Response to Apollos

Previous reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

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

Previous reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

Yes we should.

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

Previous reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

And Luke�s error is?

Previous Reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

OK, and what is this based on?

Previous reply from Apollos:

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

Or in the NASB:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

Conjecture and nothing more.  You have no solid evidence. 

New Reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

Previous Reply from Apollos:

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

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

Previous reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

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

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

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

Previous reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

Previous reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

Please provide examples of this evidence?

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

Previous reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

Previous reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

Reply by Islamispeace:

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

New Reply from Apollos:

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

Previous Reply from Apollos:

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

Give examples.  Carrier actually refers to the �Rubicon Analogy� to support his contention of why the resurrection is not a historical event.  This refers to the crossing of the Rubicon by Julius Caesar, an event which is widely attested to in historical documents.  He compares the well-documented crossing of the Rubicon with the claims of the resurrection to show why he feels the resurrection is not a historical event or at least does not meet the standards of historical inquiry. 

New reply from Apollos:

I think the bias is clear � for Carrier and you. In the link above Carrier refers to all of the evidence for Caesar without any question. He then dismisses everything but Paul�s letters from the evidence for the resurrection. Convenient and flawed. Just as there is a corroboration between Cicero�s letters and letters from those he wrote to, so there is a corroboration between Paul, Luke, Peter, James, Jude and John. Even if Paul was all we had, we have more letters from Paul attesting to the resurrection than all contemporary documents concerning Caesar and the Rubicon. Carrier lies when he says Paul saw nothing but a revelation. He saw and spoke to the Disciples who declared and wrote the same things that Paul wrote about the resurrection. At a minimum, Paul confirms that the Disciples were preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem during his time and many many people were believing their story. This is powerful evidence and it corresponds with the archaeology and other history for this region.

I don�t accept you theory about Carrier�s motives and many skeptics admit that their presupposition is what dictates the way they view the evidence for the resurrection. On the other hand, I am not omniscient and if a skeptic contends that it is only objective evidence that leads them to their rejection of supernatural claims, so be it. A far superior skeptic than Carrier is ntony Flew and I appreciate how he acknowledges his anti-supernatural bias at the same time he acknowledges the wealth of evidence for the resurrection.

Previous Reply from Apollos:

Yes we should. (look at spiritual claims and natural claims the same way).

I think that is a very na�ve statement.  If we did look at them the same way, then science should actually be able to prove the supernatural.  But, by its very nature, the study of the natural world is based on observation, not faith. 

New reply from Apollos:

I won�t take off with a tangent but you are being very na�ve with such an opinion. Science at its core is faith based, assuming that our sense perceptions are intended and able to inform us of the external world. You don�t get more faith based than that.

That is why the two sides cannot be looked at through the same magnifying glass.  If they did, then science would have proved the existence of angels, demons and of course God long ago.  This is clearly not the case.

New reply from Apollos:

If science could observe the realm of angels, demons, etc. it would. But science is limited to observations in 4 dimensions  and though science accepts the existence of many more dimensions, we can�t reach beyond these 4 dimensions. That is the limitation of science. But it is not the limitation logic or math and that is why mathematicians can confirm more dimensions, etc. Logic can confirm the existence of God and God can � if He so chooses � reveal to us things about angels, demons, etc. There is no either/or in all this. We can experience a revelation from God in the natural world and if such a revelation is provided, we only have natural ways of evaluating � don�t we?

Previous Reply from Apollos:

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

Well for one thing, if they claim to be inspired of God, there should be no errors in them.  The absence of errors would be extraordinary evidence which would support the extraordinary claim of being inspired of God.  The Gospels lack this extraordinary nature.

New reply from Apollos:

Actually it is not extraordinary to have a document without errors but I concur with your reasoning. The problem is � there isn�t a writing on the planet that is free from accusations of error. Your accusation is no better than people who claim the opposite or accuse the Quran of being flawed. So lets set this issue aside for now. We either agree that both are books are flawed or we agree that both are books might have reconciliations to their apparent errors. I�m not going to give you the benefit of the doubt unless you reciprocate.

Previous Reply from Apollos:

I will try to connect the dots for you again: The period of �August Lords� included the years up to 29 A.D � the time frame Luke refers to.

This is irrelevant.  If the title was used with regard to Augustus and Livia first, and we know of a Lysanias during the reign of Augustus, why would we regard the inscription as evidence of another Lysanias?  Such an assumption is nothing but a non-sequitur.      

 By way of archaeology we know that Lysanias was �tetrarch� of Abilene not �king� as Josephus claims.

Again, you keep ignoring what I said.  It is extremely irritating that I have to keep repeating the same thing.  Josephus refers to Lysanias� territory as a tetrarchy in Antiquities of the Jews.  And according to one Christian website, the terms �tetrarch� and �king� were actually interchangeable in the Gospels. 

New reply from Apollos:

Here is where you are getting way off. One Christian web site says that the way Matthew used the term �tetrarch� justifies �.. Josephus using the term that way too. Come on. Josephus doesn�t use the word that way and that�s the point.

To imagine that all writers used the same idioms and expressions � and then criticize Matthew for not writing like Josephus is illogical. They wrote to different people, at different times and they each had their own style. As I pointed out previously I am only criticizing your interpretation of Josephus. I allow that he could have been referring to an earlier Lysanias who was king of the region he mentions. But if I have to choose between Luke or Josephus on when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, I go with Luke and the rocks.

So if there is only one Lysanias, Josephus didn�t get his title correct.

Even if this was true, it is insignificant!  Which is the bigger error:  Josephus (allegedly) calling Lysanias a �king� instead of a �tetrarch� or Luke putting Lysanias in the wrong time period, albeit with the right �title�?  Your claim is laughable.

New reply from Apollos:

You err again. If there was only one Lysanias, Josephus got his title wrong and Luke got it right. When then have these two sources to tell us when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene. The rocks say either one but the benefit of the doubt should go to Luke not Josephus because he has been proven wrong. You on the other hand apparently missed the warning: �Fail me once shame on you, fail me twice, shame on me�.

Ultimately I think it is likely that Luke and Josephus are both correct, referring to different people with the same name. I refer you to one possible scenario - http://books.google.com/books?id=EFQmf0E7N_EC&pg=PA427&lpg=PA427&dq=coins+lysanias+date&source=bl&ots=pMaQwBN7Ex&sig=86jtXRzHX2Wn7E1tH0HysgYas-8&hl=en&ei=DGeoSv7yG4zQtgOq9u2TBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=coins%20lysanias%20date&f=false

Previous Reply from Apollos:

You skipped right over the answer I gave you. You challenged my claim that Mark was called �son� by Peter and that he accompanied Peter on many missionary trips. I substantiate my assertion and you ignore this trying to go on to another challenge.

First of all, I don�t think you have any right to complain if I �ignored� what you said.  You have been doing that with me for a while now.  Secondly, I did not �ignore� what you said.  I commented that the verses you mention do not prove your main argument for the Marcan authorship of the Gospel of Mark, because nothing is mentioned of Mark writing a Gospel on behalf of Peter.      

New reply from Apollos:

That wasn�t my main argument. In fact I was simply answering your inquiries on why I believe Mark is the author of the Gospel by his name. I provided external sources that said this plainly; I mentioned how this fit with Peter�s practice of not writing his own written messages and how Mark was called �son� by Peter. You fixated on the latter until I proved it and then you moved on to other nit pic questions.

All the while, you keep trying to reduce the discussion to some meaningless contention that you concoct. My confidence in the NT writings does not rely on Mark being Peter�s secretary.

So what pray tell does it rely on, your confidence that is? 

You asked why you �should trust your salvation on the words of humans� � referring to the NT writings. I answered that you should trust what these humans wrote because they contain reliable accounts about Jesus.

And thus far, you have failed to prove this assertion.  So until you do, your assumptions are nothing but non-sequiturs. 

New reply from Apollos:

No, you have ignored the evidence that the NT writings are trustworthy. You reference Apostates, atheists and occultists to criticize some obscure aspect of the writings and somehow think you have discounted the entire accounts. Like some Hollywood lawyer you point to some point or date or name that isn�t included like you say it should be and then say: �See, you can�t trust anything.� If I was going to play your part toward Islam, I would dismiss Mohammed because you can�t tell me who his parents were or when he was born. I would dismiss the Quran because it claims to be words from someone who couldn�t read or write � there is no way he could have ever approved of the pieces that were jotted down by others. I would dismiss all of the Hadith because Mohammed never authorized any one to write his biography.

If you are going to pretend the NT writings have no historical value, I don�t think we have anything else to discuss.

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

Throughout this discourse, I have discussed many of the NT writings, not only those of Mark.  We just started the discussion on Mark.  And since most of the other writings (or at least those of Matthew and Luke) are believed by scholars to have been based on Mark, then there is trickle-down effect. 

New reply from Apollos:

These same scholars think the Quran is based on a flawed understanding of the Bible. But even if this claim was shared by most scholars � and it is not � it does not refute or discount what they agree on or the additional info Matthew and Luke provide. At a minimum, your claim would be that Mark was written quite early � in time for Luke to incorporate Mark by 60 A.D. or so. These writings published in Jerusalem during the lives of people who knew what really happened is very formidable. How do you explain how they could be so wrong so publicly and never be called on it?

 Paul was not an eyewitness. 

New reply from Apollos:

Paul was an eyewitness to the Aposles. They endorsed each other and fellowshipped with the same believers. They taught the same things � especially that Jesus rose from the dead. Call him what you may, how do you explain him away?

The Early Church at times could not make up its mind as to what was reliable and what was not.  Just a cursory look at the early canons will illustrate this point.  For instance, the canon of Marcion only contained the Gospel of Luke and the Pauline epistles.[2]  I have also pointed out that the Muratorian Canon differed in many respects, such as with the absence of Peter�s letters.   

New reply from Apollos:

When you reference these canons you have already skipped over many decades of believers reading, copying and sharing the NT writings. If they hadn�t we wouldn�t have copies of them all to be arguing about. And you misrepresent their �uncertainty�. They always considered them all reliable, but only questioned which ones should be considered part of their Christian canon. They didn�t include the Didache but they still considered it reliable.

Previous Reply from Apollos:

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

Sure it matters.  You just don�t want it to matter. 

New reply from Apollos:

So you imagine that any discussion or debate about a belief or writing before its acceptance reflects �unreliableness�? It only takes a couple of people to question something and they should automatically be considered the ones to pay attention to? Paul actually said that certain disputations were good in that they brought out the truth that might otherwise be missed. The fact that Christians openly discussed differences of opinion on such things is in stark contrast to Muslims simply destroyed writings that disagreed with each other.

Previous Reply from Apollos:

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

References please. 

Previous Reply from Apollos:

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

Well how convenient.  The actual person to whom the work is attributed to is completely silent, but it is the opinions of those who came after that ultimately determines who actually wrote the Gospel.  Neither Peter (if the letter which bears his name is actually his) nor Mark (if he indeed was the author of the Gospel) mentions anything of the sort.

New reply from Apollos:

As I showed earlier, contemporaries clarified that it was Mark who wrote this and the first readers of mark didn�t need an autograph to know who wrote the document.

Previous Reply from Apollos:

As I mentioned above, Mark doesn�t have to be an eyewitness for his writing to be reliable.

But before you were claiming that he was (perhaps).  You even tried to prove it by appealing to internal, albeit vague, evidence from the Gospels, such as the reference to a naked young man who witnessed the crucifixion.

New reply from Apollos:

As I said, he may have been an eyewitness. He was alive then and could have. (Unlike Mohammed who could have spoke to Jews and Christians but apparently never did). If he was not an eyewitness, he spent years living and ministering with them, including Peter and he published his writing while they were alive. It is obvious he was writing something they agreed with.

He wrote his gospel while Peter and other disciples were alive and if they had a problem with what Mark wrote, they would have said so. Instead Peter calls Mark his son and Paul compliments him a profitable servant. According to the Church Fathers Peter specifically endorsed what Mark had written.

And what evidence is there that these �Church Fathers� were authorized to speak on Peter�s behalf?   

New reply from Apollos:

They knew Peter. They were quoting Peter. Speaking on Peter�s behalf? What a ridiculous question. I can quote you without speaking on your behalf. What evidence is there that Mohammed authorized anyone to write or speak on his behalf?

Previous Reply from Apollos:

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

Oh come on Apollos.  Don�t make me laugh!  I just think that Jesus would have been logical, that�s all.  If you think that is the wrong interpretation, well then I am sorry to hear that. 

New reply from Apollos:

Your conjecture is not logical at all.

How can you determine what the people he was talking to were like?  They lived 2,000 years ago.   

Why would Jesus say that some would be alive to see the kingdom and yet a week later, he purposely takes only three of the individuals who were present to the event?  Again, I am only looking at this from a logical perspective.  Your explanation makes no logical sense. 

New reply from Apollos:

This is very logical. Pay attention to what is said:

For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He shall reward each one according to his works.  Truly I say to you, There are some standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

So He describes the coming of Son of Man in glory and then in the same breath says that some standing there would see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom. It is clear that �his Kingdom� is synonymous with coming in the glory of His father with his angels�. That is exactly what is described in the next verses.

Also, Jesus often spoke in parables that were intentionally meant to obscure his teachings to the unbelieving masses but later explained clearly to the Disciples. This is why we must look to what He told the Disciples in private and what they pass on to us in their comments and letters.

You really haven�t paid attention to what I said about the different aspects of the Kingdom of God.

Because it does not make any sense! 

New reply from Apollos:

That�s because you are reading the Bible like a comic book. And frankly you sound like a pouting child. God states that we are to study His word to show ourselves diligent students. We are to learn His ways and His way of using words, expressions, etc. Even the Quran must be studied closely or it doesn�t make sense. Do some study before you declare what makes sense and what doesn�t.

It is clear that there are different aspects and the context of how, when and where the phrase is used explains what aspect it is. The coming in glory aspect was the predominant thing the Jews and Disciples expected and it what was revealed to some standing there at that time.

But only three of them were purposefully selected by Jesus to witness it.  Therefore, the statement that some would not see death until they saw the kingdom of God seems unnecessary.  Was he just saying it for effect?

New reply from Apollos:

You really need to read what Jesus says in the NT. He uses hyperbole constantly. He uses third person phrases when speaking of Himself. He emphasizes points with �Truly truly I say unto you�. He was always speaking truly but he wanted people to listen up. In the case at hand He wanted people to realize that some there were actually going to see the Son of Man coming (appearing) in glory. This was incredible and He is making that emphasis.

As the gospel account states: �Peter and those with him were heavy with sleep. But fully awakening, they saw His glory, and the two men who stood with Him.� Peter describes in his letters, that this glory of Jesus was a past event he had experienced as well as a future event to be revealed to all:

Verses 26-27 of the same chapter of Luke state the following:

�²⁶If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. ²⁷I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." [3]

Matthew adds ��and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.�[4] That is a clear reference not to the transfiguration, but something far more important.  How many of the people who witnessed the transfiguration were �ashamed� of Jesus?  Was Jesus �ashamed� of them?  How many of those people were �rewarded� for what each had done?  With all these inconsistencies, how can you still maintain that he was talking about the transfiguration?      

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

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

See above.

Previous Reply from Apollos:

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

It is if we look at what the Gospels literally said in a logical way.

New reply from Apollos:

Please show me the references. And please explain why these same Apostles would have continued in their preaching if they thought that Jesus promised that He would return in their lifetime? Why would John � the last living Apostles � correct this belief if He knew Jesus had failed them? (More to your view, why would any of the fabricators of the NT have included these statements if they were writing it after the Apostles had all died? Either Jesus really said these things and they forgot to take it out or they made up things that undercut their whole fabricated account. Which is it?)

Previous Reply from Apollos:

Because that is all they are: two questionable statements among hundreds of other unquestionable statements.

Which ones are �unquestionable� again?  And by the way, I said there were �several doubtful� statements.  Doubtful is different from questionable.  If a football player is �doubtful� to play, it means that he will probably not play.  In contrast, if he is �questionable� to play, it means that there is a 50/50 chance. 

 (Are you trying to say the Quran you believe doesn�t have at least two questionable statements? Of course it does.

It depends on what you mean by �questionable�.      

New reply from Apollos:

The same type of things you accuse the Bible of: Contradictory statements, conflicts with history, etc.

Previous Reply from Apollos:

Because this was and is common practice for recording events.

Nonsense.  Perhaps it was common practice among the early Christians, but not with others.    

But as I mentioned before, other sources tell us that Matthew wrote down much of his Gospel in short hand as it occurred. He simply wrote it out in long hand years later.

And none of those sources were actually around when Matthew supposedly wrote down the Gospel.  Meanwhile, Matthew himself is suspiciously silent.   

New reply from Apollos:

Do I need to explain to you that a radio announcer uses a microphone, a digital recorder, a CD player and clock? I hope not. But a hundred years from now people may not know that these were part of their job. There is no need to explain these things now but there may be later. The later descriptions of what Matthew did were for people who didn�t know first hand. This is not odd or contrived.

Previous Reply from Apollos:

Please provide examples of this evidence?

For instance:

<!--[if !supLists]-->1.     <!--[endif]-->Some unknown individual decided to add the phrase �the son of God� to the opening of the Gospel of Mark.  This is common throughout the Gospels.  See also the Pericope de Adultera. 

New reply from Apollos:

Or was this deleted from some copies?

<!--[if !supLists]-->2.     <!--[endif]-->Some of Paul�s letters are believed to be forgeries.

New reply from Apollos:

By who and why?

<!--[if !supLists]-->3.      <!--[endif]-->At least one of Clement�s (whom you mentioned before) letters is known to be a forgery.

New reply from Apollos:

Not the one I quote from.

<!--[if !supLists]-->4.      <!--[endif]-->Peter�s epistles are considered to be forgeries.  The early canons also looked upon them with suspicion. 

New reply from Apollos:

By whom and why?

<!--[if !supLists]-->5.      <!--[endif]-->Let�s not forget the numerous other �Gospels� and �epistles� which exist and bear the names of the same disciples as the New Testament.  It was clearly common practice for anonymous individuals to write documents and attribute them to the disciples of Jesus.

New reply from Apollos:

But only after they were dead � and not without the true follwers spotting the frauds.

Previous Reply from Apollos:

Does it get his mother�s relatives correct? No, it does not.

What do you mean?  It mentions that he was the son of Mary, does it not?

 New reply from Apollos:

The Quran says Mary�s brother was Aaron does it not?

Does it agree with Jewish or Christian writings about what Jesus said? No, it does not. So how can you declare that the Quran does not contradict history concerning Jesus?

Which Jewish sources are you talking about?  The Talmud?  Concerning the Christian sources, once you can establish that they are �reliable history�, only then you can say that the Quran contradicts that �history�. 

Previous Reply from Apollos:

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

The difference is that is you are arguing for the NT�s historical reliability only.  I have shown why the Quran is historically accurate.  The Quran does not make errors like the NT.  You will not find errors like confusing placing a historical figure in the time period of the author (a la Luke with Lysanias).

Previous Reply from Apollos:

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

Wait, wait.  First, you quoted A.T. Robertson and left it that.  Now, you want to refer me to someone else?  Why don�t you quote the relevant parts of Ramsay�s theories?  Why do you still feel that Luke is correct when the available evidence, including the Res Gestae (which you appealed to before), shows that he was clearly wrong?

New reply from Apollos:

Your appeal to Res Gestae did not shed any light on this topic. If you want a thorough explanation I have provided you two sources. If you don�t want to take the time to study it for yourself, fine. I don�t have the time to do the leg work for you.

Bottom line:

No scholars in the world will accept the idea that the NT writings are worthless. Even the most skeptical person will admit that they contain some history and they can�t be reconciled with the Quran. How do you explain this?

Apollos

New reply from Apollos:

In the link above Carrier refers to all of the evidence for Caesar without any question. He then dismisses everything but Paul�s letters from the evidence for the resurrection. Convenient and flawed. Just as there is a corroboration between Cicero�s letters and letters from those he wrote to, so there is a corroboration between Paul, Luke, Peter, James, Jude and John. Even if Paul was all we had, we have more letters from Paul attesting to the resurrection than all contemporary documents concerning Caesar and the Rubicon. Carrier lies when he says Paul saw nothing but a revelation. He saw and spoke to the Disciples who declared and wrote the same things that Paul wrote about the resurrection. At a minimum, Paul confirms that the Disciples were preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem during his time and many many people were believing their story. This is powerful evidence and it corresponds with the archaeology and other history for this region.

Well you can take it up with him.  You have no proof that Paul actually met the disciples.  That view is based on speculation.  Paul was also not a witness to Jesus' ministry or his alleged resurrection, unlike Cicero who wrote a first-hand account of Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.  Unlike with the claims of the New Testament, the Rubicon crossing is widely attested to by other contemporary figures, such as Lucan.[1] 

I don�t accept you theory about Carrier�s motives and many skeptics admit that their presupposition is what dictates the way they view the evidence for the resurrection.

I really don�t care.  I think the very fact that Carrier, a historian, uses historical examples to show why the resurrection story is not history is noteworthy.  He may very well be wrong (not that I am saying he is), but that is not the issue.

New reply from Apollos:

I won�t take off with a tangent

Oh, don�t worry!  You have been going off on tangents the whole time we have been talking!  I am used to it!

 but you are being very na�ve with such an opinion. Science at its core is faith based, assuming that our sense perceptions are intended and able to inform us of the external world. You don�t get more faith based than that.

What are you talking about?  Have you ever taken a science course?  No scientist will agree with your assertion that science is �faith-based�.  That is a laughable claim.  If something is observable, then we can sense it.  This is what science is based on.  If our senses cannot perceive something, then that thing is not observable and is above the natural realm and belief in that thing would be faith-based, such as the belief in angels and God. 

New reply from Apollos:

If science could observe the realm of angels, demons, etc. it would. But science is limited to observations in 4 dimensions  and though science accepts the existence of many more dimensions, we can�t reach beyond these 4 dimensions. That is the limitation of science. But it is not the limitation logic or math and that is why mathematicians can confirm more dimensions, etc. Logic can confirm the existence of God and God can � if He so chooses � reveal to us things about angels, demons, etc. There is no either/or in all this. We can experience a revelation from God in the natural world and if such a revelation is provided, we only have natural ways of evaluating � don�t we?

And yet, those realms are not exactly �observable�.  Therefore, the natural world is separate from the supernatural world.    

New reply from Apollos:

Actually it is not extraordinary to have a document without errors but I concur with your reasoning. The problem is � there isn�t a writing on the planet that is free from accusations of error.

So, your argument is that just because there are �accusations� against other writings, that means the Bible should not be scrutinized? 

Your accusation is no better than people who claim the opposite or accuse the Quran of being flawed. So lets set this issue aside for now. We either agree that both are books are flawed or we agree that both are books might have reconciliations to their apparent errors. I�m not going to give you the benefit of the doubt unless you reciprocate.

Just because there are accusations does not mean the book is flawed.  People will find just about anything if they look for it.  So, if someone reads the Quran or the Bible simply with the intention of looking for errors, then they will find them.  The key is whether those errors are errors at all.  As you said, further study would be required.  And further study has shown that there are errors in the Bible.

New reply from Apollos:

Here is where you are getting way off. One Christian web site says that the way Matthew used the term �tetrarch� justifies �.. Josephus using the term that way too. Come on. Josephus doesn�t use the word that way and that�s the point.

Either you are a liar or you are just incompetent or perhaps a third possibility, which is just you are ignorant of history.  I already showed you that Josephus did use the word �tetrarch�.  There is no difference between what Matthew wrote and what Josephus, especially if we are looking at them as historical documents, which you have arguing for with regard to the Gospels.  I only referred to the website to show that if you are right and Josephus did indeed use the term �king� instead of �tetrarch�, and you feel that because of this Josephus was in error, then you must also logically conclude that Matthew was in error as well.  But in actuality, other Christian sources confirm that the two terms were interchangeable.  According to Noah Webster�s Dictionary, �tetrarch� meant:

1. (n.) A Roman governor of the fourth part of a province; hence, any subordinate or dependent prince; also, a petty king or sovereign.

2. (a.) Four.

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

TETRARCH

te'-trark, tet'-rark tetrarches): As the name indicates it signifies a prince, who governs one-fourth of a domain or kingdom. The Greeks first used the word. Thus Philip of Macedon divided Thessaly into four "tetrarchies." Later on the Romans adopted the term and applied it to any ruler of a small principality. It is not synonymous with "ethnarch" at least the Romans made a distinction between Herod "tetrarch" of Galilee, Philip "tetrarch" of Trachonitis, Lysanias "tetrarch" of Abilene, and Archelaius "ethnarch" of Judea (BJ, II, vi, 3; Ant, XVII, xi, 4). The title was often conferred on Herodian princes by the Romans, and sometimes it was used courteously as a synonym for king (Matthew 14:9 Mark 6:14). In the same way a "tetrarchy" was sometimes called a kingdom. [2]

Incidentally, I also checked the Greek version of Antiquities of the Jews(the language Josephus used).  �Tetrarchy� in Greek is τετραρχία and �Lysanias� is Λυσανία.  Here is the Greek version of Antiquities 20.7.1:

Πέμπει δὲ καὶ Κλαύδιον Φήλικα Πάλλαντος ἀδελφὸν τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν προστησόμενον πραγμάτων.

τῆς δ᾽ ἀρχῆς δωδέκατον ἔτος ἤδη πεπληρωκὼς δωρεῖται τὸν Ἀγρίππαν τῇ Φιλίππου τετραρχίᾳ καὶ Βαταναίᾳ προσθεὶς αὐτῷ τὴν Τραχωνῖτιν σὺν Ἀβέλλᾳ: Λυσανία δ᾽ αὕτη γεγόνει τετραρχία [translated as: �which last had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias�]: τὴν Χαλκίδα δ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀφαιρεῖται δυναστεύσαντα ταύτης ἔτη τέσσαρα.

λαβὼν δὲ τὴν δωρεὰν παρὰ τοῦ Καίσαρος Ἀγρίππας ἐκδίδωσι πρὸς γάμον Ἀζίζῳ τῷ Ἐμεσῶν βασιλεῖ περιτέμνεσθαι θελήσαντι Δρούσιλλαν τὴν ἀδελφήν: Ἐπιφανὴς γὰρ ὁ Ἀντιόχου τοῦ βασιλέως παῖς παρῃτήσατο τὸν γάμον μὴ βουληθεὶς τὰ Ἰουδαίων ἔθη μεταλαβεῖν καίπερ τοῦτο ποιήσειν προϋπεσχημένος αὐτῆς τῷ πατρί.

καὶ Μαριάμμην δ᾽ ἐξέδωκεν Ἀρχελάῳ τῷ Ἑλκίου παιδὶ πρότερον ὑπὸ Ἀγρίππα τοῦ πατρὸς ἁρμοσθεῖσαν αὐτῷ, καὶ γίνεται θυγάτηρ αὐτοῖς ὄνομα Βερενίκη. [3]

You are embarrassing yourself, Apollos.  Sometimes, it is better to admit that you are wrong. 

To imagine that all writers used the same idioms and expressions � and then criticize Matthew for not writing like Josephus is illogical.

See, this just shows your hypocrisy and bias.  You accuse me and others who disagree with the traditional Christian approach to history of being biased, and yet here is a classic example of your own bias.  Why is it okay for Matthew to use �king� instead of �tetrarch� but it is not okay for Josephus?  Why would Matthew not be wrong and Josephus is?  You are not thinking from a rational, non-biased perspective.  Rather, you are clinging to your preconceived biases.  From now on, don�t accuse others of any perceived biases when you cannot even admit your own.    

They wrote to different people, at different times and they each had their own style. As I pointed out previously I am only criticizing your interpretation of Josephus. I allow that he could have been referring to an earlier Lysanias who was king of the region he mentions. But if I have to choose between Luke or Josephus on when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, I go with Luke and the rocks.

And this is only because of your faith-based bias.  That much is clear. 

New reply from Apollos:

You err again. If there was only one Lysanias, Josephus got his title wrong and Luke got it right.

This is just getting silly.  You are wrong on this assertion!  Just admit it already and stop repeating it ad nauseum.  You have presented no evidence to prove your assertion.  Instead, you have just been repeating the same nonsense like a robot.  You should really do some research and learn some history before you try to defend the Christian tradition.  You are doing your brethren a great disservice if this is your best defense.

When then have these two sources to tell us when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene. The rocks say either one but the benefit of the doubt should go to Luke not Josephus because he has been proven wrong. You on the other hand apparently missed the warning: �Fail me once shame on you, fail me twice, shame on me�.

In your case, it should be �fool me [i.e. you] ten times, shame on you [the sources of your nonsensical arguments], fool me eleven or more times, shame on me [i.e. you].�  That is because you have not even a shred of evidence to prove your non-sequitur claims and you have been proven wrong several times about Josephus and yet you continue to maintain the same nonsensical argument because that is what you have been told from the beginning.

Ultimately I think it is likely that Luke and Josephus are both correct, referring to different people with the same name. I refer you to one possible scenario - http://books.google.com/books?id=EFQmf0E7N_EC&pg=PA427&lpg=PA427&dq=coins+lysanias+date&source=bl&ots=pMaQwBN7Ex&sig=86jtXRzHX2Wn7E1tH0HysgYas-8&hl=en&ei=DGeoSv7yG4zQtgOq9u2TBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=coins%20lysanias%20date&f=false

Ultimately, I think there was only one Lysanias.  You would think that if Josephus would have written about one Lysanias, he would have written about the other.  The Lysanias Josephus talks about is a proven historical figure, as we know from coins dated to that time.  The only �evidence� for the �Lukan Lysanias� is a fallacious reading of an obscure inscription.  No other evidence exists of this other Lysanias.    

New reply from Apollos:

That wasn�t my main argument. In fact I was simply answering your inquiries on why I believe Mark is the author of the Gospel by his name. I provided external sources that said this plainly; I mentioned how this fit with Peter�s practice of not writing his own written messages and how Mark was called �son� by Peter. You fixated on the latter until I proved it and then you moved on to other nit pic questions.

You have provided nothing but speculation.  Which external sources did you quote?  The Gospel of John?  The vague reference to a naked man who witnessed the crucifixion?  This is your evidence that a man named Mark, who knew Peter, wrote the Gospel of Mark?  I have rightfully criticized such an approach.  

You asked why you �should trust your salvation on the words of humans� � referring to the NT writings. I answered that you should trust what these humans wrote because they contain reliable accounts about Jesus.

Begging the question, and nothing more.  You have utterly failed to prove that the NT writings �contain reliable accounts about Jesus.�

New reply from Apollos:

No, you have ignored the evidence that the NT writings are trustworthy.

The �evidence� is actually speculation cloaked in the aura of evidence. 

You reference Apostates, atheists and occultists to criticize some obscure aspect of the writings and somehow think you have discounted the entire accounts. Like some Hollywood lawyer you point to some point or date or name that isn�t included like you say it should be and then say: �See, you can�t trust anything.�

Those factors would simply serve to prove the Christian assertion that the Gospels are �inspired� to be false.  You caught me off guard when you said that you were not arguing for that (i.e. their inspired nature).  I always assumed that all Christians believed that so that is why I was arguing from that perspective.  But now that we are arguing purely from a historical perspective, I have adjusted my argument by showing that the NT does not stand up to historical criticism.  You say that the NT writings are reliable accounts for the life of Jesus.  I want you to present actual historical evidence to prove that.  So far, you have only provided evidence of a speculative nature, like the silly assertion that since Peter called Mark his son, that is evidence that the Gospel of Mark was written indeed written by Mark and that the naked man in both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John is indeed Mark.  This is laughable evidence.  Let me illustrate for you why this evidence is flimsy and illogical:

Peter called Mark his son � This is the same Mark who tradition states is the author of the Gospel of Mark (??) � Therefore, Mark was Peter�s secretary (???) � Therefore, Mark wrote the anonymous Gospel which bears his name (????)

The Gospels of John and Mark refer to a man who witnessed the crucifixion � This man is Mark (???) � Therefore, Mark was an eyewitness to the crucifixion (????)

If this is your evidence, you have no right to criticize my lack of belief in the historical reliability of the New Testament.

If I was going to play your part toward Islam, I would dismiss Mohammed because you can�t tell me who his parents were or when he was born.

What?  We know who his parents are and when he was born.  His parents were Abdullah and Amina.  He was born in the year of the Elephant (c. 570), when a Christian army tried to destroy the Kaaba, an event which was recorded in a poem by an Arab and which is mentioned by Ibn Ishaq.

I would dismiss the Quran because it claims to be words from someone who couldn�t read or write � there is no way he could have ever approved of the pieces that were jotted down by others.

You are just silly.  Obviously, he would ask them to recite it back!  Simple and efficient, isn�t it!  And if anyone did alter the words, it would be easy to spot it because multiple people would have memorized the words, including Muhammad (pbuh) himself.  You don�t find these variations in the Quran, unlike with the Bible.

I would dismiss all of the Hadith because Mohammed never authorized any one to write his biography.

You need to study the Hadith a little more.  Muhammad never said that no one should ever write them down.  When he said that the Muslims should not write the Ahadith down, he meant so that there was no danger of mixing the Quran with the Ahadith, since the Quran was revealed over time and was not in its complete state.  There are other ahadith which show that he did permit his companions to write down things he said or did, even when he was angry.      

If you are going to pretend the NT writings have no historical value, I don�t think we have anything else to discuss.

They are just as historically reliable as the Vedas.  I don�t think you would agree with the claim that it would mean that everything the Vedas state is historically accurate.   

New reply from Apollos:

These same scholars think the Quran is based on a flawed understanding of the Bible.

Perhaps, but that is based on the secular assumption that since the Quran is not from a divine source, the information contained within it is from human sources, even though no evidence is presented.

 But even if this claim was shared by most scholars � and it is not � it does not refute or discount what they agree on or the additional info Matthew and Luke provide. At a minimum, your claim would be that Mark was written quite early � in time for Luke to incorporate Mark by 60 A.D. or so. These writings published in Jerusalem during the lives of people who knew what really happened is very formidable. How do you explain how they could be so wrong so publicly and never be called on it?

It would mean that the later Gospel accounts utilized an anonymous source, without resorting to the task of historical criticism.  They basically plagiarized whatever information was present and considered it to be reliable and accurate.  And since it was anonymous, no one would have been quoting it in the name of Peter or any of his supposed secretaries in the first place. 

New reply from Apollos:

Paul was an eyewitness to the Aposles. They endorsed each other and fellowshipped with the same believers. They taught the same things � especially that Jesus rose from the dead. Call him what you may, how do you explain him away?

You are resorting to circular reasoning as usual.  You have not proven that the disciples authored the texts which bear their names.  You seem to think that quoting Paul solves everything.  It doesn�t.    

New reply from Apollos:

When you reference these canons you have already skipped over many decades of believers reading, copying and sharing the NT writings. If they hadn�t we wouldn�t have copies of them all to be arguing about.

Islamispeace,

I am not sure but it appears the below is your response to my question on �Agreement?�

From Islamispeace:

To answer you question as to whether the Gospels were written in the time of the disciples, I would say that they may very well have been, but with the lack of manuscripts, there is no way to verify what they believed.  All we have are later traditions and manuscripts.  However, it is also possible that the Gospels were written after the disciples, which would explain why they contradict each other on several issues.  For instance, if Paul had met the disciples, why did he differ on the details of the resurrection and why didn't the disciples correct him?

With this in mind, let�s discuss this a little more �

You say that Paul differs from the Disciples on the details of the resurrection. I think you need to show the basis for saying this. Otherwise the answer to your question about why he was not corrected by the other Disciples is � �because they were all in agreement on this.�

You say that it is possible that the Gospels were written in the time of the Disciples � but you say there is no way to verify what they believed. Are you saying the Gospels as we have them are too vague to determine what the Disciples believed? Are you saying the Gospels were written during their life times but we shouldn�t conclude that they agreed with the content? I don�t understand how your qualifier undercuts the fundamental beliefs clearly shown in the Gospels.

Remember that all I am really focusing on in my search fro agreement, is the fundamental belief of the NT writings and the Early Church concerning their belief that Jesus rose from the dead. I repeat my proposed statement that I think we might agree on:

Whether the NT writings have errors in them or not, whether they were written by the people they claim to be or not, they were written during the lives of the Disciples of Jesus and they substantiate that the Disciples and the Church they established all believed that Jesus had risen from the dead.

I am not saying that the NT writings are the only reason to conclude that the Disciples and Early Church believed this. There are other writings, secular writings, Jewish writings, archaeology and Churches started throughout the ancient world that testify to the same. It also explains why religious Jews � who were the first believers and preachers of the Jesus the Messiah � would accept such radically different beliefs about the Messiah. (The Messiah being the son of God, their Lord, their Savior, the Lamb of God, etc.). Without the belief that Jesus had risen from the dead, there is no explanation for this change of theology.

Please note that I am not equating a belief in the resurrection to the claim actually having occurred. I realize that they could have believed something that was completely untrue. I am just trying to establish a common reference point that we can agree on.

Apollos