Yes there are scriptures which make a depiction of prophets a sin. However, the topic is highly debated. Muslims know about Jesus PBUH because we have lots of scripture about him. Jesus PBUH is more mentioned than Muhammad PBUH in the Quran. In Hadith, there are stories of him which don't exist in Christian scriptures. But most importantly, there are non-Muslims in the Middle East. TONS of them.
Unless they're replaced by other religions, this is highly unlikely, especially at the 1,000 year mark. Current major faiths have endured for so long because they've helped shape the modern world. Their scriptures had enough historical, cultural and political content, and even lowbrow psychology, that they were relevant to everday life: whatever the time, person or place. A good anthropologist, book editor and genuinely inquisitive and open-minded public could probably strip every bit of historical and scientific credibility of every claim made in all world religions combined. Would that be worth giving up our idealism, optimism and sense of moral and spritiual unity?
That, too, has been attempted for the last couple thousand years. Actually, most of the historical information we have concerning the Hebrews, Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians is contained within these texts. The Bible, in and of itself, is history. In the New Testament, much of what we know about the Roman Empire and its expansion into the Middle East is found within its scripture. Also, the travels of John and Paul and the apostles shed light into what was happening at this time in Turkey, Italy, throughout the Mediterranean, the Levant, etc.
This is simply bizarre. No legitimate historian uses the Bible as a reference work for the Roman Empire. The same is true of Egyptians, Akkadians, Hittites, Sumerians, etc. There are so many more genuine historical sources.
That's like Carl Everett using the Bible as a Biology textbook. Hence Carl Everett does not believe in dinosaurs.
That's not true at all. More genuine sources? Like what? LOL. That is about the ONLY source we have for much of that time period.
A recent documentary on Christianity proposed that the story of a messiah like god among men was actually a common theme for many ancient peoples predating the jews in the Middle Eastern world. I think it was Religolus!
Off the top of my head for Rome: Herodotus Tacitus Josephus Plutarch Cato the Elder Lysander Xenophon Thucydides If I actually were a trained historian, I could come up with about 1,000,000 more. Do you actually know anybody with a degree in classical history? BTW, your previous post was full of fail, as well. Hebrew, hybrid and brew are all sourced from different words, and 5 minutes with an etymological dictionary will prove this to you. And Egyptians felt about black Nubian about the way the KKK did in 1960's Alabama and Mississippi. They were an extreme minority in Egypt and were hated, even during the very short century when there were Nubian Pharaohs.
Seriously, you are way off. The Bible contains some history that is reinforced by other sources but it also is contradicted at various points by earlier and later documents. The Romans were pretty good record keepers, by the way.
Dude, you named a bunch of Roman and Greek historians, NONE of whom were born before 460 B.C.!!! This is long AFTER the Assyrian Empire, AFTER the Babylonian Empire, AFTER the last book of the Old Testament, AFTER the TORAH, long, long AFTER every single one of the Egyptian Dynasties, INCLUDING the 25th dynasty which was a group of Nubian KINGS from Ethiopia/Sudan. I suppose you think these people were white? Who cares what lighter skinned Egyptians thought about darker skinned Nubians? What in the world are you talking about? What does that have ANYTHING to do with Midianites and black AFRICANS in 1350 B.C.? Yes, I'm well aware of what your book of etymology may tell you about the root of the word Hebrew. Let me ask... Do YOU think the Hebrews were caucasian, african, certainly not asian, do you? Use a little common sense. They were a mixed race. It's been going on for a while whether you want to admit it or not. What are you arguing about here? KKK? I think you're stuck focusing on the Greek influx of culture into Egypt in the 4th century B.C., along with a bunch of damned Roman historians.
Lets go back and look at what you said: My point is 100% proven. You are 100% wrong. Since the events of the New Testament all occur in the period after 430 BC, how the hell does these historians being from after that period have any relevance at all? I mean, besides the fact that these are the appropriate historians to be discussing? All that your complaint proves is that you are wrong. And apparently, somewhat confused. I think if you actually read the thread, particularly the first page and look at the pictures, it is pretty obvious what I am inclined to think, based on what professional anthropologists think. In any case, I'm not the one making absurd Afro-Pride claims about black Jesus and Moses' Nubian wife. I am only interested in refuting your silly claims, not making any myself.
I think right1 is partially correct as my understanding is that the Old Testament contains a lot of the history of the early Hebrews not found elsewhere. Also while the Bible is not used much as a primary sources it has been used to corroborate other sources and vice versa.
Sorry, I am not going to teach you. I don't have a personal investment and you clearly are invested so I am unwilling to go through my books and lay everything out for you. All of the cultures you listed have varying degrees of extant records regarding their rulers, histories, and communication amongst troops and outposts. Those are pretty good resources since they were produced at the time by the cultures. If you want to learn, knock yourself out. Go to a library, read some real history books by scholars of the period and cultures. You will see that the Bible is not the main source for all of that scholarship. As I said, the Bible as historical text is a mixed bag and generally recorded history is a mixed bag. There simply was no real concept of historical truth at that time. A lot is exaggeration, some is blatantly made up. History was thought to be a creative exercise. With regards to Christians, there were plenty in the 300's and 400's who didn't think that Christ ever existed - they didn't think that was needed, there were others who said he existed only in spiritual form, and then there were the ones who said he existed as man on earth. That proves nothing religiously but it is just an example of how history was considered. Even for something as crucial as the Messiah, historical "truth" was not high on the list and was fairly muddy.
