Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Minimalist]

My whole point was that Jesus was not special. He was most likely an ordinary man who went afoul of the authorities and got crucified. Afterwards, his followers manufactured tall tales about him and Christianity took root. Nothing special about any of that. Completely reasonable, and completely supported by evidence.



So, let's get this straight.  You say that this jesus fucker was a nobody who got himself killed.  But he still had "followers."  And sometime within 1-3 lifetimes back then they concocted a whole series of bullshit stories about him which, for some reason which completely escapes me, you have decided to put credence in.... sometimes.  And the sometimes is decided by whatever suits your beliefs.  I know cherry-picking fundies who have the same routine.

But the rest of what you said appears to be some wildly concocted conspiracy theory that you will likely string together with tidbits of evidence that either doesn't actually exist, or exists as evidence for something completely different.

Yeah, sure.  I'm the one with the conspiracy theory.  Buy a mirror.

It's fine if you want to see things through that narrow lens, but I prefer a more complete peripheral view just so that I can evaluate everything I see.

Probably best if we don't go there!

[quote]I have read them, and it reads like a work of manufactured denialist fiction to any historian. No one worthy of note disputes the existence of Muhammad, and the only time we ever see this claim of his non existence is when anyone makes a comparison to Jesus.

You're doing it again.  Anyone who departs from orthodoxy is a lunatic or a denialist or a fringe or whatever ad hominen you choose to use.  Why can't you examine the evidence they put forward dispassionately.  With all due respect, what are you afraid of?

I am not afraid of everything. I never view any evidence with any passion. I view it objectively. 

You view it with passion. You view it with hatred. You will view it with anger.



Do try to remember that you don't know me at all.  I think ALL religion is horseshit but it is strictly an intellectual exercise.  I do not dispute the right of any of the apologetic assholes you love to spout their opinions.  I think they have a built in bias because this jesus shit is their rice bowl and I regard divinity or theological studies as a fucking waste of time but they certainly have a right to publish their nutty jesus theories.  I'm not the one who jumps into the ad hominen attacks.  That's you.  I sort of envision you pounding on your keyboard shouting "how dare you insult a man  with a PH. D in Theology?"  

But me? Complete indifference. No bias whatsoever.

Um...bullshit

There are bullshit tombs all over the middle east.  Every year there are massacres as the fools of one sect murder the fools of another who are making pilgrimages to them.  If you want to believe islamic bullshit, go ahead.  I'll pass.

There's a historical record of his grave-site for over 1000 years.

That's evidence. Not assertion.



I have no more use for islamic traditions than jesus freak ones.  Xhristards swear they have located jesus' tomb.  In fact they have located 3 of them....4 if you want to count Talpiot.  Shrines are very important to all the followers of the angry desert god.

What you have is a 10th century scribe correcting what he believed was a spelling error by a previous copiest. Changing an 'e' to an 'i' to reflect how the Christian name was spelled  during the 10th century is a perfectly natural correction. We have seen the same corrections numerous times with other manuscripts.

That does not qualify as "tampering" in the sense to change what was being said. Virtually all scholars agree- based upon their own investigations- that Christian and Chrestian were interchangeable. It's a no-brainer.

All "scholars" that agree with you.  Anyone who doesn't is automatically a lunatic.  We've been down this rabbit hole before and I find your arrogance most distasteful.  YOU are not the arbiter.



Again, you have no direct evidence of that. You have assertions just because you don't like it. The TF, as it sits, is what we have. We have absolutely no direct evidence that anyone ever tampered with it, despite the fact that almost all scholars agree that it is likely someone altered the original to reflect a Christian sentiment, but all of them admit they don't actually have any direct evidence to even support that much. The harsh reality about the TF is this:

1. It exists.
2. We have evidence it existed in its current state within 225 years after Josephus published his book, as it was quoted verbatim.
3. We have no direct evidence anyone ever tampered with it.

However, we do have enough circumstantial evidence to warrant suspicion of tampering, but that suspicion simply isn't enough to warrant any claims of wholesale interpolation. Yes, if it was tampered with Eusebius appears likely to have been the culprit.

A couple of months ago I spoke with Ken Olson about this. You might like to read his views on it from his Harvard publication you will find here.

https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/disp...-ken-olson

But the bottom line is, I and virtually all others agree that the original almost certainly said something about Jesus being crucified by Pilate.

Back to the all scholars argument.... which isn't true unless the All Powerful Free is allowed to determine who is or is not a "scholar."  I do not grant you that power.
[quote]


Yet, you have no good evidence that anyone "lied" to what Tacitus wrote or to what Josephus wrote in regards to James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.

Once again, nothing that you will accept because you are committed to insisting that the story that the early church put out is real.... except for the parts you find embarrassing.   And you bury yourself with writers who think the same way and then denigrate anyone who dares to question you.

I do think you are afraid to question things.

[Free]

I am not afraid of everything. I never view any evidence with any passion. I view it objectively. 
]You view it with passion. You view it with hatred. You will view it with anger.

1. Do try to remember that you don't know me at all.  

2. I think ALL religion is horseshit but it is strictly an intellectual exercise.

3.  I do not dispute the right of any of the apologetic assholes you love to spout their opinions.

4. I think they have a built in bias because this jesus shit is their rice bowl and I regard divinity or theological studies as a fucking waste of time but they certainly have a right to publish their nutty jesus theories. 

5. I'm not the one who jumps into the ad hominen attacks.  That's you.  I sort of envision you pounding on your keyboard shouting "how dare you insult a man  with a PH. D in Theology?" 

1. I don't need to know you personally to be able to formulate an opinion upon what you write.

2. Indeed, all religious beliefs are horsehit, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's an intellectual exercise. What it is, at least from my standpoint and the standpoint of most historians, is an exercise on determining what the most likely truth actually is. Therefore, it's an investigative exercise whereas we work with the current agreed upon evidence and attempt to piece together a historical picture that is drawn upon that available evidence.

3. Just because we have a consensus by professional historians doesn't mean you can validly refer to them as apologetic assholes based upon your personal disagreement with that consensus. In other subjects, we count on a consensus to present to us the most likely truth in regards to their findings, regardless if their findings are 100% conclusive or not. The more mature position to hold is one of simple disagreement, while maintaining a level of respect for their qualified opinions.

For example, personally i do not subscribe to the theory that the Big Bang is the origin of the universe, despite the fact that the current majority of qualified professionals agree that is likely is. However, I absolutely respect the fact that those professionals maintain that position and I understand why. I simply agree with an emerging theory that that a super massive black hole is the likely cause of the observable universe, as opposed to a single event.

But me? Complete indifference. No bias whatsoever.

Um...bullshit

Since I am atheist, no bias there. Since I detest the religion of Christianity, no bias there either. You see, the difference between me and you is that I am not inclined to be an atheist activist like you are. I am just an atheist, meaning I simply state emphatically there is no god, period. I don't need to get so far into my atheism as to swing so hard with it as to be an advocate against anything that challenges it. 

My atheism is a monolith of sensibility, built solidly on a foundation of rationality, and adorned with a wreath of reason. I am impervious to the onslaught of nonsensical belief systems, and steadfastly confident in the face of all adversity. I can, without any semblance of doubt, walk into this subject matter with complete indifference knowing for a certainly that its religious effects have no stable ground to stand upon.

That's what being "Free" is all about, and why I chose that name.

Now you know me.

There's a historical record of his grave-site for over 1000 years.

That's evidence. Not assertion.

I have no more use for islamic traditions than jesus freak ones.  Xhristards swear they have located jesus' tomb.  In fact they have located 3 of them....4 if you want to count Talpiot.  Shrines are very important to all the followers of the angry desert god.

Is that just your atheism talking? What about the rest of you? Okay, so you're an atheist. Fine. But does that mean you should allow it to stand in the way of reason?

Muhammad has a grave site. It's always been there with a track record of its existence throughout history. This kind of evidence cannot be ignored just because it exists. 

That's unreasonable. It's not rational. It's not honest.

And that should matter more than anything to you, even more than your atheism.

What you have is a 10th century scribe correcting what he believed was a spelling error by a previous copiest. Changing an 'e' to an 'i' to reflect how the Christian name was spelled  during the 10th century is a perfectly natural correction. We have seen the same corrections numerous times with other manuscripts.

That does not qualify as "tampering" in the sense to change what was being said. Virtually all scholars agree- based upon their own investigations- that Christian and Chrestian were interchangeable. It's a no-brainer.

All "scholars" that agree with you.  Anyone who doesn't is automatically a lunatic.  We've been down this rabbit hole before and I find your arrogance most distasteful.  YOU are not the arbiter.

No one says they are a lunatic. But since we do indeed have numerous pieces of ancient evidence supporting that the 'chrestian' was a variant spelling for 'christian,' then that becomes the prevailing theory and for good reason; there's EVIDENCE.

And it's good solid evidence.

Again, you have no direct evidence of that. You have assertions just because you don't like it. The TF, as it sits, is what we have. We have absolutely no direct evidence that anyone ever tampered with it, despite the fact that almost all scholars agree that it is likely someone altered the original to reflect a Christian sentiment, but all of them admit they don't actually have any direct evidence to even support that much. The harsh reality about the TF is this:

1. It exists.
2. We have evidence it existed in its current state within 225 years after Josephus published his book, as it was quoted verbatim.
3. We have no direct evidence anyone ever tampered with it.

However, we do have enough circumstantial evidence to warrant suspicion of tampering, but that suspicion simply isn't enough to warrant any claims of wholesale interpolation. Yes, if it was tampered with Eusebius appears likely to have been the culprit.

A couple of months ago I spoke with Ken Olson about this. You might like to read his views on it from his Harvard publication you will find here.

https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/disp...-ken-olson

But the bottom line is, I and virtually all others agree that the original almost certainly said something about Jesus being crucified by Pilate.

Back to the all scholars argument.... which isn't true unless the All Powerful Free is allowed to determine who is or is not a "scholar."  I do not grant you that power.

Didn't you just mention something about me using ad hominems in this very post? I do not determine who is, or who is not a scholar. That is determined by their peers and their own credentials, as well as their reputation.

Yet, you have no good evidence that anyone "lied" to what Tacitus wrote or to what Josephus wrote in regards to James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.

Once again, nothing that you will accept because you are committed to insisting that the story that the early church put out is real.... except for the parts you find embarrassing.   And you bury yourself with writers who think the same way and then denigrate anyone who dares to question you.

I do think you are afraid to question things.

It's not that I don't accept things that are presented, but rather the reality is that nothing has actually been presented. Claiming Tacitus got his info from Christians, or that it was an interpolation requires at least some degree of credible evidence to support it. It's no different than a cop looking for evidence of a crime. If it isn't there, then it isn't there.

Asserting what you think should be true has no hope of passing the litmus test of credulity until you present actual evidence to support it, and then that evidence must stand up to scrutiny before it can actually be considered as supporting evidence.

For example, you claim that the changing of an 'e' to an 'i' in the Chrestian/Christian entry by Tacitus indicates some kind of evidence to support a wholesale forgery. Yet, when we examine the evidence as a whole, we see these kinds of alterations were common among copiests who believed they were correcting a spelling mistake.

We have no good reason to suspect any kind of forgery. In fact, we have every reason to conclude that what Tacitus and Josephus wrote is absolutely authentic. Why?

Because we have 'reason.'

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

were Roman records burned in the fire
?

[Bucky Ball]

Again, Muhammad has a grave that has been guarded for 1400 years. There is physical evidence of his existence.

So does Abraham. We know he was made up. There is no evidence that Muhammad existed.

Tacitus wrote history according to the Romans, not Christians. Same for Josephus writing about the Jews.

Josephus worked for Vespasian. He would never say Jesus was the messiah as he promoted Vespasian as the messiah and there is nowhere else Josephus says Jesus was a messiah. If Josephus actually thought Jesus rose from the dead, and was the messiah, he would not have been promoting Vespasian as the messiah and a miracle-worker. 

However, we do have enough circumstantial evidence to warrant suspicion of tampering, but that suspicion simply isn't enough to warrant any claims of wholesale interpolation. Yes, if it was tampered with Eusebius appears likely to have been the culprit.

It's not up to you to decide what is or is not "enough". It's nothing but your opinion. 

But the bottom line is, I and virtually all others agree that the original almost certainly said something about Jesus being crucified by Pilate.

An exaggeration which you have no basis for claiming. 
Pious fraud was rampant everywhere. 
The only reason anyone was talking about any Jesus was not that anyone actually knew anything about him, but because believing communities had arisen and THAT was the route and reason they heard about him. There are no records of common criminals who were crucified and dumped into common graves, then or now. Tacitus had nothing to base anything on except the belief of believers which he HEARD ABOUT. The BELIEVERS said they BELIEVED Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead (no other Jewish hero was ever said to have been re-animated) and it was the BELIEFS that drove community formation and you have nothing except believing communities which is really all "historians" have to base anything on. You got nothing.

Nothing Eusebius said is reliable, and he even told us not to believe his own writing.
"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.

[grympy]

Again, Muhammad has a grave that has been guarded for 1400 years. There is physical evidence of his existence.

So does Abraham. We know he was made up. There is no evidence that Muhammad existed.  

Tacitus wrote history according to the Romans, not Christians. Same for Josephus writing about the Jews.

Josephus worked for Vespasian. He would never say Jesus was the messiah as he promoted Vespasian as the messiah and there is nowhere else Josephus says Jesus was a messiah. If Josephus actually thought Jesus rose from the dead, and was the messiah, he would not have been promoting Vespasian as the messiah and a miracle-worker. 

However, we do have enough circumstantial evidence to warrant suspicion of tampering, but that suspicion simply isn't enough to warrant any claims of wholesale interpolation. Yes, if it was tampered with Eusebius appears likely to have been the culprit.

It's not up to you to decide what is or is not "enough". It's nothing but your opinion. 

But the bottom line is, I and virtually all others agree that the original almost certainly said something about Jesus being crucified by Pilate.

An exaggeration which you have no basis for claiming. 
Pious fraud was rampant everywhere. 
The only reason anyone was talking about any Jesus was not that anyone actually knew anything about him, but because believing communities had arisen and THAT was the route and reason they heard about him. There are no records of common criminals who were crucified and dumped into common graves, then or now. Tacitus had nothing to base anything on except the belief of believers which he HEARD ABOUT. The BELIEVERS said they BELIEVED Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead (no other Jewish hero was ever said to have been re-animated) and it was the BELIEFS that drove community formation and you have nothing except believing communities which is really all "historians" have to base anything on. You got nothing.

Nothing Eusebius said is reliable, and he even told us not to believe his own writing.
"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.
[/quote]

 2 cents; 

I've seen the tomb of St Peter.  By coincidence, it's in St peter's Cathedral, in Rome. 

Not entirely convinced  that tradition is proof of anything .Eg not quite sure the Dome of The Rock In Jerusalem marks the actual spot where  God created the world and Adam and Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac. Nor indeed  the place where the prophet took off on his flying horse  for Mecca.

[Free]

Again, Muhammad has a grave that has been guarded for 1400 years. There is physical evidence of his existence.

So does Abraham. We know he was made up. There is no evidence that Muhammad existed.

Like I mentioned, Muhammad has a grave that has been guarded since he died. We know it's there. We can see it. Comparing that to a story of where Abraham was purported to be buried, with no actual gravesite known, is a false comparison.

The Sunnah and the Hadith are historical records of both the life Muhammad, as well as his wives and friends, some of who are buried beside him. There is an actual verifiable history here.

You have no cause whatsoever to doubt his existence. None.

Tacitus wrote history according to the Romans, not Christians. Same for Josephus writing about the Jews.

Josephus worked for Vespasian. He would never say Jesus was the messiah as he promoted Vespasian as the messiah and there is nowhere else Josephus says Jesus was a messiah. If Josephus actually thought Jesus rose from the dead, and was the messiah, he would not have been promoting Vespasian as the messiah and a miracle-worker.

Assuming you understand the context here, we know Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews circa 93 CE. We also have records that Vespasian died in June of 79 CE. So are you trying to say that Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews so a dead man would be impressed?

Vespasian was long dead when Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews, therefore Vespasian had no influence whatsoever.

How the fuck can this not be any more obvious?

However, we do have enough circumstantial evidence to warrant suspicion of tampering, but that suspicion simply isn't enough to warrant any claims of wholesale interpolation. Yes, if it was tampered with Eusebius appears likely to have been the culprit.

It's not up to you to decide what is or is not "enough". It's nothing but your opinion.

It's the consensus opinion, otherwise they wouldn't be agreeing on it's partial authenticity. Score one for common sense, huh?

But the bottom line is, I and virtually all others agree that the original almost certainly said something about Jesus being crucified by Pilate.

An exaggeration which you have no basis for claiming. Pious fraud was rampant everywhere. 
The only reason anyone was talking about any Jesus was not that anyone actually knew anything about him, but because believing communities had arisen and THAT was the route and reason they heard about him. There are no records of common criminals who were crucified and dumped into common graves, then or now. Tacitus had nothing to base anything on except the belief of believers which he HEARD ABOUT. The BELIEVERS said they BELIEVED Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead (no other Jewish hero was ever said to have been re-animated) and it was the BELIEFS that drove community formation and you have nothing except believing communities which is really all "historians" have to base anything on. You got nothing.

Nothing Eusebius said is reliable, and he even told us not to believe his own writing.
"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.

You and your fixation with 'pious fraud' still brings a chuckle after all these years. Yet the one thing your claim has miserably failed to achieve is to bring up actual evidence of wholesale interpolation of the TF.

Making claims of pious fraud of this or that does not show evidence of pious fraud with the TF. That's not unlike saying, "We have direct evidence of Jack robbing a bank in Chicago, but no evidence of him robbing the bank in New York. But let's blame him for robbing the bank in New York anyways. What the hell, huh?"

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

well free I think you are insane
what's your opinion on the historicity of Zeus?
how do you segregate the evidence between historical christ and biblical christ?

[Phaedrus]

Haven't seen him in a bit, I guess our rational arguments have disturbed him.

[Chas]

The Sunnah and the Hadith are historical records of both the life Muhammad, as well as his wives and friends, some of who are buried beside him. There is an actual verifiable history here.

That is an opinion.  The Hadith is a compilation of stories set down decades after the purported events.  George Washington and the cherry tree comes to mind.


They are not a reliable history.

[grympy]

The Sunnah and the Hadith are historical records of both the life Muhammad, as well as his wives and friends, some of who are buried beside him. There is an actual verifiable history here.

That is an opinion.  The Hadith is a compilation of stories set down decades after the purported events.  George Washington and the cherry tree comes to mind.


They are not a reliable history.

2 cents

There are different Hadith and even different  types . .  They are seen by Muslims  as traditional commentary on the life of the prophet. They are not part of the Muslim canon and are rejected outright by some Muslims.

Apparently, Hadith lack the scholarly rigour of the Q'ran.  

"Ḥadīth is the Arabic word for things like speech, report, account, narrative.[3][10][11]:471 Unlike the Qur'an, not all Muslim believe hadith accounts (or at least not all hadith accounts) are divine revelation. Hadith were not written down by Muhammad's followers immediately after his death but several generations later when they were collected, collated and compiled into a great corpus of Islamic literature. Different collections of hadīth would come to differentiate the different branches of the Islamic faith.[12] A small minority of Muslims called Quranists reject all Ḥadīth.[13][14"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

so basically @Free likes Abrahamic semen

[Free]

The Sunnah and the Hadith are historical records of both the life Muhammad, as well as his wives and friends, some of who are buried beside him. There is an actual verifiable history here.

That is an opinion.  The Hadith is a compilation of stories set down decades after the purported events.  George Washington and the cherry tree comes to mind.


They are not a reliable history.

The Sunnah includes much of the Hadith, which is why I listed them together as historical records.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah#Sunnah_and_hadith

The Sunnah relies heavily on the Hadith, and the Sunnah is regarded as having historical value.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

semen folks semen

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

so I was masturbating and reading the bible, why should I believe there was a Christ?

[Bucky Ball]

The face of desperation.

Firstly, Philo was a Hellenistic Jew, influenced by Greek culture.

Is this educating me again ? LOL
Everyone knows this, gramps. 

Secondly, the Greek culture was influenced by Stoic philosophy which began some 300 years previous with Zeno of Citium, as well as other variants.

Irrelevant. 

What this means, Bucky Boy, is that the concept of the logos/gnosticism was already well permeated into the Greek culture long before Philo. John was influenced by the Greeks, not Philo. Philo was influenced by the Greeks also. 

LMAO. The question before us, is NOT when the concepts in Gnosticism permeated GREEK culture, but how and when there is evidence for it in HEBREW writing. Do try to learn to keep the POINT in front of you, instead of running off on irrelevant tangents. Of course Philo was influenced by Greek thought ... as was John. You actually have no evidence AT ALL to claim the writers of John were not influenced by Philo, and in fact the remarkable similarity of the opening of John's Gospel and Philo says the authors of John had read Philo. 

The Greeks had variations on the philosophy. You had the Pyrrhonists, Stoics, and Isocrates' logos as those influencing variants, among others. Undoubtedly, you would have philosopher pretenders offering their own take on the concept, such as Philo, John, the Gnostics, etc.  But none of those 3 are exactly alike, and just because you see some similarities between Philo and John doesn't at all mean any kind of a direct influence from one to the other. After all, of course there are gong to be similarities, since both were immersed in the Greek culture that propagated that philosophy.

So ... you know ...

No. I don't know. Were're talking about the SPECIFIC Gnostic "logos" found in Philo and John, incluiding almost word for word duplication. 
But as usual ... you have your typical attempt to muddy the waters. 
So, you know ......

[Bucky Ball]

The Sunnah and the Hadith are historical records of both the life Muhammad, as well as his wives and friends, some of who are buried beside him. There is an actual verifiable history here.

That is an opinion.  The Hadith is a compilation of stories set down decades after the purported events.  George Washington and the cherry tree comes to mind.


They are not a reliable history.

The Sunnah includes much of the Hadith, which is why I listed them together as historical records.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah#Sunnah_and_hadith

The Sunnah relies heavily on the Hadith, and the Sunnah is regarded as having historical value.

Yes indeed. The Hadith is Historical". 
LMAO
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Er...the_Hadith

Just because there were some books said to be buried next to someone who was said to be buried in a grave, "found" .... is evidence of nothing.

[Free]

Secondly, the Greek culture was influenced by Stoic philosophy which began some 300 years previous with Zeno of Citium, as well as other variants.

Irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all. Obviously you are trying desperately to dismiss this because you know it solidly makes my point, which will be demonstrated below.

What this means, Bucky Boy, is that the concept of the logos/gnosticism was already well permeated into the Greek culture long before Philo. John was influenced by the Greeks, not Philo. Philo was influenced by the Greeks also. 

LMAO. The question before us, is NOT when the concepts in Gnosticism permeated GREEK culture, but how and when there is evidence for it in HEBREW writing. Do try to learn to keep the POINT in front of you, instead of running off on irrelevant tangents. Of course Philo was influenced by Greek thought ... as was John. "You actually have no evidence AT ALL to claim the writers of John were not influenced by Philo," and in fact the "remarkable similarity of the opening of John's Gospel and Philo says the authors of John had read Philo."

Bold above is mine:

And there it is folks. The logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof right before our eyes. Not only that, his claim of "the remarkable similarity of the opening of John's Gospel and Philo says the authors of John had read Philo" is also a fallacy known as False Dilemma as his argument is an either/or, which excludes other possibilities. He is saying John's writing must be influenced by Philo due to similarities, while excluding the fact that since both John and Philo do share similarities, it can equally be said that both John and Philo subscribed to a similar 3rd party philosophy.

Now you know why he needed to say my quote at the top, again pasted below, was irrelevant:

Secondly, the Greek culture was influenced by Stoic philosophy which began some 300 years previous with Zeno of Citium, as well as other variants.

Irrelevant.

My quote above- which Bucky desperately tried to dismiss- shows the existence and origin of a verifiable and very possible 3rd party Greek philosophy of which both John and Philo bear similarities, which are demonstrated below.

The Greeks had variations on the philosophy. You had the Pyrrhonists, Stoics, and Isocrates' logos as those influencing variants, among others. Undoubtedly, you would have philosopher pretenders offering their own take on the concept, such as Philo, John, the Gnostics, etc.  But none of those 3 are exactly alike, and just because you see some similarities between Philo and John doesn't at all mean any kind of a direct influence from one to the other. After all, of course there are gong to be similarities, since both were immersed in the Greek culture that propagated that philosophy.

So ... you know ...

No. I don't know. Were're talking about the SPECIFIC Gnostic "logos" found in Philo and John, including almost word for word duplication. 
But as usual ... you have your typical attempt to muddy the waters. 
So, you know ......

Really? well now, let's just see, Bucky boy. Here are some comparisons:

Comparison 1:

Stoic philosophy began with Zeno of Citium c. 300 BC, in which the logos was the active reason pervading and animating the Universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Stoics

Joh 1:1 - 1:3:  In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God. He (logos) was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him (Logos), and without Him (Logos) not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Comparison 2:

Stoicism: It (the Logos) was conceived as material and is usually identified with God or Nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Stoics

John 1:1 ... and the Word (Logos) was God

And here's the kicker, Bucky Boy:

"The Stoics took all activity to imply a logos or spiritual principle. As the operative principle of the world, the logos was anima mundi to them, a concept which later influenced Philo of Alexandria,"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Stoics

Now give me your credit card details for this valuable education.

[Free]

That is an opinion.  The Hadith is a compilation of stories set down decades after the purported events.  George Washington and the cherry tree comes to mind.


They are not a reliable history.

The Sunnah includes much of the Hadith, which is why I listed them together as historical records.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah#Sunnah_and_hadith

The Sunnah relies heavily on the Hadith, and the Sunnah is regarded as having historical value.

Yes indeed. The Hadith is Historical". 
LMAO
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Er...the_Hadith

Just because there were some books said to be buried next to someone who was said to be buried in a grave, "found" .... is evidence of nothing.

Using your reasoning, we could ask the following question about any graveyard.

Question: "How many people are buried in that graveyard?"

And the answer would need to be:

Answer: "None."

Therefore, to assume that Muhammad is NOT buried in his gravesite, which has been guarded for 1400 years, we must likewise assume that every graveyard on earth has no one buried in it.

Your logic and reasoning are fantastically humourous. 

[Bucky Ball]

The Sunnah includes much of the Hadith, which is why I listed them together as historical records.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah#Sunnah_and_hadith

The Sunnah relies heavily on the Hadith, and the Sunnah is regarded as having historical value.

Yes indeed. The Hadith is Historical". 
LMAO
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Er...the_Hadith

Just because there were some books said to be buried next to someone who was said to be buried in a grave, "found" .... is evidence of nothing.

Using your reasoning, we could ask the following question about any graveyard.

Question: "How many people are buried in that graveyard?"

And the answer would need to be:

Answer: "None."

Therefore, to assume that Muhammad is NOT buried in his gravesite, which has been guarded for 1400 years, we must likewise assume that every graveyard on earth has no one buried in it.

Your logic and reasoning are fantastically humourous. 

Too bad, you and your little rolling laugh-man (who is laughing at your pathetic logic) are wrong again. 
Muhammad is not anyone. In fact we know there are lots of ancients "tombs" which (like Abraham's) do not contain their mythical corpse. 
You have no evidence his grave has been guarded for that period of time, (you are SO gullible) and even if it were, you have no evidence it was never tampered with OR that a fake body was placed there in the first place. In fact, just like Jesus, you have no evidence he ever existed either. You have never answered Spencer's questions. What you find humorous is of no consequence at all, and it still wouldn't be even if you spelled "humorous" correctly. 

[grympy]

Yes indeed. The Hadith is Historical". 
LMAO
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Er...the_Hadith

Just because there were some books said to be buried next to someone who was said to be buried in a grave, "found" .... is evidence of nothing.

Using your reasoning, we could ask the following question about any graveyard.

Question: "How many people are buried in that graveyard?"

And the answer would need to be:

Answer: "None."

Therefore, to assume that Muhammad is NOT buried in his gravesite, which has been guarded for 1400 years, we must likewise assume that every graveyard on earth has no one buried in it.

Your logic and reasoning are fantastically humourous. 

Too bad, you and your little rolling laugh-man (who is laughing at your pathetic logic) are wrong again. 
Muhammad is not anyone. In fact we know there are lots of ancients "tombs" which (like Abraham's) do not contain their mythical corpse. 
You have no evidence his grave has been guarded for that period of time, (you are SO gullible) and even if it were, you have no evidence it was never tampered with OR that a fake body was placed there in the first place. In fact, just like Jesus, you have no evidence he ever existed either. You have never answered Spencer's questions. What you find humorous is of no consequence at all, and it still wouldn't be even if you spelled "humorous" correctly. 

 2 cents.

 Of course the Hadith are historical. What they are not is credible as history. Pretty telling that people  who believe a book which states a man had a journey on a flying horse do not accept the hadith has part of their canon.

Just saying. Seems a bit odd to me, but I'm not a credentialed scholar in islamic studies, what do I know?  

[Phaedrus]

Jesus did not exist, this I know,
Because logic informs me so.

[mordant]

Jesus did not exist, this I know,
Because logic informs me so.

I actually don't think anyone here in this discussion thinks Bible Jesus, the Miracle-Working God-Man, ever existed. The question before us is whether some guy named Jesus served as the founder or basis for the Christian religion and the Jesus mythos that it eventually elaborated.

I have no practical problem or cognitive dissonance at all if that's the case, but I'm quite skeptical that it is. The religion I left a couple of decades ago was so full of bullshit and its teaching so incoherent that I have trouble crediting the notion.

[Free]

Yes indeed. The Hadith is Historical". 
LMAO
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Er...the_Hadith

Just because there were some books said to be buried next to someone who was said to be buried in a grave, "found" .... is evidence of nothing.

Using your reasoning, we could ask the following question about any graveyard.

Question: "How many people are buried in that graveyard?"

And the answer would need to be:

Answer: "None."

Therefore, to assume that Muhammad is NOT buried in his gravesite, which has been guarded for 1400 years, we must likewise assume that every graveyard on earth has no one buried in it.

Your logic and reasoning are fantastically humourous. 

Too bad, you and your little rolling laugh-man (who is laughing at your pathetic logic) are wrong again. 
Muhammad is not anyone. In fact we know there are lots of ancients "tombs" which (like Abraham's) do not contain their mythical corpse.

Except none of those ancient tombs even comes close to having the documented history that Muhammad's grave does. Therefore, false comparison.

You have no evidence his grave has been guarded for that period of time, (you are SO gullible) and even if it were, you have no evidence it was never tampered with OR that a fake body was placed there in the first place.

Actually there are literally dozens of authentic hadiths- which incidentally have the same standing (if not stronger) as the records of the church fathers in Christianity- dating back to within a few years of the death of Muhammad talking about his grave and describing it. 

That's evidence, Bucky boy.

In fact, just like Jesus, you have no evidence he ever existed either. You have never answered Spencer's questions. What you find humorous is of no consequence at all, and it still wouldn't be even if you spelled "humorous" correctly.

It's actually hilarious.

[Alan V]

Actually there are literally dozens of authentic hadiths- which incidentally have the same standing (if not stronger) as the records of the church fathers in Christianity- dating back to within a few years of the death of Muhammad talking about his grave and describing it. 

Certain pious Muslims practically invented scholarship to authenticate Hadith sayings, and they mention sources and lines of transmission. Most Hadith deal with details of rituals.

Of course just because Muhammad was a historical figure doesn't mean the God, angels, prophets, jinns, and devils he described existed.

Muhammad was a fabulist who thought he was divinely inspired, and many people believed him.

People are often credulous when faced with a confident liar.

[Free]

Actually there are literally dozens of authentic hadiths- which incidentally have the same standing (if not stronger) as the records of the church fathers in Christianity- dating back to within a few years of the death of Muhammad talking about his grave and describing it. 

Certain pious Muslims practically invented scholarship to authenticate Hadith sayings, and they mention sources and lines of transmission.  Most Hadith deal with details of rituals.

Of course just because Muhammad was a historical figure doesn't mean the God, angels, prophets, jinns, and devils he described existed.  

Muhammad was a fabulist who thought he was divinely inspired, and many people believed him.

People are often credulous when faced with a confident liar.

Well, it's like this with some of these guys:

"We don't want to accept that Jesus existed under any circumstances, therefore if historians try to draw a comparison to someone such as Muhammad, we need to claim Muhammad didn't exist either. And if they try to draw a comparison to any religious figure at all, we absolutely must deny the existence of any and all religious figures that can be compared to Jesus, come hell or high water!!!"

The shit gets so deep with them they end up drowning themselves with it, and I sit back and laugh hysterically at their vain efforts.

It's a shit-show, literally.