|
|
|
|
|
|
by pooooka
43 days ago
|
|
|
Ashokan carvings are not historical documents attributed to the historical person of Buddha. Which is what I'm referring too. And my textual criticism on Muhammad stands. We do not know which historical or religious texts attributed to Muhammad were destroyed by Uthman, but most scholars agree that it was substantial. The criticism is valid and true and anyone who has issues with this should provide a counter argument...And I'll be the first to admit that Christianity has issues too. There were a plethora of translations that were taking place. For instance, the story of Jesus and the prostitute (stoning) is a late interpolation added after the fact (300 AD). But that doesn't denote the etymology and historical documentation in the new testament and the same standard SHOULD be applied to Buddhism and Islam and the Viking lord and everything else this poster was claiming as BS. |
|
|
Yeah, if you assert a document is not a document, sure, you can say whatever you'd like.