Muslims: The testimony of a man who said he heard an angel while alone in a cave

[arcanum]

I must admit, I think I might've gotten in over my head on this one.

Your on a lot safer ground with the christ of faith rather than the christ of history.:yes:

 

[9Westy9]

I must admit, I think I might've gotten in over my head on this one.

It's happened to me before too

 

[YmirGF]

I must admit, I think I might've gotten in over my head on this one.

On issues of faith it is unwise to point fingers.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Historical NT validity bullet points:

Bullet points of the argument:

Authorship of Gospels: Matthew the tax collector and disciple of Jesus written 70's
John Mark the companion of Peter written 80's
Luke the doctor of Paul written 80s
John the apostle written 90s (CFC pg.33)

Of pastoral letter: 40s and 50s
early church creed found in 1 Corinthians: dated, through linguistics, to within 2 years of death of Jesus

argument used against NT: It was written by people who didn't witness life of Jesus

rebuttal: All the authors were either saw it themselves, or were in a position to know eyewitnesses. All were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses.


Supporting info:

1. The witnesses were in most cases independent of each other
2.Initial disinclination to believe they saw a resurrected Jesus
3. Physical, tangible evidence presented that he had resurrected in the body
4. accounts of resurrection divergent enough to draw charge of contradiction
5. All that is known of the apostles testifies to their integrity and honesty

bottomline: we have 5 separate accounts of JC’s life from Matt, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. There were 500 people alleged to have seen the risen Jesus. These men claimed to work off eyewitness testimony.

Argument against the NT: Historical Jesus was obscured by a theological agenda

Evidence supporting the claim that the NT gives faithful account of history:

1. The NT was written while many of the apostles were still alive

2. Luke takes great pains to record historical details such as JC’s birth during the time of Herod the Great. He mentions emperors
Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius. He mentions Roman governors such as Pilate, Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Felix, and Festus. Other Gospels show similar intent in recording history.

3. Gospels are different from folklore in that the faults of the apostles are shown such as unbelief, selfishness, betrayal. as well as events that could be viewed as signs of weakness in Jesus. Mark’s view of Peter is consistently unflattering and is especially noteworthy since Peter was companion and primary source. Stories such as his inability to do miracles due to people’s lack of faith, him not knowing the hour he would return could raise questions about his power. Stories of a man claimed to be sinless getting baptized would seem to complicate a phony agenda and his cry “My God, My God have you forsaken me” would raise more questions. The story of the empty tomb being found by women is noteworthy because women were on about the lowest rung of first century Jewish society and unlikely to used in a phony testimony (CFC pg. 49,50, 217).

4. Gospel stories don’t grow in accretion over the years. Some material in Mark (earliest) is not found in later ones (John)


Argument against NT: legendary material would've crept in between the time event occurred and the time of recording

Rebuttal: We can't appreciate the value of faithful transmission of stories in an oral culture. Rabbis would commit the entire OT to memory

Supporting info: names attributed to the authors aren't the "big" names other than John. Most writings of legend were attributed to people with flashier names like Mary or Peter.


Of interest: The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death in 323 B.C. yet historians generally consider them trustworthy. Only centuries after these writers did legendary material begin to develop. ( CFC Pg. 33)

Argument against NT: no existing copies are left

rebuttal: we have existing copies from a couple generations of the event. This is in stark contrast to many other ancient documents in which sometimes 10 centuries will pass.


More evidence: we have around 24000 ancient copies of the NT in existence, 5000 in Greek. Contrast that to the Illiad which has about 650 ancient copies existing

Author/Date Written/Earliest Copy/Number of Copies/Accuracy of Copies

Caesar /1st C. B.C./ 900 A.D. /10/ -
Livy /1st C. B.C. /- /20/ -
Tacitus /C. 100 A.D./ 1100 A.D. /20/ -
Thuycdides /5th C. B.C. /900 A.D./ 8/ -
Heroditus /5th C. B.C./ 900 A.D. /8 /-
Demosthenes /4th C. B.C. /1100 A.D./ 200 /-
Homer/ 9th C. B.C. /-/ 643/ 95%
NT /50-100 A.D. /2nd C. A.D. /5000 /99.5% (CA pg. 307)

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Page 2 of the argument

Argument against NT: prophecies that Jesus fulfilled could've easily by reading OT and acting out what the Messiah was prophesied to do

Rebuttal: There were 48 prophecies in the OT predicting him that he fulfilled. Jesus could control things like whether he rode a donkey into Jerusalem but he couldn't control many others. For instance, Jesus couldn't contol the town he was born in (Bethlehem) nor how much his betraying would be paid to stab him in the back.(30 pieces of silver).


Argument against NT: There’s little to no evidence outside the Bible of JC’s life

Rebuttal: Literary works with Jesus mentioned or probably alluded to:

Josephus: Antiquities XX
“
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned”

Roman Historian Tacitus

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Greek Satirist Lucian:

The Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry says it best:


“The first quotes tells of Peregrinus, who learned "the wondrous lore of the Christians," became one of their leaders and was revered as a god, lawgiver, and protector, "next after that other, to be sure, whom they (the Christians) still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult to the world." [Harm.Luc, 13]
The second quote, regarding these same Christians: "Then, too, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers...after they have thrown over and denied the gods of Greece and have done reverence to that crucifed sophist himself and live according to his laws."
Obviously Jesus is not mentioned by name in these citations, but there is no doubt that it is Jesus to whom Lucian is referring here. No one else was ever worshipped by the Christians!”

Roman Historian Suetonius:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chestus (another spelling for Christ), he [ Claudius ] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome"pppp

Pliney the Younger:

“Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.”

Mara Bar-Serapion

“For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. Nay, Socrates did “not” die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted”

Talmud:

“It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and God said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him." Yeshu was different because he was close to the government”

Rebuttal: Archaelogical evidence supporting the claim that the NT gives a faithful account of history:

Truthnet.org really said it best:


“The life of Jesus and his disciples is filled with concrete facts that can be verified in history and archeology. In 1986 after a severe drought the water level of the Sea of Galilee dropped. And the outline of a boat was revealed in the mud just 5 miles from Capernaum. Capernaum was the center of Jesus ministry and where Peter’s house was located. The boat was carbon dated between 40 BC and 40 AD. The boat was 26.5 feet long, 7.5 feet wide and 4 feet high and could be rowed or sailed. This corresponds with the gospel accounts of Jesus and his disciples on the sea of Galilee. In Luke 5:1-7 we see this type of a boat in service. So we are able to verify the words with facts. This attests to the historicity of the book.
Another example, the coins at use during the time of first century are also concrete pieces of evidence that attest to the historicity of the books. Jesus’ reference to the widow offering (Mark 12:42-44) two copper coins can be attested to both by the coins existence as well as the confirmation of Roman and Jewish non-Christian writers during this time. The ability to compare physical evidence with claims allows us to validate the writers. The validation of the New Testament records does not in itself prove inspiration. What it does prove is the historical accuracy of the writer.
We are not able to verify every fact, because some historical records are lost, and not all archeological finds have been uncovered. But each verified fact and event gives added credibility to the author as being truthful. This evidence counters those who challenge the New Testament as being a fabrication of 2nd and 3rd century writers, “The Higher Criticism”. The details of some of the facts are so specific and regional that unless the writer had intimate knowledge of the details, names, places and words used during the specific period they would be proven false. In 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed and the Jews dispersed everything changed, along with the ability to create the scenes without specific knowledge.
Luke in Acts 18:12, calls Gallio “Proconsul”, this was questioned by critical scholars but Luke was proven correct. When the Delphi inscription was found it verified some very specific history which before had been questioned. On the inscription it read:
As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the Proconsul of Achaia”
Gallio only held the post of Proconsul for one year from July 1, 52 AD and that one year overlapped with Paul ministry in Corinth. This specific information verified the title of Gallio and also the year of Paul ministry in Corinth. This one example is repeated and time again as history and archeology continue to verify the New Testament.

This argument that I put together is basically an outline of Christian Apologetics by Norm Geisler with some material from The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel mixed it. I quoted a few websites that said conveyed the material I wanted to include in a concise and clear manner

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Zondervan 1998
Geisler, Lee. Christian Apologetics. Baker Book House Company 2008
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/lucian.html
http://www.truthnet.org/Apologetics/12/

 

[9Westy9]

argument used against NT: It was written by people who didn't witness life of Jesus

rebuttal: All the authors were either saw it themselves, or were in a position to know eyewitnesses. All were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses.

counter: None of the authors were eye witnesses, and most of the eyewitnesses were probably dead

Argument against NT: legendary material would've crept in between the time event occurred and the time of recording

Rebuttal: We can't appreciate the value of faithful transmission of stories in an oral culture. Rabbis would commit the entire OT to memory

Counter: oral tradition is flawed. Mistakes are even more likely to creep in than written copies. All you need to do to prove this is play a game of Chinese whispers.

Argument against NT: prophecies that Jesus fulfilled could've easily by reading OT and acting out what the Messiah was prophesied to do

Rebuttal: There were 48 prophecies in the OT predicting him that he fulfilled. Jesus could control things like whether he rode a donkey into Jerusalem but he couldn't control many others. For instance, Jesus couldn't contol the town he was born in (Bethlehem) nor how much his betraying would be paid to stab him in the back.(30 pieces of silver).

Counter: All the prophecies he fulfilled are debatable as to whether they were in reference to him

Argument against NT: There’s little to no evidence outside the Bible of JC’s life

Rebuttal: Literary works with Jesus mentioned or probably alluded to:

Counter: All of the non-Christian sources are even older than the NT accounts and are thus even less reliable. Strangely however none of the contemporary scholars, historians, philosophers even mentioned Jesus. A bit weird if he's doing miracles all over Israel

 

[-Peacemaker-]

counter: None of the authors were eye witnesses, and most of the eyewitnesses were probably dead

Counter: All of the non-Christian sources are even older than the NT accounts and are thus even less reliable. Strangely however none of the contemporary scholars, historians, philosophers even mentioned Jesus. A bit weird if he's doing miracles all over Israel

You sure about that?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Yeah how do you know that Paul really saw Yashua in a vision? His own account doesn't even match: Either his guards "Saw the light but hearkened nothing" or "heard a voice but saw nothing".

Sorry this enters in to this argument perfectly. You have no real proof that Yashua was Jesus real name. Some early Jews said it was Yeshu, in the 1930's the movement to call Jesus Yahshua started. In fact the earliest proof that I know of is both Clement of Alexandria and St. Cyril of Jerusalem believed that Greek form Iesous to be the original real name of Jesus, even going so far as to interpret it as a true Greek name and not simply a transliteration of Hebrew. You calling Jesus by the name of Yahshua is at this point 100% speculation.

 

[Shermana]

Sorry this enters in to this argument perfectly. You have no real proof that Yashua was Jesus real name. Some early Jews said it was Yeshu, in the 1930's the movement to call Jesus Yahshua started. In fact the earliest proof that I know of is both Clement of Alexandria and St. Cyril of Jerusalem believed that Greek form Iesous to be the original real name of Jesus, even going so far as to interpret it as a true Greek name and not simply a transliteration of Hebrew. You calling Jesus by the name of Yahshua is at this point 100% speculation.

Can you get a link that says Clement and Cyril thought he was referred to as Iesous directly? The name "Iesous" corresponds directly to the Hebrew name "Yashua/Yeshua". Look at the book of Joshua for example, and "Jesus, son of Sirach".

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Can you get a link that says Clement and Cyril thought he was referred to as Iesous directly?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem interprets the word as equivalent to soter (Catechetical Lectures X.13). This last writer, however, appears to agree with Clement of Alexandria in considering the word Iesous as of Greek origin
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Name of Jesus Christ

The name "Iesous" corresponds directly to the Hebrew name "Yashua/Yeshua". Look at the book of Joshua for example, and "Jesus, son of Sirach".

Corresponds=speculation in my book. Even if it is true how do you know Jesus went by Yeshua which was a common alternative form of the name Joshua Yehoshuah. Just because more people in Roman Israel went by Yeshua. Maybe Mary and Joseph were old fashion and went by Yehoshuah. The point is nobody knows.

 

[Shermana]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem interprets the word as equivalent to soter (Catechetical Lectures X.13). This last writer, however, appears to agree with Clement of Alexandria in considering the word Iesous as of Greek origin
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Name of Jesus Christ



Corresponds=speculation in my book. Even if it is true how do you know Jesus went by Yeshua which was a common alternative form of the name Joshua Yehoshuah. Just because more people in Roman Israel went by Yeshua. Maybe Mary and Joseph were old fashion and went by Yehoshuah. The point is nobody knows.

I'm not doubting that Iesous is of Greek Origin. I'm asking if that is what the Disciples and Pharisees alike called him. Well Cyril lived in the 3rd century, that would be speculative too, wouldn't it? Look at what the book of Joshua is called in the Septuagint while you're at it. And I don't see in that Catholic Encyclopedia article anything that says that Cyril and Clement said Jesus was originally called Iesous by his disciples and the Pharisees and all who knew him. Can you quote it for me? Maybe I missed it. I understand that ANYTHING is speculative, it's speculative that he was even called Iesous to begin with and maybe was originally called Bob and it was changed later, while you're at it. So please present a source that actually (with quotes ideally) says that Clement and Cyril believed he was initially called Iesous. I don't believe it's in that Catholic encyclopedia article, and if anything, shows that they knew it was a later name. Did you even read it? The thing about Cyril does not at all say that he thinks Jesus was originally called Iesous. All it says that is that they agreed that the name itself "Iesous" is of Greek origin. Not that the name was originally Iesous.

s therefore, right when he explains Iesous as meaning soteria kyrion; Eusebius (Dem., Ev., IV, ad fin.; P.G., XXII, 333) gives the meaning Theou soterion; while St. Cyril of Jerusalem interprets the word as equivalent to soter (Catechetical Lectures X.13). This last writer, however, appears to agree with Clement of Alexandria in considering the word Iesous as of Greek origin (The Pedagogue III.12); St. Chrysostom emphasizes again the Hebrew derivation of the word and its meaning soter (Homily 2 on Matthew, No. 2), thus agreeing with the exegesis of the angel speaking to St. Joseph (Matthew 1:21).

Chrestians instead of "Christians." There may be an allusion to this practice in 1 Peter 2:3; hoti chrestos ho kyrios, which is rendered "that the Lord is sweet." Justin Martyr (First Apology 4), Clement of Alexandria (Stromata II.4.18), Tertullian (To the Nations II), and Lactantius (Divine Institutes IV.7), as well as St. Jerome (In Gal., V, 22), are acquainted with the pagan substitution of Chrestes for Christus, and are careful to explain the new term in a favourable sense. The pagans made little or no effort to learn anything accurate about Christ and the Christians; Suetonius, for instance, ascribes the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius to the constant instigation of sedition by Chrestus, whom he conceives as acting in Rome the part of a leader of insurgents. The use of the definite article before the word Christ and its gradual development into a proper name show the Christians identified the bearer with the promised Messias of the Jews. He combined in His person the offices of prophet (John 6:14; Matthew 13:57; Luke 13:33; 24:19) of king (Luke 23:2; Acts 17:7; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Apocalypse 15:3), and of priest (Hebrews 2:17; etc.); he fulfilled all the Messianic predictions in a fuller and a higher sense than had been given them by the teachers of the Synagogue.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I'm not doubting that Iesous is of Greek Origin. I'm asking if that is what the Disciples and Pharisees alike called him.

Clement was writing in greek He believed Jesus name was Greek name. We don't know what the Jews of the day called Jesus. We can only speculate.

 

[Shermana]

Clement was writing in greek He believed Jesus name was Greek name. We don't know what the Jews of the day called Jesus. We can only speculate.

I still don't see where it says that Clement said that Jesus was originally called Iesous. I don't disagree that Iesous was a Greek name and the name that Greek writers called him. Like I said, look up the book of Joshua in the Septuagint. The name "Iesous" was most likely a translation of his original name. I just don't see where Clement says "Iesous was his original name, as opposed to Yashua/Yeshu". Otherwise, the evidence points to that he was LATER called "Iesous".

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Did you even read it? The thing about Cyril does not at all say that he thinks Jesus was originally called Iesous. All it says that is that they agreed that the name itself "Iesous" is of Greek origin. Not that the name was originally Iesous.

I found you a site. Read it again. they contrast the view of Clement with others. Why would they contrast if they all believed the same thing ?To me it is clear. I got my view on this subject not from reading this site. But from reading Alexander of Clement who believed that Christianity was a mix of Greek and Jewish thought. I have no Dog in this fight. I don't care what name you call Jesus.But, your in denial if you think you can know what the Jews of the Roman middle east called him exactly. The only way to really know is to have a vision of HIM and ask what you should call HIM. Then at least you will know what you personally should call Him. Myth can be truer then History.

 

[Shermana]

I found you a site. Read it again. they contrast the view of Clement with others. Why would they contrast if they all believed the same thing ?To me it is clear. I got my view on this subject not from reading this site. But from reading Alexander of Clement who believed that Christianity was a mix of Greek and Jewish thought. I have no Dog in this fight. I don't care what name you call Jesus.But, your in denial if you think you can know what the Jews of the Roman middle east called him exactly. The only way to really know is to have a vision of HIM and ask what you should call HIM. Then at least you will know what you personally should call Him. Myth can be true then History.

Are you serious? I even quoted from your own site for you. It doesn't say what you think it says. If you can't find any other site even after I post from it to disprove your point, well then thank you. Clearly, they did not say that his name was originally Iesous. And who is "Alexander of Clement"? And if you didn't get your view from reading the post you linked to, where are you getting your facts from? None of the early writers thought that his name was originally Iesous. For the third time, look at what the book of Joshua is called in the Septuagint. Is it too much of a stretch to assume that a person with the same name as how the Book of Joshua's name is translated may have had the same original Hebrew/Aramaic name too? If anything, we have the Talmud that says his name was "Yeshu", why doesn't that count? Like I said, it's all speculative, he could have been called Bob originally and then called Iesous later. But you are correct in one regard, the only way to know for an undisputed 100% fact is to have a direct revelation experience.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Are you serious? I even quoted from your own site for you. It doesn't say what you think it says.

Lets try a new site.I can tell you Clement of Alexandria views on this subject are well know.

Clement of Alexandria and St. Cyril of Jerusalem considered the Greek form Iesous to be the original, even going so far as to interpret it as a true Greek name and not simply a transliteration of Hebrew.(A similar situation is seen in the use of the true Greek name Simon as a translation of the Hebrew name Shim'on in texts such as Sirach.) Eusebius related it to the Greek root meaning "to heal" thus making it a variant of Jason meaning healer... suggests that Aramaic references to the Hebrew Bible had long used Yeshua for Hebrew names such as Yehoshua Ben Nun. So the possibility of Jesus having been Yehoshua remains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name)

So here we have 3 possible names for Jesus:
-Iesous
-Yeshua
-Yehoshua

plus the name you came up with "Yeshu".

Like I said, it's all speculative,

I knew you would come around to my original point.

 

[9Westy9]

You sure about that?

fairly. I'm open to any evidence to the contrary however.

 

[Caladan]

Please tell me what is so compelling about a man who claims to have heard an angel speak to him while he was alone in a cave. Why is everybody supposed to just take his word for it? Even if he did hear an angel, there are spirits of truth and deception, that is if you believe in the Bible. Why are we to believe it was an angel of good as opposed to evil?

I think we can take this debate somewhere if we try to establish the life narratives of both protagonists.
I understand your claim that Jesus had followers who witnessed and passed the narrative of his actions, perhaps miracles. on the other hand you compare it to Muhammad, who's revelation was held in a cave and proclaimed by him. however, perhaps Muslim members can share narratives about Muhammad's life as witnessed by his companions or followers, miracle making, etc.
in this way, both narratives of both men can be compared.
however, I will agree with you on something, which I personally find to be a major difference between the two protagonists.
when one reads the NT and the 4 canonical gospels, they focus on Jesus, his actions, what he says, how he reacts, what he goes through in a vivid way. I don't feel that I got anything near this experience about Muhammad when reading the Qur'an, in fact the Qur'an discusses the messengers who are presaged in Judaism (and Christianity) much more than it discusses Muhammad.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

fairly. I'm open to any evidence to the contrary however.

Matthew and John were JC's disciples. They personally saw everything he did .

As for those secular sources that according to you were written before the NT, since the NT was written from about 40 A.D.-90 A.D., the earliest some of these sources were written after the NT's earliest writings but before it was finished. The others were written at least 30 years after the NT was completed

Pliney the Younger wrote in: c. 112
Tacitus wrote in: c. 116
Suetonius lived from: c. 69-140
Josephus wrote in: A.D. 93
Mara bar Sarapion, the easliest he wrote could've been 73 A.D.
The Talmud, quote probably dates between 70-200 A.D.
Lucian wrote post 100 AD

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Please tell me what is so compelling about a man who claims to have heard an angel speak to him while he was alone in a cave.

Same thing that is compelling about a man who was struck blind on the road by a guy who had died on a cross. Or the guy who liked to talk to burning bushes.