Saturday, March 27, 2010

Response to the Muslim 'Hello' on Early Qur'anic Plagiarism of Pre-Islamic Sources

I have received numerous comments and rebuttals from a Muslim who calls himself 'hello' on my blog dealing with the Qur'an and Science:

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/

'Hello' has written a lot of insulting comments and challenged me to respond to his points (which unfortunately as the reader will notice are both weak and insignificant).

I have written a lengthy rebuttal to several of his comments on my assessment of the Qur'an and plagiarism of pre-Islamic sources:

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/01/did-quranic-authors-borrow-information.html

I don't bother posting the entire response here as it is lengthy, but I will leave you with a few lines and the link:

My Rebuttal

This article is lengthy response to a 'Hello', a Muslim who has posted numerous rebuttals against me on this blog.

Unfortunately Hello resorts to insults of Christians and calls my articles poor and unscholarly, he also satisfies himself to heap up claim upon claim while he continually depends upon Islamic websites.

He even has the courage to contradict himself to suggest that I do not dare to respond back and if I do I will simply cite websites. As the reader will see, I dare to respond and my response is not depended upon websites.

Furthermore, Hello encourages me to utilize secular sources in my study of the Bible, which to his information, I have already done for years, however Hello laughs and despises the secular sources I have utilized upon the study of the Qur'an---yeah what type of a twisted mindset are we dealing with here.

(Hello has also challenged me to respond to a number of questions related to Bible integrity. I will respond to those elsewhere, I guess on the Apologetics blog, since this blog primarily focuses on the science in the Qur'an)

I would not say that Hello has written anything of significance, or at least anything that challenges the accuracy of my articles, hence my replies hardly require very detailed information.

Ok lets begin

Hello said...

Ok, can you name the Greek philosopher Muhammad(saw) interacted with? Can you produce a chapter like the Quran?

Hogan replies:

I never stated that a Greek Philosopher guided Muhammad in Qur’anic material, I quoted Bukhari one of your earliest and most reliable sources, in which a Christian who converted to Islam and helped Muhammad write the Qur’an later turned back to Christianity and stated that he and Muhammad fabricated the Qur’an together.

(read the entire response here:)

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/03/response-to-muslim-hello-concerning.html

46 comments:

Lupus el Lobo said...

Hogan:

The hadiths you refer to, do you regard them as authentic?

If no what criteria do you use to distinguish the authentic parts from the inauthentic parts?

Take the example of the christian who claims to have written the Quran. Why is that part true, while the rest of the hadith is not?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I am not in the position to state which Hadiths are authentic and which are not.

Muslims themselves seem to cherry pick from the Hadiths and the early commentaries as it suits their arguments, hence I view the typical Muslim response to criticise my view and use of the Hadiths fairly absurd, the Muslim seems highly confused about these sources.

I am inclined however to assume that Hadiths that may render Islam problematic to be fairly reliable, since this information would most likely be excluded but was included due to its reality and possibly common knowledge.

That Islamic sources consider some sources weak I find to be a pretty lame excuse since these weak sources often include the problems, which might suggest that Islamic writings which are so fabricated and corrupted anyway would obviously attempt to throw doubt about this negative information.

As to the particular Hadiths you are asking about. The Hadith takes no side, this convert to Islam was associated with Muhammad, was reciting a number of suras and had written down revelations for Muhammad. Furthermore, we are informed that this man left Islam and declared that the Qur'an was influenced by his own teaching to Muhammad. I know there are other Hadiths which refer to this same matter, in which this Christian later turned back to Islam (correct me if I am wrong). Yet the point remains that your most reliable sources describe an individual who had the access to the most original form of the Qur'an and indeed claimed to have composed it or at least influenced it.

This Christian was presumably a Syriac Christian, who would have had access to the Greek philosphical ideas that flourished among the Syriac Christians, and which they propagated alongside their theology.

The reason why I found this interesting within the context of Qur'anic science is due to the high amount of Greek science found in the Qur'an, ideas which would flourish among Christian Greek intellectuals and Greeks in general, e.g. Galen embryology, the separation of heaven and earth, the swimming of the sun and moon of their own motion, etc...

If Muslims can refer to virtually any source and opinion of modern atheist critics on the Bible as reliable, I would assume that we also need to consider as of vital importance the information found in your most reliable and early sources.

minoria said...

I would say to HELLO that scientific miracles in the Koran are in themselves not proof that it's true.After all there is a DEVIL,supposedly,then that info can come from him.If a Muslim says "the Koran states with scientific accuracy the embryological development of humans",then that's what I would reply.

minoria said...

Part 1

BIG BANG
I have heard the 3 debates BARKER and D'SOUZA have had.He says the Multiverse theory can be true even if no empirical evidence exists.Ok,let's go minimalist.It's true,then who or what created the matter that made the multiverses happen?

WHAT WE KNOW
Even if the Multiverse Theory is true it does NOT change:

MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILTY OF LIFE
I mean impossibility that its origin was RANDOM.Ask any expert and they will say:"Science asserts that LIFE could NOT have formed randomnly,the odds are too high,impossible."Barker says he is impartial,he is not.

minoria said...

Part 2
SO?
You can say we can CREATE LIFE one day with technology.It has been tried and they have failed.A scientist will tell you also that right now it's a scientific law(maybe later it will be overturned)that:"NON-LIVING matter can NOT and will not produce LIVING matter."
But let's go minimalist again and say that ok one day it will happen.Scientists in a lab will create life from non-living matter.

minoria said...

Part 3
WATCH/LAPTOP COMPUTER
PALEY gave the argument that if you found a WATCH you would not say it came into existence by itself.Why?The MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY of rocks,minerals,metals,etc combining together in time to actually,RANDOMLY,produce a watch is impossible.It hasn't happened in billions of years,the odds are too great.

SO?
A LIVING CELL,the SIMPLEST form of life,within X number of years from the beginning of earth till its first appearence could NOT have appeared RANDOMNLY given the conditions we know existed on earth.It has been determined,calculated,that LIFE should NOT have appeared at all.

minoria said...

Part 4
Does Barker know about this?I think he does but he is not intellectually honest to admit it publicly,or even mention it.It's sad.I expected more from him.

CARL SAGAN
He was a famous scientist and AGNOSTIC who was intellectually honest in that sense and said maybe life on earth came from ANOTHER PLANET.

COUNTER ARGUMENT
Others say a watch/laptop computer is not the same as a living cell.True,but...

A SINGLE CELL IS MORE COMPLICATED

It's true.Ask any expert and they will say a single cell,the simplest,and again,the SIMPLEST form of life,is alot,alot more sophisticated than a watch,even a laptop.It's ability to organize and use information,the amount of info used,the time it takes is superior to a laptop computer.

minoria said...

Part 5
SO?
Ok,so a single cell is more complex.That's not all.A watch and laptop are both NON-LIVING matter.A cell is LIVING matter.

ALSO

A watch/laptop do NOT self-replicate/self-reproduce.A single cell does,by division.The question is:"Is it mathematically possible that ONE DAY by mere RANDOMNESS,a laptop will appear that ALSO self-replicates,producing other laptops?"
Does Barker know this?Is he really impartial.I don't think so.

So a cell is:
1.Living
2.Self-replicates
While laptops/watches aren't.If Barker,I assume,doesn't believe a laptop,no matter HOW LONG a time passes,will appear by chance and ALSO,by itself:become LIVING and self-replicates,then how can he accept that a single cell(which is more complex)can appear by chance,that LIFE came just like that?

AGAIN
I am not saying that one day life won't be created in a lab,I doubt it,but it's possible,but it will be under favorable conditions,NOT by chance.And the fact that a watch/laptop/TV set/even life out of non-living matter,can NOT appear by chance shows a Designer/creator.

ANTHONY FLEW

That's why one of the most prominent atheists,Anthony Flew,after examining the evidence for years,has now accepted the idea of a God,a non-intervening God,but still a God.He is a DEIST.He has written a book:"There is a God."

minoria said...

Part 6
Finally:
That brings us to PASCAL's WAGER.The evidence,the accumulative evidence is that there is a designer,God.It's not 100% proof but it's at least 95%.Based on scientific considerations.In such a case one has to decide:believe or not.And since the evidence is in favor and if one says yes then if one is reconciled with God one will be well in the next life.If you are WRONG then you cease to exist,that's all,that is what you lose,consciousness.But if you are RIGHT then you win all.

POSSIBILITIES

But if one says it's not enough and TAKES the RISK(that's why it's called Pascal's Wager)that there is NO God and dies and finds out there is none and he is RIGHT,then he just ceases to exist(just like the THEIST,the same result)

BUT
If the atheist LOSES the wager,finds out there is a life after death and a God then:
1.You end up punished.
2.The punishment can be:a.You cease to exist,you won't have life afer death,
b.You go to hell for 10,100,1,000 years.
c.You go to hell forever.

INTELLIGENT PERSON

So Pascal was just saying that the smart,wise person,knowing the uncertainty of it all,will go for the wage that is the best,that of a God existing.You have nothing to lose and all to win.As an argument it can't be defeated.Only if you can show by scientific evidence that the facts are AGAINST a God,which is not the case.Again,doesn't Barker know all this?I think he does,so that's why I say his postition is not one really based on impartiality.If he can't believe in the Christian God then that's ok with me,but not that he is an open-minded man who has carefully weighed all the facts about if God exists or not.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Hogan said:

"If Muslims can refer to virtually any source and opinion of modern atheist critics on the Bible as reliable, I would assume that we also need to consider as of vital importance the information found in your most reliable and early sources."

How about your sources on greek science influencing the content of the Quran, aren't they from modern atheist critics?

"I am inclined however to assume that Hadiths that may render Islam problematic to be fairly reliable, since this information would most likely be excluded but was included due to its reality and possibly common knowledge."

Do you use the same criteria when you examine your own bible?

The passage you refer to is as problematic or nonproblematic as passages in the bible that describe various accusations against Jesus (pbh)and Paulus.
All prophets have enemies, don't they?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Lupos wrote:

Hogan said:

"If Muslims can refer to virtually any source and opinion of modern atheist critics on the Bible as reliable, I would assume that we also need to consider as of vital importance the information found in your most reliable and early sources."

How about your sources on greek science influencing the content of the Quran, aren't they from modern atheist critics?

Hogan replies:

The majority of my sources are taken from primary sources such as the Qur’an, the Hadiths and the writings of the Greek philosophers and writers. The majority of the secondary sources I utilized is historical information that was written not with the sole purpose to undermine the Qur’an but to convey simple history, for example Dunlop’s reference to Mecca being an advanced city and his reference to Southern Arabic immigration to the North; these references are not straight attacks on the Qur’an but it suggests that Muhammad and the early Muslims had access to the advanced ideas, which supports my case.

This is very different from basing my assessment upon e.g. Ali Sina and other atheists who abhore Islam, much like Muslims constantly refer to Ehrman or Richard Carrier among others to attack the Christian faith.

Lupos wrote:

Do you use the same criteria when you examine your own bible?

Hogan replies:

I don’t see the comparision between e.g the Gospels and the Hadiths, but do give me an example.

The Gospel transmission in oral form was preserved by the apostles and their successors for twenty years (according to early tradition) prior to the writing of Mark’s Gospel (the dication of the apostle Peter to Mark).

The Hadiths went through 200 years of oral transmission without records, the chain of narration was a later invention (and lacks evidence) and the majority of transmitted traditions are by Muslims themselves deemed to be corruption.

Its highly likely that material that might elevated Muhammad would be fabricated in this mess and and its highly unlikely that early Muslims would fabricate negative information. Yet within a twenty years gap of transmission and its later record while a number of eyewitnesses are alive and able to control and preserve the information through the ancient criteria of the ‘living and abiding word’ thus not suggest such occurance.

If you can point of passages in e.g. the Gospels that suggest corruption or that Jesus was a false prophet (if you can find the passages) how about the remaining part including Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Lupos wrote:

The passage you refer to is as problematic or nonproblematic as passages in the bible that describe various accusations against Jesus (pbh)and Paulus.
All prophets have enemies, don't they?

Hogan replies:

The enemies of Jesus in the Bible were not Christians, they were individuals who opposed Jesus and his message, while those who record the negative information about the Qur’an and Muhammad are Muslims and the particular passage we are assessing involves at least a former Muslim who was closely associated with Muhammad. You may indeed compare this to Judas the disciple of Jesus, but Judas never doubted Jesus or called him a false prophet, he betrayed him and killed himself upon realizing that Jesus was subjected to punishment.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Hogan wrote:

"The majority of my sources are taken from primary sources such as the Qur’an, the Hadiths and the writings of the Greek philosophers and writers. The majority of the secondary sources I utilized is historical information that was written not with the sole purpose to undermine the Qur’an but to convey simple history, for example Dunlop’s reference to Mecca being an advanced city and his reference to Southern Arabic immigration to the North; these references are not straight attacks on the Qur’an but it suggests that Muhammad and the early Muslims had access to the advanced ideas, which supports my case."

Lupus replied:
You yourself attack islam on a daily basis and label it as evil. Should we not therefore equate your inferences with those of Ali Sina?


"This is very different from basing my assessment upon e.g. Ali Sina and other atheists who abhore Islam, much like Muslims constantly refer to Ehrman or Richard Carrier among others to attack the Christian faith."

Lupus replied:
Does Ehrman abhore christiantity? You are comparing apples with pears.

Hogan wrote:
"The Gospel transmission in oral form was preserved by the apostles and their successors for twenty years (according to early tradition) prior to the writing of Mark’s Gospel (the dication of the apostle Peter to Mark).
"

Lupus replied:
Early tradition? Who are you refering to?
Eusebius c. 263–339
Irenaeus 2nd century AD - c. 202

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Hogan wrote:

"The majority of my sources are taken from primary sources such as the Qur’an, the Hadiths and the writings of the Greek philosophers and writers. The majority of the secondary sources I utilized is historical information that was written not with the sole purpose to undermine the Qur’an but to convey simple history, for example Dunlop’s reference to Mecca being an advanced city and his reference to Southern Arabic immigration to the North; these references are not straight attacks on the Qur’an but it suggests that Muhammad and the early Muslims had access to the advanced ideas, which supports my case."

Lupus replied:
You yourself attack islam on a daily basis and label it as evil. Should we not therefore equate your inferences with those of Ali Sina?

Hogan replies:

Rather than comparing me with Ali Sina why not reply to my argument above, you are directing the matter in a completly different direction without dealing with the real issue. My point was, historians not critics refer to mass immigration from South Arabia to the North bringing advanced thinking to what Muslims believe was only a backward society.

Hogan wrote:

"This is very different from basing my assessment upon e.g. Ali Sina and other atheists who abhore Islam, much like Muslims constantly refer to Ehrman or Richard Carrier among others to attack the Christian faith."

Lupus replied:

Does Ehrman abhore christiantity? You are comparing apples with pears.

Hogan replies:

Not really, its the main purpose of Ehrman to undermine the Christian faith.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Hogan wrote:

"The Gospel transmission in oral form was preserved by the apostles and their successors for twenty years (according to early tradition) prior to the writing of Mark’s Gospel (the dication of the apostle Peter to Mark).

Lupus replied:

Early tradition? Who are you refering to?
Eusebius c. 263–339
Irenaeus 2nd century AD - c. 202

Hogan replies:

Your mindset is too negative, you assume that Eusebius most have gotten the whole thing wrong since he writes in third century.

However, I challenge you to read Eusebius, he was not simply depending upon half a million of oral stories and sayings that flourished around, but pre-Eusebius’ written material, such as the writings of Hegesippus, Gaius, Irenaeus, Josephus and others. The tradition that Mark brought the Gospel of Mark with him to Alexandria prior to the death of Peter and Paul was information obtained from Hegesippus whole lived 110-180.

Hegesippus would have known the apostolic disciples, those who were trained under the disciples of Jesus Christ. The last of these John the Elder died approximately 100-110 AD. Hence this information is not weak.

Furthermore, who was Irenaeus? Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp a disciple of both John the apostle and probably John the Elder (also a disciple of Jesus) and a man associated with a number of others of Jesus’ disciples and eyewitnesses. Irenaeus was not just anybody. Think of it this way, he was a disciple of polycarp who was a disciple of John the apostle who was a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, Irenaeus explains how the original gospel tradition was transmitted orally and in written form (the four-fold Gospel) from successor to successor.

There are other early witnesses too who witness to the transmission such as Papias and Clement of Rome. Papias confirms that there is a written and a oral transmission (he possessed both), he confirms that Matthew wrote Matthew and a that Peter dictated the oral transmission to Mark, which today is know as Mark’s Gospel, which according to Justin Martyr was know as the memoirs of Peter.

Papias also confirms that the information was given to him by John the Elder a disciple of Jesus, who was still alive, and which confirms either that Papias refers to his association with John the Elder sometimes between 80-110 AD.

Clement of Rome who was the bishop of Rome in 90 AD and had been a disciple of both Peter and Paul also confirms how the apostles of Jesus selected their own successors who again selected their own in accordance to the Jewish trend in master-discipleship succession.

These according to Irenaeus protected both the oral and written transmission alongside the church even in 190 AD.

Jeff said...

Lupus:

How is all of that relevant?

It seems to me that Hogan's point is basically this:

1. There are some Quranic descriptions of physical realities which have been held to be miraculous;

2. But what they say often matches as well or better with well know Greek descriptions of science which circulated all over the ancient world at that time;

3. Therefore it is much likelier that these descriptions derive from widely circulated secular sources...you don't assume miracles if a simpler explanation is available.

4. All of this is further buttressed by indications in your own sources that there may have been direct fraud.

What's all that got to do with Biblical analysis from secular sources?

Lupus el Lobo said...

Hogan wrote:
"Rather than comparing me with Ali Sina why not reply to my argument above, you are directing the matter in a completly different direction without dealing with the real issue. My point was, historians not critics refer to mass immigration from South Arabia to the North bringing advanced thinking to what Muslims believe was only a backward society."

Lupus replied:
Well that's your very far fetched conclusion of the secondary material. You don't like it when we take arguments from atheist modern scholars and you say you would never rely on Ali Sina. Why should we rely on your conclusions when you label islam as evil. You would stand on firmer ground if you could support your conclusion with a similar one of an objective scholar.

Hogan wrote:
"Your mindset is too negative, you assume that Eusebius most have gotten the whole thing wrong since he writes in third century.

However, I challenge you to read Eusebius, he was not simply depending upon half a million of oral stories and sayings that flourished around, but pre-Eusebius’ written material, such as the writings of Hegesippus, Gaius, Irenaeus, Josephus and others. The tradition that Mark brought the Gospel of Mark with him to Alexandria prior to the death of Peter and Paul was information obtained from Hegesippus whole lived 110-180.

Hegesippus would have known the apostolic disciples, those who were trained under the disciples of Jesus Christ. The last of these John the Elder died approximately 100-110 AD. Hence this information is not weak.

Furthermore, who was Irenaeus? Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp a disciple of both John the apostle and probably John the Elder (also a disciple of Jesus) and a man associated with a number of others of Jesus’ disciples and eyewitnesses. Irenaeus was not just anybody. Think of it this way, he was a disciple of polycarp who was a disciple of John the apostle who was a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, Irenaeus explains how the original gospel tradition was transmitted orally and in written form (the four-fold Gospel) from successor to successor.

There are other early witnesses too who witness to the transmission such as Papias and Clement of Rome. Papias confirms that there is a written and a oral transmission (he possessed both), he confirms that Matthew wrote Matthew and a that Peter dictated the oral transmission to Mark, which today is know as Mark’s Gospel, which according to Justin Martyr was know as the memoirs of Peter.

Papias also confirms that the information was given to him by John the Elder a disciple of Jesus, who was still alive, and which confirms either that Papias refers to his association with John the Elder sometimes between 80-110 AD.

Clement of Rome who was the bishop of Rome in 90 AD and had been a disciple of both Peter and Paul also confirms how the apostles of Jesus selected their own successors who again selected their own in accordance to the Jewish trend in master-discipleship succession.

These according to Irenaeus protected both the oral and written transmission alongside the church even in 190 AD."

Lupus replied:
There is a gap of approximatley 200years between Eusebius and Mark. There are no existent contemporary sources who support your claim "that The Gospel transmission in oral form was preserved by the apostles and their successors for twenty years (according to early tradition) prior to the writing of Mark’s Gospel (the dication of the apostle Peter to Mark)."

As I said you do not apply the same criteria for examining islamic sources as you do for examining christian sources.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Jeff wrote:
There are some Quranic descriptions of physical realities which have been held to be miraculous;

2. But what they say often matches as well or better with well know Greek descriptions of science which circulated all over the ancient world at that time;

3. Therefore it is much likelier that these descriptions derive from widely circulated secular sources...you don't assume miracles if a simpler explanation is available.

4. All of this is further buttressed by indications in your own sources that there may have been direct fraud.

What's all that got to do with Biblical analysis from secular sources?

Lupus replied:

In what form did they circulate in the arab peninsula? Why are there no contemporary or near contemporary sources who mention these Greek descriptions?

Why don't you apply criteria 3 to your own bible if indeed believe in this criteria?

In regard to point number 4, the indication that it is a fraud is based on selective reading. My impression is that you don't care very much for that type of reading when it is used against the bible. I only ask that you treat other as you would like to be treated.

In reference to your last point, I only picked up on things Hogan mentioned in his reply to me. Ask him what the authenticity of the bible has to do with the topic at hand.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Lupus replied:

There is a gap of approximatley 200years between Eusebius and Mark. There are no existent contemporary sources who support your claim "that The Gospel transmission in oral form was preserved by the apostles and their successors for twenty years (according to early tradition) prior to the writing of Mark’s Gospel (the dication of the apostle Peter to Mark)."

Hogan replies:

Are you saying that there are no contemporary sources that support the fact that the apostles and the disciples preserved the transmission?

First of all do you not seriously contradict the Qur’an here?

According to the Qur’an the pure Injeel existed in Muhammad’s time and the apostles of Jesus were victorious, do you deny this?

Let me expound on this: are you saying:

That the apostles of Jesus failed?
Are you saying that the earliest Christians failed?

Secondly, if you read my comment again you will notice that I referred to a number of contemporary writers prior to Eusebius, such as Clement of Rome, Papias and Irenaeus.

Clement of Rome does record the trend of succession:

‘The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe...We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry’

Clement who himself was a disciple of Peter the apostle records by the end of the first century that the apostle selected their own disciples to lead the church and prepared for the task of electing others.

Notice also that in 90 AD Clement refers to two groups who are still alive ‘those appointed by them’ which are the apostolic disciples, the category which Clement himself belonged to, and secondly those appointed by the apostolic disciples, such as Irenaeus the disciple of Polycarp the disciple of John the apostle.

If you have studied this field, you would not about the list of the seventy, they are the earliest apostolic disciples, which included e.g. Mark, Luke, Linus he predecessor of Clement, Evodius the predecessor of Ignatius of Antioch.

I could also mention the writings of Irenaeus who assesses this matter in depths and also Papias who both Irenaeus and Eusebius qoute.

I did write to less detailed articles on this (they might not provide you with all the data but they might be of interest):

http://christianityorigins.blogspot.com/2010/01/examples-of-oral-transmission-in.html

http://christianityorigins.blogspot.com/2010/01/early-christianity-oral-transmission.html

But I should probably post a number of lengthy articles on this when I have more time
We could also consider the Gospels themselves, if you consider Matthew 28 and Luke 24 these clearly contain the command of Jesus to his disciples to preserve and transmit the information. With in the disicplesship trend, the disciples would do exactly what Jesus did, to gather disciples and train these, much like we read in Matthew 28 and exactly what was confirmed my Clement of Rome the disciple of the apostles.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Lupus wrote:

Well that's your very far fetched conclusion of the secondary material. You don't like it when we take arguments from atheist modern scholars and you say you would never rely on Ali Sina. Why should we rely on your conclusions when you label islam as evil. You would stand on firmer ground if you could support your conclusion with a similar one of an objective scholar.

Hogan replies:

So lets get this straight, you cannot trust me because I say Islam is evil, are you saying that we cannot trust Shabir Ally, Zakir Naik and Ahmed Deedat who all believe or believed that Christianity is evil? Then maybe you should leave Islam and become a Christian, at least based upon your criteria for truth.

Is that your criteria, ought we also to despise those who say that Hitler was evil?

No! Lets leave aside this prejudice and consider history, the evidences and the facts, I am assessing the religion of Islam and its sources historically, and you can only refute me historically.

And how many times shall I pin point this out. My article did not depend upon Ali Sina or atheists or subjective investigation of Islam but on objective history.

Read my article again and show me the atheist or subjective angle.

Verumi said...

Hi, Minoria.

Do you maintain a blog, by any chance? If not, I think you should, if only to keep an archive of your informative comments/notes. They get lost in the comments archive over time and, well, I think it's shame. I truly hope you would consider it.

Odo said...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62S0FM20100329?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

minoria said...

Hello Verumi:
Well,I have most of my comments in my email notepad.But since I am now writing for avraidire.eu in English and French,much of it is now appearing there,under the name of articles by Esperanto.

The Fat Man said...

Let me be the first to comment on the CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS.

First other then these guy's being total idiots, they are NOT CHRISTIAN. THEY ARE NOT EVEN APOSTATES. THEY ARE FOOLS' FOOLS.

I CONDEMN THEM WITH OUT HESITATION OR RESERVATION. NOT JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY WERE PLANNING ON DOING, THAT IS BAD ENOUGH BUT TO ASSOCIATE THESE ACTIONS WITH CHRIST, “THEIR CONDEMNATION IS DESERVED “I AM NOT ASHAMED OR PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE WHEN I SAY BOLDLY NOT IN MY NAME, AND DEFINITELY NOT IN THE NAME OF CHRIST.

Their website says that they are preparing for the end of days and “to "keep the testimony of Jesus Christ alive" . INSTEAD THEY TRAMPLE CHRIST’S BLOOD UNDER THERE OWN FEET.

I am thankful that God prevented the perversion of his name by using the FBI and other US government agency’s to intervene and stop these fools before they carried out the evil desires of their hearts.

THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS THEY ARE SONS OF PERDITION, SONS OF THE DEVIL. May they feel the full weight of the US government and its people, may they be crushed into humility, may they repent and come to know the LORD and Know what it is to be a Christian.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Lupos wrote:

In what form did they circulate in the arab peninsula? Why are there no contemporary or near contemporary sources who mention these Greek descriptions?

Hogan replies:

The scientific information would circulate in the form it was utilized by the Syriac Christians, a few examples are the separation of heaven and earth, the seven earths, the seven heavens and the seven tracts, the moon and the sun orbiting by swimming in their own motion, the reference to dukhan, embryology, and a number of other ideas, all these were common among the Greeks and common among the Syriac Christians and the Qur’an utilizes the same words and sometimes whole sentences of similtude. How do we know they circulated in Arabia? Because North Arabia was highly populated by Syriac Christians, by Jews and Southern Arabs who had access to this information.

Lupos wrote:

Why don't you apply criteria 3 to your own bible if indeed believe in this criteria?

Hogan replies:

Which circulated sources were used to write the e.g. the Gospels in the same way as circulated sources were used in the formation of the Qur’an? Are you referring to Old Testament sources, then the answer is that the Bible is continuous revelation. If you are referring to Jesus being a miracle maker, then again, there is no need to speculate plagiarization, miracle makers were not uncommon in the earliest era of Israel. If you are referring to the popular claim of some atheists that Mithra and other figures died and resurrected much like Jesus, then the problem remains that these claims lack all the necessary evidence and if you hold to this claim then as a Muslim you have to admit that the Jesus figure of the myths was also a miracle maker and ascended to heaven much like in the Qur’an. So I am fairly curious, which circulated sources were used to compose the Gospels? As to the Qur’an we have clear evidence of plagiarism.

Lupos wrote:

In reference to your last point, I only picked up on things Hogan mentioned in his reply to me. Ask him what the authenticity of the bible has to do with the topic at hand.

Hogan replies:

Do educate me? But do also tell me what makes it so difficult for a Muslim to stay on the topic?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God,

@ The Fat Man. I would recommend you checking this link (if it's allowed to be posted) http://www.moneyteachers.org/Hutaree.htm
I mean after all these people are allowed due process of law are they not? Why would we assume they are guilty be they Christian or Muslim without due process of law?

I hope some of you wake up to the fact that there are people within the political right that do exploit Christians and the Christian vote for thier own nefarious agendas.

Obviously the 'Tea Party Movement' has some people concerned and Christians should be just as vigilant as any other people to make sure your freedoms are not taken from you under the pretext of fighting terrorism.

Peace be unto you.

minoria said...

Reading on those groups that are real terrorists and say they are Christian the worst one is the Lord's Liberation Army in Africa.It is certainly anti-Christian in fact,due to the fact that it is in alliance with the Islamic Sudanese government,which kills Christians/animists and now also Muslims.I condemn them all.One has to do what one can.In my case,besides writing for avraidire.eu

WITH MUSLIMS IN SPAIN
I recently began commenting in the forum of webislam.com.It's a website from SPAIN,run by Muslims,in Spanish.Spain has 1 MILLION Muslims now.
I was reading the comments by Christians,the few that comment,and I saw that they needed help since they haven't had access to info in English like us,the best apologetic arguments.
Yeah,now I am commenting in 3 languages.In Spanish I use the name MINORIA.If Fernando is still reading us,since your Spanish is perfect,you could now and then write a comment there.My comments are all in the section called "Interreligioso",almost all in the part called "La Naturaleza de Jesus(the nature of Jesus)"where I told them the NT passages that say Jesus is God(Lord of Sabbath,Son of Man forgiving sins,etc)plus that Matt 28 has Jesus giving the Trinity(Baptize in the name of Father,Son,Holy Spirit).It's here:
http://foro.webislam.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10

I think for those Muslims in Spain all that info must have been as uexpected as can be.Because I remember the first time that I read it,I said:"Wow,I never thought such passages existed."

Fernando said...

Lupus el Lobo, the same that saide that turkish muslims had nothingue to do withe the genocide off armenians, is having a lesson from our beloved brother Hogan, buu I bet thate he, as almost all muslims, will chose to stay in a lie than accepting he's living in a lie... to sad...

Lupus el Lobo said...

Are you saying that there are no contemporary sources that support the fact that the apostles and the disciples preserved the transmission?

First of all do you not seriously contradict the Qur’an here?

According to the Qur’an the pure Injeel existed in Muhammad’s time and the apostles of Jesus were victorious, do you deny this?

Let me expound on this: are you saying:
Hogan wrote:

That the apostles of Jesus failed?
Are you saying that the earliest Christians failed?

Secondly, if you read my comment again you will notice that I referred to a number of contemporary writers prior to Eusebius, such as Clement of Rome, Papias and Irenaeus.

Yes there are no contemporary sources that support your claim that there was an oral transmision of only 20 years before mark was written.

Lupus replied
Clement of Rome: source please?

Papias no existing copies of his work.

Irenaeus: wrote at the end of the 2nd century.


I'm saying that the false teachings ascribed to Jesus failed in providing a convincing chain of narration that supports their authenticity.

Hogan wrote:
And how many times shall I pin point this out. My article did not depend upon Ali Sina or atheists or subjective investigation of Islam but on objective history.

Lupus replied:
Maybe not. But your interpretation of the secondary information is tainted by your subjective views on Islam.
Neither Deedat or Naik abhores christianty. You abhore Islam to the extent that you compare it to Hitler.

Single Winged Butterfly said...

Just let me say something. The "Muslims" that kill people and at war ARE NOT MUSLIMS! They do not follow the Qur'an and Islam is about peace for all. I am a Muslim so I should know. Love always Farah Hope.
Visit my blog Killingmesweetly.blogspot.com ♥

hugh watt said...

Single Winged Butterfly.Do you read Islamic tradition, or are your comments based upon your own opinion?
"When Muhammad and his followers were about to attack Mecca to subjugate it to Islam, his adherents arrested Abu Sufyan, one of Mecca's inhabitants. They brought him to Muhammad. Muhammad told him: "Woe to you, O Abu Sufyan. Is it not time for you to realize that there is no God but the only God?" Abu Sufyan answered: "I do believe that." Muhammad then said to him: "Woe to you, O Abu Sufyan. Is it not time for you to know that I am the apostle of God?" Abu Sufyan answered: "By God, O Muhammad, of this there is doubt in my soul." The 'Abbas who was present with Muhammad told Abu Sufyan: "Woe to you! Accept Islam and testify that Muhammad is the apostle of God before your neck is cut off by the sword." Thus he professed the faith of Islam and became a Muslim." (Ibn Hisham, "The Biography of Muhammad" (Part 4, Page 11).OFFENSIVE WARS TO SPREAD ISLAM.

What do you say about those 500 Christians murdered by Muslims in Jos state, Nigeria approx' 3wks ago?

hugh watt said...

Have a read of Islamic early sources. You may understand why non-Muslims do not buy the 'Islam is a religion of peace' line. What is sura 9 about?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Lupus wrote:

Clement of Rome: source please?

Papias no existing copies of his work.

Irenaeus: wrote at the end of the 2nd century.

Hogan replies:

I already gave you the source of Clement of Rome in the thread; the entire letter of Clement exists today.

We have what we call ‘the fragments of Papias’, of which some of them are found in the book of Eusebius (others found in the books of other writers) who collected a number of passages from various books existing in his days. There is no reason to believe the information is false. In fact both Ireaneus and Eusebius write about Papias. Unless you can bring some evidence to me that Eusebius fabricates the information from Papias I win. In fact it is evident that Eusebius actual misinterprets the information of Papias, he was not to found of Papias, why did he then refrain from corrupting the passage which he includes? That actually kicks your argument to pieces.
Irenaeus wrote about 170-180 AD but I don’t see the value of your argument, since Irenaeus was born approximately 120 AD and was trained up under Polycarp the disciple of John the apostle. Hence it would not matter when he wrote, what matters is the access to the information. If Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, his information is from the apostolic circle and is therefore trusthworthy.

Lupos wrote:

I'm saying that the false teachings ascribed to Jesus failed in providing a convincing chain of narration that supports their authenticity.

Hogan replies:

I don’t think you have really studied am I right? These are the sort of claims I heard prior to a five months essay on the battle between Gnostics and the Christians concerning their information, followed one year later by a 20.000 word dissertation on the same topic.

I read far beyond what you may read in books like Lost Christianities (Ehrman) and others, by working my way through primary sources, you would be surprised how wrong your claim is.

I challenge you to read through all the church fathers from Clement of Rome up to Origin and compare the material with the apocryphical New Testament and the Gnostic scripture.

You Lupos challenge me in this thread saying:

‘But your interpretation of the secondary information is tainted by your subjective views on Islam’

But is this not exactly the line you follow in your own approach to Christianity.

You simply claim that Christianity has been corrupted, why? Because otherwise Islam is wrong.

You claim that the transmission and safeguarding of the original Christianity failed even though you (a Muslim) contradict your own book (the Qur’an) by making such a claim, why? Because other Islam is wrong.

You keep claiming that those who safeguarded the teaching are untrusthy why? Because otherwise Islam is false.

You claim that there are simply no sources to verify the Christian claim, even though we present you with evidence upon evidence, why do you resort to such desperate behavior? Because other Islam is false.

In fact you are the one being tainted by subjective views not me.

Does first and second century Christianity admit that it had to burn gospels, does it admit that there was fabrication taking place? No! Yet in the most early period of Islam, why the closesth followers of Islam while they were still alive had to burn their Qur’ans and produce a revised standard version! Where do you find this in first or second century Christianity?

And you want me to reject Christianity and become a Muslim.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

While we can present the eyewitness account of Peter, Matthew and John in written form, written while they were alive, all you can produce is a book of which we have no evidence since the originals did not simply tare away by time, but where burned and a high number of oral traditions of which 90 percent were rejected as false and the remaining written down 150-200 years after Muhammad.

May I ask you where are the written account between the death of Muhammad until Bukhari that testify to the transmission and its reliability?

You may refer to the isnad and the chain of transmitters, but how do you know that chain is even reliable? Where are the written evidence within the first 150 years of Islam, why don’t you apply this criteria upon yourself. And then again I can post to a chain of successors from the majority of Christian centres from the first century and centuries ahead.

You might say that Muslims applied memorization, but so did the Christians.

You may say that the Qur’an was copied effectively, but in reality it was not, do a comparison of all the earliest Qur’an and you will find that not even one passage is identical.

Hence by questioning the Christian transmission and its sources you are shooting yourself in the foot, since you would never apply such criteria to the Qur’an or the sources of Islam, which in fact are much weaker than that of Christianity.

The one being subjective here is not me but you.

hugh watt said...

Lupus, can you read Arabic? Read this carefully.

S.1:1 In the name of Lat, and the Merciful.

2 Praise Lat, the Lord of the Worlds,

(3) and Rahman Rahim.

4 Master of the Day of Resurrection,

5 Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.

6 show us the straight path,

(7) and the path of those Thou hast favored; not (path) of those who earn the anger nor of those who have gone astray.

S.1:1 بسم اللات ، والرحمن الرحيم.

2 الحمد اللات ، رب العالمين ،

(3) والرحمن الرحيم.

4 ماجستير في يوم القيامة ،

5 اليك (وحده) ونحن العبادة ؛ اليك (وحده) ونحن نطلب المساعدة.

6 تبين لنا الطريق المستقيم ،

(7) ومسار اولئك الذين انت يمتلك يحبذ ؛ ليس (مسار) من أولئك الذين يكسبون ذين الغضب ولا من الضالين.

S.10:37 And this Qur'an is not much as could never be invented in despite of Al-lat; but it is a confirmation of that which was before it and an exposition of that which is decreed for mankind - Therein is no doubt - from the Lord of the Worlds.

38 Or say they: He hath invented it ? Say: Then bring a surah like unto it, and call (for help) on all ye can besides Al-lat, if ye are truthful.

S.10:37 القرآن وهذا ليس كثيرا كما يمكن أن تكون أبدا على الرغم من اخترع في اللات ؛ وإنما هو تأكيد لذلك الذي كان قبل ذلك وتبيانا لكل ما هو مرسوم للبشرية -- وهنا لا شك فيه -- من رب العالمين.

38 أم يقولون افتراه ذلك؟ يقول : ثم تأتي سورة كمثله عليها ، ودعوة (للمساعدة) على جميع المتعبين ويمكن بالإضافة إلى اللات ، إن كنتم صادقين.

S.10:64 Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the Hereafter - There is changing the Words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph.

S.10 : 64 مهمتهم هي اخبار جيدة في الحياة الدنيا والآخرة -- هناك تغيير كلمات الله -- وهذا هو الفوز العظيم.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Hogan wrote:

Does first and second century Christianity admit that it had to burn gospels, does it admit that there was fabrication taking place? No! Yet in the most early period of Islam, why the closesth followers of Islam while they were still alive had to burn their Qur’ans and produce a revised standard version! Where do you find this in first or second century Christianity?

Lupus replied:
Maybe not, but they admit that the writer of the oldest gospel was not an eyewitness, that the supposed writer did not write in a chronological order and that we do not know by name who relayed this info to Papias:

“And the Presbyter used to say this, Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote ‘accurately’ all that he remembered, though not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them.

Hogan wrote:
You may refer to the isnad and the chain of transmitters, but how do you know that chain is even reliable? Where are the written evidence within the first 150 years of Islam, why don’t you apply this criteria upon yourself. And then again I can post to a chain of successors from the majority of Christian centres from the first century and centuries ahead.

There were numerous books of hadiths prior to Bukhari &co (e.g. Al-Azami 2000). What the great collectors did was to categorize the hadiths and organize them. At least we can examine the chain of narration and check it against other data.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Lupus wrote:

Maybe not, but they admit that the writer of the oldest gospel was not an eyewitness, that the supposed writer did not write in a chronological order and that we do not know by name who relayed this info to Papias:

“And the Presbyter used to say this, Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote ‘accurately’ all that he remembered, though not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them.

Hogan writes:

I detect a number of inconsistencies here.

Firstly you are saying that we cannot trust the Gospel of Mark because its writer was not an eyewitness. However, the early data informs us that the information was transmitted orally from Peter the apostle to Mark who wrote it down. That makes the words of Mark’s Gospel the words of Peter and the writer of Mark only the one who records it.

Furthermore, you need to apply this criteria upon yourself, hence was the Qur’an written down by the eyewitness Muhammad or by someone else? According to your criteria the Qur’an itself cannot be trusted unless it was written down by Muhammad himself.

Secondly, you take it that the Gospel of Mark is not trustworthy since it is not written chronologically. Again are you assuming that Mark is unreliable since the words of Peter are not written in chronologically? Still they are the words of Peter, still the passages and sayings and the narrative is in accordance with an eyewitness and written down under the control of the eyewitness.

Furthermore, are you saying that we cannot trust the Qur’an? Since the Qur’an was not written down chronologically either.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

You also claim that the information conveyed to Papias was provided by an unknown source.

Even though that was the case it would not necessarily render the information untrusthworthy.

Keep in mind that Justin Martyr refers to Mark’s Gospel as the Memoirs of Peter, and his quotation from the Memoirs of Peter is from Mark’s Gospel. Justin wrote this in 160 AD when disciples of the apostles were still alive and well in Rome and elsewhere. Keep also in mind that Irenaeus who was the disciple of Polycarp the disciple of John the apostle confirms this same information.

This information was not given to Irenaeus by Papias since Papias died in 100-110 AD.

However, now to the point, the name of the person who conveyed this information to Papias is indeed mentioned, hence your claim is wrong.

If you would have quoted the entire passage rather than just parts of it you would have noticed.

Here is the part of your quotation of Papias writing with a vital part, which you left out:

'He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John. For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings'.

Hence if you would have read the entire passage of Papias you would have known that the information was handed down to Papias by the presbyter (elder) John, that is John the Elder, who according to early data was a disciple of Jesus and possibly the last disciple to die.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Lupos wrote:

There were numerous books of hadiths prior to Bukhari &co (e.g. Al-Azami 2000). What the great collectors did was to categorize the hadiths and organize them. At least we can examine the chain of narration and check it against other data.

Hogan replies:

Do you Muslims possess a written record, not an oral bulk of information collected a 100 years later, but a written book written within 50-100 years after Muhammad? For example is there are book written by a disciple of Muhammad himself, not an oral quotation or a bulk of them, but a written book within the first 100 years after Muhammad’s death?

Lupus el Lobo said...

Hogan wrote:
Hence if you would have read the entire passage of Papias you would have known that the information was handed down to Papias by the presbyter (elder) John, that is John the Elder, who according to early data was a disciple of Jesus and possibly the last disciple to die.

Hogan also wrote:
'He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John.

Lupus wrote:
This passage only tells us that in addition to Peters narrations mark also wrote down Aristions and John's narrations.

Moreover according to Eusebius the prespyter is another John not John the Elder as you would make us believe. The question still stands who is this second John?

Hogan wrote:
Furthermore, you need to apply this criteria upon yourself, hence was the Qur’an written down by the eyewitness Muhammad or by someone else? According to your criteria the Qur’an itself cannot be trusted unless it was written down by Muhammad himself.

Lupus replied:
It was written down by his companions the names of which we know. They were eyewitnesses. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between the Quran and the four gospels in that they claim to describe Jesus' life and teachings.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Lupus wrote:

This passage only tells us that in addition to Peters narrations mark also wrote down Aristions and John's narrations.

Hogan sorry I made a silly mistake. I missunderstod the passage. The passage tells us that Papias received narrations from Aristion and John not Mark. However, according Eusebius there are two Johns. Actually, Papias himself seems to be quite ambigious as to whether he is talking about John the apostle of some other John.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Lupus wrote:

This passage only tells us that in addition to Peters narrations mark also wrote down Aristions and John's narrations.

Hogan replies:

I can’t believe you make up a statement like that.

I challenge you to qoute the exact wording from Papias that Mark wrote down the narrations of Aristion and John. Aristion was truly a disciple of Jesus but there is no ancient data that records such a connection.

Also are you saying that Mark copied from John’s Gospel or his tradition? Are you willing to expose on that with adequate evidences?

I think you have just revealed that you know virtually nothing about Papias or the passage we are dealing with here.

Lupos wrote:

Moreover according to Eusebius the prespyter is another John not John the Elder as you would make us believe. The question still stands who is this second John?

Hogan replies:
What? Again I ask you, have you even read the passage?

Let’s take a closer look at the passage:

‘He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John...’

Hence Papias hands down in writing the narratives of Aristion and the traditions of the elder John and John is the ‘elder’.

Which other information are we given about the elder John:

‘...as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter...)

Hence we are told that the tradition that Mark wrote down the Gospel from the apostle Peter was information conveyed to Papias by the presbyter, which in the context is John the elder.

Furthermore, that these were not merely circulating traditions is confirmed by the Papias himself, the states:

‘...what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice...’

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I am not sure to what extent you have studied early Christian transmission, but as we have already read, the tradition about the Gospel of Mark, was transmitted to Papias by John the Elder, yet this second transmission is of even more interest, since it confirms that two disciples of Jesus are ‘still saying’ and they convey the transmission via ‘the living and abiding word’.

Now the ‘living and abiding word’ is actually an ancient Greek reference to information handed over by an eyewitness and under the control of an eyewitness and while the eyewitness is still alive.

Notice that the information Papias is writing about is the information about Jesus. But Papias could only have possessed the privilege of the ‘living and abiding word’ unless this information was transmitted to Papias personally by John the Elder.

Eusebius himself agrees that Papias was taught by John the Elder:

‘Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John’

Eusebius is not of the opinion however that John the Elder was an eyewitness of Jesus, yet notice however that according to the words of Papias himself, John the Elder and Aristion are in the category of the apostles but among those who are still saying rather than those who used to say.

Papias also confirms that John the Elder and Aristion were disciples of Jesus:

‘If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say.’

Hope this clarifies the issue

Lupus el Lobo said...

Hogan wrote:

I am not sure to what extent you have studied early Christian transmission, but as we have already read, the tradition about the Gospel of Mark, was transmitted to Papias by John the Elder, yet this second transmission is of even more interest, since it confirms that two disciples of Jesus are ‘still saying’ and they convey the transmission via ‘the living and abiding word’.

Lupus replied:
What does the complete chain look like? From Papias onwards.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Hogan wrote:

I am not sure to what extent you have studied early Christian transmission, but as we have already read, the tradition about the Gospel of Mark, was transmitted to Papias by John the Elder, yet this second transmission is of even more interest, since it confirms that two disciples of Jesus are ‘still saying’ and they convey the transmission via ‘the living and abiding word’.

Lupus replied:
What does the complete chain look like? From Papias onwards.

Lupus el Lobo said...

What does the complete chain of transmission look like? From Papias onwards.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Lupos wrote:

Hogan sorry I made a silly mistake. I missunderstod the passage. The passage tells us that Papias received narrations from Aristion and John not Mark. However, according Eusebius there are two Johns. Actually, Papias himself seems to be quite ambigious as to whether he is talking about John the apostle of some other John.

Hogan replies:

No problem

Actually there is wide consent that there were two John's. In this same passage Papias even refers to two Johns, the John who said and the John who is still staying. Both lived in Ephesus and died in Ephesus. And both lived until late age. John the apostle lived probably until 90 AD and John the Elder beyond that.
Irenaeus also refers to the two Johns but you need to read him very carefully to distinguish between them.

Papias distinguishes between them and so those Eusebius. I have a feeling that John the Elder might have been a child or possibly no more than 10 years old when Jesus was alive and possibly is one of the children disciples Jesus is referring to in the Gospels and that John continued his training under the apostles teaching. That is of course my own speculation, but having down quite an extencive study of this and seeing the big picture, I think this is possible.

If you read the fragments of Papias, you notice quickly a whole lot of very detailed and incredible information concerning, apostles, succession and transmission. Information often left out by Bible critics and those who seek to refute the Christian faith. If you move on to Irenaeus you need to read five lengthy volumes, which includes a lot of this same material. Hence if Papias and his few fragments are so much work to battle through imagine studying Irenaeus, or the entire bulk of writing from Clement of Rome to Origin (I had to go through all this last year).

Most Bible critics avoid this field of study, even though this is the historical data. In fact a renown scholars such as Sanders who is a liberal and a humanist urges Bible students to reject the historical data and emerge themselves in modern critical theories, and these individuals have the nerve to call their approach historical.

I wrote an entire 5000 word essay and later a 20.000 word dissertation on this, so this is my field. I am contemplating to start a PhD in this same field.

The bottom line is: every philosphy and non-Christian religion will find this field of study highly disturbing and challenging to their own position.