|
Response to Apollos |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 1011121314> |
| Author | |
islamispeace 
Senior Member 
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 13 August 2009 at 1:18pm |
|
Thank you Apollos for your understanding. Here is my response:
New reply by Apollos: I
would prefer to address real issues but do you want me to take you
seriously or not? You know that the document you refer to was not
written or dictated by Jesus as the writing claims, correct? And you
would agree that the vast majority of teachings in the document are not
Jesus� actual teachings, correct? So aside from
the dating that places it well beyond eyewitness lives, you agree with
scholars that the writing is dubious, don�t you? Trying to dismiss all
this with the Red Herring that it �is only as dubious as the Gospels�
is a distraction. I disprove your assertion that since the 2nd Treatise was written in the 2nd century, it shows that the claim about the crucifixion originated 150 years after the fact. The Sethians were around earlier. I find if funny how you keep trying to hang on to your preconceived notions. First, you asserted that Islam was the origin of the claim. When you were proven wrong, you still tried to discount the belief as coming "too late". New reply by Apollos: According to Theodore Drange,
the historicity of the resurrection should be called into question for several
reasons, in addition to it being a supernatural event (which was reason #2
which I will not quote so as not to take up too much space): �First, it is generally conceded that the accounts of the
resurrection were not actually written down until more than thirty years after
the alleged event had occurred and that, prior to being written down, they
were, in effect, rumors or stories which had been spread orally throughout the
region. It is easy for such rumors to become embellished over time. Changes
tend to occur in oral messages, even when their conveyers make every effort to
pass them on accurately. So even if the resurrection accounts are based on what
are said to be eye-witness reports, there is much room for doubt regarding them.
[�] Third, those who wrote
the accounts of Jesus's resurrection were not reporters or historians. They
were all motivated to win converts to their new religion, which was at that
time a kind of Judaic cult. Even Luke, who says, "I myself have carefully
investigated everything from the beginning" (1:3), was not a neutral
investigative reporter, but a proselytizer for Christianity (mainly to the
Gentiles). That is another fact about the writings which tends to cast doubt
upon their objectivity and accuracy. Fourth,
the alleged resurrection appearances were only to Jesus's followers, not to his
opponents. If the whole purpose of the resurrection had been for God to convey
to the world the truth of the gospel message, as suggested in Mt 12:38-40, or
at least the information that there is such a state as an afterlife, as
suggested by St. Paul in 1Co 15:12-19, then the event was very badly staged. [�] Fifth, the Biblical accounts of the
resurrection are not consistent and that tends to cast doubt on them.� [1]
New reply by Apollos: According to A.T. Robinson, The World (tēn oikoumenēn). Literally, the inhabited (land, gēn).
And your
point is? This would still denote a
census of the entire Roman world or �inhabited� land, which is impossible if we
consider the Res Gestae. I showed historical evidence of why your assertion is clearly false. Please acknowledge this before are trying to change the subject by quoting someone else on an unrelated point. You did not show
any historical evidence. Judea was not a
part of
New reply by Apollos: Exactly �
because you said Judea was not part of the
No, I said it was
not a Roman province before 6 AD. It was
a semiautonomous region with its own King.
It was sort of like a tributary state.
It was also not a part of
New reply by Apollos: So if someone says or writes something that has about spiritual things, you look at everything more skeptically than you do common statements? There is so much wrong with this �view�. Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.
We are not even talking about miracles, just a matter of the truth about
various claims made by the Gospel �historians�.
Since Josephus simply claims to write a historical account and the
Gospels simply claim to be guides to salvation (and not historical accounts),
the latter is more extraordinary.
New reply by Apollos: I could ask the same thing about Mohammed�s words. He claims they are from God but there is no evidence of this. Based on your axiom, we can simply call the Quran the words of humans and dismiss it all.
Open a new tread
and we can discuss the evidence.
New reply by Apollos: In most cases I have allowed the possibility that other sources are correct, that the dating of NT documents is at the later end of the dating range, etc. But I believe that the NT writings are superior history to any other source you want to compare them against. Time and again, they have been proven correct yet people want to imagine that Josephus or others are the benchmark. Below is just one example of where Josephus is clearly wrong and Luke is correct. I believe this example � one of many � warrants us giving Luke the benefit of the doubt when conflicts arise. First of all, the
Gospels do not claim to be �historical accounts�. The Gospel writers were not historians. That is your own interpretation to try to
salvage their authority.
In Luke 3:1 Luke refers to "Lysanias as the tetrarch of
Actually, the
translation of Antiquities of the Jews (20, 7:1) I found referred to the
New reply by Apollos: Mark may have been an eyewitness and he was Peter�s companion, writing the Gospel by his name on behalf of Peter. Luke relies on eyewitnesses as he describes and quotes them. But I am also referring to Matthew, Peter, John, James, Jude, and Paul. See, this is what
I am talking about. Mark �may have been
an eyewitness�. This is your best
defense. What do we know about this
man?
New reply by Apollos: Please identify
which other �theological movements� are based on the statements of numerous
people who had nothing to gain from their statements but instead lost
popularity, comforts, money and in most cases their lives. Every religious
group has had similar experiences. The
early Muslims had nothing to gain from their conversion to Islam, including Muhammad
(pbuh). They only found humiliation,
violence and death at the hands of the pagans.
This state of affairs lasted for almost 20 years. The Gnostics also were willing to die for
their beliefs. There is the account of the
Gnostic Ptolemy who was put to death by the Romans. When Christendom took control of the remnants
of the
New reply by Apollos: This is the
very thing you have done with me and it is quite apropos to the historical
corroboration you keep appealing to. You said: If the
Gospels are supposed to be �reliable history�, then perhaps he should have
[should have known which statements they made would be a problem for readers
two thousand years later]. This proves that
they were not writing historical accounts.
It may also suggest that their intentions were not to pass the
information to future generations, but to their contemporaries who may have
shared their views. So, the conclusion
is that the Gospels are not inspired and also not historically reliable, as
their authors were prone to making up stories to support their claims. Real historians write their accounts with the
intention of giving future generations a window into the past. The Gospel authors clearly did not keep this
in mind at all times. Historians write their accounts for future generations as well, not just present generations. I assume you consider the Quran at least a reliable source when it refers to events in time and space. I therefore listed four statements the Quran makes that aren�t substantiated by any historical, archaeological or scientific sources. Though they appear to be pure mistakes, I am not even asking for you to prove otherwise; I simply want you to acknowledge that they aren�t corroborated and they fall under the same indictment you hurl at the NT writings.
Again, open a new
thread.
New reply by Apollos: I am not going to go through a Bible study here but you are missing so many things. There are many similar statements that a na�ve reader may misunderstand and the one you refer to above is clearly referring to the transfiguration which happened in the next few verses. Please read it in context and you will see this.
Please show a contradiction between John and the previous Gospels � and be prepared to admit you were wrong when I show you that there is no conflict.
How on earth does
it represent the transfiguration? Was
the transfiguration supposed to be the coming of the New 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. No, it is not
�another issue�. Rather, it is the same
issue and one is simply an extension of the other, because if they are wrong on
even the minutest details, we can disregard their claims of being inspired, but
not necessarily disregard the claim that they are still historically
accurate. Since we have proven that the
Gospels are full of both minor and major errors, they cannot possibly be
inspired. Their historical accuracy,
however, can be further discussed as an extension of the same issue. You argued that if the Gospels are wrong on
certain details that would not be reason enough to completely reject their
usefulness as historical documents. I
agree and would add that further discussion would be required to judge their historical
accuracy. We have done that as well and
the conclusion I reached is that the Gospels are also not historically
accurate, at least those of Luke and Matthew.
We have not discussed Mark, and the Gospel attributed to John has been
widely rejected as having been written by the disciple John. I suppose that would not necessarily destroy
its reliability as a historical document, but it certainly would not be an
eyewitness account.
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. You have already
confirmed my �goal�. So, now you are
changing your argument (again)? Are they
the word of God or not? Try to answer
the question and not divert attention toward the Quran. I have said already that you should open a
new thread to discuss the Quran there.
New reply by Apollos: And your point is? If someone is unique in what they assert, they are automatically wrong? No that wouldn�t work for the Quran would it? So your point is?
My point is that
like the claim that Herod killed many Jewish children, the claim that Hosea 11
was actually a prophecy about Jesus can only be found in one source, that of
the Gospel of Matthew. While the
Hosea-Jesus link is not a matter of history but interpretation (which I guess
is in the eye of the beholder), the claim about the massacre is a matter of
history, one which fails to have any corroboration. In this regard, Matthew is unique in that he
tells us many stories and gives us new interpretations, which simply were the
first of their kind. I find it strange
that you criticized the Quran for claiming that Jesus was not crucified, for bringing
a new story into the mix (even though the claim existed centuries before), but
you don�t criticize the Gospel of Matthew for similar claims. The Quran�s claim is not unique. Matthew�s claims are unique. Some are matters of interpretation, others matters
of history.
New reply by Apollos: Yes � as long as we know your opinion is better than Paul�s.
Try to refute the
argument or admit you were wrong.
Foolhardy statements like these prove nothing. Your foolish claims of a parallel between
Jesus and Isaac were shown to be nothing but an overactive imagination based on
several assumptions. What does this have
to do with Paul? Well, I suppose it
would show that if Paul had reached a similar conclusion, then he was wrong as
well! I showed you why. For every �similarity� between Jesus and
Isaac, there was also a difference. And
when we tallied everything together, the differences were more numerous.
New reply by Apollos: I did not say �hidden� but maybe you should use a dictionary for similitude �
a likening or comparison in the form of a simile, parable, or allegory: He spoke by similitudes.
If that was the case, then the �similitude� would have actually mentioned or given a hint that it was talking about the Messiah. Otherwise, it is just a vague statement which can be interpreted in many ways. For instance,
New reply by Apollos: Do you really
think we have every historical writing that was ever written? I did not say
that. And your question to my question
does not help. I am simply looking at
the statistics. The Gospel of Matthew
makes many unique claims. Some are
historical claims, others interpretative claims. I can overlook the interpretative claims, but
the historical claims cannot be overlooked.
It sounds like a really big coincidence that a Jewish account of the
massacre just happened not to survive. There
is not even a hint or a clue to any such massacre in Jewish sources. What makes it even more suspicious is that
Jewish tradition is full of references to the Pharoah�s massacre of Jews. There is no reason that a similar act of
murder by Herod would not have been catalogued.
New reply by Apollos: You are ignoring what I wrote below. You did not write
anything noteworthy.
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?
New reply by Apollos: These are not all my grievances by any means. They are obvious, basic ones that are analogous to the objections you have hurled at me in this thread. I prefer to not start a new thread as I don�t want to lose track of your statements that lead me to these questions.
Why not address #1 now and once we have run that to ground, you can start with #2? Oh come on. My
statements can be easily tracked down. Anyway,
the short answer to #1 is that Muhammad (pbuh) was an illiterate merchant with
no known knowledge of the biblical stories. People have claimed that he was educated by
Christians and Jews whom he knew, but they offer no evidence. In addition to this, Muhammad (pbuh) performed
miracles and made prophecies which came true.
To discuss this in more detail, I suggest opening a new thread. Before I close, I want to make a quick
comment on number 6. That sounds more
like Paul than Muhammad (pbuh). He came
up with a whole new ideology which did not exist before and literally came out
of nowhere to do so. He also did not provide
any evidence of his encounter with Jesus on the road to Edited by islamispeace - 13 August 2009 at 1:24pm |
|
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|
 |
|
|
Apollos
Senior Member 
Joined: 29 January 2009 Status: Offline Points: 426 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 August 2009 at 6:58am |
|
Previous Reply by Apollos: I disagree. I have never heard an historian who rejects the resurrection on that basis. How prey tell do they think would be adequate evidence? Please quote a historian not just your speculations. Reply by Islamispeace: According to Theodore Drange, the historicity of the resurrection should be called into question for several reasons, in addition to it being a supernatural event (which was reason #2 which I will not quote so as not to take up too much space): 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. Previous Reply by Apollos: So if someone says or writes something that has about spiritual things, you look at everything more skeptically than you do common statements? There is so much wrong with this �view�. Reply by Islamispeace: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 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. 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? 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? Reply by Islamispeace: We are not even talking about miracles, just a matter of the truth about various claims made by the Gospel �historians�. Since Josephus simply claims to write a historical account and the Gospels simply claim to be guides to salvation (and not historical accounts), the latter is more extraordinary. 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. Previous Reply by Apollos: I could ask the same thing about Mohammed�s words. He claims they are from God but there is no evidence of this. Based on your axiom, we can simply call the Quran the words of humans and dismiss it all. Reply by Islamispeace: Open a new tread and we can discuss the evidence. 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. Previous Reply by Apollos: In most cases I have allowed the possibility that other sources are correct, that the dating of NT documents is at the later end of the dating range, etc. But I believe that the NT writings are superior history to any other source you want to compare them against. Time and again, they have been proven correct yet people want to imagine that Josephus or others are the benchmark. Below is just one example of where Josephus is clearly wrong and Luke is correct. I believe this example � one of many � warrants us giving Luke the benefit of the doubt when conflicts arise. Reply by Islamispeace: First of all, the Gospels do not claim to be �historical accounts�. The Gospel writers were not historians. That is your own interpretation to try to salvage their authority. 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. 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. In Luke 3:1 Luke refers to "Lysanias as the tetrarch of Reply by Islamispeace: Actually, the translation of Antiquities of the Jews (20, 7:1) I found referred to the 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. Previous Reply by Apollos: Mark may have been an eyewitness and he was Peter�s companion, writing the Gospel by his name on behalf of Peter. Luke relies on eyewitnesses as he describes and quotes them. But I am also referring to Matthew, Peter, John, James, Jude, and Paul. Reply by Islamispeace: See, this is what I am talking about. Mark �may have been an eyewitness�. This is your best defense. What do we know about this man? New reply from Apollos: We know a lot. We know he called �son� by Peter, that he accompanied Peter on many missionary trips. 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. From tradition and the language in John�s gospel it appears that Mark was the young man who ran away from the Previous Reply by Apollos: Please identify which other �theological movements� are based on the statements of numerous people who had nothing to gain from their statements but instead lost popularity, comforts, money and in most cases their lives. Reply by Islamispeace: Every religious group has had similar experiences. The early Muslims had nothing to gain from their conversion to Islam, including Muhammad (pbuh). They only found humiliation, violence and death at the hands of the pagans. This state of affairs lasted for almost 20 years. 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. Reply by Islamispeace: The Gnostics also were willing to die for their beliefs. There is the account of the Gnostic Ptolemy who was put to death by the Romans. When Christendom took control of the remnants of the 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. As I stated, the NT writers and Apostles claimed that they had seen Jesus alive again after being crucified. This testimony gave them no reward or hope of reward in this life but instead cost them popularity, comforts, money and in most cases their lives. This only has a slight analogy to people who will do the same because they are convinced a particular subjective idea is true. The overlap is � it does prove that they are sincere in their belief. 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. 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. Previous Reply by Apollos: This is the very thing you have done with me and it is quite apropos to the historical corroboration you keep appealing to. You said: If the Gospels are supposed to be �reliable history�, then perhaps he should have [should have known which statements they made would be a problem for readers two thousand years later]. Reply by Islamispeace: This proves that they were not writing historical accounts. It may also suggest that their intentions were not to pass the information to future generations, but to their contemporaries who may have shared their views. So, the conclusion is that the Gospels are not inspired and also not historically reliable, as their authors were prone to making up stories to support their claims. Real historians write their accounts with the intention of giving future generations a window into the past. The Gospel authors clearly did not keep this in mind at all times. New reply from Apollos: I�m sorry but this sounds like an irrational rant. It doesn�t make sense logically and it frankly seems beneath your intellect. If you like it, let it stand. Historians write their accounts for future generations as well, not just present generations. I assume you consider the Quran at least a reliable source when it refers to events in time and space. I therefore listed four statements the Quran makes that aren�t substantiated by any historical, archaeological or scientific sources. Though they appear to be pure mistakes, I am not even asking for you to prove otherwise; I simply want you to acknowledge that they aren�t corroborated and they fall under the same indictment you hurl at the NT writings. Again, open a new thread. Previous Reply by Apollos: I am not going to go through a Bible study here but you are missing so many things. There are many similar statements that a na�ve reader may misunderstand and the one you refer to above is clearly referring to the transfiguration which happened in the next few verses. Please read it in context and you will see this. Please show a contradiction between John and the previous Gospels � and be prepared to admit you were wrong when I show you that there is no conflict. Reply by Islamispeace: How on earth does it represent the transfiguration? Was the transfiguration supposed to be the coming of the New reply from Apollos: Here are a few of the things students of the Bible note when reading this and other passages about the The NT says that in some ways, the 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 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. 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. 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. Reply by Islamispeace: No, it is not �another issue�. Rather, it is the same issue and one is simply an extension of the other, because if they are wrong on even the minutest details, we can disregard their claims of being inspired, but not necessarily disregard the claim that they are still historically accurate. 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. Reply by Islamispeace: Since we have proven that the Gospels are full of both minor and major errors, they cannot possibly be inspired. Their historical accuracy, however, can be further discussed as an extension of the same issue. You argued that if the Gospels are wrong on certain details that would not be reason enough to completely reject their usefulness as historical documents. I agree and would add that further discussion would be required to judge their historical accuracy. We have done that as well and the conclusion I reached is that the Gospels are also not historically accurate, at least those of Luke and Matthew. 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. 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. We have not discussed Mark, and the Gospel attributed to John has been widely rejected as having been written by the disciple John. I suppose that would not necessarily destroy its reliability as a historical document, but it certainly would not be an eyewitness account. New reply from Apollos: Again you simply allude to some who doubt John�s authenticity. The early church accepted it as from John and so do I. 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: You have already confirmed my �goal�. So, now you are changing your argument (again)? Are they the word of God or not? Try to answer the question and not divert attention toward the Quran. I have said already that you should open a new thread to discuss the Quran there. 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. Previous Reply by Apollos: And your point is? If someone is unique in what they assert, they are automatically wrong? No that wouldn�t work for the Quran would it? So your point is? Reply by Islamispeace: My point is that like the claim that Herod killed many Jewish children, the claim that Hosea 11 was actually a prophecy about Jesus can only be found in one source, that of the Gospel of Matthew. While the Hosea-Jesus link is not a matter of history but interpretation (which I guess is in the eye of the beholder), the claim about the massacre is a matter of history, one which fails to have any corroboration. In this regard, Matthew is unique in that he tells us many stories and gives us new interpretations, which simply were the first of their kind. I find it strange that you criticized the Quran for claiming that Jesus was not crucified, for bringing a new story into the mix (even though the claim existed centuries before), but you don�t criticize the Gospel of Matthew for similar claims. The Quran�s claim is not unique. Matthew�s claims are unique. Some are matters of interpretation, others matters of history. 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). 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. Previous Reply by Apollos: I did not say �hidden� but maybe you should use a dictionary for similitude � a likening or comparison in the form of a simile, parable, or allegory: He spoke by similitudes. Reply by Islamispeace: If that was the case, then the �similitude� would have actually mentioned or given a hint that it was talking about the Messiah. Otherwise, it is just a vague statement which can be interpreted in many ways. 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. 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? Previous Reply by Apollos: These are not all my grievances by any means. They are obvious, basic ones that are analogous to the objections you have hurled at me in this thread. I prefer to not start a new thread as I don�t want to lose track of your statements that lead me to these questions. Why not address #1 now and once we have run that to ground, you can start with #2? Reply by Islamispeace: Oh come on. My statements can be easily tracked down. Anyway, the short answer to #1 is that Muhammad (pbuh) was an illiterate merchant with no known knowledge of the biblical stories. People have claimed that he was educated by Christians and Jews whom he knew, but they offer no evidence. 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? 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? 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 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? Are you saying that Mohammed performed miracles that we can have confidence about them having occurred? Please clarify. Apollos |
|
|
|
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 August 2009 at 8:48pm |
|
Apollos, you're killing me!
 That was one quick response. I thought I would have a few days off but you got me working again! Oh well, back to work. Give me a week or so.
|
|
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|
|
|
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 August 2009 at 3:28pm |
|
��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] 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 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 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 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 Certainly, they had nothing to gain during the first 10-15 years,
did they? And certainly not until the
defeat of the pagans at 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 The NT says that in some ways, the No, he said that some who were standing there would not taste
death until they saw the 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 Concerning the ultimate 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 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 Since both of them were going to die soon, I think the meaning is
pretty simple. The thief would be in 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 |
|
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|
|
|
|
Apollos
Senior Member
Joined: 29 January 2009 Status: Offline Points: 426 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 August 2009 at 7:49am |
|
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] 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: 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. Previous 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? New reply from Apollos: I requite you here so your logical fallacy of special pleading is clear. But even when we look at it from an ordinary point of view, it still lacks any credible evidence. New reply from Apollos: Then why would you request something other than ordinary 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 New reply from Apollos: As pointed out many times, you have only shown a lack of corroboration with Matthew on a handful of statements. Your �proof� is only in your own mind. Luke has been proven to be a superior source compared to Josephus who you keep pitting him against. Prove your contention like I did with Josephus � with clear facts or archaeology, not simple doubts. 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. New reply from Apollos: You aren�t paying attention. The time period of �August Lords� extends until 29 AD when Livia died, does it not? 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. Previous 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? New reply from Apollos: 1Pe 5:13 The church that is at Or in the NASB: 1Pe 5:13 She who is in 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. New reply from Apollos: Wrong again � see above. Previous Reply from Apollos: Here are a few of the things students of the Bible note when reading this and other passages about the The NT says that in some ways, the No, he said that some who were standing there would not taste death until they saw the New reply from Apollos: Because only three of those standing there at that time got to see this glimpse of the 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 New reply from Apollos: You are ignoring the different aspects of the 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. Previous 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: 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? 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? Previous post from Apollos: 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. Previous 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. New 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? 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: You misquote me again. They may be from God and that is a separate issue. 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? Imagine I just assert what you did about the Quran � �The Gospels are from God.� Do you now grant them the same benefit of the doubt that you do the Quran? Do you now see that what they say is incredibly important? Apollos |
|
|
|
|
Apollos
Senior Member
Joined: 29 January 2009 Status: Offline Points: 426 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 August 2009 at 8:28am |
|
Islamispeace - As requested, I have created a new topic with some of my questions to you. It is titled "Questions for Islamsipeace". Apollos Edited by Apollos - 23 August 2009 at 9:46am |
|
|
|
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 August 2009 at 3:29pm |
|
Apollos,
You have not responded to every issue. You skipped certain parts. Please respond to those as well. |
|
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|
|
|
|
Apollos
Senior Member
Joined: 29 January 2009 Status: Offline Points: 426 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 August 2009 at 12:51pm |
I think I addressed them in the new thread - or I have nothing to say on the subject. If there is something you think I've missed, please remind me as I don't see what it is.
Apollos
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 1011121314> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
islamispeace wrote: