adam (pbuh) the ancestor of humankind.
These informations were transformed by one generation to another and recorded later on.
Hindus scholars know Mano.
Allah knows best.
DR.MOHAMMAD LAEEQUE NADVI
Ph.D. (Arabic Lit.) M.A. Arabic Lit.+Islamic Studies)
DIRECTOR
Amena Institute of Islamic Studies & Analysis
A Global & Universal Research Institute
nadvilaeeque@gmail.com
Thanks
Among many fallacies presented by David Wood.
Jerusalem was the first qibla of the Muslims prior to Mecca. David Wood is “straw manning” most of these points because he is establishing his own assumptions and then arguing against those assumptions.
You haven't said anything valid 😂😢
Brother David is
Right right right right right right right right right!
Well He is Right.
So at one point you say that Muhammad (SAW) was evil and Satan etc. but, then you also say that he did not exist. 😂which one is it?
If you watched the video, David is giving the perspective of people who are skeptical of Muhammad’s existence- that’s not his own opinion. That’s why he finishes their perspective with “that’s the claim” in around 2:40 . Then he explains why he believes muhammad existed and the debate he had about it with Robert spencer, where he used the historical principle of embarrassment to support him claims. He had another debate with Jay smith in 2020
The point about having really good historical sources for Jesus is not at all true
Yes it is.
@@gkkenobi3988 no it isnt. there is nothing except the gospels (and all main stream scholars dont even believe the stories there are true).. thats it. everything else is either a forgery or so far after the supposed events that they cannot be used as evidence
@@T2revell That is not true at all. First of all, the gospels are not the only source for Jesus. We have Paul's letters which are even early than the gospels. Paul says he met James, the brother of the lord. Main stream scholars that are not Christian do not believe that everything in the gospels is historical, but they certainly believe that certain events in them are. Tacitus and Josephus mention Jesus as well. Josephus has been interpolated, but he still originally mentioned Jesus. Also Josephus talks about James and that he was the brother of Jesus.
@@gkkenobi3988 paul never met jesus himself and never mentions jesus CURIOUSLY ever being on earth. ever. he never mentions anything he ever did, having a ministry, disciples, nothing.. he only mentions him being in scripture and through visions. that tells us nothing.. he also says in romans that every baptized christian is a brother of the lord. he never differentiates between this and when he says james was the lords brother.. he would have needed to do this and he seemed to have no idea that he needed to. its to vague to simply assume that james was infact jesus brother. so that doesnt corroborate it.
we can be very certain that Tacitus never mentions jesus in anything that isnt a christian forgery because he never met jesus or any of his followers and lived 70-80 years after his supposed death. his most likely source is Pliny the younger which interestingly never mentions anything in his writings other than saying he talked to some Christians to find out what they believed and says it was crazy and so forth. that isnt corroboratory either. and Josephus as you mentioned was definitely forged by a christian in one spot but the issue you have with assuming that the other part about james was him is that even if it WAS him we cant demonstrate that he wasnt just either saying what the gospels said or what writings of paul said or what believers said.. it cant be used as evidence. especially being that he was writing after the gospels were written or around the time john was being written.
@@yana5866 COOL... now point me to one that IS NOT somewhat contested
Hell awaits you if you keep judging other's deed David Wood if you christian follow Jesus and live as Christian
but historically there is no evidence of Jesus existence too
Daniel U some do
@Daniel U I'm an atheist and I do. There's no evidence for Jesus's existence
The Irish Yoshi No, there’s a LOT of evidence for his existence, many Atheists and theists alike believe so
@@TheIrishYoshi There is a ton of evidence, that is why 99% of scholars believe he existed. To make such a stupid statement like that shows you've done little to no research on the subject.
@@yana5866 theres video evidence of Michael Jackson's ghost.. do you believe its real? Manuscripts about something or based on something thats inaccurate like the bible does not mean that everything that comes from the bible is accurate.. Joshua made the sun stand still for a day.. how? We have evidence the sun doesnt go around the earth so how did that happen? How did it not destroy the planet while doing so?
There was light before the sun and stars were created for the earth somehow there was already day and night.
Jesus isnt the messiah its suppose to be Emmanuel..
Mark, luke, and john have different endings and different things jesus did in his life.. i think i can include the book of Matthew too..
So much i can cherry pick.. but i wont.. theres no evidence of jesus that we have found.. same way theres no evidence of the bibles version of the flood and many others..
Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven ✝️
0:36 yeah, same with Jesus and if you disagree you haven’t done a honest research.
@@yana5866 0 contemporary sources for god performing miracles sorry
@@yana5866 you offer 0 contemporary evidence for jesus miracles. You failed again. The reason I'm not taking you seriously is because I have encountered cranks like you before. So technically you are wasting my time with dishonest conclusions. That's your problem not mine.
Oh btw we have contemporary evidence for Julio Cesar when he was alive. We have none for a demi God performing miracles.
@@yana5866 i have open mind. The only difference is that I follow the evidence and you follow faith and mythology. That's ok. If this believe system helps you to be a better person go for it, in not against that, I'm against Christians who believe that they know what they don't know. At this point in my life I expect honesty, and tbh I dont see that in many Christians.
@@yana5866
Sorry but gods are mythological, it seems to me you haven't search arguments against your position. You clearly haven't read Robert M price, Richard Carrier, Hector Avalos, Thomas Brodie, David Fitzgerald, Thomas Thompson etc...
The earliest evidence for jesus is paul, and he clearly said that everything he knows about jesus is for "revelation". So, he is talking about a Resurrected God, how is that any different from Plutarch writing about Romulus and Osiris? Plus the resurrection thing... Christians and jews didn't invent this idea about a dying and rising God. In fact Inanna is the oldest God we know that die and resurrected.
No. I'm not claiming that jesus is copy from innana. What I'm saying is that jesus doesn't have anything special among these other deities that has die and resurrected like
Osiris
Dionysus
Baal
Zalmoxis
Etc..
There’s no sufficient evidence for jesus. This guy saying there is doesn’t make it true. The truth is that we have no good reason to think jesus ever existed.
@@yana5866 there is literally zero contemporary evidence of jesus ever existing in history. Zero. Not one.
@@yana5866 also god isn’t real and your religion is immoral garbage. How does it feel being the dumbest person in the room in every room you’re in?
@@yana5866 I’m not making a positive claim that adopts onus.
@@yana5866 that’s a pretty weak apologetic question. To answer it, not a chance. Xtianity is immoral garbage. If the god is real, I’d never worship it. What if islam or mormonism were the truth; would you become a muslim or mormon?
The Quran talk about Jesus, & his name was mentioned 25 times, only 4 times about Muhammad. Therefore, he existed. Don't you think?
This is 100% my opinion of Christianity. Early sources were no where near as early as the church teaches and the later sources suffered from many redactions over the first 4 centuries. There probably was a Jesus, but he had been legendized by a handful of writers; mostly in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
Roman manuscripts my friend
@@yana5866
I do though. I think we would all be very surprised at how WRONG we were about Caeser because we've filled in the blanks in silly ways. I would say the exact same thing about Jesus and Mohammed.
I think Zakir bin Naik is a time traveller. He must hv discovered how screwed up his scriptures were and got back in time and changed stuff.
😂
what do you mean. You unintentionally admitted that Quran is the word of God.
I would like to know what this "ton of evidence" for Jesus is. There's practically NO contemporary accounts of Jesus
@@yana5866 Ceasar had busts, coins and contemporary accounts confirming his existence, but I'm not talking about Caesar, I'm talking about Jesus.
There are LITERALLY no contemporary accounts, including your book of fables, that account for his existence. Sure, people mention him long after his supposed existence, but nothing was written DURING his magical mystery tour. The bible can't even agree with itself when this mythical man-god was even born. The bible is the WORST example of his existence, it merely makes the claim
@@yana5866 I am asking questions.
So you're trying to tell me that Jesus walked this earth performing mind blowing miracles, gathered thousands of people for a short speech and created food for all of them out of thin air, defied jewish laws for the narrative to fit his execution, created earthquakes, raised saints, made the earth stand still, created a scene with the money exchangers, raised Lazareth, raised a friend's child, healed the blind, walked on water, calmed storms (multiple times), transcended to heaven, defying the laws of nature and you're trying to say that he was unknown??!!! NO ONE WROTE ANYTHING THEY WITNESSED DOWN! Absolutely no contemporary accounts?! Oh! Here's the definition of contemporary...
con·tem·po·rar·y
/kənˈtempəˌrerē/
adjective
1. living or occurring at the same time.
" The event was recorded by a contemporary historian"
2. belonging to or occurring in the present.
"the tension and complexities of our contemporary society".
Jesus HIMSELF never wrote anything down, talked in allegory and parables, which would be excruciatingly difficult for the ignorant masses of that time to understand what he's saying, and NO ONE thought to themselves, "good point, I should write that down to remember it?
You said that his death, "sparked off Christianity.", but that's not true, either. Christianity remained a relatively unknown cult until Constantine made it the main religion, though not converting himself, in the 4th century. It was only through fear, death and wars that christianity spread. Jesus is a myth, and like all myths, have no basis in reality, including contemporary accounts. Everyone could easily be Apolloists instead of Christian's, had the council of Nycea voted that way, LOL
@@yana5866 no, I deny all the Christian scholars, scientists and historians who prove that Jesus existed, they are biased. There are no secular accounts of Jesus at all. I'm all for believing Jesus existed but you're wrong on so many issues and all you're doing is talking points apologetics. Thallus was NOT a contemporary, he was a late second century historian who wrote in Koine Greek. He wrote a three-volume history of the Mediterranean world from before the Trojan War to the 167th Olympiad, 112-108 BC, or perhaps to the 217th Olympiad, AD 89-93, who never mentions Jesus, btw. Most of his work was lost and was only QUOTED by Africanus who was quoted by Theophilus of Antioch who was an influence on gods liar Eusibius, non of which were contemporaries.
Science can pinpoint EXACTLY when an eclipse will happen and when they did happen. There was nothing during the time of myth-man's fake death.
Also, the "martyrdom" of the people who were "willing to die" for this farce is debatable as well.
So, what else you got?
I also forgot to mention Celsius. Another 2nd century non contemporary, who only had the gospels to refute from. All his work is gone. The only reason we know about him was from a rebuttal from church founder Origen
Jesus never existed too
what falsehood 😹
Just because their is lots of evidence it does not mean that they are accurate
First?
I was the first ... yay :-)
Sachin Kainth Jesus is the first and last 🤓
No one cares?
AJ Maynard I support not mate.
Lies lies and more lies of david wood😂😂
Interesting how David seem like an intelligent guy, but then believes in god, and has no good argument for the made-up religion which is a pure copy of older religions.
Lol! Man, you're in the right place! Gonna have that ARCS handled in no time! So what is your basic argument here? That Christianity is copied from Pagan Myths?
Good to hear. It is a copy from pagan myths, as well as judaism is a copy mostly based of Babylonian myths, as well as Yahweh acts like a very pagan god in the old testament. Aside from that, the bible is full of flaws comparing to what we know today, so it doesn't seem to have much resemblance with a message from the creator of the universe. Lastly, I don't see any reason to believe in one specific god/ rather than any other. I'd love to hear your answers. Best regards.
Lasse, thanks for you comment. Here isn’t the best place to have an in-depth conversation on all these questions, but I would refer you to my video with Mary Jo Sharp for the claim about pagan myths. Long story short, the claim about pagan myth is demonstrably false.
As for the flaws of the Bible, I’ll do a video on it soon, but you’ll have to be more specific what kind of flaws your talking about so I can make sure and touch on them if possible. And as for the last part about why the Christian God and not the other, I have a few different videos coming out on that topic over the next month or two.
So, I’m glad to have you here. Hopefully you will find this channel helpful in your search.
Jon
Im sure we can agree to disagree. Im also quite sure the videoes won't convince me, and that's what I find interesting about you and David. Very reasonable down the road, regarding sources, philosophical questions and so on, and then suddenly; CHRISTIANITY! I don't see a convincing argument for the jump, which I would find interesting nonetheless. I will say this much, you seem to be some of the most well-reasoned christians so far. I also find the criticism of Islam very enriching, though I see that that criticism easily could be turned on christianity. I thank you for taking the time to answer and look foreward to future videoes.
Best wishes
Thank you for the compliments. My question is, then what would convince you? If there isn’t anything, then I won’t bother.
Based off of your comments, I’m not sure you fully understand why Christianity is extremely set apart, factually speaking, than any other belief system.
Jesus existed yes. However they kicked his ass until death. Hahaha.
Jesus P and Mosese P are proven fiction and legend by very top ranking Christians scholars . Muhammad P was born in Makkah his house is still there his belongings are still there. his grave is in Medina.