jesus and muhammed real or not

[paulpablo]

Does anyone have any opinions on wether or not jesus and muhammed were actual real historical figures or not?
I personally think they probably did exist. I dont believe in anything supernatural and i do believe all religions are cults founded on false premises but i find it difficult to believe that they can be founded on a man who doesnt exist.
I know all religions are founded on a concept of god and he is basically a man who doesnt exist but i think thats a different thing altogether.
Im not saying i believe in the feeding of the 5000 or the time muhammed split the moon i think those are ridiculous legends but hitler, rasputin and william wallace and other big characters who existed in history have false legends built up around them, even elvis and tupac.
obviously christians and muslims dont really need to answer this question since its already implied within their religious beliefs.
Ive only briefly looked into it and it seems theres a significant amount of evidence for jesus and some for muhammed, considering a lot of people couldnt read or write at the time and muhammed, and jesus werent considered to be hugely important at the time either the christians and i think the muslims were considered to be small cults, they became much more of a big deal after their death, like ian curtis from joy division. It doesnt surprise me that the historical records would be unclear if they did exist. I wouldnt really find it surprising if in 2000 years time people werent sure if joseph smith existed, the founder of the mormons.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

There are many like it but this one is mine.

Fuck 'em all.

[Ben Davis]

---

Does anyone have any opinions on wether or not jesus and muhammed were actual real historical figures or not?
I personally think they probably did exist. I dont believe in anything supernatural and i do believe all religions are cults founded on false premises but i find it difficult to believe that they can be founded on a man who doesnt exist.
I know all religions are founded on a concept of god and he is basically a man who doesnt exist but i think thats a different thing altogether.
Im not saying i believe in the feeding of the 5000 or the time muhammed split the moon i think those are ridiculous legends but hitler, rasputin and william wallace and other big characters who existed in history have false legends built up around them, even elvis and tupac.
obviously christians and muslims dont really need to answer this question since its already implied within their religious beliefs.
Ive only briefly looked into it and it seems theres a significant amount of evidence for jesus and some for muhammed, considering a lot of people couldnt read or write at the time and muhammed, and jesus werent considered to be hugely important at the time either the christians and i think the muslims were considered to be small cults, they became much more of a big deal after their death, like ian curtis from joy division. It doesnt surprise me that the historical records would be unclear if they did exist. I wouldnt really find it surprising if in 2000 years time people werent sure if joseph smith existed, the founder of the mormons.

---

Whether they were historic figures or not is irrelevant to truth of the supernatural claims made about them. For those, there is either no evidence or the evidence, where testable, has been utterly refuted.

[paulpablo]

yeh i was saying its obvious christians and muslims believe they existed, and its pretty obvious all atheists dont believe in the supernatural claims revolving around these people.
But my question is despite this what do you think as to wether or not they existed.
Again aiming this question at atheists or people who arent muslims or christians since im guessing they would obviously believe in jesus and muhammed or at least jesus.

[Minimalist]

There is the same amount of contemporary evidence for mohammed as their is for jesus. Namely, none.

People will believe all sorts of stupid shit but mohammed is as unknown to early 6th century writers as jesus is to early first century writers.

Coincidence?

[Dee Dee Ramone]

There is the same amount of contemporary evidence for mohammed as their is for jesus. Namely, none.

People will believe all sorts of stupid shit but mohammed is as unknown to early 6th century writers as jesus is to early first century writers.

Coincidence?

Same mechanism.

[popeyespappy]

Who knows?

Who cares?

[Dee Dee Ramone]

Who knows?

Who cares?

Zeus!

[paulpablo]

There is the same amount of contemporary evidence for mohammed as their is for jesus. Namely, none.

People will believe all sorts of stupid shit but mohammed is as unknown to early 6th century writers as jesus is to early first century writers.

Coincidence?

Well from what ive heard while briefly researching the subject is there were lots of people at the time promoting themselves as prophets and trying to start cults and i think it would be pretty difficult to try and find evidence that any of these specific people existed therefore it wouldnt surprise me that no records of jesus could be found he wouldnt have been considered important until after his death the same goes for muhammed.
Also there does seem to be evidence that tacitus wrote about jesus. And other sources writing about early christians. I think it would be pretty strange if the small christian cult started by somone pretending there was this man named jesus.
Like i said i find it easy to believe that mankind started to believe in gods based on their lack of knowledge about earthquakes, time and space and other natural occourances that could be seen as gods work.
But i find it difficult to believe that cults would start based on pretending a man existed who didnt exist. I dont see it as being outside the realms of possability i just find it unlikely.

[CapnAwesome]

I just don't know how to answer the question. If there were a first century rabbi who had followers, preached to the masses and was crucified by the Romans, do you call that person Jesus if he didn't perform all the miracles that are attributed to Jesus? There might be several people who coincidentally were similar. There might be someone who Jesus is based on. None of that means diddly-doo. Jesus was not real whether or not he is based on someone or not. I don't understand the obsession over the 'historical' Jesus. Given that most of the stories of Jesus involve supernatural shenanigans of one kind or another, then of course Jesus wasn't real.