Response to Apollos

Apollos:  Remember, you said that: �I think we agree that we must look at both the Bible and the Quran from the same viewpoint�. You appear now to be trying to revise my view into something else but I don�t believe it agrees with your view in the end, does it?

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

It seems to me that the difference between the two is that the events in the Islamic traditions which are denied by modern historians all revolve around the supernatural.  Not so with the Bible.  

 

New Reply by Apollos:

I think that your view misrepresents these two situations. If they were analogous, the claim that Jesus was not crucified � as the Quran states � would have existed just like the claims that Jesus was crucified. Some historians would reject the supernatural part of the claim but they would acknowledge that the basic claim existed outside the Quran by people who were likely to know the facts.

 

It is true that the NT and early Christians also claimed that Jesus resurrected from the dead and this was a miracle but the Quran doesn�t say that Jesus avoided the cross miraculously, does it? In fact it indicates that it happened by natural means with someone else dying in his place, doesn�t it? So I don�t see the same factors occurring in the opposite claims of what the Bible and the Quran say on the crucifixion of Jesus.

 

 

Reply from Apollos:

I disagree with your conclusion that most scholars consider Luke to be in error on this. Please provide names as I have done.

Reply by Islamispeace:

Raymond E. Brown, Geza Vermes, James Dunn, E.P. Sanders.

These scholars question certain aspects of the census story.  Luke may have been right about some parts of history, but if he was wrong about others, then clearly, he was not a very good historian.

New Reply by Apollos:

First these four names don�t represent the majority of scholars. I even listed more than this. Secondly, you try to bolster their credibility by referencing the census objections. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Luke�s details differ from Josephus but other history corroborates Luke more than Josephus.

 

 

Apollos: We have records that show that Rome had conducted a census as early as 10 B.C. and it was repeated every 14 years. Augustus himself notes in his Res Gestae (The Deeds of Augustus) that he ordered three wide-spread censuses of Roman citizens, one in 28 B.C., one in 8 B.C. and one in 14 A.D. In between there are several other censuses that happened locally across Rome. Luke's account corroborates that there were multiple censuses for Judea for he writes "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. The word "first" indicates that more than one census had occurred since Jesus birth and the writing that Luke undertook. On this point alone, we can see that Luke is more accurate than Josephus by letting us know this census was just of the censuses.

 

And there is more corroboration that multiple censuses took place. Separate from the above, an enrollment of all the people of the empire happened so they could swear an oath of allegiance to Caesar. In Chapter 34 of Res Gestae Augustus notes, "When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 B.C.E.), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me father of the country, and voted that the same be inscribed in the vestibule of my temple". Josephus also mentions a time "When all good people gave assurance of their good will to Caesar". These types of tributes would also require an enrollment of individuals from across the empire.

Taking all of this together, we have at least three censuses in the area of Judea - one in 8 B.C., one starting around 2 B.C. and one in 6 A.D.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

The very fact that Luke said it was the first under Quirinius refutes your claim.  The first census took place when he replaced Herod Archelaus, which occurred in 6 AD, not before. 

Judea was not a Roman province until after 6 AD, so there could not have been a census before 6 AD.  Judea only became a Roman province after the removal of Herod Archelaus, and the appointing of Quirinius as governor.  Josephus confirms this in Antiquities 17:355.  So, right here, we have a contradiction between Matthew and Luke.  Matthew has Jesus being born before Judea became a Roman province, as a part of Syria, whereas Luke has Jesus being born after Quirinius took control (thereby implying that Judea was now under direct Roman control).

 

 

New Reply by Apollos:

You are not paying attention to what I wrote and your statements have many incorrect facts. Rome certainly did control this region prior to 6 A.D. and they definitely had censuses as early as 10 B.C.  You also seem to trying to twist Luke�s statement into something it does not state. He does not say it was the first census of Judea.

 

We know from the other details of Luke that he is referring to a census in 4 A.D. As I have pointed out, Luke agrees with other historical statements and documents concerning censuses being performed during this time. When you (or historians you esteem) conclude that Luke�s reference to Quirinius as Governor means his census and Josephus� are the same, you are ignoring . As I pointed out, Luke�s reference to Quirinius was not in his role and title of Governor which came at a later date.  

 

So they only questionable part of Luke�s statement is � was Quirinius actually the hegemoneuo of Syria during this time? Please see below for my response on this.

 

Apollos: Though some English translations make it appear that Luke called Quirinius �Governor�, Luke actually refers to him as the �hegemoneuo� or Procurator. There is a big distinction and other records corroborate that Quirinius had done an earlier census for Rome in Syria, he quelled a rebellion for Rome during the time of Luke�s census and he was in deed the one who conducted the census on behalf of Rome as the Procurator. E.g. - Justin Martyr's Apology states that Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea. He also addressed a letter to Emperor Antoninus Pius (who reigned from 138 �161) stating that details of the census can be found in the official Roman archives (JMA 1: 34). Though we don�t have those records now, it was clear that they did exist during Justin Martyr�s day.

 

�Hegemoneuo� does indeed mean �governor�, according to Strong�s Numbers Online Bible Dictionary.  I don�t know where you got the idea that it means �procurator�.  The translations are correct.  All the Bible versions I checked translate it as �governor� including the King James Version.

 

New Reply by Apollos:

I got the idea because �hegemoneuo of Syria� is not a title used for Quirinius or Syria in any other historical writings or artifacts. (Josephus refers to him differently � as a senator). Luke uses the same �hegemoneuo� concerning Pontius Pilate and we now know that Pilate�s actual Roman title was �Prefect�. So Luke is either referring to a general governing role that includes Prefects or it is his word for Prefect.

 

Whatever Quirinius� title was before 6 A.D., we know that he was governing. In Florus (Roman History, 2:31) and Tacitus (Annals 3:48) we see that Quirinius led large military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire a decade before 6 A.D. He therefore held significant leadership position at this time and � even if Luke was technically incorrect to call him �Governor�, he was certainly acting as the �governor�.

 

But if I am wrong on this idea, your argument is simply: Quirinis did not formally have the title of Governor of Syria at the time Luke says so Luke should have called him something else. We know that Quirinius was doing Governor things and we know he had conducted censuses before 6 A.D. so your argument doesn�t touch those things. There is also the possibility that the conflict between Josephus and Luke simply reveals Josephus was in error and not Luke.

 

Reply from Apollos:

Not at all. If one large group who were part of leadership didn�t even believe in heaven, spirits, or the resurrection, this is huge. They actually agreed on most of how one is supposed to follow the Law.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Even a lack of corroboration says a lot.  I find it hard to believe that not one historian considered the event important enough to mention even a little hint of it.  The rest of what you said simply speculation.

 

How would you explain the absence of a reference even in early Christian sources?  Not until the late 2nd century was a reference outside Matthew even made.  How come Papias, Ignatius and others fail to mention this most important event and the miraculous journey of the infant Jesus?

New Reply by Apollos:

No I don�t think this is odd at all as this is not a fundamental in Christian faith. In fact, I would only expect to see them write about it if it were being contested during their time.

 

I do think this is where your methodology seems inconsistent with how you view the Quran�s statements. Do you find it hard to believe that not one ancient historian corroborates the claim that Jesus did not die on the cross? It is a fundamental of Islam is it not? For if Jesus did die as the early believers claimed, they are probably correct about the resurrection as well and the whole Quran falls apart � does it not?

 

 

Reply from Apollos:

I am not sure what the point of this is. I am OK with saying that the resurrection claims are factuals

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Well, we don�t know that Matthew is right about the resurrection, do we?  You never actually proved it. 

 

New Reply by Apollos:

Please explain what you mean. Are you looking for historical proof or scientific proof? What might be the proof you are alluding to?

 

Apollos: and if it turns out that Matthew is questionable on the Massacre of the Innocents, so what?

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

So what??  Here we have the allegedly �inspired�, �inerrant� word of God making mistakes.  And you say �so what�?  It only proves the human origin of the whole Gospel, is all!  And human is not divine, is it?  So, why should I listen to Matthew�s Gospel for ways to achieve salvation?  Its not the word of God, is it?

 

New Reply by Apollos:

I have not argued that the Gospels of the NT are inspired � just reliable history.

 

 

Apollos: In fact, what if we set Matthew aside completely? We still have the 12 core facts, Paul�s letters and Peter�s letters. Are you trying to argue that if Matthew was wrong on one thing, he must be wrong everywhere � and if he is wrong everywhere, anyone that agrees with him is wrong as well?

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

No, it simply proves that Matthew was not inspired.  And if the Gospels were not inspired, then why should we regard them as scripture?

 

New Reply by Apollos:

Again, you have not paid attention to what I wrote. I have not argued that the Gospels of the NT are inspired � just reliable history.

Reply from Apollos:

Some of the Midrash and Talmudic writings capture things referred to by Jesus and Matthew when they say �you have heard� or �it is said�, etc. I don�t know if this specific one is referred to.

 

Just because other sayings were "capture" does not prove anything.  I also did not find any record of such a tradition.  So, once again, we find the Gospel of Matthew being the only source to make such a claim.  How many is that now?  I mean this is just ridiculous;  all these claims which just appear out of nowhere apparently, with no corroborating evidence.  And I know.  You will play the �non-corroboration is not refutation� game.  Is it just coincidence that Matthew makes all these claims which just �happen� to be the only ones of their kind?  They just �happen� to have no corroboration?  Please understand my frustration.

 

New Reply by Apollos:

No, you haven�t done your homework on this. Matthew is not unique on this and he is quite consistent with how he uses �written� , �said�, �heard�, etc. Go and read how Jesus uses these statements in his teachings and you will see they are consistent with a Scriptural reference or something outside Scripture.

 

Reply from Apollos:

You are being very unreasonable here. Matthew refers to many things that he deemed to be common knowledge of his day. Some we can corroborate and others we don�t. You seem to imagine that he should have known which statements he made would be a problem for readers two thousand years later.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

We have at least three claims by Matthew (there maybe more, I forget) which just �happen� to have no corroboration.  I can overlook one.  Maybe even two.  But three or more?  Now, this is just ridiculous.  

 

New Reply by Apollos:

There are hundreds of things in every ancient writing that we don�t have corroboration for � including the Quran. So don�t pretend otherwise. And what about uncorroborated things from the past that we now have corroboration on? There are scores of these but I don�t see skeptics admitting that they were wrong and giving any additional credence to Matthew or Luke where we find corroboration. It is you my friend who is being ridiculous here.

 

Apollos: So what is your take away from all of this? Where do we agree?

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Now, I am not so sure.  

 

Apollos: Do you agree that - The initial followers of Jesus, including the Apostles, believed Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected from the dead?

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

No, because you have not demonstrated that their accounts are the same as when they were written.  This brings us back to the manuscripts.  Furthermore, throughout our discussion, the conclusion I have reached is that the Gospels are certainly not inspired and inerrant.  The Disciples were supposed to be the holders of the truth.  How did falsehood infiltrate their accounts?  The best explanation I think is that their accounts were altered afterwards.  And there is plenty of evidence for that.

 

New Reply by Apollos:

How would one demonstrate this to your satisfaction? Also, please show one clear example of the falsehoods you allege. Your objection is empty without evidence of this basic premise.

 

Reply by Islamispeace:

Now, my questions to you:

 

Do you agree that according to the Gospels, Jesus predicted his return within the lifetimes of some of the disciples?  Do you agree that going purely by the Gospels, the historians who accept that the early Christians, including the disciples, believed in the resurrection also accept that they were expecting his return, based upon the prophecies recorded in Mark, Matthew and Luke?

New Reply by Apollos:

Not at all.  I do believe that some believers misunderstood what Jesus said and the Apostles had to correct them but the Apostles only believed he could return during their life. That�s why John � the last living Disciple � points out in his writings that Jesus did not promise to return before he died.

But your assertion that the believers expected Jesus to return soon presupposes that the Olivet Discourse � where Jesus refers to �this generation will not pass� until certain things be fulfilled � was written during the Disciples life times. For if it was simply a fabrication written after the Disciples had died, the creators would have written that part differently so there would be no confusion or ambiguity. Fabricating a prophecy from Jesus that had already been unfulfilled would not just be an oversight but a deliberate sabotage.

Also consider that the early believers understood that the soon coming event in the Olivet Discourse was the destruction of Jerusalem and not Jesus� return. When they saw the city being surrounded as Jesus had warned, they fled and were spared while more than a million Jews perished. The logic of your assertion and the actions of early believers in fleeing Jerusalem just in time demonstrates that the synoptic Gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse were not late fabrications but early written accounts and, those accounts were understood at large as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, not the return of Jesus.

 

If this exchange isn�t uncovering any fundamentals we can agree on, I don�t see much reason to continue. I appreciate your civil attitude and I have learned more how a Muslim can try to be objective about accepting the Quran over the Bible, but I don�t have any new questions for you. I can�t see much point of agreement either.

 

Apollos

Edited by Apollos - 19 July 2009 at 4:00pm

New Reply by Apollos:

I think that your view misrepresents these two situations. If they were analogous, the claim that Jesus was not crucified � as the Quran states � would have existed just like the claims that Jesus was crucified. Some historians would reject the supernatural part of the claim but they would acknowledge that the basic claim existed outside the Quran by people who were likely to know the facts.

I have already proved that the belief that he was not crucified did exist, even before Islam. 

 

 

It is true that the NT and early Christians also claimed that Jesus resurrected from the dead and this was a miracle but the Quran doesn�t say that Jesus avoided the cross miraculously, does it? In fact it indicates that it happened by natural means with someone else dying in his place, doesn�t it? So I don�t see the same factors occurring in the opposite claims of what the Bible and the Quran say on the crucifixion of Jesus.

 

The miracle was in the fact that God raised him up to Himself.  Is that not a miracle?  So, since he was raised up to Heaven, someone else was crucified in his place and it was made to appear that he was crucified.  That is a miracle. 

 

New Reply by Apollos:

First these four names don�t represent the majority of scholars. I even listed more than this.

 

Well, if you are going just by the fact that you listed more, you are committing a fallacy.  In any case, the scholars I listed are some of the most preeminent scholars in the field.  You can�t simply dismiss their opinions. 

 

Secondly, you try to bolster their credibility by referencing the census objections. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Luke�s details differ from Josephus but other history corroborates Luke more than Josephus.

 

Your defense of Luke was weak, as I showed.

 

  

New Reply by Apollos:

You are not paying attention to what I wrote and your statements have many incorrect facts. Rome certainly did control this region prior to 6 A.D. and they definitely had censuses as early as 10 B.C.  You also seem to trying to twist Luke�s statement into something it does not state. He does not say it was the first census of Judea.

 

Yes, Rome controlled it as a semiautonomous region, but it did not come under direct control until after Archelaus was removed.  Why did Judea have a king when it was under Roman control?  Can you think of other Roman territories that had kings and yet we considered Roman provinces?  The censuses you speak of were not done in Judea but elsewhere.  I do not doubt that there were other censuses ordered by Rome.  They were just not done in Judea.  The one in 6 AD was the first.  There is no evidence of a census in Judea beforehand, especially during the reign of Herod the Great.

 

 We know from the other details of Luke that he is referring to a census in 4 A.D.

 

Even if this is true, he still contradicts Matthew.  By 4 AD, Herod the Great was dead and Herod Archelaus was king.  Quirinius was not yet appointed.  Only after Archelaus was removed and exiled was Qurinius appointed.

 

 As I have pointed out, Luke agrees with other historical statements and documents concerning censuses being performed during this time. When you (or historians you esteem) conclude that Luke�s reference to Quirinius as Governor means his census and Josephus� are the same, you are ignoring . As I pointed out, Luke�s reference to Quirinius was not in his role and title of Governor which came at a later date.  

 

See below.

  

New Reply by Apollos:

I got the idea because �hegemoneuo of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Syria</st1:country-region>� is not a title used for Quirinius or Syria in any other historical writings or artifacts. (Josephus refers to him differently � as a senator).

 

You ignored what Josephus actually said regarding Quirinius:

 

�1. NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money;� (Antiquities, 18:1)

 

So, Quirinius had held other offices before becoming governor, and was appointed by the Emperor to the post of governor of Judea after the removal of Archelaus.  Notice also that Josephus clearly mentions that Judea was now added to the territory of the province of Syria.  This shows that it was an autonomous region before.  Only after Archelaus was removed, did this occur.  Hence, Quirinius overseeing a census of Judea before this event is historically inaccurate and impossible.  Even if Quirinius was the governor of Syria prior to that (and there is no evidence that he was), Judea was not a part of Syria before 6 AD and hence there could not have been a census.

 

Luke uses the same �hegemoneuo� concerning Pontius Pilate and we now know that Pilate�s actual Roman title was �Prefect�. So Luke is either referring to a general governing role that includes Prefects or it is his word for Prefect.

 

Well, then Luke was wrong with regard to Pontius Pilate as well.  The word �hegemoneuo� does indeed mean �governor� and it seems Luke confused it with the Roman title of �prefect� or �procurator�.  According to Strong�s, the word �hegemoneuo� occurs twice in Luke, once in Chapter 2 (which refers to Quirinius� census) and once again in Chapter 3 (in which he is talking about John the Baptist):

 

Luke 2:2 αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου.
This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

 

Luke 3:1 ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, ἡγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πιλάτου τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Γαλιλαίας Ἡρῴδου, Φιλίππου δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας, καὶ Λυσανίου τῆς Ἀβιληνῆς τετρααρχοῦντος,
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene,

 

There is no evidence that the word actually meant �procurator�.  Pontius Pilate held a different post than Quirinius.

 

Whatever Quirinius� title was before 6 A.D., we know that he was governing. In Florus (Roman History, 2:31) and Tacitus (Annals 3:48) we see that Quirinius led large military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire a decade before 6 A.D. He therefore held significant leadership position at this time and � even if Luke was technically incorrect to call him �Governor�, he was certainly acting as the �governor�.

 

Then clearly, he was not a governor but a general.  A governor does not lead military campaigns.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that any Roman official held the post of governor more than once.  In addition to this, we know who held the governorship of Syria prior to Quirinius.  There is no way Quirinius would have fit in.

 

But if I am wrong on this idea, your argument is simply: Quirinis did not formally have the title of Governor of Syria at the time Luke says so Luke should have called him something else. We know that Quirinius was doing Governor things and we know he had conducted censuses before 6 A.D. so your argument doesn�t touch those things. There is also the possibility that the conflict between Josephus and Luke simply reveals Josephus was in error and not Luke.

 

You have presented no evidence that Quirinius had undertaken any census before 6 AD.  You have assumed much but provided no evidence.  There is no evidence that Quirinius was a governor of any province prior to his governship of Syria, to which Judea was added.

 

New Reply by Apollos:

No I don�t think this is odd at all as this is not a fundamental in Christian faith. In fact, I would only expect to see them write about it if it were being contested during their time.

 

I think you are purposefully understating the importance of the event.  This was about Jesus� birth.  That would be a fundamental aspect of the faith, I think.  The reason they don�t mention it, I think, is because they were not aware of it.  This is not surprising given the fact that the earliest non-Biblical reference to it is from the late 2^nd century. 

 

I do think this is where your methodology seems inconsistent with how you view the Quran�s statements. Do you find it hard to believe that not one ancient historian corroborates the claim that Jesus did not die on the cross? It is a fundamental of Islam is it not? For if Jesus did die as the early believers claimed, they are probably correct about the resurrection as well and the whole Quran falls apart � does it not?

 

Actually, they all mention that a crucifixion did take place.  They just don�t corroborate the miraculous aspect of the crucifixion.  And that is not surprising since pagan and Jewish historians would not believe such a thing.  It is also not surprising since it was Christianity which had emerged as the dominant sect and drew the attention, little by little, of the early historians. 

 

I would not agree that no ancient historians make that claim.  The Gnostics certainly did believe in the story.  We just don�t have any surviving works of the Gnostic writers.  We only have fragments which were quoted by Christian apologists.  Do you find it odd that the same ancient historians don�t have much to say about the Gnostics or the other sects, like the Essenes?  And yet, their beliefs are acknowledged by modern historians.

 

 

New Reply by Apollos:

Please explain what you mean. Are you looking for historical proof or scientific proof? What might be the proof you are alluding to?

 

Well for starters, you could provide sources which don�t contradict each other, even on minute details, such as is the case with the Gospels.  Obviously, science does not belong here.   

 

 

New Reply by Apollos:

I have not argued that the Gospels of the NT are inspired � just reliable history.

 

Well, then I have proved my point.  I am glad we agree that the Gospels are not inspired.  In other words, they are not the word of God, but the words of humans and we should treat them as such.  Based on your answer, would you explain why I should trust my salvation on the words of humans? 

 

Of course, I don�t fully agree with your claim that they are reliable history as well, as I think I showed, but at least we agree on one point.

 

New Reply by Apollos:

No, you haven�t done your homework on this. Matthew is not unique on this and he is quite consistent with how he uses �written� , �said�, �heard�, etc. Go and read how Jesus uses these statements in his teachings and you will see they are consistent with a Scriptural reference or something outside Scripture.

 

Do you mean how Matthew shows Jesus using those statements?  I don�t follow.

 

Regardless, even if there is any truth in your claims about the other instances, you have presented no evidence for this one.  It is a fallacy to argue that since there is evidence in other instances, than the one instance we are talking about is also proven, even though there is no evidence for it. 

 

Please provide examples of what you speak.  I would be very interested to look them over.

 

Reply from Apollos:

You are being very unreasonable here. Matthew refers to many things that he deemed to be common knowledge of his day. Some we can corroborate and others we don�t. You seem to imagine that he should have known which statements he made would be a problem for readers two thousand years later.

 

If the Gospels are supposed to be �reliable history�, then perhaps he should have.  Historians write their accounts for future generations as well, not just present generations. 

 

I don�t think I am being unreasonable at all.  Why is it that Matthew made all these claims which just happen to be unverifiable or uncorroborated?  The one being unreasonable is you because you keep trying to defend Matthew�s claims by making up excuses.  And clearly, a lot of what he stated was not �common knowledge�.  Don�t you find it odd that when Matthew has Jesus visiting Bethlehem, none of the townspeople allude to any massacre?  The memories would still have been fresh in their minds.  And seeing Jesus would certainly remind people of that most horrendous event.  And yet, all they mention is that he is the son of Mary, but they don�t says things like �isn�t he the one who was taken to Egypt during the massacre?� 

 

New Reply by Apollos:

There are hundreds of things in every ancient writing that we don�t have corroboration for � including the Quran. So don�t pretend otherwise.

 

Please provide examples.  Even then, it doesn�t let Matthew off the hook.  You seem to think that since other writings have the same problem, then Matthew is ok.  This is clearly a fallacy.    

 

And what about uncorroborated things from the past that we now have corroboration on? There are scores of these but I don�t see skeptics admitting that they were wrong and giving any additional credence to Matthew or Luke where we find corroboration. It is you my friend who is being ridiculous here.

 

If you want to believe in the �historical accuracy� of the Gospels purely by faith and not by facts, then good luck to you.  Your argument that there may be some corroboration waiting to be discovered is not very persuasive.  And while there have been examples where further discoveries have clarified many things, you can�t use that as an argument in this case.  It is certainly possible that there may be some evidence hidden somewhere, but there is also equally the possibility that there is no further evidence.  It�s basically like saying �I don�t have proof, but there may be some hidden in a cave somewhere.  Perhaps we should dig.�  Now, that is ridiculous.

  

Apollos: Do you agree that - The initial followers of Jesus, including the Apostles, believed Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected from the dead?

 

No.  I agree that it may have been one of the early stories circulating around, but not that it was the truth.  And since we don�t even have manuscripts from the times of the disciples, we can�t really say much about what they believed.

 

 

New Reply by Apollos:

Please show one clear example of falsehood. Your objection is empty without evidence of your basic premise.

 

Please�we have been talking for almost a month.  I have mentioned many pieces of evidence.  Go back to the past exchanges. 

Not at all.  I do believe that some believers misunderstood what Jesus said and the Apostles had to correct them but the Apostles only believed he could return during their life. That�s why John � the last living Disciple � points out in his writings that Jesus did not promise to return before he died.

 

You are ignoring the evidence I provided, from the Gospels no less.  According to Mark, Matthew and Luke, Jesus said that he would return within the lifetimes of some of the disciples.  �The Son of Man coming in his kingdom� is a clear reference to his second coming: 

 

Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

 

If John said that Jesus did not promise that, then he is contradicting the other Gospels.  Perhaps, this was the first Christian attempt to explain why most of the disciples were already gone and Jesus had yet to return. 

 

But your assertion that the believers expected Jesus to return soon presupposes that the Olivet Discourse � where Jesus refers to �this generation will not pass� until certain things be fulfilled � was written during the Disciples life times. For if it was simply a fabrication written after the Disciples had died, the creators would have written that part differently so there would be no confusion or ambiguity.  Fabricating a prophecy from Jesus that had already been unfulfilled would not just be an oversight but a deliberate sabotage. 

 

Oh I have no qualms against the claim that it is a relatively early story.  Paul mentions a similar belief in 1 Thessalonians 4, and since Paul�s epistles generally predate the Gospels, this certainly would be the origin of the story.  As Paul�s teachings became dominant, the early Christians accepted the belief that Jesus� return was imminent and would occur within their lifetimes.  The point is that while you maintain that most modern scholars believe that the early Christians believed Jesus resurrected, you deny at the same time that the early Christians (including the disciples) believed that he would return within the 1^st century, even though that is the general consensus among scholars.    

 

Also consider that the early believers understood that the soon coming event in the Olivet Discourse was the destruction of Jerusalem and not Jesus� return. When they saw the city being surrounded as Jesus had warned, they fled and were spared while more than a million Jews perished.

 

With all due respect Apollos, I think you are just ignoring what the evidence suggests.  Look at Matthew 24:3-

 

³As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

 

And then Matthew 24:30 and Matthew 24:34-35:

 

³⁰"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. [�]

 

³⁴I tell you the truth, this generation^[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. ³⁵Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

 

They asked those questions after Jesus said that the temple would be destroyed (Matthew 24:1-2).  To answer their questions, Jesus tells them how dark those times would be, the signs to watch out for and finished off by saying that it would all happen in their lifetimes.  Therefore, according to Matthew, the disciples indeed believed he was coming back.  They already knew he was coming back because he said so in Matthew 16.  But he elaborated further on that prophecy by saying that the destruction of the temple would be a sign.  The temple was destroyed in 70 AD, but Jesus never came.  Both times he referred to his 2^nd coming, he made sure to say that it would be within the lifetimes of some of the disciples.

 

The logic of your assertion and the actions of early believers in fleeing Jerusalem just in time demonstrates that the synoptic Gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse were not late fabrications but early written accounts and, those accounts were understood at large as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, not the return of Jesus.

 

I completely disagree.  Jesus may very well have predicted the destruction of the temple, but he also predicted, first according to Paul in 1 Thessalonians, and then in the Gospels, his return within the 1^st century.  Paul seems to be the origin of the story.       

 

I now realize I did respond to your claim that the Jews of Jesus� day agreed on the important aspects of the Messiah. One important part that they seemed to have a consensus on - and were wrong - is the two comings of the Messiah. I believe you agree with me that the Messiah came once and he will return again, correct? You believe in two comings of the Messiah, correct?

 

Yes, I agree that they were mistaken.  However, what this shows is that even though they were mistaken about this important aspect, they had a consensus on it like with the Messiah�s human status.  The lack of consensus was on minor issues regarding the Messiah.  It seems to me that something like the 2^nd coming could cause confusion because of its supernatural characteristics, but something like the Messiah�s humanity would not.  Compare the two and you see a big difference.

 

 It doesn�t surprise me that the Jews denied the 2^nd coming.  If they could worship a calf after God had just delivered them from Egypt, they could certainly deny the miracle of the 2^nd coming. 

 

As the NT describes, this view changes the understanding of scores of OT statements about the Messiah; where some portions are fulfilled in his first coming and others portions to be fulfilled later. It seems like this point undercuts the value of the Jewish consensus you have appealed to as well as your arguments that NT writers are wrong when they differ with Jews on the meaning of OT Messianic statements and prophecies.

 

This still does not support your view.  If the Jewish understanding was wrong, you would have to prove that the NT understanding was the right one.  You have not done that.

 

If this exchange isn�t uncovering any fundamentals we can agree on, I don�t see much reason to continue. I appreciate your civil attitude and I have learned more how a Muslim can try to be objective about accepting the Quran over the Bible, but I don�t have any new questions for you. I can�t see much point of agreement either.

 

Well, I don�t think we were talking all this time to see if we agree on anything.  This was a dialogue or even a debate if you will.  I already knew that we disagreed on a lot of things.  I have walked away with the conclusion that in your view, the Gospels are not inspired.  I agree with this sentiment.  So, there is something we agree on after all.

 

If you want to keep talking, I would just like to point out the parts of my response you missed (I apologize for the crummy format on the last response-it must have been hell to go through it):

 

Do you agree that Paul does not corroborate Matthew with regard to Hosea 11 and Psalm 110?

 

Why do we not find any corroboration of the massacre of Jewish children in Jewish sources?  What reason would the Jews have to hide that? 

 

 

Edited by islamispeace - 21 July 2009 at 7:00pm

New Reply by Apollos:

You proved - by reference to a dubious writing - that the belief existed before Islam but still 150 years after the event.  Do you think this and the Quran's claim outweigh the contrary and earlier evidence?

It is only as dubious as the Gospels.  There is not much in terms of the "contrary and earlier evidence". 

It stands to reason that if there was a "2nd" Treatise of the Great Seth, then there must have been a "1st" Treatise.  The "Sethians" were around earlier than the 2nd century.  In fact, it seems they were around even before the rise of Christianity.[1]

New Reply by Apollos:

I didn�t look up the exact passage and I can see now that it does involve a miracle. (It also involves deceit which seems troubling to attribute that to God). In any event, the historians who reject the miracle of Jesus� resurrection - because it involves the supernatural - admit to this openly. I do not know of any historian who rejects the Quran�s claim because of such a bias. I think they all reject the Quran�s claim because it has no historical basis. In other words, no claims of this existed during the time the event took place, there is great contrary evidence and the bold statement in the 6^th century offers nothing objective to evaluate. Unlike the contemporary claims of the resurrection that involve enemies and friends alike saying the same thing, the Quran simply refers to a non-falsifiable scenario. It is no different than me saying that space aliens stole the body and impersonated Jesus after the cross. I think it is very inaccurate to claim that historians reject the Quran�s claim because it involves a miracle.

 

Like I said before, the Islamic perspective is actually in line with the history.  It acknowledges that a crucifixion did take place.  I think you are misrepresenting the opinions of historians.  They would argue that the reason they reject the resurrection claim is not only because of its supernatural characteristics, but because of the lack of historical evidence.      

 

 

New response from Apollos:

Please recall that I was simply proving my assertion that �Luke for example is considered to be a good historian by many scholars�. You in turn said: �Most scholars consider Luke's account to be mistaken.� I provided several preeminent scholars who are not even conservative to defend my claim but you only referenced a few lesser ones to substantiate your claim of �most�.

 

That does not mean that there are less.  Brown actually says that most scholars consider Luke�s account to be mistaken.  Obviously, he didn�t list every single historian in the world to back up his claim.

 

 

New response from Apollos:

You are again assuming that Quirinius was formally appointed at the time Luke refers to. I have shown why this may not be the case.

 

You have shown nothing concrete, only assumptions.  My argument is that the historical evidence contradicts Luke, and that Quirinius was not appointed until 6 AD.  Even if he was appointed in 4 AD, this still contradicts Matthew. 

 

There is also the problem of Luke�s claim that the census was of the entire Roman world:

 

¹In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. [2]  

 

This contradicts the Res Gestae which you quoted earlier, in which Augustus Caesar mentions 3 widespread censuses of the Roman world:

 

��in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens.� [3]

 

It is undeniable that a census of the entire Roman world could not have been held in or around 4-6 AD or even anytime after 8 BC and before 14 AD (when the 2^nd and 3^rd widespread censuses took place), unless Augustus was not sure of his own decrees.   

 

New response from Apollos:

You are not only limiting your information to Josephus, you are misrepresenting him. If he did say what you assert we would have to discount Josephus� accuracy for we have other history that completely refutes your summation. I�m not going to present a history lesson but below are some highlights.

 

How am I misrepresenting him?  If Josephus is not enough for you, consider what Florus said regarding Quirinius in Epitome, Book 2, Chapter 31:

 

�40 Such were the operations in the north; in the south there were risings rather than wars. Augustus put down the Musulami and Gaetulians who dwell near the Syrtes, through the agency of Cossus, who thus gained the name of Gaetulicus, a title more extensive than his actual victory warranted. 41 He entrusted the subjugation of the Marmarides and Garamantes to Quirinius, who likewise might have returned with the title of Marmaricus, had he not been too modest in estimating his victory.� [4]

 

The war against Garamantes occurred around 15 BC, and after the victory, Quirinius was given the post of consul in 12 BC.  We know from Strabo�s Geography, Book 16, Chapter 1 that Titius was the prefect of Syria at that time.[5]  Between 5 BC and 3 BC, we are told that Quirinius was sent to fight another war.[6]  This is right around the end of the reign of Herod the Great, when Judea was not yet a part of Syria.  Josephus, in Antiquities 16:9, says that during this period, Syria was governed by Saturninus and Volumnius, whom he describes (at least in the translation) as the �presidents of Syria�.[7]  However, it should be noted that Volumnius was probably not of equal authority to Saturninus.[8]  Their relationship was probably the same as that of Quirinius and Coponius, with Quirinius being the superior official.  So, we know who was ruling Syria during the reign of Herod the Great, and it was not Quirinius.  He was busy fighting a war during that period.  Even if there had been a census during Herod the Great�s reign, it would not have been carried out by Quirinius.  Rather, it would have been carried out under the supervision of Saturninus.  So either way, Luke was wrong.

 

In 47 BC Julius Caesar came through Judea and <st1:country-region w:st="on">Syria</st1:country-region> and granted various benefits to the Jews. He entitled Hyrcanus as ethnarch, the ruler of the nation, and gave Herod Antipater the Idumean the title procurator. In 40 BC <st1:country-region w:st="on">Syria</st1:country-region> was invaded by Parthinians and Rome set Aristobulus II up on the throne as king and high priest. Herod went to Rome and persuaded the Senate that he was capable of restoring peace and Roman rule in Judea and he was granted this authority. After Herod accomplished this in 37 BC, Rome appointed Herod king of Judea. This doesn�t fit with your story does it?

 

Where are you quoting this from?  Where is your reference?  What are you referring to when you say that �this doesn�t fit my story��?  This is talking about events 30 years prior to what we are talking about. 

 

 

New response from Apollos:

You are simply confusing the term as a title versus a role or function. If you want to appeal to Strongs, please do so completely:

 

hēgemoneuō

From G2232 (hēgemōn); to act as ruler: - be governor.

hēgemōn; a leader, that is, chief person (or figuratively place) of a province: - governor, prince, ruler.

 

From the above, one can see that �hegemoneuo� refers to the act of ruling or governing not a mere title. If it was a title, why do you choose �governor� instead of �ruler�? Luke�s usage does not demonstrate error but a consistent meaning for two different rulers with different titles but both government rulers.

 

There is still nothing there which suggests that the word means �procurator�.  Even if it does, the above information that I presented shows that Quirinius was consul from 12 BC onwards and served as a general up until around 3 BC.  There is no room here for him to be governor or procurator at anytime from 12 BC to 1 AD, when he was appointed to be the �rector� of the Emperor�s grandson, Gaius Caesar. [6]

   

New response from Apollos:

If Luke or Matthew was in error about the exact year he was born, how does that undercut the fact that he was born. Maybe they got their facts wrong because it was before they were eyewitnesses. If we found that Josephus was wrong about the dates he refers to on this, would you dismiss everything he says? And please don�t act like you care about a 150 year gap in the historical record for you skip right over it if it relates to the Quran or Hadiths.

 

Well, it would show that one of them was not a good historian.  Is that not your primary argument?  We have already concluded that neither one was �inspired�.  Now, it seems that they are also not historically accurate, at least in some details.  The difference between Josephus and the Gospels is that the former does not claim to lead me to salvation.  The Gospels do.  So, I would not judge them the same way.  As far as I am concerned, since you have already admitted that the Gospels are not inspired by God or the Holy Spirit or whatever, there is nothing for me to lose if I don�t believe them.  Why would God hold me responsible for rejecting the words of humans?  If the Gospels claim to be from God, and they have even minute errors, that would be reason enough to reject them completely, because how can God�s word have errors?  Josephus is not the same.

  

New response from Apollos:

Please show me one writing in the world that satisfies your challenge � to not have any apparent contradictions even on minute details. Skeptics can find a �contradiction� in anything including the Quran. If you grant the same benefit of the doubt to the NT writings that you do the Quran on apparent contradictions, you will see that the worst that exists are �apparent� contradictions and this is not the same as actual ones.

 

You are ignoring the question.  You are the one who has claimed that the Gospels are �good history�.  If they are so superior to other accounts, then why are you referring to the shortcomings of other writings?  If the Gospels are no different from other writings, how are they anymore reliable, especially when other historical accounts contradict them?

 

New response from Apollos:

Because they contain reliable accounts about Jesus. They were written by people that Jesus hand picked and ordained for to be his witnesses.

 

Now, you are wrong here.  Luke and Mark were not present when Jesus was preaching.  How then could he have �hand picked� them to be �eyewitnesses�?  In addition, they certainly don�t contain �reliable� accounts as has been shown.

 

These people had nothing to gain from their statements but instead lost popularity, comforts, money and in most cases their lives. If they did make any mistakes, it is certainly not on the big things. They might have been mistaken about a date or estimating the size of a crowd, etc. but this doesn�t make them suspect when they claimed that Jesus said and did various things including rising from the dead.

 

This is a common argument but it can be applied to just about any theological movement, even those of pagans.    

 

In contrast to all this, you prefer someone who had much to gain from his statements. He motivated people to join his army, he justified the taking of spoils and taxes from his enemies, he justified his amassing of wives and concubines. I gather you believe he wasn�t motivated by gain because he says so, correct? In contrast to Jesus who came as the Jewish Messiah to Jews, who had a forerunner who announced his ministry, who was scrutinized and followed by many people who wrote and proclaimed what he told them to, you prefer someone who shows up from nowhere, announces that he has a revelation from God and the key things Jesus� followers have proclaimed are lies. The Quran claims things far more bizarre than a questionable birth date or politician�s title and yet you find a way to rationalize them all because?

 

Much to gain?  If Muhammad (pbuh) had �much to gain�, why didn�t he simply accept the Quraysh�s offer while he was still in Mecca?  They offered him power and influence, and we are told that he rejected it.  If he had so much to gain, why did he sleep on a bed made of palm fiber?  Why did he leave no inheritance when he died?  Why did he put more strain on himself than his followers?  He didn�t require his followers to pray long hours in the night or fast longer than what was prescribed.  Why would he do that?  You can�t prove that he was a false prophet, so you question his motives.  You can�t explain the discrepancies in the Gospels, so you question his motives.  Does this make sense?    

 

 

I have been answering your objections to the NT as reliable history and I only see some �possible� errors that you think � contrary to real historians �that these discount the whole thing. You on the other hand claim to have a perfect inspired revelation from God but it isn�t even accepted as reliable history let alone non-contradictory. Why should anyone believe the Quran is from God?

 

Which �real historians�?  You have provided some names, but have not provided any evidence to contradict my claims. 

 

New response from Apollos:

I�m re-quoting you on this just to show ridiculous this opinion is. And you are also being inconsistent for the Quran asserts many details that we can�t corroborate, doesn�t it? People who live where the sun sets? The orbit and motion of the moon? The sun setting in a muddy pool? Jesus� mother is the sister of Aaron? The Daughter of Imran?

 

One issue at a time Apollos.  Don�t clutter this thread with unrelated issues.  Open a new thread.  List your concerns there and I will entertain them.

 

New response from Apollos:

I just did above. I�m sure if I went to an anti-Islam site there would be a host of other examples.

 

This still does nothing to explain the errors in the Bible. 

 

New response from Apollos:

No that is not what I am arguing. I am saying that every time something new is discovered that relates to the NT, it always confirms the NT and never disproves it. Since the track record is 100% so far, the benefit of the doubt should go to the NT until proven otherwise.

 

No, you have it the other way around.  The benefit of the doubt should go to the existing evidence.  Appealing to the past �track record� is a cop-out.  The existing evidence on some issues shows that the Gospels are wrong and the benefit of the doubt should be given to that until proven otherwise.   

 

New response from Apollos:

And you believe this despite the evidence not because of it.

 

What evidence?  The only �evidence� you presented was material that you copied from like-minded websites, making bizarre claims like saying that a portion of the Gospel of Mark was found with the Dead Sea Scrolls.  You also gave incorrect dates for other manuscripts. 

 

 

If I try to take you seriously on this, I surmise that you must think that Paul was able to write many letters to many churches while the Disciples of Jesus were alive and they somehow never knew the lies he was declaring or their written objections were somehow lost in the historical record. When Peter and Luke endorse Paul and he them, it must have been part of a sophisticated conspiracy that Paul was able to accomplish even though he was in jail or under house arrest most of the time. This is in addition to the corroboration that exists between all of the NT documents. Please provide a plausible explanation of how your hypothesis could be true in light of the evidence we do have.

 

 

I assume you are referring to 2 Peter.  I think you are overlooking the differences among the early Christians with regard to this epistle.  The Muratorian Canon did not even contain 2 Peter, along with 1 Peter.  The canon of the Syriac Church did not contain 2 Peter.  The authorship of this epistle is also in question among modern scholars.  Given all these scholastic suspicions regarding the authorship of the NT writings, I find it hard to believe that anyone can know for sure what the disciples of Jesus actually believed or said.  

 

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.� 

  

 

New response from Apollos:

Here you go again trying to tell Christians what their writings say and you even think you know better than John about what was said. You must be omniscient. Seriously, you need to study what Christians believe about these and related passages. You are so far off on this and other quotes you copy that it is embarrassing.

 

Apollos, you are being extremely frustrating.  You accuse me of trying to tell you what the Bible says, yet you have not actually refuted what I said.  Your only response was that John said that the disciples never claimed that Jesus would return within their lifetimes (you never actually quoted him) and yet this does nothing to resolve what Mark, Matthew and Luke actually said.  How can you maintain that the disciples believed he �could� return, while the Gospels quote him as saying that he �will� return?  How do you explain the passage I quoted?  How do you reconcile the contradiction between what John said and what is present in the previous Gospels?  What does the phrase �son of man coming in his kingdom� denote?  The destruction of Jerusalem?  Please don�t insult my intelligence. 

 

 

New response from Apollos:

No I don�t see this as anything more than you employing special pleading. When the Jews agree with you, you appeal to their consensus. When they don�t you throw the consensus under the bus. And what is supernatural about the second coming that isn�t supernatural about the first coming or Jesus� ontology?

 

The special pleading is on your part.  Your premise is that since they did not agree about other issues, then the interpretation is up in the air for anyone to claim.  This is clearly an incorrect statement.

 

 

New response from Apollos:

No � this fact refutes your claims that the Jews� opinion, especially if a consensus, is superior to the NT writers. That is what you have argued in the past. You now agree that the Jews were wrong on this fundamental aspect of the Messiah and that ripples into many of their interpretations of OT Messianic statements.

 

But, you would still have to prove that the NT interpretations were correct.  Thus far, we have discussed mainly the Gospel of Matthew, and you have failed to show that his interpretation is the right one.    

 

 

New response from Apollos:

I was hoping we could find a common point of reference or methodology to identify where we depart after this. If you are not interested in this, I am open to answering honest objections you have about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am not interested in arguing for argument sake. As I do this, I would expect that you also would be willing to answer honest questions about the Quran.

 

I haven�t been arguing for argument�s sake.  My point was that the Gospels are not inspired.  You agree with this sentiment.  Therefore, I am satisfied.  But, I am shocked that even though you have admitted that the Gospels are not inspired, you still view them as if they were the word God, in addition to your claim that they are �good history�. 

  

New response from Apollos:

No I disagree. Concerning Hosea 11, In addition to using this same type of reference to the OT, Paul states many time that the events of the OT were shadows, types and patterns of Jesus. Below are some examples.

 

But he did not corroborate Matthew specifically with Hosea 11.  Paul just makes whole new claims.  So, the fact remains that Matthew is the only one in history to link Hosea 11 with the Messiah.        

 

Col 2:16-17  Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day - things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

 

Heb 11:17-19  By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, "IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED." He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type.

Rom 5:14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

 

Gal 4:22-24  For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.  But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking: for these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.

 

I have already responded to the alleged �parallels� between Isaac and Jesus.  So, at least in this case, the argument of �shadows, types and patterns� does not stand.

 

 

 

In this way, Paul corroborates the general approach Matthew takes on Hosea 11 by referring to the passage as an analogy, a type or a foreshadow

 

BTW � In Hosea, God reveals that this approach is exactly what He intends:

 

Hos 12:9-10  And I that am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles, as in the days of the solemn feast. I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

 

Similitudes are not the same as hidden allegories.  And there is no indication of any �allegory� in Hosea 11 anyway. 

 

Concerning Psalm 110, Paul makes numerous statements that Jesus is the Son of God who will sit at God�s right hand, whose enemies will bow at his name, and who is David�s Lord. He is probably the writer of Hebrews and there he quotes this same Psalm twice and says it refers to Jesus. So yes he corroborates what Matthew says.

 

�Probably� the writer?  As far as I have read, the epistle is widely regarded as having not been written by Paul.   So, the only direct corroboration of Matthew with regard to Psalm 110 comes from a letter whose author is not even known for sure.

 

New response from Apollos:

I don�t know that they have hid it. It may just be one of those accounts that we don�t have extant copies of.

 

That sounds like a long shot.  It just so �happens� that a Jewish account of the massacre has not survived?  And it �happens� to deal with an alleged historical event which is mentioned in only one source, the Gospel of Matthew?  

 

But they might have removed it from their writings because it does more harm than good. That is, it confirms what Matthew and the other Disciples were saying about Jesus� birth and prophecy fulfillment.

 

This is nothing but speculation.  There would have been no reason for them to hide the facts until at the very least after the Gospel of Matthew was written (whenever that was).  There is no indication of any such accounts before the Gospel was written.  Consider also the following:  We know that the Jews hated Herod Archelaus for his �cruelty� and went so far as to go the Emperor himself to complain.  The Emperor exiled him to Vienna.  If Herod the Great was guilty of killing Jewish children, surely the Jews would have complained.     

 

A similar issue comes up with Isaiah 53. Because this chapter needs no commentary for people to see the relationship to Jesus, Jews have concocted various ways to avoid reading the text. Some say it is about the Holocaust and out of respect they should not read it. There are other explanations but they go to great lengths to avoid reading their own Scripture if it seems to endorse Jesus as the Messiah. Am I surprised they didn�t write or keep non-Scripture that does the same? No.

 

What are you talking about?  Even if your accusations are correct, the fact remains that Isaiah 53 was preserved and not �hidden away� like the story about the massacre.  Isaiah 53 is freely available for anyone to read and has been for the last 2,000 years.

 

New response from Apollos:

Each time you accuse the Bible of being unreliable in some way, I can�t help but think how hypocritical it sounds because the Quran � from what I have seen and heard � is so much less reliable. With this in mind I would appreciate knowing how you answer the following questions:

 

1.      What evidence is there that Mohammed received a revelation?

2.      What evidence is there that the words he recited are the ones you read today in the Quran? (Please address your criteria that a reliable writing should have extant manuscripts from the time of the author, etc.)

3.      What evidence is there that the Hadiths you read today are reliable accounts of Mohammed? (Please address your criteria that a reliable writing should have extant manuscripts from the time of the eyewitnesses, etc.)

4.      On this forum I have seen numerous debates about the Quran�s statements concerning embryo development, mountains holding down the earth, God creating man from a clot, a sperm, dust, etc. At best, a Muslim has to admit the attempts to explain such things are not compelling. (Just look at the responses). So how can you act like these apparent problems in the Quran don�t exist?

5.      How can you criticize the way Matthew or other NT writers interpret the OT when the Quran doesn�t even agree with the OT on Adam, Braham, Jacob, Ishmael, etc.? Why should someone believe the Quran is correct and the Bible is wrong about these people and events when it comes along hundreds of years later and has no corroboration whatsoever?

6.      When a person comes out of nowhere, announces that they are a messenger from God, contradicts other accepted history, revelations and beliefs, creates a book that has many self-serving statements in it, and benefits personally from their �message�, isn�t it likely that this person is a fraud? Why do you see not see Mohammed this way?

 

 

It does not surprise me that you try to list all your grievances against the Quran simultaneously.  Since most of these issues require more than a quick answer, I suggest you pick a topic, open a new thread and discuss it there.

 

 

Edited by islamispeace - 29 July 2009 at 7:47pm

Apollos,

Thanks for the response.  I just wanted to tell you not to expect a response from me for at least a week or maybe more.  I have been having internet connection issues, coupled with the fact that my family is preparing for an upcoming wedding.  This leaves me with little time.  So, please be patient.  I will try to respond as soon as I can.