That's 3 decades after Mohammads supposed death thus it is not even a contemporary source let alone a primary source.Most historians have suggested 661 AD.
He never lived in the ****ing Arabian penninsula, he wrote the text 30 years after Mohammad supposedly died, and his is the Muslim narrative which he wrote after the Muslims conquered Armenia where he lived.Do you have any evidence you would like to provide that Sebeos was told "stories" by Muslims? Otherwise, your assertions are baseless.
I'm not the one making the positive claim.You have absolutely 0 evidence for the nonexistence of Muhammad.
Really, which famous historical figures do we not have some sort of visual record of?So? We don't have paintains made of numerous historical figures.
I'm still trying to think of an important historical figure who we don't have some sort of contemporary visual record of.That doesn't mean they didn't exist. What asinine reasoning.
I don't accept Muslim primary sources because they have a clear bias. I don't accept Greek sources for the existence of Achilles. Achilles like Mohammad is a mythical not a historical figure. If Mohammad existed then there would have been a contemporary record of him by the Sassanids and/or the Byzantines. It is asserted that a biography was written about him nearly a century after his death and no copies exist and coins with his name on them weren't struck until 6 decades after his death.Why don't you accept Muslim primary sources? Or do you have selective source bias?
Are you out of your bloody mind, it is you and all Muslims who claim that Mohammad existed, it is up to the person making the positive claim to prove it.In case you forgot, you were the one who asserted that Muhammad did not exist. The burden of proof on proving that is on you.