How do we know a revelation or prophet is true?

[Teek]

Islam simply denies that it was truly Isa ibn Maryam (A) who was killed or crucified, what exactly happened is not clear. There are some traditions which give interpretations to the Qur’anic verses in question, but they are not mutawatir

Actually, though, when you get right down to it,
the historical witness of first century Jerusalem are mutawatir. Islam’s arguments are 600 years later. At any rate, they cannot give testimony to what they did not witness.

We are talking about 600 years later suddenly coming up with a different explanation for what had been mutawatir in its own time.

Even then, the Qu’ran itself does not say Jesus did not die. Those interpretations arose in the late 700’s and in the 900’s. Revisionist history has never rang of truth to me.

If you respect the argument of mutawatir, it does seem inconsistent to then claim that it is not absurd to believe an interpretation for what happened in the first century that is not invented until the seventh century.

 

[SalamKhan]

Yes, if God wanted to, He could have left us without divine revelation at all. He could have left us to perpetual trial and error. But, He didn’t. So there is wisdom behind Him sending Messengers to humanity, and likewise there is wisdom in making Messengers recognisable to humanity.

 

[Vico]

I didn’t ask how he couldn’t save himself from falling away from God. The point is, according to the Bible he couldn’t save himself from falling away from God. Yet, he is considered to be an inspired author of Scripture, AND he is considered to be an instrument in salvation history. My question is in regards to him being an instrument in salvation history, if according to your scriptures, he couldn’t even save himself from falling away from God.

Repeatedly God makes His plan occur even against the wrong actions of the people. For example Joseph, Son of Jacob comes to hold a high position for Pharaoh and his starving people come to be preserved in Egypt as servants, even though his family had other plans. We are instruments of the Providence of God, willing or not.

 

[SalamKhan]

Again, that the account of the crucifixion being mutawatir is not an unfamiliar argument to Muslim theologians. And again, Islam doesn’t deny the historicity of someone being placed in the cross with the intention to kill Prophet Isa ibn Maryam (A). Do you understand this? Of course this is what the enemies of Isa ibn Maryam (S) saw, and this is why their witness is mutawatir. And yes, the Bible may have said that he was crucified, but it also said that his disciples fleed, and it differs as to whether his mother was watching from near or from far. So who of his followers were actual witnesses?

As for what the Qur’an says:

And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

So, if you are going to use my argument, then I would appreciate if you didn’t attempt to use it against me and also make a false claim about what my scripture says.

 

[Teek]

Professor and scholar Mahmoud M. Ayoub :

“The Quran, as we have already argued, does not deny the death of Christ. Rather, it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus Christ the Messenger of God. The death of Jesus is asserted several times and in various contexts.— 3:55; 5:117; 19:33.”

In particular I would refer you to the Qu’ran 19:33.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’m saying that Islam doesn’t deny the historicity of someone being placed in the cross with the intention to kill Prophet Isa ibn Maryam (A). Islam simply denies that it was truly Isa ibn Maryam (A) who was killed or crucified, what exactly happened is not clear. There are some traditions which give interpretations to the Qur’anic verses in question, but they are not mutawatir (mass transmitted) traditions, so regardless of whether they have good chains of narrators, they do not impart certainty (especially because they conflict with each other). The point is, in Islam we believe that the enemies of Isa ibn Maryam (A) didn’t triumph over him, that he ascended into the Heavens, and God will send him again to fulfill his purpose as the Messiah and establish God’s rule on earth.

This is all very interesting, except aren’t you merely already assuming that Islam is true to begin with, just as you claimed that was a problem with Christianity?

The problem is, that’s already assuming that Christianity is true to begin with. We’re talking about a criteria in the broadest sense. In general, how can we distinguish between true prophecy/revelation and false prophecy/revelation?

I mean, you are using “what exactly happened is not clear,” as an argument for what Islam believes, instead of carefully looking at the evidence.

You claim that Isa ibn Maryam was the son of Maryam, and Maryam was at the foot of the cross and surely knew her son, so how could we not know “exactly what happened?” It is clear that Mary and the Apostles who knew Jesus very well were at the crucifixion and witnessed that it was Isa ibn Maryam who died, so how can Islam claim to know hundreds of years after the fact that “what exactly happened was not clear” and from that unclear perspective of Islam which to be clear claims not to clearly know what happened, and yet it still claims to clearly know that Jesus wasn’t crucified.

It seems to me that if you are going to present a pretense of consistency and “criteria in the broadest sense the word” you wouldn’t rely simply on “Islam denies” and has the final word on the matter merely because what happened is “not clear” as far as Islam is concerned. If we dig deeply into the “what happened” with regards to Mohammed’s encounter with the Angel Gabriel, that remains far more unclear and unattested than the crucifixion. Most historians of the time concede the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the most well-attested events of the ancient world

 

[HarryStotle]

I as a Muslim, laid out a criteria according to the intellect. The Thomists, although they believe the intellect to be the arbiter in distinguishing truth and falsehood, assume Christianity to be true prior to distinguishing between true and false prophecy. Meanwhile the Augustinians, believed divine illumination to be the arbiter in distinguishing truth and falsehood.

Actually, this isn’t true either. There is a distinction to be made by Thomists between natural theology that can arrive at certain truths about God by natural reason and revealed truths that depend entirely upon God. Thomists don’t merely assume Christianity to be true. The truths about God from natural reason comport with the truth revealed by God. They illuminate each other because both come from God. Divine illumination can be both supernatural and also natural through human wisdom and reason seeking truth.

 

[SalamKhan]

My goodness, as I have said, we believe Isa ibn Maryam will return, and at the end of his reign he will die, and will be ressurected on the last day.

 

[SalamKhan]

Yeah, read all of my posts on the topic before responding…

Read my posts (in full) beginning with the following:

My position (as MysticMonist is already aware) is as follows:

One can know of God’s existence and His general attributes from reason alone. This is a major part of why the human intellect is reliable, however it is limited. Firstly, most people are slow to employ their reason. Secondly, one cannot attain detailed knowledge about God from reason alone. Thirdly, one cannot define good and evil from reason alone…

Two years ago, I unfortunately left Islam, and wanted to become a Catholic. Alhamdulillah, I of course returned to Islam, during February of this year. One of the reasons why I returned to Islam was because I couldn’t understand how the Jews and the Church determined the Biblical Canon…

Again, that the account of the crucifixion being mutawatir is not an unfamiliar argument to Muslim theologians. And again, Islam doesn’t deny the historicity of someone being placed in the cross with the intention to kill Prophet Isa ibn Maryam (A)…

 

[Teek]

And yes, the Bible may have said that he was crucified, but it also said that his disciples fleed, and it differs as to whether his mother was watching from near or from far. So who of his followers were actual witnesses?

There were many first century witnesses who were present and attested to his death. Jewish, Roman, and soon to be Christian. Not just his apostles. There are historical writings outside of sacred scripture that are historically valid and relevant. They all give the same witness to the events.

In any case, any first century witness would be more accurate than a 7th century interpretation, especially one that is motivated to refute the crucifixion in order to deny that Christ rose from the dead.

I am not using your argument against you. I am applying your own reasoning to your own claim. I am being rational and reasoned with regard to the claim that you made about the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus. Please don’t ask me not to do that. I am trying to understand you. I am sorry that your reasoning is not making sense to me. Please explain.

 

[SalamKhan]

sigh, I said earlier:

Again, that the account of the crucifixion being mutawatir is not an unfamiliar argument to Muslim theologians. And again, Islam doesn’t deny the historicity of someone being placed in the cross with the intention to kill Prophet Isa ibn Maryam (A). Do you understand this? Of course this is what the enemies of Isa ibn Maryam (S) saw, and this is why their witness is mutawatir.

 

[Teek]

My goodness, as I have said, we believe Isa ibn Maryam will return, and at the end of his reign he will die, and will be ressurected on the last day.

Great. That is what you believe, obviously. But that does nothing to dispute that the Qu’ran does not, in fact, irrefutably claim that Jesus did not die. It is possible to interpret it either way.

First century witness is very clear that Jesus did die. And was raised from the dead.

 

[Teek]

sigh, I said earlier:

SalamKhan:

Again, that the account of the crucifixion being mutawatir is not an unfamiliar argument to Muslim theologians. And again, Islam doesn’t deny the historicity of someone being placed in the cross with the intention to kill Prophet Isa ibn Maryam (A). Do you understand this? Of course this is what the enemies of Isa ibn Maryam (S) saw, and this is why their witness is mutawatir.

Just because it is not unfamiliar does not mean that you are answering that claim.

Your own argument said that it would be absurd to say that they were all mistaken when they saw the same thing.

Are you saying that they put the wrong person on the cross with the intention to kill Jesus? And they were all fooled, friends and enemies alike? And no one until 600 years later noticed?

You can count on mutawatir when it applies to the sayings of Mohammed? But not Jesus. The sayings of Jesus are also mutawatir, not just the historicity of the crucifixion. Was the mutawatir of the sayings of Jesus also invalidated by claims made 600 years later? What reasonable argument can be made for that?

It IS absurd to claim that the unanimity of Christian witness and Scripture was because they were all mistaken, and the people who objected to the claims of Christianity 600 years later are correct.

Jesus claimed that he must die and be raised again in three days. He was and he did. The mutawatir confirms this. But you would assert that he did not say this, it did not happen, and the overwhelming evidence for it was all mistaken. According to your own argument: that is absurd.

If this is incorrect, please explain how.

 

[MysticMonist]

Since we are required to obey a Prophet, it is necessary that he practices what he preaches, if he was sinful, then we would be required to obey him in sinning.

I think this is really good argument. What about Jonah who heard God’s command and disobeyed it initially?
But he of course repented and did as He was told. I think any prophet that doesn’t follow their own advice isn’t a very good prophet. So Osho can talk a good game about enlightenment or compassion or self renunciation but sleeping with 10 brainwashed women and driving 12 cars disproves the validity of his “message”.

But it’s important to distinguish between the prophets and their followers. ISIS and their evil doesn’t invalidate Islam. The Westboro Baptists don’t invalidate Christanity. I say this because while this should be obvious, in reality it is used as one of the most common argument against these faiths.

 

[HarryStotle]

Yeah, read all of my posts on the topic before responding…

I read all of those. What I am saying is that you are being inconsistent with what you said in those posts.

It is possible to say one thing, but contradict yourself a little later.

Merely because you laud reason and the reliability of the human intellect, it does not automatically entail you won’t be inconsistent and say things which aren’t justified by sound human reason.

 

[Teek]

Just when I thought I had stumbled upon someone who knows and professes the Islamic faith who was also willing to answer questions and really grapple with the questions and answers that come up during inter-religious dialog…no more answers.

I was really looking forward to learning more about how and why people who accept Islam believe what they believe about the crucifixion, and what answers they would give to any response we would give. We (Catholics) believe that Jesus was the full revelation of God to mankind. We know it by the light of the Holy Spirit who guides us to truth, but can also confirm that Jesus really did all that he did through the witness of history. So I’ve always wondered how a rational, thinking person could get past the obvious historical evidence of the crucifixion. What do they do to set that aside? It would drive me crazy! Everyone thought one thing for hundreds of years, but 700 years after the fact a person revised that history. And that person founded my religion. That would really throw me off.

Or the Protestant Bible. My friends in college tried to “save me.” They knew I was Catholic, and they came at me with their tracts and usual Catholic stumper questions. They quoted the Scripture in Revelation warning about changing a word, adding or removing, and said the Catholic Church added 7 books to the Bible. They said that the willful disobedience the Church showed to that Scripture passage when adding books proves that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon. Funny thing though. When I told them that it was Luther, the founder and hero of their faith, who had disobeyed that Scripture, they stormed off to prove me wrong. Next time I saw them, suddenly Luther had plenty of justifiable reasons to do what he did and it doesn’t matter anyway. “Um, but you just said that if you added or took away from Scripture it proved that you were the whore of Babylon!” If you believe only the “Whore of Babylon” would change the Bible, then it doesn’t matter who did the changing…the shoe fits! Not only that—but they had been deceived! They were taught a lie! Catholics did not add to the Bible. That would shake me to the very core. It was a deception!!! God is truth.

But clearly this person has been able to set those kinds of thoughts aside, and I really wanted to know his or her reasoning. Perhaps there IS a good answer. If so I would love to hear it.

No one I have encountered has yet been willing to get past this very point in that dialogue. They say it was not Jesus, that only Jesus’ enemies witnessed his death, and since they were the ones fooled by Allah of course they would have mutawatir (all agree in what they saw/heard). I have responded with the witness of many more than just the enemies of Jesus, and never have been given a counter response.

Although this may not be the case here, I am left feeling that they have no other answer. If they do, why not just say it? I don’t mean the poster here specifically, who may have just been too busy or not seen the posts or something. I cannot speak for that person’s reasons for not responding.

(continue in next post).

 

[Teek]

(Continuing from previous post)

In the other cases, the response was anger, or I was told we do not question the Prophet because that is to question Allah. In one instance, when I brought up the passages that seem to indicate that Jesus did die, which seem to contrast the interpretation of the passage that says that these certain people did not kill him (in an above post) I was very vehemently told that the Quran is holy and we do not scrutinize it because that is to challenge Allah. Allah can contradict himself and both are true and we must believe it. The person then said the Quran DOES contain contradicting passages but that does not mean it is in error, because Allah can do as he pleases. I asked what a believer is supposed to do if it says in one place one thing and in another the opposite, he said you do what Allah said first, chronologically, in the Quran.

I say all of this here because the OP question is about the authenticity of revelation. How do you know you can trust a claim that something is authentic revelation? I would say that you first define what would NOT be authentic revelation. So something obviously in error would not be authentic. Something that went against what has already been understood to be authentic would not be authentic. Something that contradicts itself would not be authentic. If the fruits of the revelation are opposed to what the source would do or say, it is not authentic. The way the Church analyzes a claim to private revelation is a great beginning. Look at the founder or proposer of the revelation, as
MysticMonist said above, and look at their life, motives, response to what was revealed.

But I would add this. Always, in every place and time of human history: it is a bad sign when someone tells you not to look too closely, not to question, or not to think or you will be punished for disobedience. When there is nothing to hide there is no desire to remain in the dark—no fear of the light. And so I would say that authentic revelation holds up under intense scrutiny, and, not as a caveat of that first idea but as an equally important and seperate aspect of revelation: authentic revelation welcomes and allows intense scrutiny!

If I couldn’t find a rational answer to a question, or was told to not pay attention to obvious idiosyncrasies, I would have trouble accepting the entity that proposed it as a source of truth. Therefore, I would be very hesitant to call the revelation true.