Did Muhammad Exist?

[Craig]

Dr Mizer's thread on Jesus got me thinking and wondering why there are no threads or discussions on whether or not Muhammad really exists. It seems to be a topic that never really comes up. Is it only because Muhammad claimed to be a prophet, rather than the son of God, that his existence is never questioned? Or does the historical record truly provide better support of his existence than someone like Jesus?

If anyone has any thoughts about this, or can point to historical records of Muhammad, I'd like to read them.

[lord tammerlain]

The historical records of Muhammad I believe are far stronger then those of Jesus. Generally due to the impact on society when he was actually alive. From more then a few battles between Muhammad and his followers with the Meccan's who were at the time I believe Polytheistic(sp). Much like the world doesnt doubt the existance of Alexander the Great, doubting the existance of Muhammad would be doubting historical records.

Jesus on the other hand did not accomplish much when he was alive ( meaning impacting the society that he was in ) leaving little historical proof of his existance.

This Wikipedia article, reflects what I have read ( going by memory ) about the life of Muhammad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general

[Atticus]

That's a really good question. Muhammed was a political and military leader, not just some peasant, like Jesus, so I'll bet proof of his existance is probably better established in the historical record.

[sub_zer0]

The historical records of Muhammad I believe are far stronger then those of Jesus. Generally due to the impact on society when he was actually alive. From more then a few battles between Muhammad and his followers with the Meccan's who were at the time I believe Polytheistic(sp). Much like the world doesnt doubt the existance of Alexander the Great, doubting the existance of Muhammad would be doubting historical records.

You are severely mislead if you think Jesus had no effect on the immediate society He was living in.

Jesus was MURDERED by the very society He was in, the government of Rome and the Pharisee's both conspired against Him and were aware of His presence and effect He was having, in fact that is why they killed Him.

That right there is proof of His affect on that society. To say that He didn't affect the society He lived in is to neglect the very fact He was known and killed by them.

Jesus on the other hand did not accomplish much when he was alive ( meaning impacting the society that he was in ) leaving little historical proof of his existance.

Jesus died for the worlds sins, including the society He was in regardless if they chose to accept it or not, He had hundreds if not thousands of followers during the time, He had several books written about Him during that time as well.

Yes, Jesus affected His immediate society but the point in His life, death and resurrection was to affect the whole world from that point on, which He has done!

[lord tammerlain]

You are severely mislead if you think Jesus had no effect on the immediate society He was living in.

Jesus was MURDERED by the very society He was in. He led hundreds if not thousands during that time, not to mention that many following Him.
Compared to Muhammad, Jesus's did not leave much in the way of historical records. Had the church died out within 20 years after his death, no one would have ever heard of Jesus. Muhammad because of the battles fought would be known by far more historians had Islam died within 20 years of his death

Jesus died for the worlds sins, including the society He was in regardless if they chose to accept it or not, He had hundreds if not thousands of followers during the time, He had several books written about Him during that time as well.
You are absolutely wrong.


Those are spritual impacts, not historical impacts. Had both religions died out, Jesus would have left very few historical records of his existance, when Muhammad would have had far more

[neo of the mind]

My thought is that Muhammad and Islam for that matter are not attacked constantly by individuals or groups for factuality is because they don't represent the truth. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[burntgorilla]

Islam's representation of the truth is as valid as yours, if you follow your logic for why you believe in your truth.

Muhammed probably isn't questioned as much because people don't know as much about him. Jesus is well known in Christian countries, regardless of whether or not you believe in him. Jesus' doings and claims are repeated quite a lot, and taught from a young age, so it would be natural that he'd be better known. Jesus isn't really a big figure in Japan, and there's not that much questioning of him there, purely because people don't know much about him.

[lord tammerlain]

My thought is that Muhammad and Islam for that matter are not attacked constantly by individuals or groups for factuality is because they don't represent the truth. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.


More likely it is because Islam has little impact on the daily life of people that live in the US/Canada. During any period of time most people in NA are going to have more exposure to christians, and christian beliefs. It is that exposure that is going to drive people to express religous disbelief. Notice that most people in NA dont speculate on the existance of Bhudda(sp) either.

[neo of the mind]

I disagree. Christianity is attacked because it is true. The others are not a threat to those doing the attacking.
That devil doesn't attack idols or false gods.

Matt 12:25-26

25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
KJV

[burntgorilla]

I disagree. Christianity is attacked becasue it is true. The others are not a threat to those doing the attacking.

The people doing the attacking don't believe it's true, though. And surely it's obvious that exposure to the religion plays a large part? Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews and Hindus all believe that their faith is true as well, just as much as you do.

[Atticus]

I disagree. Christianity is attacked becasue it is true. The others are not a threat to those doing the attacking.Every religion is a threat to someone--and other religions get attacked all the time.

Franklin Graham's unwise but well-circulated remarks are a good example.

I'm afraid this is circular reasoning again.

I'm not sure why a Christian would be so upset at the idea that Jesus did not have the kind of TEMPORAL impact that Muhammad did. People about whom we have a lot of historical information were political leaders, very wealthy people, soldiers and generals. People who matter TO THE "WORLD." Jesus wasn't one of those.

[neo of the mind]

"I'm not sure why a Christian would be so upset at the idea that Jesus did not have the kind of TEMPORAL impact that Muhammad did."

I'm not.

Other religions do get attacked, but compared to Christianity and the attacks upon it and it's followers, it pales in comparison.

Satan wants to cast doubt on Christianity, all the others are useful idiots to be used for this purpose.

[Atticus]

Other religions do get attacked, but compared to Christianity and the attacks upon it and it's followers, it pales in comparison.
Not so--not at all. I've seen vicious attacks on Islam in these very forums. Islamic extremists attack Hindus as much as anyone. Jews have been knocked about without mercy for 2500+ years. Sikhism exists as a minority religion between two huge religious groups--Islam and Hinduism--so their faith was born and nurtured in sectarian conflict.

Honestly, statements like this sound like pride, really.

And, with respect, if you want to talk about what Satan does or wants, you've moved beyond topics that can be debated.

[sub_zer0]

Compared to Muhammad, Jesus's did not leave much in the way of historical records. Had the church died out within 20 years after his death, no one would have ever heard of Jesus. Muhammad because of the battles fought would be known by far more historians had Islam died within 20 years of his death

The entire NT is a historical record of Him. Obviously you will deny that, even though no proof of the contrary has been presented.

Those are spritual impacts, not historical impacts. Had both religions died out, Jesus would have left very few historical records of his existance, when Muhammad would have had far more

The fact the society killed Jesus is in fact proof of His impact. You didn't care about spiritual vs. historical all you stated was that Jesus didn't impact His society.

[neo of the mind]

I guess scripture can not be debated then, because that is what I am going by in regards to satan's actions and motives.

It would seem logical to me that satan would set up fake opposition parties, so to speak, for his purposes.

Satan's M.O. is copying with a little bit of truth mixed in to deceive people from the total truth.

[lord tammerlain]

The entire NT is a historical record of Him. Obviously you will deny that, even though no proof of the contrary has been presented.



The fact the society killed Jesus is in fact proof of His impact. You didn't care about spiritual vs. historical all you stated was that Jesus didn't impact His society.


If you exclude the NT, what historical proof of Jeus's existance is there? If one excludes the Koran, there still is a lot of historical proof of Muhammads existance

[sub_zer0]

If you exclude the NT, what historical proof of Jeus's existance is there? If one excludes the Koran, there still is a lot of historical proof of Muhammads existance

But again the overwhelming proof comes from the NT, that is why it comes down to either taking the NT as historical proof or not, I do.

Your argument is relying to heavily on, "what if's" and hypotheticals. Start with the NT being historically accurate and prove it wrong, then you have something.

[neo of the mind]

If you exclude the NT, what historical proof of Jeus's existance is there? If one excludes the Koran, there still is a lot of historical proof of Muhammads existance

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/talmud.html

[Atticus]

Satan's M.O. is copying with a little bit of truth mixed in to deceive people from the total truth.Which is why it's so important to choose a doctrine and stick to it with the grip of a pitbull, no matter what evidence or arguments may betray its weaknesses.

Yep, that's the sort of thinking makes for excellent debates. :D

[Atticus]

Start with the NT being historically accurate and prove it wrong, then you have something.Sorry, logic dictates we must operate the other way around in a temporal forum like this one.

[neo of the mind]

Which is why it's so important to choose a doctrine and stick to it with the grip of a pitbull, no matter what evidence or arguments may betray its weaknesses.

Yep, that's the sort of thinking makes for excellent debates. :D

and you have presented no evidence nor argument that shows weakness in the doctrine. Until then, there is nothing to debate on.

Actually, you already stated that it can't be debated. Your quote below.

"And, with respect, if you want to talk about what Satan does or wants, you've moved beyond topics that can be debated."

[Soc.Dem.]

...He had hundreds if not thousands of followers during the time...


If Jesus had thousands of followers during his lifetime and the incredible stories in the NT is accurate why are there any sources except for the NT recording this?

Matthew 27:


50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.

52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Thousands of followers! An earth quake! The curtain of the holy temple torn in two! Holy people being raised from the dead walking into the holy city and appearing to many people!

Why did no one record these remarkeble events except for the authors of the New Testament? :shrug:

[steveksux]

But again the overwhelming proof comes from the NT, that is why it comes down to either taking the NT as historical proof or not, I do.

Your argument is relying to heavily on, "what if's" and hypotheticals. Start with the NT being historically accurate and prove it wrong, then you have something.
That something resembles bull**** more than proof, unfortunately. Its what's known as a circular argument. Not proof of anything. Jesus was in the NT, thus he was a real historical figure. The NT is historically accurate because it has Jesus in it. Apply. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

If Jesus had thousands of followers during his lifetime and the incredible stories in the NT is accurate why are there any sources except for the NT recording this?

Matthew 27:


50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.

52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Thousands of followers! An earth quake! The curtain of the holy temple torn in two! Holy people being raised from the dead walking into the holy city and appearing to many people!

Why did no one record these remarkeble events except for the authors of the New Testament? :shrug:

Probably because it was supposed to be like this, lol. Who knows, obviously the NT is eyewitness accounts, perhaps that is why.

That something resembles bull**** more than proof, unfortunately. Its what's known as a circular argument. Not proof of anything. Jesus was in the NT, thus he was a real historical figure. The NT is historically accurate because it has Jesus in it. Apply. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Randy

You do a horrible job at putting words in peoples mouths. My point is the NT is historically accurate because it has been tested and re-tested by archeology and the critics are silenced every time!

Having said that, that also is why I believe Jesus was true and real and indeed what they wrote about Him was the truth, not only because it says it, but because in other areas that are testable, pass the test!

[Lumpen Prole]

John Rambo is real becuase in "First Blood: Part II" he is tortured in Vietnam. Vietnam exists, therefore Rambo exists.


NEXT

[No+redamer]

Yeah, Muhammad existed. But I'm still shocked that he somehow serves the foundation for an entire religion.

Religion is supposed to be about perfection and it seems the Islamic prophet's character was dominated by human imperfections; his inclination to go to war and having multiple wives (everyone knows polygamy only exists to license people to have sex with more than one woman) leaves me no doubt that he wasn't a moral man, much less a man who had come into contact with God.

[julierep]

The historical records of Muhammad I believe are far stronger then those of Jesus. Generally due to the impact on society when he was actually alive. From more then a few battles between Muhammad and his followers with the Meccan's who were at the time I believe Polytheistic(sp). Much like the world doesnt doubt the existance of Alexander the Great, doubting the existance of Muhammad would be doubting historical records.

Jesus on the other hand did not accomplish much when he was alive ( meaning impacting the society that he was in ) leaving little historical proof of his existance.

This Wikipedia article, reflects what I have read ( going by memory ) about the life of Muhammad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general

Would it be safe to say that since Muhammad recognized Jesus as true, since you say Muhammads existance is historically recorded, that increases two fold the very existance of Jesus?

[julierep]

More likely it is because Islam has little impact on the daily life of people that live in the US/Canada. During any period of time most people in NA are going to have more exposure to christians, and christian beliefs. It is that exposure that is going to drive people to express religous disbelief. Notice that most people in NA dont speculate on the existance of Bhudda(sp) either.

Id say that is pretty good evidence that Jesus had a major impact on His society than one gives credit for. If He didnt, I would say His following wouldnt be the size it is over 2000 years later.

[cpwill]

That's a really good question. Muhammed was a political and military leader, not just some peasant, like Jesus, so I'll bet proof of his existance is probably better established in the historical record.

it's not; however, yes, both did exist.

[Daewoo]

Id say that is pretty good evidence that Jesus had a major impact on His society than one gives credit for. If He didnt, I would say His following wouldnt be the size it is over 2000 years later.

More accurately, if the Romans had not needed a religoun that would allow them to more easily control their population, his following would not be the size it is today.

Christianity has been encouraged by the powerful for thousands fo years now, not becuse it makes any sense, but if you want a religon that will allow you to dominate your people, christianity excels.

[lord tammerlain]

Would it be safe to say that since Muhammad recognized Jesus as true, since you say Muhammads existance is historically recorded, that increases two fold the very existance of Jesus?

Unless Muhammad found some historical records outside of NT, what Muhammad believed would be of little meaning. It would be what he could reasonably prove.

[brainpan]

Muhammad's not quite a contemporary of Jesus. ;)

[JoeR]

Not to mention if Muhammed is credible, what about all the other stuff he talks about?

[julierep]

More accurately, if the Romans had not needed a religoun that would allow them to more easily control their population, his following would not be the size it is today.

Christianity has been encouraged by the powerful for thousands fo years now, not becuse it makes any sense, but if you want a religon that will allow you to dominate your people, christianity excels.

And you'd say this was the case 2000 years ago, when following christianity would get you killed? At the time of His death and resurection, the Romans did not follow the teachings of Jesus. So, how, with your explanation, would you say that it carried so well with the information I have given you? Remember, it was a death sentence to follow Christianity.

[burntgorilla]

Personally, I don't doubt that Jesus existed. As pointed out, how could Christianity have developed in the first place if there was no Jesus? Whether or not he did everything that he was said to have done, and was the son of God is open to debate, since the only proof we have is the New Testament, which is what makes the claims anyway. But that's a bit offtopic. So, to conclude, I think both Jesus and Muhammed existed.

[julierep]

Not to mention if Muhammed is credible, what about all the other stuff he talks about?

Like? From what I understand from Muslims is that the words of Muhammad are taken out of context by extremist, just as the words in the Bible.

[JoeR]

Well how about Jesus being replaced on the cross by either his brother or Simon (I can't remember who exactly) or the various other things that don't mesh well with the Christian faith such God not being a trinity or even the whole Muhammed being a prophet thing.

[Daewoo]

And you'd say this was the case 2000 years ago, when following christianity would get you killed? At the time of His death and resurection, the Romans did not follow the teachings of Jesus. So, how, with your explanation, would you say that it carried so well with the information I have given you? Remember, it was a death sentence to follow Christianity.

No. Then again, christianity was not a real populr religon then anyway. It was not until the romans realized that leading around a bunch of sheeple who believe in things like "giving to caesar what is caesars" and "turn the other cheek" and "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kindgdom of heaven" and my personal favorite, the idea of eternal justice, where christians are encouraged to let pople screw them and get away with it, becuase they will be punished in the next life.

I know that if I was an emporer somewhere, I would want as many christians living under my rule as possible. Christianity allowed the ruling class to crap on the common man (or at leas thte supersticious common man) for over 1500 years.

[cpwill]

Well how about Jesus being replaced on the cross by either his brother or Simon (I can't remember who exactly) or the various other things that don't mesh well with the Christian faith such God not being a trinity or even the whole Muhammed being a prophet thing.

they claim he was replaced with Judas, as i understand it.

[Canajew]

You are severely mislead if you think Jesus had no effect on the immediate society He was living in.

Jesus was MURDERED by the very society He was in, the government of Rome and the Pharisee's both conspired against Him and were aware of His presence and effect He was having, in fact that is why they killed Him.

so what? Imperial Rome killed hundreds of thousands if not millions upon millions of nobody pesants, nailing thousands upon thousands to crosses.

Jesus, if he was anybody, was just some dude causing problems for Rome, so Rome kiled him. Happened tens of thousands of times before, and tens of thousands of times after.

[Canajew]

"I'm not sure why a Christian would be so upset at the idea that Jesus did not have the kind of TEMPORAL impact that Muhammad did."

I'm not.

Other religions do get attacked, but compared to Christianity and the attacks upon it and it's followers, it pales in comparison.

Satan wants to cast doubt on Christianity, all the others are useful idiots to be used for this purpose.
Satan is a human invention, like Jesus the Son of God, Mohhamed the Prophet of God, and ... well ... God.

you may not like it, but them's the facts.

[neo of the mind]

Satan is a human invention, like Jesus the Son of God, Mohhamed the Prophet of God, and ... well ... God.

you may not like it, but them's the facts.

Wow, I read your post and a door of reason opened up out of nowhere!
It's like I was blind and can now see. You put it so simply but it was powerful! How could I ever have thought differently! Let me quote you.

"you may not like it, but them's the facts."

"Them's the facts." - so simple, elegant and chock of wisdom and to think my beliefs were relying all on this "other information" along with my life experiences to determine truth...when all I had to do was come to this forum, wait a month or so for somebody to come along and enlighten me. Majesty!

Thank you. Thank you.

[Canajew]

Wow, I read your post and a door of reason opened up out of nowhere!
It's like I was blind and can now see. You put it so simply but it was powerful! How could I ever have thought differently! Let me quote you.

"you may not like it, but them's the facts."

"Them's the facts." - so simple, elegant and chock of wisdom and to think my beliefs were relying all on this "other information" along with my life experiences to determine truth...when all I had to do was come to this forum, wait a month or so for somebody to come along and enlighten me. Majesty!

Thank you. Thank you.
look, I know you are comfortable with your beliefs, and I am not interested in arguing these points with you.

But fundamentally, there is absolutely zero reason to believe that anything you say about god and satan and all that fairy tale stuff is remotely true. And there is every reason to believe it was made up by people who didn't know any better to make themselves feel better in a world where they had no control over pretty much everything.

and them is the facts.

:sorry:

[neo of the mind]

look, I know you are comfortable with your beliefs, and I am not interested in arguing these points with you.

But fundamentally, there is absolutely zero reason to believe that anything you say about god and satan and all that fairy tale stuff is remotely true. And there is every reason to believe it was made up by people who didn't know any better to make themselves feel better in a world where they had no control over pretty much everything.

and them is the facts.

:sorry:

arguing?....far from it. I am ashamed...because I had a relapse. I went to throw my Bible away and I dropped it on the floor. The book was opened at Proverbs 26 and I started to read.

I then came back on the forum moments ago and read your response and BAM! reason came back to me. It occured due to your words of wisdom, especially the following:

"But fundamentally, there is absolutely zero reason to believe...."

"And there is every reason to believe it was made up by people..."

I took the liberty in highlighting the words that I felt were nuggest of Nirvana.

The most shockingly truthful statement though was:

"and them is the facts."

At first I thought it was the same as your last shinning example of pure logic, but you put the cherry on the sundae with the word, "and".

Super...just super.

Thank you. Thank you.

[steveksux]

Well how about Jesus being replaced on the cross by either his brother or Simon (I can't remember who exactly) or the various other things that don't mesh well with the Christian faith such God not being a trinity or even the whole Muhammed being a prophet thing.
That was Brian, although I'm not sure he was Jesus brother, he was just someone that kept getting mistaken for Jesus. (See documentary "Life of Brian")..

Randy

[Atticus]

I saw a play in London a few years ago called "God Only Knows." It was mostly a long lecture on the insubstantial nature of the hstorical Jesus. The main character (played by Derek Jacobi--the reason I went) was an expert in ancient texts working at the Vatican. In the story, he had a letter written from a Roman legion officer claiming that the whole story of the passion was a Roman plot. After all, they reasoned, if the Jews followed a man who said "love your enemies," then the Romans would have an easier time occupying them.

It's fiction, of course. But interesting. And Christians have always had a hard time with the "love your enemies" message--at least en masse. Asoka, the Buddhist leader in India, accomplished more on that score.

[DRMIZER]

The historical records of Muhammad I believe are far stronger then those of Jesus. Generally due to the impact on society when he was actually alive. From more then a few battles between Muhammad and his followers with the Meccan's who were at the time I believe Polytheistic(sp). Much like the world doesnt doubt the existance of Alexander the Great, doubting the existance of Muhammad would be doubting historical records.

Jesus on the other hand did not accomplish much when he was alive ( meaning impacting the society that he was in ) leaving little historical proof of his existance.

This Wikipedia article, reflects what I have read ( going by memory ) about the life of Muhammad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_generalI think you are right. There are many more sources that verify Muhammad as an historical figure. Although not a popular theory, Jesus' life was reported as short and intense whereas Muhammad's activities are recorded as more factual and verifiable.

[life makers]

first of all am muslim person and i want to know frome where u said that muhammed not excist i wonder am ready to prove that mohammed excist and also i believe with almassieh
and by the way allah donnot have any sons allah have no wife ok?
allah wasnot borned and allah never borned allah donnot have any partner
and all the world blongs to allah only
wait for comments

[brainpan]

It seems to me that everyone agrees Muhammed existed, Mr. Makers. I assume "almassieh" means Jesus Christ. Why do you believe he really existed?

[life makers]

u mean why ibelieve that prophet mohammed peace be upon him or believe that almasseh is exsist?
please answewr

[Eddie]

I`m pretty sure he is aksing why you believe that jesus existed.

[brainpan]

Eddie is right. Why do you believe Jesus existed, life maker?

[life makers]

am not here to taik about almasseh am here bec the que(did muhammed excisit) that is all

[flower faith]

I think that Muhammed had a lot of historical event to prove his existence not only military He had changed the face of his society and influence the major popularity on earth his religion has dominitated the world for such a long time
As for Jesus I think that Islam and Muhamed himself declares his existence
and I do not think that thereis a conflict between the two religion as muslimans know that theie beleif in Jesus is part of their belief of their own messenger

[flower faith]

As for the number of wives we must get attention to the nature of the society where Mohamed lived in that time it was ordinary and costumed to have more than one wife and with no restrictions but he came to organize it and to make rules although all Muslims know that a large number of this marital relations had their reasons like protecting a widow in a very brutal society, or to take responsibility of a house of one of his followers who died in battles or to build a bridge with some civilizations
But you should learn some facts about his most human and perfect treatment towards his wives
I think there is no historical evidence that Mohamed was suffering from imperfect characters: his love for his wife Khadiga and how he cherishes her memory was written to love books . He was kind , tolerant, loving person he was Known in his land by the faithful and trustful he never tells a lie that how his people know him a long time before he met Gabriel
As for him as a military person yes he was a political personality he was born in a time when politic was a neccessity to unify all those people and countries but his rules for battle was well known :
--Never kill a civilian never harm a woman or a kid or an old man
--Never kill a plant or an animal
-When he entered Mecca his homeland after he was tortured he and his followers for years he said every one stayed in his house is safe every religion is preserved. Muslims never force a person to change his religion Islam has his proofs and evidence which touch the heart and the mind of the person

Sorry I only had to get a zoom in to make you see the picture more accurate

[cpwill]

:p no, islam has never forced a person to change it's faith. mind you, muslims have a nasty history (as do christians) of occasionally offering people the choice of conversion or death..... but it was still a choice.

[neo of the mind]

http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa060700a.htm

This link discusses the book, The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. Below is a quote in regards to information in the book. Seems like it would be a good book for the skeptic to read.


Starting out with the most obvious question: did a Muhammad actually exist, or not? The only positive conclusion which we can be at all sure of is that a Muhammad did live in the 620s and 630s, that he was a warrior who led followers to many victories, and that the names of some people and battles have been preserved.

Even the existence and role of the city of Mecca - the holiest city in Islam - is highly questionable. In traditional Islamic writings, Mecca is portrayed as a large, wealthy trading center full of activity and interchange. So why is there no mention anywhere in non-Muslim sources of a city called Mecca in the place where the current city of Mecca exists?

And if they really were "middleman" in long-distance trade routes, the traders and customers would have mentioned the city and its inhabitants - but we can find no such mentions. And the site of the current city of Mecca is not anywhere close to where trade routes passed. Caravans would have had to travel long out of their way to stop over at the current Mecca. It certainly didn't serve as a place of sanctuary and pilgrimage, as is also often claimed.

Yet traditional and ancient Muslim sources all testify to the opposite of these findings. It is very unlikely that those sources are accurate in these vital details - and this means that we have to be very skeptical about their ability to provide accurate information in other areas as well.

[lord tammerlain]

[FONT="Verdana"]As for the number of wives we must get attention to the nature of the society where Mohamed lived in that time it was ordinary and costumed to have more than one wife and with no restrictions but he came to organize it and to make rules although all Muslims know that a large number of this marital relations had their reasons like protecting a widow in a very brutal society, or to take responsibility of a house of one of his followers who died in battles or to build a bridge with some civilizations

The bolded area's are of specific importance.

In any society that has periodic wars, you are going to have more then a few widows, in Europe they would be left homeless, sent to a convent, or become prostitutes. In the muslim community they would be taken care of through marriage to one that could afford it.

Secondly the extra marriages were a way to cement alliances between different groups, just like in Europe where alliances were formed by sending ones daughter to another kingdom to marry a price, a duke. Given the larger number of ethnic groups in much of the ME and central asia at the time any one with a goal of regional domination would require many more sons then he could possibly sire without the ability to have more then one wife

[flower faith]

:p no, islam has never forced a person to change it's faith. mind you, muslims have a nasty history (as do christians) of occasionally offering people the choice of conversion or death..... but it was still a choice.

I don't think that you had a proof for that and I am sure that even in christianism this didin't happen during the life of Jesus may be afterwards, a bad action of some unfaithful or tyrannic persons which shouldn't be counted against christianism

[flower faith]

[QUOTE=neo of the mind;841126]

Starting out with the most obvious question: did a Muhammad actually exist, or not? The only positive conclusion which we can be at all sure of is that a Muhammad did live in the 620s and 630s, that he was a warrior who led followers to many victories, and that the names of some people and battles have been preserved.

Even the existence and role of the city of Mecca - the holiest city in Islam - is highly questionable. In traditional Islamic writings, Mecca is portrayed as a large, wealthy trading center full of activity and interchange. So why is there no mention anywhere in non-Muslim sources of a city called Mecca in the place where the current city of Mecca exists?

.[/QUOT

Dear Sir there is a lot of historical evidence on the existence of Mecca ;
see this link [url]http://books.google.com/books?id=mSHWDNGX91sC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=Mecca+history&sig=pa9cDWKdFoLR-dAusqkpeHoc1As

and even in all encyclopedia as per ex. the Dictionnaire Hachette Encyclopedique 2001 page 1190 under the word Mecque

Other places such as th e book of The Arabs in History by Bernard W Lewis and this is the linkhttp://books.google.com/books?id=mSHWDNGX91sC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=Mecca+history&sig=pa9cDWKdFoLR-dAusqkpeHoc1As

The following passage from The History of Mecca at the link http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa51

Mecca: 1st - 6th century AD
The town of Mecca, in a rocky valley with no agricultural resources, develops into a place of considerable prosperity. There are two good reasons. It is a trading post on the caravan route from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. And it is Arabia's most important place of pilgrimage.

During the centuries before Islam, large numbers of pilgrims arrive in Mecca to perform a ritual act of walking seven times round a small square building known as the Kaaba (Arabic for 'cube'). The building is full of idols, which are the objects of worship. It also includes a sacred black stone, possibly in origin a meteorite

as well as The Columbia Encyclopedia sixth edition 2001-5
. The city was an ancient center of commerce and a place of great sanctity for idolatrous Arab sects before the rise of Muhammad. Muhammad’s flight (the Hegira) from Mecca in 622 is the beginning of the rise of Islam.

And others of course but I think that evidence is really so many and that what we discuss here the evidence on his presence, influence and effect are really numerous

[neo of the mind]

The dispute is not whether there was and is a mecca, but rather if the modern day Mecca is the historical one.

"So why is there no mention anywhere in non-Muslim sources of a city called Mecca in the place where the current city of Mecca exists?"

"And the site of the current city of Mecca is not anywhere close to where trade routes passed."

[flower faith]

The dispute is not whether there was and is a mecca, but rather if the modern day Mecca is the historical one.

"So why is there no mention anywhere in non-Muslim sources of a city called Mecca in the place where the current city of Mecca exists?"

"And the site of the current city of Mecca is not anywhere close to where trade routes passed."

I think if you examine that all the evidence I told you about and especially the book of The Arabs in History you will find out that Mecca in Islam is the same before Islam as it is always marked by el Ke3aba the stone building in the middle of it exists since Abraham
The real question is not whether Mecca was there or not but what had Mohammed change in it? Was for the better or not? How had this simple man changed the face of history for almost 1500 years as well as Jesus who had brought to the earth a sacred religion where you can touch the mercy the love the forgiveness and all the best kind of feeling that can be found on earth some years afterwards came Mohamed to complete this divine message and gave to this feelings the ways and rules ... the orders ... how he managed to draw the line of diplomacy.. Politics... Relationships. .inheritance......etc that what you should look for and examine

[flower faith]

The dispute is not whether there was and is a mecca, but rather if the modern day Mecca is the historical one.

"So why is there no mention anywhere in non-Muslim sources of a city called Mecca in the place where the current city of Mecca exists?"

"And the site of the current city of Mecca is not anywhere close to where trade routes passed."

I think if you examine that all the evidence I told you about and especially the book of The Arabs in History you will find out that Mecca in Islam is the same before Islam as it is always marked by el Ke3aba the stone building in the middle of it exists since Abraham
The real question is not whether Mecca was there or not but what had Mohammed change in it? Was for the better or not? How had this simple man changed the face of history for almost 1500 years as well as Jesus who had brought to the earth a sacred religion where you can touch the mercy the love the forgiveness and all the best kind of feeling that can be found on earth some years afterwards came Mohamed to complete this divine message and gave to this feelings the ways and rules ... the orders ... how he managed to draw the line of diplomacy.. Politics... Relationships. .inheritance......etc that what you should look for and examine

[cpwill]

mohammed's brilliance (a lesser version of ghengis khan) was in uniting the formerly quarreling arab tribes and focusing them afterwords. that abu bakr was able to reunify them after his death and hand the empire over to umar, is, in my opinion, what really created islam as a world-force.

but as for mohamed himself? (shrug) he was a particularly successful of a trend that has been going on since mankind invented societies; the blending of religion with martial power.

[flower faith]

I think my friend that you need to get more information about Muhamed his brilliance has captured the heart and mind of several people along history and all around the world Did you read How Tolestoy the famous russian author considered him the greatest man in the History
As Muhammad (pbuh) grew up, he became known for his truthfulness, generosity and sincerity, so that he was sought after for his ability to arbitrate in disputes, he liberated slaves long before Spartakos, He was the one to put the fundementals of the Human Development method long before scientist and philosophers did, He has the capacity to rule lot of people with love and mercy , he was powerful but shy dertermining but merciful If you only see how he enteredMecca after years of his immigraton to El Madina and aftere years of tortureand battles created by hte people of Mecca or as specific Quarish to prevent him to deliver his message He entereed it and forgave every single one The ability of forgivenesss and speciaaly when you have the power is certainly a brilliance mark. I think that my words will never be able to describe him but htere were a lot of books and authors had studied his life and describe it
and let us see that quote :

QUOTE]Forgiveness

Speaking of outsmarting the author of the Qur'an, the Islamic point of view is that when a man embraces Islam, his past is forgiven from the very beginning. This has been the invitation to Islam: come to Islam and all is forgiven from the past.

But consider this. There is only one enemy of Muhammad, peace be upon him, who is mentioned by name in the Qur'an: one Abu Lahab. In a short chapter of this book, he is condemned to punishment for his sins.

As it happens, the man himself was alive for many years after this revelation. He could therefore have finished Islam very easily. He needed only to go to the Muslims to announce his conversion. They had in their hands the revelation which said that this man is doomed to punishment. He could have gone to the Muslims and say- "I accept Islam, am I forgiven or not?"

He could have confused them so much as to finish this small movement because he would have been pointing out to them that they were now in confusion. The policy was instant forgiveness of the past but their own revealed scripture announced that he was not forgiven. As it was, Abu Lahab died without accepting Islam.[/QUOTE]

this is a part of a book written by Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar) shows how we can establish true faith by setting standards of truth. He illustrates a simple but effective method of finding out the right direction in our search for truth.
G.R. Miller is a mathematician and a theologian. He was active in Christian missionary work at a particular point of his life but he soon began to discover many inconsistencies in the Bible. In 1978, he happened to read the Qur'an expecting that it, too, would contain a mixture of truth and falsehood.

He discovered to his amazement that the message of the Qur'an was precisely the same as the essence of truth that he had distilled from the Bible. He became a Muslim and since then has been active in giving public presentations on Islam including radio and television appearances. He is also the author of several articles and publications about Islam

[FlyingGuineapig]

he liberated slaves long before Spartakos

Spartakos? Do you mean Spartacus, who lived in 70 BC?

[Gourmetmn]

Hmm? Did Abraham Lincoln really exist? Did Henry Ford really exist? Did the Egyptians really exist? Have you heard of "Occam's Razor"? Hmm? Why would 12 followers of Jesus, and many others (some of them who wrote gospels which weren't included in the New Testament) just make up stuff? Perhaps they were just bored.
Peace!;)

[MikeD4o7]

Hmm? Did Abraham Lincoln really exist? Did Henry Ford really exist? Did the Egyptians really exist? Have you heard of "Occam's Razor"? Hmm? Why would 12 followers of Jesus, and many others (some of them who wrote gospels which weren't included in the New Testament) just make up stuff? Perhaps they were just bored.
Peace!;)

There's a number of large plot holes in the development of Christianity if you go by the gospels as being the historical record.

Do you think it's not at all strange that the actual areas where Jesus performed his miracles didn't convert? I mean why is it that Christianity could end up taking Rome by storm when at the same time, those in Judea were left unconvinced?

How was Paul's preaching more convincing than Jesus miracles? Those had to be some pretty apathetic people... I mean a guy turns water into wine at a wedding of 5,000, goes around curing the blind and sick, and then raises from the dead in front of a crowd and nobody in the area really seemed to care apart from the dudes who were with him all along... and they took off to other parts of the empire. So then Paul's stories about those events impress the crap out of a bunch of pagans, meanwhile the people back where the miracles were performed don't really seem to care... and THOSE were the people who Jesus fulfilled a prophecy for???

It makes no sense.

What does make sense is socioeconomics. In a highly developed place like Rome, you had a large disparity between rich and poor. The class disparities played heavily into religion too... you had to be an educated aristocrat to be let in on the 'secrets' of the pagan myths. Jesus' message of equality of the poor and the blessedness of the meek simply struck a better chord there than it ever could at home.


The entire history of ALL religion ever makes perfect sense when viewed through completely natural factors of anthropology and socioeconomics.

[AgentM]

There's a number of large plot holes in the development of Christianity if you go by the gospels as being the historical record.

Do you think it's not at all strange that the actual areas where Jesus performed his miracles didn't convert? I mean why is it that Christianity could end up taking Rome by storm when at the same time, those in Judea were left unconvinced?

How was Paul's preaching more convincing than Jesus miracles? Those had to be some pretty apathetic people... I mean a guy turns water into wine at a wedding of 5,000, goes around curing the blind and sick, and then raises from the dead in front of a crowd and nobody in the area really seemed to care apart from the dudes who were with him all along... and they took off to other parts of the empire. So then Paul's stories about those events impress the crap out of a bunch of pagans, meanwhile the people back where the miracles were performed don't really seem to care... and THOSE were the people who Jesus fulfilled a prophecy for???

It makes no sense.

What does make sense is socioeconomics. In a highly developed place like Rome, you had a large disparity between rich and poor. The class disparities played heavily into religion too... you had to be an educated aristocrat to be let in on the 'secrets' of the pagan myths. Jesus' message of equality of the poor and the blessedness of the meek simply struck a better chord there than it ever could at home.


The entire history of ALL religion ever makes perfect sense when viewed through completely natural factors of anthropology and socioeconomics.

Hm, very interesting post. What you say about socio-economics makes total sense. There was also the sacking of Rome, which I'm sure didn't fill a lot of people with enthusiasm for the pagan gods, although the pagan establishment was blaming the Christians for Rome's downfall (since they obviously must have angered the gods and brought their wrath). Historical events can have a big impact too.

[Canajew]

Hm, very interesting post. What you say about socio-economics makes total sense. There was also the sacking of Rome, which I'm sure didn't fill a lot of people with enthusiasm for the pagan gods, although the pagan establishment was blaming the Christians for Rome's downfall (since they obviously must have angered the gods and brought their wrath). Historical events can have a big impact too.
other than the first sacking way back in the day before rome became a power, the sackings were done by christians and, at least until latter in the dark ages, were about as civil as a sacking can get. Nothing close to what the Romans did in Corinth or Carthage.

[AgentM]

other than the first sacking way back in the day before rome became a power, the sackings were done by christians and, at least until latter in the dark ages, were about as civil as a sacking can get. Nothing close to what the Romans did in Corinth or Carthage.

I was referring to the sacking done around the time of St. Augustine, by the Goths in 410AD. The last years of the Roman Empire.

[Canajew]

I was referring to the sacking done around the time of St. Augustine, by the Goths in 410AD. The last years of the Roman Empire.
a bit shaky on the history now, but if that was the last one under Alaric (there were one or two rather civilized ones a few years before), well he was a christian and was helped by a number of bishops over the previous few years. He pretty much left christian relics alone and pillaged all the pagan temples.

But yeah, you're right that sack was worse than the ones in previous years which were rather civil.

[AgentM]

a bit shaky on the history now, but if that was the last one under Alaric (there were one or two rather civilized ones a few years before), well he was a christian and was helped by a number of bishops over the previous few years. He pretty much left christian relics alone and pillaged all the pagan temples.

But yeah, you're right that sack was worse than the ones in previous years which were rather civil.

Hm, I didn't know about that, thanks for the info. We studied St. Augustine's City of God in a course I took last term which is how I heard about the pagans blaming the Christians. But we didn't hear about how Alaric was a Christian and went after the pagans. Puts things in a bit more of a perspective.

[Canajew]

Hm, I didn't know about that, thanks for the info. We studied St. Augustine's City of God in a course I took last term which is how I heard about the pagans blaming the Christians. But we didn't hear about how Alaric was a Christian and went after the pagans. Puts things in a bit more of a perspective.
I wouldn't say he went after the pagans, pillaging is a rough business. Usually they go after everyone, but he established a few safe havens at churches (the big one's - st peters and one other I think) and forbade anyone from pillaging churches (they did take one thing which i forget what it is). They did, however, methodically sack the pagan temples, as that would have been a perfect source of booty for the men. The raping and pillaging I assume would have been equal opportunity outside of those safe havens, as it typically was.

[queenlillian]

He must have been making some impact at the time he lived or they wouldn't have crucified him.

You do realize his ministry only lasted a couple of years, like 3 years I believe it is, so I would say he didn't do a bad job, even Josephus mentioned him a little bit and 2008 years or so later his teachings are still in use. Our calendar is also based on him as far as years,BC and AD.



Jesus on the other hand did not accomplish much when he was alive ( meaning impacting the society that he was in ) leaving little historical proof of his existance.

This Wikipedia article, reflects what I have read ( going by memory ) about the life of Muhammad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general[/QUOTE]

[Cedars]

If you exclude the NT, what historical proof of Jeus's existance is there? If one excludes the Koran, there still is a lot of historical proof of Muhammads existance
Keep in mind that the NT is not one writing but SEVERAL writings by various authors that were collected and canonized into one volume. Outside of the NT, Jesus's existence can be found among historical records of pagans -- such as, for example, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny The Younger. Some Jewish sources include Philo and Josephus.

[Cedars]

first of all am muslim person and i want to know frome where u said that muhammed not excist i wonder am ready to prove that mohammed excist and also i believe with almassieh
and by the way allah donnot have any sons allah have no wife ok?
allah wasnot borned and allah never borned allah donnot have any partner
and all the world blongs to allah only
wait for comments
Obviously, Christians and Muslims have different beliefs about God (Allah). Christians, like Muslims, believe that with God, all things are possible. Man cannot become God, but God (who is capable of all things) CAN become man. Christians believe that God did become man (Jesus) in order to save man from the death of sin. Christians believe that this was God's plan from the beginning of creation. Christians believe that God is the Creator and He certainly does not need a wife to accomplish begetting a son (He is the Creator, after all). Christians do not believe that God took a wife in order to beget Jesus. We believe that the Creator bestowed a tremendous grace and honor upon Mary (the mother of Jesus) to make her fit to be the vessel to carry God Incarnate (Jesus). But Mary was and is not the wife of God. She is a creature, like you and I, but she was blessed by God and chosen to bear Jesus.

[MikeD4o7]

He must have been making some impact at the time he lived or they wouldn't have crucified him.


Well crucifiction wasn't reserved for leaders of large movements.


You do realize his ministry only lasted a couple of years, like 3 years I believe it is, so I would say he didn't do a bad job, even Josephus mentioned him a little bit and 2008 years or so later his teachings are still in use. Our calendar is also based on him as far as years,BC and AD.


His personal ministry seems to have affected very few outside of his disciples. It was his disciples and their followers who were the ones that actually were able to get his story to take hold in other parts of the empire. That's what I'm referring to when I point out how unmoved the populace was that Jesus preached to directly.

Concerning Josephus, there are two parts to that. There's one brief reference to Jesus because Josephus talks very briefly about Christians and their beliefs. The other passage from Josephus, where he proclaims Jesus as the son of God, is pretty much universally acknowledged as a 3rd century forgery.

[serenity]

Quote:
Originally Posted by queenlillian
He must have been making some impact at the time he lived or they wouldn't have crucified him.




posted by Mike D4o7
Well crucifiction wasn't reserved for leaders of large movements.

True, crucifixion was not invented with Jesus' execution.

[Cedars]

His personal ministry seems to have affected very few outside of his disciples. It was his disciples and their followers who were the ones that actually were able to get his story to take hold in other parts of the empire. That's what I'm referring to when I point out how unmoved the populace was that Jesus preached to directly.
Why do you assume “very few” seem to be affected? While Christianity increasingly grew in leaps and bounds over many years, it does not therefore mean that Jesus had little affect while he walked the earth. Jesus preached to the Jews. It was of the Jews that salvation of the world came through Jesus, the Messiah. Quantity of records does not equal truth. Regardless of how many historical records exist, the number of records in itself has no bearing on whether something is true. There can be massive amounts of misinformation but little true information, or vice versa.

Concerning Josephus, there are two parts to that. There's one brief reference to Jesus because Josephus talks very briefly about Christians and their beliefs. The other passage from Josephus, where he proclaims Jesus as the son of God, is pretty much universally acknowledged as a 3rd century forgery.
Josephus (A.D. 37-c.101) did not write for the Jews but for the Romans. Not disputed are Josephus’s reports (1) of the murder of John the Baptist by Herod (which describes John’s character and work) and (2) that he (Josephus) disapproves of the sentence pronounced by the high priest Ananas against “James, brother of Jesus who was called Christ.” Josephus was a Jewish historian and would not likely himself proclaim that Jesus is God, but it is not unlikely that he would relate (to the Roman readers) the Christian belief that Jesus is God.

The passage in question is from chapter iii of Book XVIII of Josephus’s “Jewish Antiquities” but has not been definitively settled:
About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvelous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased.

[MikeD4o7]

Why do you assume “very few” seem to be affected? While Christianity increasingly grew in leaps and bounds over many years, it does not therefore mean that Jesus had little affect while he walked the earth. Jesus preached to the Jews. It was of the Jews that salvation of the world came through Jesus, the Messiah. Quantity of records does not equal truth. Regardless of how many historical records exist, the number of records in itself has no bearing on whether something is true. There can be massive amounts of misinformation but little true information, or vice versa.


It's not an assumption, it's pretty much well established historically that Judea, specifically the areas where Jesus himself supposedly performed his miracles, never were converted to Christianity. All of the Jews, who Jesus was supposed to be their Messiah, weren't convinced... yet the gentiles in Rome and north of Judea were.



Josephus (A.D. 37-c.101) did not write for the Jews but for the Romans. Not disputed are Josephus’s reports (1) of the murder of John the Baptist by Herod (which describes John’s character and work) and (2) that he (Josephus) disapproves of the sentence pronounced by the high priest Ananas against “James, brother of Jesus who was called Christ.” Josephus was a Jewish historian and would not likely himself proclaim that Jesus is God, but it is not unlikely that he would relate (to the Roman readers) the Christian belief that Jesus is God.


Yes, I agree with this.


The passage in question is from chapter iii of Book XVIII of Josephus’s “Jewish Antiquities” but has not been definitively settled:
About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvelous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased.

Even without empirical evidence, it seems like an obvious forgery just on the content of the passage alone. As you said above, Josephus was never a Christian, yet from what he "wrote" about Jesus here, you'd have to question why not? He comes just shy of proclaiming Jesus' divinity in that passage.

It's a fake. Josephus was cited by a number of early Christian apologists, yet nobody in the first couple centuries cited that far more detailed passage? There's no way.

[Cedars]

It's not an assumption, it's pretty much well established historically that Judea, specifically the areas where Jesus himself supposedly performed his miracles, never were converted to Christianity. All of the Jews, who Jesus was supposed to be their Messiah, weren't convinced... yet the gentiles in Rome and north of Judea were.
Christianity was considered a sect WITHIN Judaism. The first Christians were Jews, not Gentiles. Jesus himself was a Jew, as was his mother, the 12 apostles and most (if not all) of his followers in his three years of discipleship. Jesus came to fulfill the OT and in so doing reached out to the Jews. The Gentiles did not come on board en masse until afterward.

Even without empirical evidence, it seems like an obvious forgery just on the content of the passage alone. As you said above, Josephus was never a Christian, yet from what he "wrote" about Jesus here, you'd have to question why not? He comes just shy of proclaiming Jesus' divinity in that passage.

It's a fake. Josephus was cited by a number of early Christian apologists, yet nobody in the first couple centuries cited that far more detailed passage? There's no way.
Regardless of whether you personally believe the credibility of those remarks attributed to Josephus, it still remains that Josephus was aware of the existence of Jesus and John the Baptist in those two other matters from the writings of Josephus in which you do not discount.

[MikeD4o7]

Christianity was considered a sect WITHIN Judaism. The first Christians were Jews, not Gentiles. Jesus himself was a Jew, as was his mother, the 12 apostles and most (if not all) of his followers in his three years of discipleship. Jesus came to fulfill the OT and in so doing reached out to the Jews. The Gentiles did not come on board en masse until afterward.


At what point in time then was Judea, the area that Jesus personally performed his miracles in, predominantly Christian? Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire after a time... why were the people of Judea not swayed?



Regardless of whether you personally believe the credibility of those remarks attributed to Josephus, it still remains that Josephus was aware of the existence of Jesus and John the Baptist in those two other matters from the writings of Josephus in which you do not discount.

I don't discount those particular passages from Josephus because they're authentic as far as I know.

[Cedars]

At what point in time then was Judea, the area that Jesus personally performed his miracles in, predominantly Christian? Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire after a time... why were the people of Judea not swayed?
The OT foretold that the Jews as a nation/people would not accept Him.