The historicity of the Prophet Muhammad is universally accepted. He is a figure in both secular and religious history. This gives him the nod over Jesus.
The historicity of the Prophet Muhammad is universally accepted. He is a figure in both secular and religious history. This gives him the nod over Jesus.
Kong Fuzi said "Among truly educated people, there is no discrimination"
Wouldn't Adam be slightly better known? Or possibly Chuck Norris?
Umm - ever hear of Jordan Hasay?
she's the most famous arab-american runner.
arab-american wrote:
she's the most famous arab-american runner.
All the more impressive for a non Arab-American!
arab girls are so exotic i love it. like masiela luisha, gloria estefan. but jordan hasay is hott hott hott !
Just going on the numbers of followers of each religion worldwide, I'm going to guess Mohammed. Though I guess just about all Muslims have heard of Jesus, and pretty much all Christians have heard of Mohammed. So it's a tie.
In the section of the world which is predominantly Christian, yes. In China, Buddha. People in the western world are much more likely to know about Buddha than people in China are to know about Jesus. Advantage: Buddha
Mohamed is well-known in both the Muslim and Western worlds. But the lack of knowledge in India and China really hurts.
The fact that a man named Jesus of Nazareth once walked the Earth is pretty much undisputed. What is disputed is the whole divinity thing, since most of the stories historically appear to be little more than copies of stories that already existed about other divinity figures.
The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is very far from "undisputed". In fact, it can only be classified as "highly disputed". There are no extra-biblical contemporary sources that reference the existence of Jesus. Many people do not seem to realize that the extra-biblical sources commonly cited by Christians, such as Flavius Josephus and Pliny the Younger, lived long after the date Jesus is supposed to have been crucified. Additionally, Josephus's brief reference to Jesus was almost certainly partially modified by early Christians to conform with biblical accounts. The gospels themselves were likely not written by actual observers of the events described, but rather were authored decades afterwards. Jesus has certainly become the most famous figure in the world today, but if he existed, he was far from famous in his own region, if historical accounts (or lack thereof) are to be believed. And what else do we have to go on?
Agree with the above. The Romans obviously kept fastidious records, and interestingly, nearly all the details mentioned in the gospels surrounding the birth of Jesus are demonstrably historically false.
I disagree in part. I think that the lack of contemporary historical evidence you mention is proof that the biblical account is not 100% accurate. It does not constitute proof that there was never a historical figure named Jesus.
It is classified as "highly disputed", in the same way that 9/11 is "highly agreed" to have been an inside job.
Josephus, unless memory serves me wrong, lived within one generation of Jesus' death. Most gospel accounts were written down within 1 or 2 generations, and if you believe in the "Q" source document, or some of the more extreme datings of the Gospel of Luke and Mark, those too was recorded within one generation of the crucifixion. The vast majority of historians agree that it was only a part of Josephus' writing that was tampered with.
As far as the classical history of a tiny religious sect, whose greatest fame came from being a scapegoat of Nero's arson prior to Constantine in the 4th century, I would say that this there is pretty solid evidence for the historicity of its founder. Remember that many of the events we take for granted as "historical" were often written down many generations after they took place, only preserved orally and then later written down by someone like Josephus. It's almost impressive that there is such a diverse group of secular historians, religious historians, and contemporary in-house stories (Gospels, Pauline Epistles) that all point to one man as the instigator of so much.
The majority of scholars that argue against the existence of an actual Jesus have been roundly brought to task for their methodology or lack thereof. I think there was some tie-in with professors that took part in the Jesus Seminar in the 90's, where the approach they took was "if it's written in the Gospels and mentions divinity or miracles, it cannot be attributed directly to the character or teachings of Jesus". Whether you are religious or a stout atheist, I think it is safe to say that this is not a healthy way to determine the authenticity of source material.
I can't remember all of the extra-biblical sources, but I think: Pliny the Younger...Tacitus...Seutonius (wrote about the fires and riots during Nero's time)...Josephus, then later of course guys like Eusebius, but he was admittedly a church historian. Also, there are the various Gnostic Gospels, many of which are typically discredited, but some that have been dated to the 2nd century and make mention of (thus corroborating) events and characters referenced in the canonical gospels.
My 2 cents.
He is by far the most influential, history altering figure ever.
we fat food = good wrote:
Most famous character in history, yes. To call him the most famous human being assumes the he actually existed.
Jesus of Nazareth did indeed exist. Whether he was the Son of God, that's the only question.
The Bible says Jesus Christ was a black man with hair of "lamb's wool".
nomott3ty3ty3 wrote:
we fat food = good wrote:Most famous character in history, yes. To call him the most famous human being assumes the he actually existed.
I think its pretty well established that the whole Jesus story is based on a dude thast actually existed.
No, it isn't. The Gospels look exactly like stories about Apollonous of Tyana (who is better attested), Hercules, Dionysis, Attis, etc. I sincerely doubt that even Mohammed existed. This is all just special pleading for one set of mythical looking texts that gets to play by different evidentiary rules than others.
umdsfafsfs wrote:
The calendar is based on the julian calendar, which was around before jesus. Only the year has to do with jesus.
He is the most famous person ever. I wonder how many people in the world have never heard of jesus. I bet its no higher than 20-30%. I bet that holds true for the last 1k years
My take on it wrote:The years are based off of the assumed year of his birth. That should be common knowledge.
Common knowledge is apparently not so common. Some early apologists such as (before the gosples were written or widely dceiminated) placed Jesus in the reign of Alexander Jennaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus). The order in your Bible is not the order documents were written. The fact is a mythical salvic Christ later historicized. A Christ based on pagan and jewish antecedents - there were Jewish "sying and rising" gods mentioned in the Bible and a close reading of the OT reveals a slow process from polytheism to monolatry, to monotheism, especially when one takes into account documentary evidence such as the Ugaritic texts). Not the reverse. The order goes myth-legend-history, not the other way around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE6KqJjeE8Ahttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.htmlThe word you need to learn to understand religion is syncretism.
dogfish dead wrote:
The historicity of the Prophet Muhammad is universally accepted. He is a figure in both secular and religious history. This gives him the nod over Jesus.
I get tired of people saying "universally accepted" for these questions. The historicity of Hercules was "universally accepted" at one time. See Ibn Wariq's work on this question. The Koranic documentary history, like the Bible's, is much more complicated than the pious think. Most Koranic (or biblical) scholars enter the field owing to pre-existing ideological commitments. I don't think the historical Jesus crowd contends very well (rather just ignores) the mythicist evidence.
On the Jesus question, acquaint yourself with the work of the Dutch Radicals and their contemporary admirers such as Robert Price, Early Doherty, etc. If there was a historical Jesus, was can sure as shit say very little about him, since his wordsare bafflingly simlar to cynic philosphers and Jewish sages, and deeds re-enactments of old testament characters (mainly Elijah), and parallels of other pagan dying/rising Gods, and storylines from ancient novels.
As for Muhammed, Ibn Wariq argues that Islam was originally an offshoot of Nestorian Christianity and it sill preserves an adoptionist Christology and that Muhammed was originally a name for Jesus. It is far from clear that one person "wrote" the Koran.