Response to Apollos

Previous reply from Apollos:

Carrier is an historian yes but you know nothing about him if you believe he does not reject the resurrection on supernatural grounds. His statement above is one of many attempts to defend his anti-supernatural presuppositions about the Bible in general. And I would be suspicious of his �historical� critique of Islam (as he does) because of the same bias.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

I never said that he did not deny the resurrection because of its supernatural elements.  I said that he as well as other historians present various reasons, including what they see as historical problems with the Gospel accounts.  I also said that whether he is right or wrong is another issue and am simply showing how your assertion that the secular scholars only deny the resurrection because of its supernatural status was wrong.       

 

New Reply from Apollos:

When a scholar admits that he/she does not believe super-natural events have or can occur, the �historical problems� they raise with such claims are not additional reasons for rejecting the super-natural claim, they are simply attempts to justify their illogical premise. While you may think this is just my opinion and there is nothing suspect about such a critic�s objections, the critics themselves reveal this bias when they refer to examples about super-natural claims that they would never raise about natural claims.

 

The bottom line is � the only objective way to evaluate historical claims about a supposed event is to set aside one�s philosophical bias about the event being possible. Especially when that philosophical bias is logically flawed.

 

  

Previous reply from Apollos:

I requote you here so your logical fallacy of special pleading is clear.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

I think the fallacy is in your claim that secular sources and spiritual sources should be looked at in the same light in all cases.  I think it would depend on the context.  Do we look at the natural and the supernatural realms in the same way?  Of course not. 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

Yes we should.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Because the Gospels make many extraordinary claims.  For those claims, extraordinary evidence would be required. 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

As I asked before, what might these extraordinary evidences be?

 

 

Previous reply from Apollos:

You aren�t paying attention. The time period of �August Lords� extends until 29 AD when Livia died, does it not?

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

It seems you are the one not paying attention.  I already proved that the title �August lords� was also used to refer to Augustus and Livia, not just Tiberius and Livia.  I would like you to prove that the title referred only to Tiberius and Livia.  Show me archaeological evidence.  Just blindly quoting Christian apologists does not count as proof. 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

I will try to connect the dots for you again: The period of �August Lords� included the years up to 29 A.D � the time frame Luke refers to. By way of archaeology we know that Lysanias was �tetrarch� of Abilene not �king� as Josephus claims. So if there is only one Lysanias, Josephus didn�t get his title correct. If Josephus was referring to another person by the same name, we don�t have corroboration for that. So, Luke definitely got the title correct and his dating corresponds with the period of the �August Lords�. If Josephus was referring to another person by the same name, and if this other person was a �king�, then neither Josephus or Luke are incorrect � they are just referring to different people with the same name. In all of this the doubt is on Josephus, not Luke.

 

This covers the period Luke refers to. You have admitted that Josephus made one error about Lysanias so please don�t appeal to him again to prove his dating is correct compared to Luke.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Wrong.  I showed that in Antiquities, he indeed referred to Lysanias� territory as a �tetrarchy�.  The other points I made were hypothetical.  I was saying that even if Josephus did make an error, it was irrelevant compared to Luke�s errors. 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

And Luke�s error is?

 

 

Previous Reply from Apollos:

We know a lot. We know he called �son� by Peter, that he accompanied Peter on many missionary trips.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

OK, and what is this based on?

 

Previous reply from Apollos:

1Pe 5:13  The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

 

Or in the NASB:

 

1Pe 5:13  She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

In the previous verse, it refers to Sylvanus, his secretary.  There is no mention of Mark being a secretary to Peter. 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

You skipped right over the answer I gave you. You challenged my claim that Mark was called �son� by Peter and that he accompanied Peter on many missionary trips. I substantiate my assertion and you ignore this trying to go on to another challenge. All the while, you keep trying to reduce the discussion to some meaningless contention that you concoct. My confidence in the NT writings does not rely on Mark being Peter�s secretary. So please stop ignoring my answers and stop trying to change the argument to something I have not asserted.

 

You asked why you �should trust your salvation on the words of humans� � referring to the NT writings. I answered that you should trust what these humans wrote because they contain reliable accounts about Jesus. By trying to focus on Mark and whether he wrote from personal observation or on behalf of Peter, you are missing the big picture. Mark is one of several writers including Jesus� earthly brothers � James and Jude. They, John, Matthew and Paul were all eyewitnesses of Jesus and Luke based his writing on eyewitness accounts. They all corroborate each other, they quote each other at times and the Early Church accepted their writings as reliable and authoritative. (That�s why they made numerous copies of these writings). So, if you think that the accounts are not reliable, please explain why or ask questions that relate to the real issue instead of 21 questions about Mark�s credentials.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

In addition, I have already commented on the question of authorship of �Peter�s� letters.  The early Christian canons looked upon these letters with suspicion.  Why was this so, I wonder? 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

There are reasons but it doesn�t matter. They were accepted by the Early Church as you know.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Furthermore, what indication is there that this Mark is the same one who wrote the Gospel which bears his name?  How can we make that connection when the Gospel is actually anonymous?      

 

New Reply from Apollos:

From other ancient writings. But again, the fact that it was accepted by the Early Church makes that a moot point.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

And once again, you skipped parts of my response.  Let me repeat my response to your attempts to prove that Mark was an eyewitness to Jesus:

 

Conjecture and nothing more.  You have no solid evidence. 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

Yes I am employing conjecture about how much Mark observed himself, but I am not speculating that he wrote his gospel on behalf of Peter. Papias and Clement of Rome wrote that Mark was Peter�s interpreter and that wrote his gospel from Peter�s remembrances.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Prove to me that Mark was an eyewitness to Jesus� ministry.  Conjectural statements mean nothing.  Maybe that�s why the Quran says that those who believe that Jesus died follow only conjecture.    

 

New Reply from Apollos:

As I mentioned above, Mark doesn�t have to be an eyewitness for his writing to be reliable. He wrote his gospel while Peter and other disciples were alive and if they had a problem with what Mark wrote, they would have said so. Instead Peter calls Mark his son and Paul compliments him a profitable servant. According to the Church Fathers Peter specifically endorsed what Mark had written.

 

 

Previous Reply from Apollos:

Here are a few of the things students of the Bible note when reading this and other passages about the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven:

 

The NT says that in some ways, the Kingdom of God �does not come by observation�, yet it is �in the midst� of those Jesus spoke to. Just before the transfiguration of Jesus � where he was clothed in glory and endorsed by God the Father, Jesus said that some standing there would see �the kingdom of God come with power�.

  

Previous reply from Apollos:

Because only three of those standing there at that time got to see this glimpse of the Kingdom of God � Jesus in Glory.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Then he would have just said that �in about a week, three of you will see the kingdom of God but actually it will just be my transfiguration� or something like.  But, no.  He says that some of the people who were with him would not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.  That is clearly a reference to the distant future and not just a week later. 

 

Notice also that it was Jesus who actually took the three of them to the site of the transfiguration.  It was not as if it just happened that way and only three of them happened to be there when the transfiguration occurred.  Jesus purposely took only the three of them.  If the reference to the kingdom of God was actually talking about the transfiguration, then Jesus would have simply said that in about a week he would take three of his disciples to an important event.

 

New Reply from Apollos:

Why didn�t Jesus say things the way you think they should have been said? Gee, I don�t know. Maybe He wasn�t trying to appeal to people like you but to the people He was talking to.

 

You really haven�t paid attention to what I said about the different aspects of the Kingdom of God. It is clear that there are different aspects and the context of how, when and where the phrase is used explains what aspect it is. The coming in glory aspect was the predominant thing the Jews and Disciples expected and it what was revealed to some standing there at that time. As the gospel account states: �Peter and those with him were heavy with sleep. But fully awakening, they saw His glory, and the two men who stood with Him.� Peter describes in his letters, that this glory of Jesus was a past event he had experienced as well as a future event to be revealed to all:

 

2Pe 1:17-18 -  For He received honor and glory from God the Father, when was borne to Him a voice from the excellent glory, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And we heard this voice being borne from Heaven, being with Him in the holy mountain.�

 

1Pe 5:1  - I exhort the elders who are among you, I being also an elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed.

 

    

Previous reply from Apollos:

You are ignoring the different aspects of the Kingdom of God that I summarized for you. Again you are very na�ve and need to study the NT if you are going to declare you know what the NT says about this topic.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

You are not answering my question.  What Paul said is almost identical to what the Gospels said.  Both were expecting Jesus� imminent return.  The na�vet� is on your part.  Was Paul referring to the transfiguration or the actual 2^nd coming or some other event? 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

Again you are reading in your notion of Christ�s return into the NT. Yes Christians are supposed to be ready for Christ�s return for them at any time. No, this return is not synonymous with Christ coming in glory.

 

   

Previous reply from Apollos:

What you really mean is, �I want to believe that a few doubtful statements in the Gospels gives me the opportunity to dismiss anything else I don�t agree with�. That�s true isn�t it?

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Why should I believe a source which claims to be an eyewitness account but which contains not one, not two but several �doubtful� statements? 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

Because that is all they are: two questionable statements among hundreds of other unquestionable statements. (Are you trying to say the Quran you believe doesn�t have at least two questionable statements? Of course it does.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Why should I believe a source which while claiming to be an eyewitness account, was not even written in the time of Jesus but several decades after? 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

Because this was and is common practice for recording events. But as I mentioned before, other sources tell us that Matthew wrote down much of his Gospel in short hand as it occurred. He simply wrote it out in long hand years later.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Why should I believe it when there is so much evidence of forgeries and questionable chains of transmission? 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

Please provide examples of this evidence?

 

You have no logical or historical reason to doubt the majority of things the Gospel writers describe about Jesus but you have to, don�t you? Otherwise, it doesn�t fit with Islam. On a strictly historical basis, you admit the Gospels are mostly reliable but there is no way you can accept most of what they say, can you? I can�t find even one chapter in the Gospels that you would agree with. How does that square with your view?

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

I agree that a man named Jesus did exist.  He is mentioned in sources outside of the Gospel, like the Talmud.  So, in that sense, the Gospels are historically accurate.  But then come the unhistorical claims, and I feel that my suspicions are therefore legitimate.  The Quran, when it makes statements concerning Jesus, does not contradict history.  It confirms a crucifixion taking place.  This is a historically accurate statement. 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

Does it get his mother�s relatives correct? No, it does not. Does it agree with Jewish or secular or Christian writings that Jesus died? No, it does not. Does it agree with Jewish or Christian writings about what Jesus said? No, it does not. So how can you declare that the Quran does not contradict history concerning Jesus?

 

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Your assertions are based on the a priori assumption that since the Gospels are the earliest sources on Jesus� life, that automatically makes them the most �reliable�, despite the fact that there is no evidence that they were written by people who knew him or were eyewitnesses. 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

No evidence? There is greater evidence for this �assumption� than there is for any ancient person or event � including Mohammed and the Quran. Besides the numerous Jewish, secular and Christian writings that corroborate this, how do you ignore the Church that these eyewitnesses and writings created? Really, I am finding it hard to take you serious.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

I think the better assertion is that we really don�t have much reliable information about Jesus.  The earliest sources were written decades after him.  At best, that would make them secondary sources.  What we need are actual primary sources and there are none. 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

Please provide the historical criteria which supports your claim; A criteria that works not just for NT writings but for all ancient writings. Hint:

 

Previous reply from Apollos:

That really begs the question. But your assertion does not address what I said.  As I explained earlier, your goal to reduce the Gospels to something less than God�s Word is flawed. I could just as easily declare that because the Quran was not written by God Himself, I don�t need to take it seriously. After all, God did write the 10 commandments down with His own finger so why shouldn�t I expect the same approach on anything God wants us to take seriously?

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Your explanation would only make sense if that is what I actually said.  I never said that the Gospels had to be literally written by God.  I am simply pointing out that according to Christian doctrine, they were �divinely inspired�.  What does �divine inspiration� mean?  Does it not mean that the authors were under the guidance of God?  Based on this, the conclusion would have to be that because of the divine inspiration, there should be no errors in the Gospels.  But since there are errors, then clearly they are not �God�s word� dictated to chosen individuals.   

 

New Reply from Apollos:

Historical Christian doctrine is that the original autographs were divinely inspired. Textual criticism confirms that we have 99.5% of what the originals contained. This type of �error� is negligible but could explain an error without conflicting with Christian doctrine. Your claim of other errors is without evidence. You have shown a couple �questionable� statements that could be true but just don�t have corroboration by other sources.

 

 

Previous reply from Apollos:

You misquote me again. They may be from God and that is a separate issue.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

As I said, it is not a separate issue, but you want it to be one.  The errors in the Gospels serve as proof that they are not from God or even inspired by God.  They are the words of men who had bits and pieces of information and tried to put the pieces together in some way. 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

Show me a clear error � not just a questionable statement that doesn�t have corroboration from other sources. Or admit that this criteria is a valid one that the Quran can be subjected to.

 

But even if I did admit this, is that your basis for thinking that God will let you off the hook? That Apollos said they were not from God?

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Of course not.  I don�t need you to tell me that they are not from God.  The evidence is clear to me.  That is my opinion.  And because of this, I feel that if for some reason the Gospels turn out to be true, I don�t think that God, if He was fair, would hold anyone who did not believe in them because of the lack of evidence responsible. 

 

New Reply from Apollos:

As we move on to the other thread, should I take the same approach: Consider that questionable statements in the Quran are proof that it has errors in it? If I don�t like your explanations about a questionable statement, should I call this lack of evidence and dismiss it all? If I am sure that God wouldn�t say the things the Quran says, is that a good enough reason to reject it all?

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Before closing, let me point out that you have had nothing to say about Luke�s error regarding the census being of the entire Roman world.  Since this appears to be the case, do you agree that there could not have been a census of the entire Roman world in the time period Luke claims, and therefore it is an error?    

New Reply from Apollos:

No, I do not believe Luke is in error on this. See W.M. Ramsay�s books (Was Christ Born at Bethelehem? Luke the Physician. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the N.T.) for corroboration.

islamispeace wrote: Apollos, You have not responded to every issue.  You skipped certain parts.  Please respond to those as well.

Islamispeace - As requested, I have created a new topic with some of my questions to you. It is titled "Questions for Islamsipeace".

Edited by Apollos - 23 August 2009 at 9:46am

New Reply from Apollos:

Even in his own biography, Theodore Drange - whom I have never heard of before - does not claim to be a historian.  He is welcome to play amateur historian but when I asked for evidence of your claim that some historians reject the resurrection on historical grounds, I expected you to produce a real historian.

He has training in philosophy and religion.  How would one study religion without studying the history of it?  I am sorry, but it is not up to you determine whether someone is credible or not.  But, I can give you another example if you want.  According to Richard Carrier:

 

��the Gospels were written no sooner to the death of their main character--and more likely many decades later--than was the case for the account of Genevieve; and like that account, the Gospels were also originally anonymous--the names now attached to them were added by speculation and oral tradition half a century after they were actually written.� [1]  

Now you certainly can't deny that he is a historian! 

 

One thing to keep in mind here is that I am simply responding to your claim that historians reject the resurrection solely on the reason that it entails a supernatural event.  Drange and Carrier are examples of atheist historians who have other reasons.  Whether they are right or wrong is another issue.  

 

New reply from Apollos:

This is wrong on so many fronts. For one, you don�t apply this criteria to Mohammed�s claim about the Quran, do you? If so, I would love to see how.

 

Like I have said a dozen times, you are more than welcome to post these questions about Islam on another thread. 

 

Another problem you have created with this notion is your statement acknowledges special pleading. When it comes to something you deem �extraordinary� you demand different types or quantities of evidence. Is this not so?

 

How so?  The Gospels claim to be the guides to salvation.  Is this not an extraordinary claim?  Should we not look at them from a different angle than we would secular sources?  But even when we look at it from an ordinary point of view, it still lacks any credible evidence.    

 

You also are indicating that the evidence for the resurrection or the NT claims in general � have already met the ordinary level of evidence for historical events. Otherwise why would anyone make such a statement? One doesn�t ask for extra-ordinary evidence unless ordinary evidence is already lacking.

 

Do you still want argue that this position is valid?

 

The �ordinary evidence� is lacking.  I think that has already been proven.  For example, the Gospel of Matthew talks about a massacre which fails to show up anywhere else.  The Gospel of Luke makes several mistakes about the Roman Empire.  Judging from such a resume, I would say that the �ordinary evidence� of the Gospels� historical accuracy is certainly lacking.  And because of those same errors, one would have to also conclude that the Gospels could not be the word of God, as is generally claimed.  So, the extraordinary evidence is also lacking.     

 

New reply from Apollos:

If your previous objection was valid and one cared about �extraordinary claims�, it is clear that the only way one knows when something is ordinary or extraordinary is when you say so. There is no objectivity or logic about this assertion.

 

You can misconstrue it anyway you want.  I still have not seen any evidence for the Gospels.  I have not seen any reason to believe them or trust my afterlife on their claims.  You may feel that the opposite is true, and that it your choice. 

   

New reply from Apollos:

Whenever I ask you to show how your asserted methodology applies to Islam, you want to open a new thread. I don�t want to because I don�t want to lose sight of the Biblical parallel you are indicting.

 

From my experience, I have learned that people try to divert attention to another subject and the original subject tends to get sidetracked.  I don�t want that to happen.  So, if you have questions about Islam, I insist that you open a new thread.  Remember that when I originally asked the question about Hosea 11, it was in another thread.  Instead of getting everything mixed up, was it not better and more organized to open a new thread?  I certainly think so.  So�open a new thread. 

 

New reply from Apollos:

If you mean they didn�t use the phrase �historical account�, neither do most other ancient writers who have left �historical accounts� for us to study. But they did claim to give accurate, factual accounts about Jesus. They knew what myths, fables and lies were and they declared that they were telling the truth about what they had seen and heard. In the example I described, Josephus was clearly wrong and they were correct. Pretty significant for people who weren�t historians.

 

I think it is funny how you question whether a university professor with training in philosophy and religion is not a �historian� but a tax collector or a physician is.  Go figure. 

 

I think you should actually read the works of ancient historians to get a better gauge of what they said.  For instance, consider what Josephus wrote to begin Antiquities of the Jews:

 

�1. THOSE who undertake to write histories, do not, I perceive, take that trouble on one and the same account, but for many reasons, and those such as are very different one from another. [�] Now of these several reasons for writing history, I must profess the two last were my own reasons also; for since I was myself interested in that war which we Jews had with the Romans, and knew myself its particular actions, and what conclusion it had, I was forced to give the history of it, because I saw that others perverted the truth of those actions in their writings.� [2]

 

Consider what Florus wrote to begin his Epitome:

 

�So, as the history of Rome is especially worthy of study, yet because the very vastness of the subject is a hindrance to the knowledge of it, and the diversity of its topics distracts the keenness of the attention, I intend to follow the example of those who describe the geography of the earth, and include a complete representation of my subject as it were in a small picture.  I shall thus, I hope, contribute something to the admiration in which this illustrious people is held by displaying their greatness all at once in a single view.� [3]

 

I would also question your claim that the Gospel writers knew what myths and fables were.  They clearly did not.  And also, regarding the error by Josephus, I showed that if it was an error, it was small potatoes compared to Luke�s error.  Who cares if Josephus referred to Lysanias as king instead of tetrarch (even though he did not do that in Antiquities as I showed)?  At least he placed Lysanias in the correct historical period, unlike Luke who has Lysanias being tetrarch 50 years after the fact.

 

Oh and I see you did not respond to the issue of why Luke said that the census was of the entire Roman world.  I responded to your quote of A.T. Robertson that Luke literally meant the �inhabited� land.  How do you reconcile Luke�s claim that there was a census of the Roman world at a time when there should not have been one, at least if we consider the Res Gestae, which mentions 3 widespread Roman censuses, as you pointed out before?

 

But I don�t follow your thinking at all. I am not salvaging the authority of these writings � I am establishing it. If the statements they made about Jesus are true, you can call it what you want � history, theology, revelation, etc. The fact remains that they are truthful contemporaries who tell us about Jesus.

 

I am now more interested in what you call them.  I am getting confused because it seems you are not sure yourself. 

 

In any case, believe what you will.  The evidence shows that you are wrong, in my opinion.   

 

New reply from Apollos:

You are digging yourself a deeper hole by using Josephus to defend Josephus � as if he is correct on the date but just not the title. Unfortunately you have only proven that Josephus is wrong on another aspect of Lysanias. Here is what we know from archaeology:

The temple inscription I referred to reads:" For the salvation of the August lords and of all their household, Nymphaeus, freedman of Eagle Lysanias tetrarch established this street and other things."

The reference to August lords is a joint title given only to the emperor Tiberius (son of Augsutus) and his mother Livia (widow of Augustus). This reference establishes the date of the inscription to between A.D. 14 and 29 because the year 14 was the year of Tiberius' accession and the year 29 was the year of Livia's death. Therefore the 15th year of Tiberius is the year 29 A.D., and it lies within the reign of the August lords. This evidence supports Luke's reference that Lysanias was a tetrarch and that he was so around the time of John the Baptist (29 A.D.). It does not agree with Josephus. Maybe Josephus was referring to an earlier person by the same name but given the archaeological evidence, only Luke is exonerated not Josephus.

 

Oh for goodness sake man!  Did you even read what I wrote about the inscription?  I dealt specifically with the Christian attempts at harmonizing Luke with the historical evidence.  I showed that the title �August lords� was not only used for Tiberius and Livia.  A coin from 10 BC shows that the title was also used for Augustus and Livia.  So, it is Luke who is in error, not Josephus.  Let me paste what I wrote again [the parts with emphasis deal specifically with this issue:

 

Actually, the translation of Antiquities of the Jews (20, 7:1) I found referred to the territory of Lysanias as a �tetrarchy�. [2]  Even if Josephus made such an error elsewhere, it is still small potatoes compared to the major error Luke made by placing this Lysanias as a contemporary of John the Baptist and Jesus!  Lysanias was tetrarch nearly 40 years before Jesus was even born, so how could he have been tetrarch of Abilene around 29 AD?  Now, you have tried to claim that Lysanias was tetrarch during the time Luke refers, using A.T. Robertson as your support.  Considering that you also refer to Josephus, and Josephus refers to Lysanias being in power nearly 50 years earlier, we obviously have a problem.  There were not two tetrarchs of Abilene named Lysanias, just like Quirinius was not the governor of Syria on more than one occasion.  The evidence disproves such as assertion.  The inscription you refer to at the site of a temple in Abilene which mentions Lysanias as the tetrarch during the reign of the �August lords�, is not evidence of a second Lysanias.  Christians assert that only Tiberius, the son of Augustus, and Livia (the widow of Augustus) were referred to by the title �August lords�.  What do they base this on?  We know from a coin dated to 10 BC which refers to Augustus and Livia with the same title. [3]  So, there is no evidence of a second Lysanias, and Luke is wrong once again.  Compared to this error, Josephus� alleged error about Lysanias being king is irrelevant. 

 

I don�t know if you missed this part of if you completely ignored certain parts of my response (which would explain why you were able to respond so quickly), but it was there nonetheless.  It was Luke who made the error.

 

New reply from Apollos:

We know a lot. We know he called �son� by Peter, that he accompanied Peter on many missionary trips.

 

OK, and what is this based on?

 

We know that Peter used secretaries to write his letters and we have Church Fathers who said Mark wrote the Gospel by his name on behalf of Peter.

 

None of the letters attributed to Peter mention Mark by name.  1 Peter mentions a certain Sylvanus, but there is never any mention of Mark.  And even if Mark was a secretary and he was simply writing the Gospel that bears his name on behalf of Peter, then why is it credited to Mark?  Should it not be credited to Peter?  After all, it has been claimed that the letters attributed to Peter were written by his secretaries, but they were not given the title �1 Sylvanus� or �2 Sylvanus�, were they?

 

From tradition and the language in John�s gospel it appears that Mark was the young man who ran away from the Garden of Gesthemene when Jesus was arrested which would make him an eyewitness to many of things he writes about � not just a secretary. When I say he may have been eyewitness, I am being as generous to skeptics as possible. He should be viewed as a possible eyewitness to Jesus and certainly an eyewitness to Peter.

 

Conjecture and nothing more.  You have no solid evidence.  All you can say is that �it appears that Mark was the young man��  You don�t have to be �generous�.  The evidence speaks for itself, in my opinion.  The Gospel of Mark also mentions a certain young man. [4] Why didn�t Mark just say that it was himself?  If it was not Mark, then who was it?  Were there in fact two young men, just like there were two Lysanias tetrarchs or two gubernatorial reigns of Quirinius?  Do you see a pattern emerging here?      

    

New reply from Apollos:

So you are claiming that they did not obtain or hope to obtain wives and goods from the people they fought with? They ultimately prevailed against them so whether your time period is 1 year or twenty years, their actions and ultimate result reveals their objectives.

 

This is complete BS.  Do you really think that they needed Islam to get more wives?  Are you that na�ve?  There was no limit in pagan Arabia on how many wives one could have.  If they wanted more wives, they could have gotten them from the start.  They did not need to believe in Islam to do so.  In fact, Islam limited the number of wives and put the condition that the husband treat each wife equally or else only take one wife.  Do you think that they would risk life and limb for that?    

 

Certainly, they had nothing to gain during the first 10-15 years, did they?  And certainly not until the defeat of the pagans at Medina did the tide turn in favor of the Muslims, so much so that the pagans were willing to establish a peace treaty (which they would break only 2 years later).  So, in effect for 18 or so years prior to the capture of Mecca, the Muslims were constantly being harassed and the threat of annihilation was always hanging over their heads.  Had they been so driven by the prospect of riches and wealth, they would have tried to persuade Muhammad (pbuh) to accept the Quraysh�s offer to him in the early years of his mission.  These people were forced to leave their homes, to choose between their faith and their families and at times their lives.  That was not an easy choice to make, and most of them chose their faith.  The facts speak for themselves.  You can misconstrue it all you want.  Not only will it not change the facts about the motivations of the early Muslims, it will also not change the fact that the Gospels are wrong about a lot of things.          

 

New reply from Apollos:

I don�t know � and I don�t think anyone does � if Ptolemy the Gnostic is one who fits the criteria I mentioned. If he is, he is one person and not analogous to the NT writers.

 

Regardless Ptolemy, he was willing to die for his beliefs.  After he converted a Roman woman to the teachings of Valentinus, he was arrested by the Romans and executed.  This fits the criteria you mentioned.  One could also point to the Bahai faith and the Mormon faith.  The followers of those religions underwent extreme hardships as well. 

 

Buddha may have been sincere in his belief but even if he was, he only claimed to have internal subjective knowledge that was superior to that of others. He might also have been insane.

 

One could argue that Jesus was also insane (astagfirAllah).  What about the Bab?  What about Joseph Smith?      

 

 

The followers of Jesus on the other hand were not just one testimony but many who sincerely believed they saw, felt and spoke with Jesus after He had been killed. The latter were testifying to an event that happened in space and time not just an event in their minds. Their motivations then are helpful in establishing their credibility.

 

As I have said before, I find it hard to believe that anyone can know, given the track record of the NT writings, exactly what the disciples of Jesus believed or said.     

  

New reply from Apollos:

Here are a few of the things students of the Bible note when reading this and other passages about the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven:

 

The NT says that in some ways, the Kingdom of God �does not come by observation�, yet it is �in the midst� of those Jesus spoke to. Just before the transfiguration of Jesus � where he was clothed in glory and endorsed by God the Father, Jesus said that some standing there would see �the kingdom of God come with power�.

 

No, he said that some who were standing there would not taste death until they saw the kingdom of God.  Why would he make such a statement when he was talking about an event that would occur within a week?  How many of the people that were there had died by the 6^th day?    

 

How do you reconcile this with what Paul said regarding the imminence of the second coming?  He wasn�t even around for the transfiguration, nor did he witness it.  And yet, he refers to the coming of the kingdom of God.

 

Concerning the ultimate kingdom of God on earth, the Disciples were told not to be concerned with when it would come.

 

That may very well be but that does not explain why Jesus would actually tell them that some of them would be alive to see it.  You could look at it from the point of view that Jesus simply told them that he would come within the lifetimes of some of them, but he did not say exactly when.  He didn�t say the year, the day etc. and told the disciples not to be concerned about the specific details.  

 

 While Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God was near and at hand, He also instructed His disciples to pray that God�s kingdom would come. At the last supper He said He would not drink of the fruit of the vine again until the Kingdom of God had come � and we have no record that He ever drank of this again with them.

 

And your point is?  Of course he did not drink it again.  He never came back!     

 

On the cross, one of thieves said to Jesus: "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" To which Jesus replied: "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." Maybe Jesus was saying that being in Paradise was the same as being in His kingdom or He was comforting the repentant thief that he would be with Jesus much sooner than when Jesus �came into His kingdom�.

 

Since both of them were going to die soon, I think the meaning is pretty simple.  The thief would be in Paradise after he dies.  I don�t see anything there about the second coming.

 

When Peter knew his time on earth was short, he referred to the transfiguration event as �the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ�. He also refers to the Kingdom of our Lord as existing at the time of his writing.

 

I have already commented on the letters of Peter and its history of canonization.  I also commented how 2 Peter seems to confirm the claim that the early Christians were expecting Jesus to return but were confused and panicking when he did not.  This is what I wrote specifically:

 

There is also the issue of 2 Peter 3:4.  This passage seems to suggest that people were expecting Jesus� return because many of the disciples were dead.  This brings us back to the issue of why the Gospels quoted Jesus as saying that he would return within the lifetimes of some of the disciples.  2 Peter seems to suggest that this was the case.  But it tries to explain why Jesus had not returned.  Verse 9 seems to say that God has given the people more time to believe.  In effect, it says that God delayed the return of Jesus so that all would �come to repentance.� 

 

2Pe 1:11  For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

2Pe 1:15 -18  Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

 

To refer to the Kingdom simplistically as you have done is simply na�ve.

 

See above. 

 

Previous Reply by Apollos:

As I said before, I am not arguing for their inspiration for that is another issue. Even if they are not, they are reliable and authoritative. They are the best information we have about Jesus.

  

New reply from Apollos:

I don�t understand your point here. On the one hand you say inspiration is not another issue but then you say the NT writings could be historically accurate even though they are not inspired.

 

I am simply making a general statement.  I said one issue is simply an extension of the other.  So, if for instance the Gospels get a few minute details wrong, kind of like if Josephus made the error of calling Lysanias �king� instead of �tetrarch�, that would destroy their credibility as being inspired of God.  However, it would not be reasonable to just reject them entirely because they could still offer some historical significance.  For instance, we would not regard the Hindu religious texts as being from God, but they could still offer some insight into Hindu culture and history, which they do.  The question would be how accurate they are.  The Gospels can be looked at in the same light.  It would require further study to determine the historical significance of the texts.  Based on what I have seen so far, I would have to conclude that the Gospels are not historically accurate in some cases. 

 

New reply from Apollos:

No we have discussed areas that you believe casts doubt on their historical accuracy. I believe the conflicts between Josephus and Luke are a result of Josephus being wrong. I have shown that Josephus was clearly wrong about at least one title and one date where Luke and Josephus differ so I see no reason to use Josephus as the benchmark of accuracy.

 

Yes, you did so by completely ignoring what I had written.  I knew you would refer to the �August lords� argument, so I preempted you by showing why that line of reasoning is not accurate. 

 

Concerning Matthew, you have only pointed out that there is lacking corroboration on a few points. This is clearly not proof that Matthew is wrong.

 

It shows that Matthew made up some stories.  It shows that he also introduced new interpretations.  The complete lack of Jewish corroboration about the massacre shows that it was not a historical event.

   

New reply from Apollos:

No I am not changing the subject. I am confirming the distinction you have acknowledged between historical and inspired and I am pointing out how arbitrary and subjective your attempt is to dismiss what the NT says about Jesus � simply because it is not inspired. (Remember you said: �Why would God hold me responsible for rejecting the words of humans?�) I used your �logic� and posed the question I did, to show the flaw in this thinking not to start a new thread on the Quran.

 

The difference is that the Quran is inspired.  The Quran came from God.  You have admitted that the Gospels did not come from God.  Therefore, if for some unfathomable reason, it turns out the Gospels were right, I don�t think God would hold us responsible for rejecting them. 

  

New reply from Apollos:

I have not criticized the Quran for being unique. There is nothing wrong about being unique in itself. I have challenged the Quran for contradicting history, science and the Bible with some of it�s unique statements but it is still a problem if the Quran conflicts with these things with statements shared by other writings or groups. (E.g. � atheists agree with the Quran that Jesus is not the Son of God).

 

Oh please don�t bring science into this.  The resurrection is not exactly a scientific phenomenon, wouldn�t you say? 

 

When you say the Quran�s claim is not unique, I assume you mean the one claim about Jesus not dying on the cross. Are you now claiming that because there is a similar claim in the second century that the Quran�s claim is proven true? If there was no contrary evidence, I would follow your reasoning but as it is, I don�t see how this elevates the Quran above Matthew.

 

No, I am saying that it has corroboration at least, unlike Matthew.  And as has been pointed out before, the event in question is actually not a matter of history, but a matter of the supernatural.  If we want to look at it from the point of view of history, we would see that the Quran agrees that there was a man named Jesus who was going to be executed.  The only part it differs with involves a supernatural event around the time of the crucifixion.  We would not expect secular historians to buy such a story.     

 

New reply from Apollos:

The Jewish and Christian view of Scripture is that even the Prophets themselves did not always know what they were prophesying. It is the Messiah who will explain what many passages mean. If Jesus is the Messiah, we should look to him to interpret things as he sees fit and heed His apostles as they tell what these interpretations were.

 

So, then you are saying that there was a �hidden� meaning then?  How else would the Prophets not know what they were prophesying?  In any case, there is no indication that Hosea 11 was speaking of the future.  There is no indication that it was to be read as a prophecy.        

  

New reply from Apollos:

Did he not live in an area where Jews and Christians traveled? Does he not refer to Jewish and Christian beliefs and actions as if they were common knowledge to people around him?

Just because he lived in an area where Jews and Christians may have traveled does not mean that he automatically learned everything from them.  You would think that if he had been getting �lessons� from Jews and Christians for many years, someone would have brought it up when Muhammad (pbuh) proclaimed his prophethood.  And of course, there is no indication that anyone did.      

In addition to this, Muhammad (pbuh) performed miracles and made prophecies which came true. 

New reply from Apollos:

I gather that you don�t have any proof of these miracles, correct?

 

They are found in the Hadith literature.  I think there were some 1,000 miracles attributed to him.  

 

Actually I thought read other Muslims on this site that said Mohammed did not perform any miracles. Is your view the �orthodox� one or a minority view?

 

I don�t know who said that but they would be contradicting the majority view.  I have not seen anyone make that claim though.  I don�t think your view of the Bible is exactly �orthodox� either.  You have argued for the Bible�s historical accuracy while not arguing in favor of its �inspired� status, which as far I have read, is central to Christendom.  

 

I still don�t see how this is evidence that he had a revelation from God. Are you saying that the words of the Quran are clearly beyond the abilities of an illiterate merchant?

 

I don�t know many poets or writers who were able to come up with a book of poetry while being unable to either read or write.  I suppose it is possible but definitely extremely unlikely.  There is no indication that Muhammad (pbuh) was a well-known poet before he proclaimed his prophethood.  Perhaps that is why some of the pagans accused him of being �possessed� or being a �magician�.  

 

Are you saying that Mohammed performed miracles that we can have confidence about them having occurred? Please clarify.

 

Yes, we can.  They were witnessed by many people and we have credible sources vouching for their authenticity.  This is not like with the Bible.

 

 

Edited by islamispeace - 18 August 2009 at 3:36pm