Rhology said the following in the combox of the Rome defining Mary as Co-Redemptrix post:"I'd like to see the title adopted by the RCC. And then I'd like to see Mary taken as the 4th member of a Quadernity by the RCC.
Apparently Rhology, a Filipino man, and Our Lady of Fatima all have something in common: seeing Mary elevated to part of the Godhead.
"The Third Secret of Our Lady of Fatima states Mary’s divinity. Mary is God, Mary is the Soul of the Holy Spirit.
...Mary is God, is the Final Dogma of the Holy Catholic Church. The Most Holy Trinity demand its declaration by the Holy Father as ABSOLUTE prerequisite for the TOTAL Redemption of Creation.
...With this Last and Final mission that was entrusted to us, The Catholic Church, The Communion of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, will without any doubt also come the Greatest outpouring of The Most Holy Spirit’s Grace. It is only through DIVINE GRACE that The Third Secret of Our Lady of Fatima will be understood." Mary-Is-God Catholic Movement
I realize this message isn't condoned by the Catholic Church, but it was too bizarre not to share.
And of course, my explanation of why I said that begins here.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the Vatican has an official position on those guys to whom this post links. I'm interested to know!
And of course, my explanation of why I said that begins here.
ReplyDeleteSorry. I completely understood your intent, but I guess others may not.
Elevation of Mary to Godhood? Already been done, and condemned…
ReplyDeletehttp://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/02/james-whites-recent-attacks-on-islam.html
The Beachbum
David Waltz's post is not only partially relevant at best but also misunderstands Dr White's statements to which he refers. I recommend it for a good example of poor reasoning.
ReplyDeletePlease pray for this poor soul.
ReplyDeleteHe writes, "This dogma (that Mary is God) was revealed to me sometime around the year 2000..." Here we see a man taking whatever he believes is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit to him and demand it is universally true.
May our merciful Lord bring him and all who depart from the fold, back under the protection of the Good Shepherd who seeks out those who have gone astray. I pray that grace might be his to recognize The Master's call, for as Jesus says, “My sheep know me and they know my voice.”
Here we see a man taking whatever he believes is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit to him and demand it is universally true.
ReplyDeleteWhere does he say that it was "the internal witness of the Holy Spirit"?
Good question!
ReplyDeleteWell, in the Father-Son-Mother triad, Mary took the place of the Holy Spirit.
I'm sure the Holy Spirit is a bit surprised to hear of that. But maybe He's used to it given the zillions of prayers that would ordinarily be directed to Him that are directed to Mary by RCs and EOdox every day...
"Sometime around the year 2000, Our Blessed Mother revealed to me ... that She, Mary, Is God. ... I was told that Mary Is God because She is the Soul of the Holy Spirit."
ReplyDeleteAh! You bring up an interesting point, my sister. It was the "soul of the Holy Spirit" that revealed this to him. Internal witness? This cold be dicey too. Is a personal vision an "internal" or "external" witness?
I suppose one will have to look elsewhere to find anyone actually claiming word-for-word the "internal witness of the Holy Spirit" is what is leading them into great heresy.
Corrected as is due, I still remain by grace, your servant and brother in Christ,
--Theo.
Rho:
ReplyDeletepeople ask me to pray for them virtually every day. My bet is that not once did they, God or I imagine they mistook me for God or that I was intercepting God's worship.
Humbly, I submit this as one who prays that all those who believe and read this, and all saints in fellowship with our Lord will pray for your blessing, growth and perfection as a servant of Christ, to His glory;
Your servant and brother,
--Theo
Oh wow, did they bow down to you, light candles, pray inaudibly to you, kiss an image of you, burn incense, and ask for forgiveness from YOU? Cool - I've never had that happen to me. We Babdists must be pretty boring...
ReplyDeleteLet's see: Has anyone ever lit candles in my honor or to make a statement I might recognize?
ReplyDeleteYes: 50 of them, in fact at my last birthday.
Has anyone bowed down to me?
Yes: I was playing the role of a king at the time. I've also had the pleasure of meeting many people who bow as a matter of customary politeness. I bowed to them as well.
Has anyone asked my forgiveness:
Yes, when they have offended me and sought forgiveness; and sometimes mistakenly when I was not the one offended: in which case I referred them to whomever it was.
Has anyone burned incense in my presence thinking it would please me or because they had some other purpose in mind that might have had nothing to do with me?
Yes, but it gives me a headache, so I prefer they do not.
Has anyone worshiped me?
God forbid!
"We Babdists must be pretty boring.
Don't sell your denomination short, my brother. I resist the temptation to unload a whole mess of unfair links to "Baptist" websites of dubious quality. Suffice it to say, those who live in grass houses should not stow thrones--especially on the second floor.
May God bless you in his service.
Your bro,
--Theo
OOPS. I forgot to mention that own mother often kissed a picture of me, as had her mother. I've kissed a picture of my children that I keep in my wallet. I magine it's a fair bet that somewhere someone has even kissed a picture of you! Imagine that!
ReplyDeletexxoo
Theo :-)
I love how you take my serious questions and make specious, disingenuous, and light-hearted twistings of what I mean.
ReplyDeleteYour inability to face questions like this one head-on is one reason why I like asking them so much, and one reason why I pray that God will have mercy on many unknowingly in the darkness of RCC and cause Mary to be elevated to the title of a person of the Divine Quadernity.
>> David Waltz's post is not only partially relevant at best but also misunderstands Dr White's statements to which he refers. I recommend it for a good example of poor reasoning.>>
ReplyDeleteReally? Here is exactly what “Dr.” White said: “well there wasn’t anyone running around worshipping God, Jesus and Mary as a Trinity at that time…”
BUT THERE WERE! (See my blog for details.)
Please explain how my post at AR is “a good example of poor reasoning”?
Before you attempt this, I shall break down my reasoning: “Dr.” White stated that “there wasn’t ANYONE running around worshipping God, Jesus and Mary as a Trinity at that time”, but Epiphanius and John of Damascus said that there were; so I conclude that this is a poor argument on the part of James. This is “faulty reasoning”???
The Beachbum
"I love how you take my serious questions and make specious, disingenuous, and light-hearted twistings of what I mean."
ReplyDeleteThis is not so Rho. I'm sorry you think I'm trivializing or twisting your points; however my points are that what you are actually doing is taking what are to me obviously not acts of worship and portraying them as if they are. I venerate what is venerable. I do not worship anyone or anything but God Almighty.
May Our one Lord and Master who is Jesus, the Christ make us all better examples of what it means to be Christian. I am sorry that my attempt to address you in a light-hearted fashion offended you. Regardless, I will testify to the truth; and there am I left to do the best I can without tempting you to further.
If civil conversation whether on a serous or light-hearted front provokes you to anger, then I must prefer you, consider the effects this has upon you and withdraw. I am sorry to have offended you.
Please pray for me, a sinner as I pray for you who would serve Our Lord as best as you are able--that you might be given chrisms and graces to match your desire.
In His name,
--Theo
"I was playing the role of a king at the time"
ReplyDeleteWOW! I just realized that the photo of me in my profile was taken about eight years ago while I was playing that very role!
This adds nothing to the conversation, but I thought it was sort of interesting. It also lets you know that I'm not nearly so fond of my current photos.
Also, Rho, please find it in your heart to excuse me for imagining this was sarcasm:
ReplyDelete"Oh wow, did they bow down to you, light candles, pray inaudibly to you, kiss an image of you, burn incense, and ask for forgiveness from YOU? Cool - I've never had that happen to me. We Babdists must be pretty boring.."
I believe I did indeed address it "head-on;" but then I also believed you were being sarcastic. Had I realized you were engaging in serious discussion, I hope I would have answered in far less anecdotal and light-hearted tones.
As always, I pray or your unqualified blessing in Christ, that your joy might be full.
Your duly chastised brother in Christ,
--Theo
PS: For the record, I think David Waltz is right on the money.
David, here is your statement:
ReplyDeleteThere are two significant problems with this ‘rabbit-trail’, the first being that there were Christians (heretical) “running around worshipping God, Jesus and Mary as a Trinityn at that time”—the heretical sect know as the Collyridians. For a brief introduction to this sect:
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//questions/yq2/yq315.html
[See also: The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis – Books II & III, trans. by Frank Williams, 1994, pp. 618, 620-629.]
Emphasis mine.
David, is it your position that this sect about which Epiphanius wrote in the 4th/very early 5th century existed in the 6th / 7th century? How does what he wrote about the existence of this group affect anything Muhammad may have thought some 200 years afterwards, the time about which James White was speaking? As I recall, there is no evidence that the Collyridians existed at the time of Muhammad.
I found this comment from----Theo--- elsewhere in cyber-space:
ReplyDelete"You need to go whole hog, like the truly deformd said over on Boogers All..."
I then posted the following on his blog:
I'm guessing these are your words, since I followed the link to this blog (though you may have been quoting someone else). Your words, if they are indeed yours, reflect the intellect of an 8 year old.Please try to refrain from visitng my blog.
Rho, Carrie, JM, please delete any further comments ---Theo--- makes.
Thanks,
JS
Mary is not a new God. Neither is She a fourth person of God. As I said before, She is God. She is The Most Holy Trinity as God. She is the Being of the Most Holy Trinity. Not a fourth person. Not another divine person.
ReplyDeleteSome are furious and are asking that if Mary is God then who is greater therefore, The Most Holy Spirit or Mary? I can only tell them that in heaven the question of rank is non-existent. In heaven there can only be love and communion. And both require the issue of equality and ranks to be non-existent. Ranks пїЅ who is greater and who is lesser exist only in the imperfect world. It is LuciferпїЅs device to counter the reality of love and communion.
This is precisely why Our Lord and God Jesus Christ came as a servant to correct our imperfect notion of how things are in heaven. Our Lord wants us to cease from looking at relationships the way Lucifer wants us to see them. The devil sees an organization what The Most Holy Trinity created as a family. What is Father and Son to God is Master and Slave to Lucifer.
The sacrament of marriage is the best reflection of what is in heaven, reflect upon it.
But just to clear things up as many are urging me, let me just say that Mary can never be above and greater than Her Spouse The Most Holy Spirit who is Her life, Her Spirit. That is so far how I understand and defend this claim.
Again I am not introducing a new God. There is no other God but The Most Holy Trinity, One God.
How I wish I could explain this like our Catholic Theologians can. But the Most Holy Spirit chose an ordinary man to reveal His Most Holy Will. And so most of my explanations will be in laymanпїЅs terms. In most cases I am confined to presenting my claims in story-like messages instead of presenting theological articles. It seems to be a lot easier this way than the other.
About eight months ago I thought I only needed to present one article пїЅ that was the June 17 2005 article that I published in the web. Months passed and questions after questions were raised and I was forced to defend my claim despite my very limited ability.
Then came the problem of promoting the website and increasing its ranking in search engines. The bottom line was that I had to keep on writing to make things work. Readers need new information and search engines want more texts.
So if it comes to some of you as a surprise that I keep on adding more and more articles пїЅ now you know why. I just had to expand this site more to improve our chances of getting to the masses. But if I had it my way, I would have just published that one article of June 17 2005 entitled Mary Is God and probably placed a linked to another credible Fatima Site.
from : http://maryisgod.org/Fatima-Secret-Articles.php
ReplyDeleteThis is a joke. Right?
ReplyDeleteKate,
ReplyDeleteHow did you come to believe that Mary is God?
Mark
For Kate, Catholic theologians have explained Mary's role quite succinctly, and it is definitely NOT as anything approaching "God". Like the rest of us, she is only a creature.
ReplyDeletePosts like this sicken me because the only people that I ever see elevating Mary to Godhood are Protestants who wish to misstate Catholic doctrine. Mr. Swan in an earlier post talked about how he did not wish to offend his readers by posting pictures of Christ. I guess that this policy is an one-way street, because this type of article is offensive to me (unless it is a policy of this blog that the it is ok to offend Catholics). Most Catholics actually understand that Marian doctrines at their heart safeguard Our Lord Jesus Christ's divinity from those who denied it like the Arians, Mormons, JW's and others. You may choose to quibble over that if you wish but an article like this is nothing but blasphemy against the One God in Three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we both worship and look to for our salvation.
I have no problem with Protestants discussing the role of Mary and saints or the notion of the communion of saints or the notion of intercessory prayer. These are areas of legitimate differences between Protestant and Catholics and should be discussed. Carrie herself acknowledged in her article that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church so why post it? Why lampoon, or engage in slapstick that rises to the level of sin?
What is harmful here is that in jest, you have engaged in idolatry by calling Mary "God" and I am sorry, but my Catholic Bible doesn't contain such an "I am joking" exception to the Ten Commandments.
If people are truly interested in understanding what the Catholic Church teaches as the role of Mary in creation, I would suggest that they can start with a book titled, "Mary: The Virgin Mary in the Life and Writings of John Henry Newman" edited by Philip Boyce. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans (2001).
Paul,
ReplyDeleteIf you're offended, don't come to us. We didn't put up the Mary is God website. Rather, a Catholic did.
Carrie herself acknowledged in her article that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church so why post it? Why lampoon, or engage in slapstick that rises to the level of sin?
I question HOW YOU KNOW it's not the teaching of the RCC, so I think it's worth bringing up.
And I see little difference between this and the mocking of the prophets of Baal by Elijah.
you have engaged in idolatry by calling Mary "God"
While you who did they bow down to Mary, light candles to her, pray inaudibly to her, kiss an image of her, burn incense to her, and ask for forgiveness from her and protection from Jesus' wrath don't, eh?
And yes, it's clear to everyone that we're calling Mary "God" here.
Peace,
Rhology
Mr. Swan in an earlier post talked about how he did not wish to offend his readers by posting pictures of Christ.
ReplyDeleteActually, that was me.
Why lampoon, or engage in slapstick that rises to the level of sin?
I think you are overreacting here, Paul.
David,
ReplyDeleteI'll keep my responses to you on your blog so as not to detract what could become a very interesting combox here, especially if Kate returns.
I'm guessing these are your words, since I followed the link to this blog (though you may have been quoting someone else). Your words, if they are indeed yours, reflect the intellect of an 8 year old.Please try to refrain from visitng my blog.
ReplyDeleteDear James, brother in Christ and beloved of God:
What on Earth are you talking about? Who told you that this is a quote of mine? If you read my own blog you will see that I do not find such commentary productive.
I remain by grace your servant and brother in Christ,
--Theo
James:
ReplyDeleteThe source of the quote is a poster named "CK." I am not responsible for his words or his link. With that written, I now take my leave and honor your wish that I not visit your blog.
Until such time you see fit to reopen this venue to me, may God bless you and all who write and read here, that they may find and grow in the true peace of Christ's fellowship.
I remain by grace your servant and brother in Christ,
--Theo
Hi Gene,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response; as always, your comments bring the level of dialogue up a notch or two. You wrote:
>>David, is it your position that this sect about which Epiphanius wrote in the 4th/very early 5th century existed in the 6th / 7th century? How does what he wrote about the existence of this group affect anything Muhammad may have thought some 200 years afterwards, the time about which James White was speaking? As I recall, there is no evidence that the Collyridians existed at the time of Muhammad.>>
I shall let the esteemed Philip Schaff speak for me on this issue:
“Arabia had at the time when Mohammed appeared, all the elements for a wild, warlike, eclectic religion like the one which he established. It was inhabited by heathen star-worshippers, Jews, and Christians…The Christians belonged mostly to the various heretical sects which were expelled from the Roman empire during the violent doctrinal controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries. We find there traces of Arians, Sabellians, Ebionites, Nestorians, Eutychians, Monophysites, Marianites, and Collyridians or worshippers of Mary.” (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 159 – 1980 reprint.)
Grace and peace,
David
Kate,
ReplyDeleteHow did you come to believe that Mary is God?
Mark
i just followed the link you provided...my intention is to show you the visionary's explanation.
u
ReplyDeletesorry for the "u". i accidentally hit the button.
ReplyDeleteand my apologies for the stir.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDelete"Traces" of the Collyridians and actual Collyridians are not necessarily convertible. "Traces" can mean anything from a group meeting in somebody's house, to a fullblown sect, or rumors and legends, or documents left behind. To my knowledge, Schaff is in the minority on this one.
Your original source placed them squarely in the 4th/5th century. Now you're appealing to a single line from Schaff about "traces" of them. Yet Schaff, (on p.186 of that same volume) quotes Epiphanaus in a footnote:
n rude misconception or wilful perversion, Mohammed seems to have understood the Christian doctrine of the trinity to be a trinity of Father, Mary, and Jesus. The Holy Spirit is identified with Gabriel. "God is only one God! Far be it from his glory that he should have a son!" Sura 4, ver. 169; comp. 5, ver. 77. The designation and worship of Mary as "the mother of God" may have occasioned this strange mistake. There was in Arabia in the fourth century a sect of fanatical women called Collyridians (Kollurivde"), who rendered divine worship to Mary. Epiphanius, Haer. 79.·
So, he may have in mind that Muhammad used material from teaching that had been preserved from the 5th century, not that Collyridians actually existed at the time.
For example:
What I find rather extensively on a search on the 'net is this statement:
The Collyridians have become of interest in some recent Muslim-Christian religious discussions, because the Qur'an is understood by many to assert that the Christian Trinity consists of God, Jesus, and Mary (based mainly on verses 5:73, 5:75, and 5:116) — something which has never been a mainstream or widespread doctrine among Christian or quasi-Christian groups at any period of history. It is speculated by some that Muhammad may have mistakenly confused Collyridian beliefs with orthodox Christianity. Others point out that there is no evidence that Collyridianism still existed in the 6th or 7th centuries A.D., and/or they reject the interpretation according to which the Qur'an is said to assert that Mary is part of the Trinity.
I've also found information, for example from Lenoir Rhyne College in NC that places them squarely in the 5th century but not afterwards.http://www.lrc.edu/rel/blosser/collyridianism.htm
This comes from none other than Philip Blosser. He says:
The heresy lasted about 100 years, existing between 350 and 450 A.D.
So, either what's being said is that the heresy lasted in the Empire proper until that time after which it was shunted to Arabia or Schaff is mistaken or overspeaking. Since everybody else puts them in Arabia in the 4th/5th centuries, it seems odd to draw that distinction. Dr. Schaff was an excellent historian, but he did live in the 19th century, you know, when archaelogy was not very well developed. Indeed it was just coming into its own.
I also found this:
Gerock says: "Epiphanius does not relate anything definite concerning the sect, and the long chapter devoted to this heresy contains next to nothing save controversy, in which the author seems to delight. Even had such a sect existed at the time of Epiphanius in Arabia, it is far from probable that, consisting only of women, it would have continued for three centuries until the time of Mohammed and become so extended and strong that Mohammed could mistake it for the Christian religion. This is from 3 Gerock's Christologie, p. 75.
So, we have conflicting information here, one of which is Wikipedia. Now, either Wiki is repeating another source or these folks are repeating Wiki, or some of them are repeating Wiki, but the information is coming from another source. That's the problem with Wiki's and the internet in general. I majored in history myself, and I was taught this group had passed on, but that's been, well, I'd rather not say, as that would reveal my age, and Oil of Olay can only do so much. :)
You've made a rather dogmatic statement about them in your appraisal. The problem, I surmise, is that information on this group is extremely, extremely scanty, and there is, at best, fuzziness if not outright disagreement about whether or not they were around in the 7th century. It may be unfair of you to chastise Dr. White for this the way you have given the, at best, conflicting information we have available.
I might suggest you check this information with somebody in Islamic Studies or somebody who specializes in Middle Eastern history. You may be right, but I think it bears checking out further before making dogmatic pronouncements about James White's mistakes, given the nature of the source material. Alternatively, why not call Dr. White personally on the DL and point this out,present the conflicting information to him, and ask him if he would check it out himself and get back to us
I've been away from the blog for last 24 hours.
ReplyDeleteok, I'm not sure why "ck" uses your blog as his homepage. If you say the comments are not yours, I retract my "ban". Notice, I stated, "Your words, if they are indeed yours..."
On the other hand, you should take a moment to find out why "CK" uses your blog as his homepage.
Hi Gene,
ReplyDeleteI sincerely appreciate your somewhat lengthy response. To make sure that proper context is at the fore, I am going to reproduce a fair amount of your post. You wrote:
>>"Traces" of the Collyridians and actual Collyridians are not necessarily convertible. "Traces" can mean anything from a group meeting in somebody's house, to a fullblown sect, or rumors and legends, or documents left behind. To my knowledge, Schaff is in the minority on this one.
Your original source placed them squarely in the 4th/5th century. Now you're appealing to a single line from Schaff about "traces" of them. Yet Schaff, (on p.186 of that same volume) quotes Epiphanaus in a footnote:
n rude misconception or wilful perversion, Mohammed seems to have understood the Christian doctrine of the trinity to be a trinity of Father, Mary, and Jesus. The Holy Spirit is identified with Gabriel. "God is only one God! Far be it from his glory that he should have a son!" Sura 4, ver. 169; comp. 5, ver. 77. The designation and worship of Mary as "the mother of God" may have occasioned this strange mistake. There was in Arabia in the fourth century a sect of fanatical women called Collyridians (Kollurivde"), who rendered divine worship to Mary. Epiphanius, Haer. 79.·
So, he may have in mind that Muhammad used material from teaching that had been preserved from the 5th century, not that Collyridians actually existed at the time.>>
Me: When I read the material from Epiphanius I get the impression that he is relating to his readers the rise of a new sect. Since Ephiphanius is writing in the 5th century it adds little to the discussion (IMHO) to affirm the obvious: that my “original source placed them squarely in the 4th/5th century”.
Your assessment concerning what Schaff may have meant by the term “traces” is certainly possible, but I would like to submit a couple of observations: first, the other sects mentioned in the same context were still active in the 7th century; and second, we know that many of the smaller heretical sects flourished in Arabia due to a lack of ecclesiastical and/or political pressure, a strong indication to me that all the sects mentioned by Schaff survived into the 7th century.
After quoting some internet sources which attempt to limit the active life of the Collyridian sect to “about 100 years” you then summarized with:
>>So, we have conflicting information here, one of which is Wikipedia. Now, either Wiki is repeating another source or these folks are repeating Wiki, or some of them are repeating Wiki, but the information is coming from another source. That's the problem with Wiki's and the internet in general. I majored in history myself, and I was taught this group had passed on, but that's been, well, I'd rather not say, as that would reveal my age, and Oil of Olay can only do so much. :)>>
Me: Agreed, hence you will usually find a high preponderance of the use of BOOKS in the quotes I provide, rather than relying on internet sources.
For instance, in the original post on my blog on the issue at hand, I provided quotes from Islamic scholars (from books in my library) that are at odds with the sources you provided.
Here is one more:
Among the Arabs it was that the heresies of Ebion, Beryllus, and the Nazarenes, and also that of the Collyridians, were broached, or at least propagated; the latter introduced the Virgin Mary for GOD, or worshipped her as such, offering her a sort of twisted cake called collyris, whence the sect had its name.
This notion of the divinity of the Virgin Mary was also believed by some at the council of Nice, who said there were two gods besides the Father, viz., Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were thence named Marianites. Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified; which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition in calling her the complement of the Trinity, as if it were imperfect without her. This foolish imagination is justly condemned in the Koran as idolatrous, and gave a handle to Mohammad to attack the Trinity itself. (George Sale, The Koran and Sale’s Preliminary Discourse, p. 37.)
>>You've made a rather dogmatic statement about them in your appraisal. The problem, I surmise, is that information on this group is extremely, extremely scanty, and there is, at best, fuzziness if not outright disagreement about whether or not they were around in the 7th century. It may be unfair of you to chastise Dr. White for this the way you have given the, at best, conflicting information we have available.>>
Me: Even if I were to grant that the extant evidence is “at best, fuzziness”, I still must maintain that it is James White who has produced “a rather dogmatic statement” in his bold, unequivocal claim that: “well there wasn’t anyone running around worshipping God, Jesus and Mary as a Trinity at that time”.
I maintain that an apologetic built on “fuzziness” is a shallow, poor apologetic.
>>I might suggest you check this information with somebody in Islamic Studies or somebody who specializes in Middle Eastern history.>>
Me: Once again, I would like to refer you back to the Islamic scholars I quoted in my original post.
>>You may be right, but I think it bears checking out further before making dogmatic pronouncements about James White's mistakes, given the nature of the source material. Alternatively, why not call Dr. White personally on the DL and point this out,present the conflicting information to him, and ask him if he would check it out himself and get back to us>>
Me: James not too long ago on his blog labeled me as a “stalker”, and I know from certain private conversations with a close associate of his that he has a certain disdain for me, so I do not know if I would be well received on the DL. As such, perhaps it would be more advantageous for all if you brought of the subject on the DL.
Grace and peace,
David
They don't take your Social Sec # and tax information when you call the DL, you know. No need to reveal your Internet alter ego fully, if it bothers you that much.
ReplyDeleteHey Rhology,
ReplyDeleteUnlike you (and so many others), I use my real name—as such, it sure seems to me that it is you who has issues with “your Internet alter ego”.
David
Please. My real name is easily found with one click. Spare me your melodramatic excuses for shooting holes in faraway targets.
ReplyDelete>> Spare me your melodramatic excuses for shooting holes in faraway targets.>>
ReplyDeleteSorry, I am not going to let you get away with such silliness: you are the one in this dialogue who attempts to divert the readers away from the actual topic at hand via subjective/personal accusations, augmented with a fondness for double-standards. Can we get back on track (i.e. what did James actually say, and is some of his apologetic methods concerning Islam suspect). I have sincerely tried to stay on topic, and have ventured off the trail only to answer your silly charges against my person.
David
David,
ReplyDelete*I*? You are the man!
I invite anyone to take a look at who puts "Dr" in quotations, for one thing.
But now I'm puzzled. I had posted a response to you, and suddenly it's not on your blog anymore.
Crud. Well, I can see why you're saying that now! I've now posted the comment.
Let's carry on from there.
Peace,
Rhology
When I read the material from Epiphanius I get the impression that he is relating to his readers the rise of a new sect.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing in that quote to state that at all. All he does is write against an existing sect. That's it. You're obviously reading the text anachronistically.
Since Ephiphanius is writing in the 5th century it adds little to the discussion (IMHO) to affirm the obvious: that my “original source placed them squarely in the 4th/5th century”.
Actually, it does show something, namely you can't quote anything from him placing this group in the 7th century, yet this is how you actually framed the argument:
I do not know exactly how long James has been involved in Islamic studies (he mentions a debate with a Muslim apologist back in 1999), but I have had a keen interest in this field since the mid-90s, adding well over 500 books on Islam to my ever-expanding library, and must admit that I am at a bit of a loss trying to figure out why someone who has spent at least 8 years in the field would use such a weak, shallow argument—an argument which is, at least in part, based on a falsehood if one accepts the testimony of Epiphanius.
Now, how exactly do you get from the 4th/5th century to the 7th? How does anything he said in the earlier centuries apply to 2 centuries later? It doesn't. If I write, "Followers of George W. Bush support the Iraq War:" in 2008, and you read that in 4008, it does not follow that my statements written in 2008 can have anything to do whatsoever with events in 2208.
first, the other sects mentioned in the same context were still active in the 7th century; and second, we know that many of the smaller heretical sects flourished in Arabia due to a lack of ecclesiastical and/or political pressure, a strong indication to me that all the sects mentioned by Schaff survived into the 7th century.
None of these sects were composed of women.
After quoting some internet sources
I'm just using a quick survey. However, I did not limit my survey to the internet at all. Gerock's Christologie is not an internet source like Wikipedia. Here's the quote again:
Epiphanius does not relate anything definite concerning the sect, and the long chapter devoted to this heresy contains next to nothing save controversy, in which the author seems to delight. Even had such a sect existed at the time of Epiphanius in Arabia, it is far from probable that, consisting only of women, it would have continued for three centuries until the time of Mohammed and become so extended and strong that Mohammed could mistake it for the Christian religion. (p.75).
This is quoted in Zweimer's The Moslem Doctrine of God.
Your quote from Sale says nothing about Collyridians in the 7th century. It speaks to the Council of Nice. What is the argument for this group existing in the 7th century? All you've done is present us with a set of inferences from your own mind, not evidence.
I can quote Hughes' Dictionary of Islam saying this:
From the above verses it appears that Muhammad thought the Holy Trinity of the Christians consisted of the Father, the Son, and the Virgin; and historians tell us that there existed in Arabia a sect called Collyridians, who considered the Virgin Mary a divine person, and offered in worship to her a cake called Collyris; it is, therefore, not improbable that Muhammad obtained his perverted notion of the Holy Trinity from the existence of this sect. From the expression "they both ate food", we must conclude that Muhammad had but a sensuous idea of the Trinity in Unity, and had never been instructed in the orthodox faith with reference to this dogma. (Hughes, Notes on Muhammadanism, p. 195).
So, what we have here isn't anything clear on this, David. What we have is an astounding lack of clarity. Which gets us here:
Once again, I would like to refer you back to the Islamic scholars I quoted in my original post.
I'm sorry, David, but which of these gives evidence of Collyridians active in Arabia in the 7th century? Here are the quotes in your original:
1. Hasty interpretation, without judicious weighing of the evidence, persuaded Muslim exegetes that the Koran condemns the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Christian apologists fell into this same snare…But those texts condemned a “tritheism” that has nothing to do with the formulation of the dogma of the Trinity. The same is true of the Koran’s supposed condemnation of the Incarnation. It condemns not the doctrine of Chalcedon, but Monophysite and Nestorian formulations of the doctrine. (Giulio Basetti-Sani , The Koran in the Light of Christ: A Christian Interpretation of the Sacred Book of Islam, p. 136.)
--Nothing here.
2. It has often been thought that the Qur’an denies the Christian teaching of the Trinity, and commentators have taken its words to be a rejection of orthodox Christian doctrine. However, it seems more likely that it is heretical doctrines that are denied in the Qur’an, and orthodox Christians should agree with most of the statements. (Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, p. 133.)
Nothing here.
3. The fourth-century Christian heresiologist Epipahius mentions the Andtideco-Marianites who worshipped Mary as a goddess. It is possibly they who are envisaged in the Qur’anic insinuation that Christians deifed both Jesus and this mother. (Neal Robinson, Christ In Islam and Christianity, p. 21.)
Nothing here.
4. What Christians mean by “God in Christ” is not adoptionism. This, as earlier noted, was a misreading which early Christianity itself resisted and rejected. But is a way of thinking which, in rebuking Christians, the Qur’an itself has frequently in view. Its rejection of Christology is in fact a rejection of adoptionism which Christians also repudiate. (Kenneth Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 203.)
Nothing here.
5. there are considerable differences between the Qur’an and the New Testament. It should be noted, however, that so far as the actual statements of the Qur’an are concerned, the differences are not so great as they are sometimes supposed to be. Modern scholars, Christian and Muslim, tend to read later controversies into the wording of the Qur’an. Thus the rejection of the doctrine that ‘God is one of the three’ [5.73/7] is usually taken to be a denial of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; yet strictly speaking what is rejected is a doctrine of tritheism which orthodox Christianity also rejects. Similarly the rejection of the fatherhood of God the Father and the sonship of God the Son is strictly speaking a rejection of fatherhood and sonship in a physical sense; and this Christianity would also reject. (Watt and Bell, Introduction To The Qur’an, p. 158.)
Nothing here.
So, we're left with, in your own words, the testimony of Epiphanius.
But he says nothing about the time of Muhammad, and that is what we're discussing.
So, you added Schaff, a source not in your original, and that's not at all clear. We have only some assumptions from you about what he has stated.
Finally, we have Sale:
Among the Arabs it was that the heresies of Ebion, Beryllus, and the Nazarenes, and also that of the Collyridians, were broached, or at least propagated; the latter introduced the Virgin Mary for GOD, or worshipped her as such, offering her a sort of twisted cake called collyris, whence the sect had its name.
The question isn't the existence of the sect, rather whether or not it was active in the 7th century.
This notion of the divinity of the Virgin Mary was also believed by some at the council of Nice, who said there were two gods besides the Father, viz., Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were thence named Marianites. Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified; which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition in calling her the complement of the Trinity, as if it were imperfect without her. This foolish imagination is justly condemned in the Koran as idolatrous, and gave a handle to Mohammad to attack the Trinity itself.
This says nothing about the existence of Collyridians in 7th century Arabia.
Yes, we know that some Muslims make this appeal. Fine, so can we safely assume you are taking the position of Muslims against Christians who argue otherwise? Here's the bottom line. It is not at all clear that this group existed at that time, yet you are making some dogmatic statements. You referred me to your original article, yet nothing in your original says anything to support your position. So, we're left with additions after the fact - but if you want me to look to your original article, which is how you have chosen to frame the issue, I am more than happy to do so, and there we find an astounding ZERO evidence presented that this group existed in the 7th century. Not even Epiphanius says that. We're therefore left, not with anything in your original article, but your assumptions about which you have here admitted, and now, to support those assumptions, we find you digging for information not in your original.
And, still, we're left with a lack of supporting argument that provides justification for the Qu'ran. Let's say they existed at that time, okay, this still provides no justification for the Quran spending most of its focus on such an insignificant, marginal sect that had already been condemned by the greater church. What you're doing is trying to score points against James White. I think that, David, is what is obvious here, and I'm just keeping track of your own argument.
I maintain that an apologetic built on “fuzziness” is a shallow, poor apologetic.
1. You originally said this with a caveat, "if you accept the testimony of Epiphanius." But then, by your own admission here, you're simply begging the question in that regard.
2. So, now you're shifting to "other scholars," but the truth is that "scholarship" is not at all clear that this group even existed at that time and, if it did, there's still a supporting argument necessary to link Muhammad's statements to this group. I'm asking for evidence this group existed or at least an argumetn, not a set of question begging assertions.
3. Consequently, I agree with you, but I submit you are mirror-reading. For at best, all you can show is that one set of sources conflicts with another. So, what you're doing is building your argument on one set without interacting with the other one and making inferences when the texts contain no explicit statements. When pressed, you admit that it's your assumptions that are guiding your argument here, not what they explicitly say, namely when you said:
When I read the material from Epiphanius I get the impression that he is relating to his readers the rise of a new sect.
One wonders if your statements are not being directed more by your problems with Dr. White than what your sources state.
James not too long ago on his blog labeled me as a “stalker”, and I know from certain private conversations with a close associate of his that he has a certain disdain for me, so I do not know if I would be well received on the DL. As such, perhaps it would be more advantageous for all if you brought of the subject on the DL.
Since you're the one making the judgments and assertions, David, the onus is on you to do this. I don't even have a working sound system on my computer. If you're uncomfortable talking to Dr.White, why don't you contact Sam Shamoun?
By the way, I want to be clear here. James White is not my rule of faith. I have no interest in proving him correct or winning an argument. What I do have an interest in doing is this:
ReplyDelete1. Finding out if this sect did, in fact, exist at that time. I'm looking not for assertions but arguments and, preferably, some archaelogical evidence. So far, David, you've not provided that, yet you've been extremely critical of James' apologetic on your blog.
2. If James is wrong, it would seem to me a good way for Roman Catholics in particular to actually practice what they say about us Protestants by treating them as brothers. If you think he's a brother, and a brother is factually inaccurate, then rather than call his work "shallow" it would seem to me that the ones who so often talk about praying for Dr. White should make a good faith effort to find the correct information and, in the spirit of brotherliness, present it to him for consideration. If he rejects it, that's his problem, not yours. You've done your part in that event, and you can move on.
Dr. White (test. Waltz): “there wasn’t ANYONE running around worshipping God, Jesus and Mary as a Trinity at that time”
ReplyDeleteDW (ipse): "Epiphanius and John of Damascus said that there were; so I conclude that this is a poor argument on the part of James."
a) John of Damascus was just reducing Epiphanius' work to list form, even going so far as to preserve the order of the original. (see here)
b) Thus, John of Damascus is not a second or independent witness to the existence of the alleged sect.
c) Epiphanius did not say that they worshiped Mary as the third person of the Trinity. He said they worshiped Mary, offering sacrifice to her.
So, actually, Dr. White is vindicated, and Waltz is to be deprecated for poor reasoning.
-Turretinfan
Hi Gene,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding. Due to the length of your response, I would like to address one issue at a time until we reach an agreement—even if it is only to agree-to-disagree.
First topic: Epiphanius’ quote on the Antidicomarians and Collyridians (heresies 78 and 79). You posted:
>>When I read the material from Epiphanius I get the impression that he is relating to his readers the rise of a new sect.
There is nothing in that quote to state that at all. All he does is write against an existing sect. That's it. You're obviously reading the text anachronistically.>>
Me: The listing of heresies by Epiphanius in his Panarion follows a chronological order. Just following this practice, one can place the rise of the Collyridians in the late 4th century. But there is more, just prior to his own letter to the “honored Master and beloved children and brothers in Arabia” he speaks of “Apolinaris himself”, placing the letter no earlier than Apolinaris; and towards the end of this letter he writes: “For [I have heard] in turn that others, who are out of their minds on the subject of this holy Ever-virgin, have done their best and are doing their best, in the grip both of madness and of folly, to substitute her for God. For they say that certain Thracian women there in Arabia have introduced this nonsense”.
So, with all due respect, I must in good conscience disagree with you.
I shall end this first installment with a question: given the general practice of Epiphanius in his listing of the heresies (chronologically), and the context of his letter (descriptive), when would you place the date of the rise of the Collyridians?
Grace and peace,
David
Hello Turretinfan,
ReplyDeleteNice to see another contributor to this interesting thread; you posted:
>> a) John of Damascus was just reducing Epiphanius' work to list form, even going so far as to preserve the order of the original.>>
Me: Yes he was, and he continued to add more heresies to list, chronologically, including heresies 100 and 101 (which I am sure you know what they are).
>> b) Thus, John of Damascus is not a second or independent witness to the existence of the alleged sect.>>
Me: I agree, with one clarification: he accepted/supported the witness given by Epiphanius.
>> c) Epiphanius did not say that they worshiped Mary as the third person of the Trinity. He said they worshiped Mary, offering sacrifice to her.>>
Me: You are correct; what Epiphanius established is that some heretical Christians in Arabia worshipped Mary; I seriously doubt that these heretical Christians excluded God the Father and Jesus Christ in their worship, anymore than modern day worshippers of Mary do.
>> So, actually, Dr. White is vindicated, and Waltz is to be deprecated for poor reasoning.>>
Me: You are certainly welcome to your opinion on the matter. I can say in all honesty that I would embrace your conclusion if James could provide actual evidence to the contrary (i.e. that Mary was not being worshipped with God the Father and Jesus Christ in the 7th century). BTW, your condemnation of my reasoning would also apply to a fair amount of Islamic scholars who agree with me on this matter.
Grace and peace,
David
David,
ReplyDeleteWill you admit that we have no contemporary evidence that the Collyridians (if they even existed, and if they were as Epiphanius asserted) worshiped Mary as the third person of the Trinity, whether or not they worshiped Mary by offering food sacrifices to her?
If you will, and I cannot see how you could reasonably avoid such an admission, then the issue is closed. White is vindicated: no one worshiped Mary as the third person of the Trinity.
-Turretinfan
Dear brothers and sisters in faith,
ReplyDeleteI just want to comment on the the recent dialogue between David Waltz and others...
He's a good friend and invited me to read this post...I'm a Shia Ismaili Muslim and just want to state a few thoughts...
1. I really don't know if its reasonable to ask David to prove to a greater extent then he has whether the Corrylidians or any other Worshippers of the Blessed Mother existed in the 7th century...there are many historical facts that are very difficult to prove for any given time period...and therefore the only recourse is to exercise reason...
2. To a certain extent the Quranic verse in itself can be considered proof of the fact that such belief may have existed in Arabia at the time...for why would this doctrine be mentioned...maybe it was meant to address only a small minority.
3. It is unlikely that Mohammad "misunderstood" the Christian Trinity doctrines of the day since, a. He is known in history to have met with in His early years a Nestorian Monk-Bahira.
b.Mecca's Priest/Preacher Warraqa was a cousin of his wife and who she took him to when he had his experience in Mt. Hira.
c.He received a Christian delegation from Najran in Medina and it is said that debates occurred for days.
d.Then Mohammad sent one of his followers to the Emperor of Byzantine Heraclius.
(BTW. You can look this up in Wikipedia if you like the sources are there.)
In some cases Mohammad was present in others He sent his followers to meet with them and in some cases they met in great numbers. Also note, often peace treaty's were signed and in some cases they accepted Islam after the meetings. So are we saying these Christian leaders didn't know their own doctrines when debating with Mohammed. This seems highly unlikely.
4. The last point I wish to make is whether or not this doctrine existed at the time of Mohammed is really not even relevent s I see it...for the Quran could just have been referring to a past doctrine to make a point...which occurs in other forms of scripture too.
Well thats all...I thank you for your consideration in reasoning through the above points with me. If there is anyway in which my reasoning is flawed please let me know so I can learn from you.
If I have offended anyone in anyway, that was certainly not my intent and do let me know if that is the case so I can retract any such comment and or apologize.
I hope we have opportunity to learn from each other in the future.
Your sister in faith,
Shahiroz
Shahiroz,
ReplyDeleteLet me take this opportunity to thank you for your contribution. Of course I am not offended - nothing you said was offensive.
I hope we can be a blessing to you in the future.
Peace,
Rhology
Hello again Turretinfan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for getting back to me.
Before I proceed to comment on your post, I want to be very careful here with my following comments, for do not want to slip into the error of ‘double-standards’; yet at the same time, I would like to try and convey to you (and anyone else reading this thread) that James’ argument has it basis in an assertion that is nothing more than ‘wishful thinking’.
I also want to point out that you are asking me to provide “contemporary evidence” for my position, but do not ask the same of James.
With these thoughts in mind, on to your post. You wrote:
>>Will you admit that we have no contemporary evidence that the Collyridians (if they even existed, and if they were as Epiphanius asserted) worshiped Mary as the third person of the Trinity, whether or not they worshiped Mary by offering food sacrifices to her?>>
Me: To my knowledge, there is no surviving written testimony from any Christian writer, or historian providing contemporary evidence in support of the continued existence for the Collyridians. However, as you already know, there is Islamic contemporary evidence.
>>If you will, and I cannot see how you could reasonably avoid such an admission, then the issue is closed. White is vindicated: no one worshiped Mary as the third person of the Trinity.>>
Me: I avoid it with my previous observation, i.e. that you hold me to a standard that you will not hold James to.
Plus, I am still left with an important decision once all the data concerning this issue is brought together and objectively examined: what makes more sense, that the Collyridians for no known and/or apparent reason vanish from the scene by the time of Muhammad, or that they continued to exist, teaching their heresy? Further, if not the Collyridians, from whence did Muhammad get the idea that Mary was worshipped by some Christians?
Looking forward to your response.
Grace and peace,
David
David:
ReplyDeleteRecall
Dr. White (test. Waltz): “there wasn’t ANYONE running around worshipping God, Jesus and Mary as a Trinity at that time”
DW (ipse): "Epiphanius and John of Damascus said that there were; so I conclude that this is a poor argument on the part of James."
1. I think we've established that you mischaracterized Epiphanus' testimony: the Collyridians (per Epi.) worshiped Mary, but there is no indication whatsoever from Epiphanius that they substituted Mary for the Holy Spirit.
2. I think we've established that John of Damascus was not stating his own knowledge. Anyway, he says nothing that Epiphanius did not say about the matter.
3. So, basically, Dr. White's claim remains unscathed. No one worshiped Mary as the third person of the Trinity.
4. Dr. White's point was that Mohammad did not understand the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Mistaking the Trinity for: the Father, the Son, and Mary was the sort of blunder someone only marginally familiar with Christianity might make, especially given aspects of veneration of Mary that had arisen in many places.
5. The fact there is not even a legendary sect that had a Marian substitution in the Trinity supports Dr. White's claim.
6. The claims of Shahiroz (if true) would suggest a mechanism by which Mohamed could get a wrong impression about Christianity. After all, the Nestorians probably suggested that the other Christians worshiped Mary as though she were the mother of God, and therefore part of the Trinity. As a teenager, the explanation for why Nestorians call Mary Christokos could have gotten mixed up in Mohamed's head, and resulted in his confused representation of Christianity.
It's all very interesting speculation - but the bottom line is that Mohamed was not only uninspired, he was wrong.
-Turretinfan
Hello Turretinfan,
ReplyDeleteDuring the weekend you posted:
>>Dr. White (test. Waltz): “there wasn’t ANYONE running around worshipping God, Jesus and Mary as a Trinity at that time”
DW (ipse): "Epiphanius and John of Damascus said that there were; so I conclude that this is a poor argument on the part of James."
1. I think we've established that you mischaracterized Epiphanus' testimony: the Collyridians (per Epi.) worshiped Mary, but there is no indication whatsoever from Epiphanius that they substituted Mary for the Holy Spirit.>>
Me: Have I “mischaracterized Epiphanus’ testimony” any more that James has of the Qur’an’s ? Let’s go back to the original quote I transcribed on my blog:
“…Muhammad did not understand what the doctrine of the Trinity was. I think there is pretty good evidence that he understood Christians to worship uh, Allah, Jesus and Mary. In fact there is a text in the Qur’an [5.116, 117] where, where, Allah asks Jesus did you ever command me to worship yourself and Mary as gods in derogation of Allah; and, uh, of course, Jesus you know, said, no, certainly I never commanded anything like that; well there wasn’t anyone running around worshipping God, Jesus and Mary as a Trinity at that time…” (The “Iron Sharpens Iron” radio program, 11-06-07 - http://sharpens.blogspot.com/search/label/James%20White - 38:00 min. ff.)
Question: Does the Qur’an say that Allah, Jesus and Mary were worshipped as a Trinity? Further, does the Qur’an substitute “Mary for the Holy Spirit”?
James also said:
“On Surah 5.116-120…Allah asking Jesus if he ever taught anyone to worship Himself and His Mother as gods in derogation of Allah; and that is obviously what Christians have never believed, if that is what Muhammad thought the Trinity to be, well then it is pretty obvious that Muhammad was not a prophet” (Dividing Line 02-07-08).
What does the Qur’an actually say? It asks if Jesus “ever taught anyone to worship Himself and His Mother as gods in derogation of Allah”. James then says: “there wasn’t anyone running around worshipping God, Jesus and Mary as a Trinity at that time”.
Trying to be a bit gracious, I took James to be primarily addressing the worship of Mary, not an explicit reference to the Trinity, hence I brought up the Collyridains.
However, and this importantly, if James was actually claiming the Qur’anic passage was somehow saying Allah, Jesus and Mary were being worshipped as a Trinity, then I would have to say that this is even a greater mistake, for the passage says no such thing.
Help me out here Turretinfan: which is it?
Let’s look at it another way, if James is merely referring to a possible (though certainly not explicit) lumping of Allah, Jesus and Mary together (a three of something), and not primarily addressing the worship of Mary, then I would say, that it is possible. And if this is what he was/is attempting to convey, then I must maintain that it is a mistake to then exclude any similar lumping together on the part of some Christians (including the Collyridians).
This happens to be the take of one Islamic scholar who wrote:
“The passage of the Qur'an which suggests that the Trinity consists of Father, Son, and the Virgin Mary is doubtless a criticism of some nominally Christian Arabs who held this view.” (Montgomery Watt, Muhammad At Mecca, p. 28.)
IMHO, I do not think it is too much to ask for some consistency.
So, perhaps what we all need is some clarification. To assist this clarification I shall ask a series of questions:
Does the Qur’an ever say that Allah, Jesus and Mary were worshipped as a Trinity?
Did some Christians worship Mary?
Did some Christians worship Mary and Jesus?
Did some Christians worship Mary, Jesus and God the Father?
Could the Qur’an have been addressing doctrinal/liturgical aberrations?
More later, the Lord willing.
Grace and peace,
David
David,
ReplyDeleteDW: "Have I “mischaracterized Epiphanus’ testimony” any more that James has of the Qur’an’s ?"
Yes, but it doesn't really matter. If your claim had been simply that Dr. White had mischaracterized the Koran, then we wouldn't even be discussing Epiphanius.
The problem here is that you tried to attack a specific claim of Dr. White's and you failed. Now you are trying to shift to a new claim: a claim that Dr. White misunderstood the Koran.
DW: "Does the Qur’an say that Allah, Jesus and Mary were worshipped as a Trinity?"
It does not use the word "trinity," which - as the Unitarians love to tell us - proves that the Koran was not talking about the Trinity. (eye rolls)
DW: "Further, does the Qur’an substitute “Mary for the Holy Spirit”?"
It does substitute Mary of the Holy Spirit in the list of the three "gods" that Christians supposedly worshiped.
Whether that is because Mohamed mistakenly thought that the Father and the Holy Spirit were two terms for the same "god" or because he thought that the Holy Spirit was another name for Mary, or whether he simply knew the Christians worshiped the Trinity, or what have you ... his description of Christian beliefs was inaccurate.
DW: "Trying to be a bit gracious, I took James to be primarily addressing the worship of Mary, not an explicit reference to the Trinity, hence I brought up the Collyridains."
Whatever your motives may have been, you clearly misunderstood Dr. White's point - a point that your own transcription of the radio program reemphasizes: Dr. White's criticism was on the failure of Mohamed to understand the doctrine of the Trinity.
DW: "However, and this importantly, if James was actually claiming the Qur’anic passage was somehow saying Allah, Jesus and Mary were being worshipped as a Trinity, then I would have to say that this is even a greater mistake, for the passage says no such thing."
That's only the case under the assumption that one has to use the word "trinity" to talk about the trinity. If you make that assumption, you're going to have some very great difficulty defending a number of doctrines.
Regardless of your motives, Dr. White's point - which was clear and explicit - was that Mohamed did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity.
One defense of the Koran would be to argue along the lines you quoted:
“The passage of the Qur'an which suggests that the Trinity consists of Father, Son, and the Virgin Mary is doubtless a criticism of some nominally Christian Arabs who held this view.” (Montgomery Watt, Muhammad At Mecca, p. 28.)
However, as Dr. White pointed out, there is simply no evidence of Christian Arabs that held that view. The only way to conclude such a thing is to assume, without evidence, that Mohamed did know what he was talking about.
But frankly, you've now muddied the waters, and it is not clear what positive assertions you want to make.
You make a plea to consistency, but your plea is not availing - because the situation is non-analogous.
a) The inference in Dr. White's case is that the "two other gods" is a reference to the trinity.
b) The inference that would have to be drawn from the other side, is that if Mary is worshiped, one of the persons of the Godhead would have to be displaced - or something to that effect.
The (a) theory is reasonable, and even grudgingly acknowledged by some Muslims.
Furthermore, surely you are aware that there is additional support for the (a) theory, namely: "They surely are Infidels who say, ‘God is the third of three:’ for there is no God but one God: and if they refrain not from what they say, a grievous chastisement shall light on such of them as are Infidels. Will they not, therefore, be turned unto God, and ask pardon of Him? since God is Forgiving, Merciful! The Messiah, Son of Mary, is but an Apostle; other Apostles have flourished before him; and his mother was a just person: they both ate food. Behold! how we make clear to them the signs! then behold how they turn aside!" (Sura 5:77-79).
But for the (b) theory, what do you have? A lone reference to a sect that may have worshiped Mary either alone or in addition to the Trinity, if they even existed, of which we cannot be sure.
The fact of the matter is that Mohamed's failure to understand Christian doctrine and meaningfully interact with it is evidenced by both suwar - the surah referenced by Dr. White, as well as that identified above.
-Turretinfan
Hello Turretinfan,
ReplyDeleteIf anything, are dialogue is certainly an interesting one…on to your last installment; you posted:
TF:>> DW: "Have I “mischaracterized Epiphanus’ testimony” any more that James has of the Qur’an’s ?"
Yes, but it doesn't really matter. If your claim had been simply that Dr. White had mischaracterized the Koran, then we wouldn't even be discussing Epiphanius.
The problem here is that you tried to attack a specific claim of Dr. White's and you failed. Now you are trying to shift to a new claim: a claim that Dr. White misunderstood the Koran.>>
Me: Are you purposefully ignoring the full context of James’ argument, or is it that you have not listened to all the dialogue?
Once again, you cannot have it both ways; I will not allow double standards. You completely avoided my questions of clarification; once again, does the Qur’an teach that Allah, Jesus and Mary were worshipped in a Trinity? James sure seems to believes that this is what Muhammad believed (unless you go opt for the possibility that that I fully explained in my last post).
TF:>> DW: "Does the Qur’an say that Allah, Jesus and Mary were worshipped as a Trinity?"
It does not use the word "trinity," which - as the Unitarians love to tell us - proves that the Koran was not talking about the Trinity. (eye rolls)>>
Me: And it does not use any language that even remotely resembles a construct of an embryonic Trinity.
TF:>> DW: "Further, does the Qur’an substitute “Mary for the Holy Spirit”?"
It does substitute Mary of the Holy Spirit in the list of the three "gods" that Christians supposedly worshiped.>>
Me: Really? How about some actually evidence for this? [BTW, the Qur’an does identify three persons as gods in one passage, and only one, and Mary is no where to be found in it.) And some food for thought; I can provide early Christian texts that substitute Jesus’ mother for the Holy Spirit, and texts that equate Mary and the Holy Spirit as Sophia. But then, the theology of God was completely set in stone by the time of Muhammad, and the Qur’an could not have been addressing heretical doctrines…(eyes roll)
TF:>> Whether that is because Mohamed mistakenly thought that the Father and the Holy Spirit were two terms for the same "god" or because he thought that the Holy Spirit was another name for Mary, or whether he simply knew the Christians worshiped the Trinity, or what have you ... his description of Christian beliefs was inaccurate.>>
Me: He (actually, the Qur’an) was not describing creedal, Catholic beliefs, he was describing heretical Christian beliefs, as so many Christian Islamic scholars affirm.
TF:>> DW: "Trying to be a bit gracious, I took James to be primarily addressing the worship of Mary, not an explicit reference to the Trinity, hence I brought up the Collyridains."
Whatever your motives may have been, you clearly misunderstood Dr. White's point - a point that your own transcription of the radio program reemphasizes: Dr. White's criticism was on the failure of Mohamed to understand the doctrine of the Trinity.>>
Me: Arrgh…what does it take to get through to you? My-oh-my, you completely ignore the probable fact that the Qur’an is addressing doctrinal deviations. You have NO proof at all that Muhammad misunderstood the “orthodox” doctrine of the Trinity…none.
TF:>>DW: "However, and this importantly, if James was actually claiming the Qur’anic passage was somehow saying Allah, Jesus and Mary were being worshipped as a Trinity, then I would have to say that this is even a greater mistake, for the passage says no such thing."
That's only the case under the assumption that one has to use the word "trinity" to talk about the trinity. If you make that assumption, you're going to have some very great difficulty defending a number of doctrines.
Regardless of your motives, Dr. White's point - which was clear and explicit - was that Mohamed did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity.>>
Me: I do not know if you were to query James if that his emphasis was that Muhammad did not understand the Trinity, or if was that Christians worshipped Mary…be that as it may, if it is the latter, he is wrong—dead wrong—there is no proof what so ever that Muhammad himself did not understand the creedal doctrine of the Trinity; in fact, there is a far amount of evidence that he did (my good friend Shahiroz is much better qualified on this matter than I, and I shall await her response).
TF:>> But frankly, you've now muddied the waters, and it is not clear what positive assertions you want to make.>>
Me: Let me spell it out for you…first, the assertion that “Muhammad did not understand the Trinity” rests on very dubious grounds; second, any denial that Mary was worshipped by some Christians with Jesus and God the Father, rests on unsubstantiated, empty claims.
TF:>> a) The inference in Dr. White's case is that the "two other gods" is a reference to the trinity.>>
Me: Right…”two other gods” equals three persons in one essence…(eyes roll)
Grace and peace,
David
Dear brothers and sisters in faith,
ReplyDeleteFirst I'd like to thank Rhology for his kind welcome. I hope you can be a blessing to me in the future too and that we can continue to learn from each other and edify our own convictions as a result.
POINT 1:
"Allah will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, `Make me and my mother idols beside Allah?' (Quran 5:116)
This verse does not state that the trinity consists of Mary Jesus and any third. I think this is more likely a response to the idol worship of the day. You see the Kaba was a shrine of worship at the time...it housed 360 idols. Variably each of these idols were considered God by its inhabitants.
Mohammad is said to have received a revealation through the Angel Gabriel which ordered him to destroy these icons...well, the interesting thing is, one of the icons, some say picture, some idol, some statue...in any case it was an idol of The Blessed Mother and the Lord Jesus Christ that was worshipped. (one ref. is A. Guillaume, p552)
This verse could be in reference to specifically that idol. According to the earliest source it was one of the only two icons that was spared destruction (the other being an icon of Abraham) but rejected to be worshipped as an idol. Later, sources state it was destroyed also...
POINT 2.
Re: Verses referring to Trinity : Correct the word is not used, it very general says to cease from saying three...so applies to any tritheism universally.
POINT 3.
[The Day when God assembles the Apostles] He will
say: O, Jesus, Son of Mary! Remember My grace bestowed
upon thee and thy Mother, when I strengthened thee with
the Spirit of Holiness, that thou shouldst speak to men
when in the cradle and when full grown. And I taught
thee the Book and the Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel.
Sura 5:131-132
The above verse is the only one i really find that mentions Mary, Jesus and Holy Ghost and it clearly says that Lord Jesus was strengthened with the Holy Spirit...period nothing more/less.
POINT 4.
Turrentinfan:
-These are not my "claims" they are established historical facts. You can get them readilly on Wikipedia.
-Re: Collyridian proof- I think Davids provided substantial proof...way more then exists for other unsubstantiated facts of history.
-I'm sorry but I get the sense of you wanting to argue for the sake of argument...thats not very scholarly or fair in my opinion.
-I gathered references and would spend time siting them for you but it is my opinion my time would be wasted.
-One thing you can't deny is the influence of Muhammads personality on the world stage just as I can't deny that of the Lord Jesus.
Anyway just thought I add again. I'm no scholar, just a student of faith and feel we can discuss matters of faith with mutual respect for each other and to learn from each other.
Thank you so much for allowing me to have a voice in your forum.
Your sister in faith,
Shahiroz
I must make a couple of corrections to my last post; I must admit, that I was typing as fast as I was reading TF’s last post, and did not edit my response before I hit the “post” button…
ReplyDeleteCorrections: “are” in my opening comment should read “our”; “if it were the latter” should read, “if it were the former”.
Thanks in advance for your latitude to the Beachbum…
Grace and peace,
David
Shahiroz,
ReplyDeleteSadly, because you do not follow the teachings of Isa, the son of Marium, you are not our sister in the faith.
But consider whether you should? For even Mohamed was unable to deny that Jesus was the Messiah.
And yet the great prophet Daniel prophesied that:
Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
And the apostles of Jesus all testified to Messiah's being cut off, but Mohamed denied it.
For Mohamed declared:
Surah 4:157-158
157And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. 158Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
But it is not only the prophet Daniel that Mohamed contradicts, but the prophecy of Isa himself:
Luke 9:20-22
20He [Isa] said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God. 21And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; 22Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.
Therefore, Shahiroz, harken to my warning and following the teachings of Isa, whom we call Jesus.
As He himself taught:
John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Furthermore, as the greatest of all the prophets before Jesus (Jesus said: "Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist") stated:
John 1:29 The next day John [the Baptist] seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
You see, Christ's sacrifice was necessary to take away sin. For the wages of sin is death, and God is the Most Holy One, who cannot tolerate sin.
Now then, there is one way of escape from the wrath of God against sin.
As it is written in the Psalms (Psalm 2):
Be wise now therefore, ... be instructed, ... Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Now is your chance. Seize the day. Follow Christ - be His disciple. Place your trust for eternal life in Him and Him alone, and you will be saved.
But continue on denying the resurrection and you will be lost.
For the apostle Paul truly wrote (Romans 10):
If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Therefore call upon the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and be saved.
You must know that you cannot be friends with Christians and be a devout Muslim. For does not Surah 5:51 prohibit this?
So then you must choose between David and Mohamed, between Daniel and Mohamed, between Paul and Mohamed and most importantly between the Messiah and Mohamed.
For truly it is written:
But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
And likewise Jesus said in another place:
John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
But Mohamed contradicted Jesus saying instead:
Surah 112:1-4
1Say: He, Allah, is One. 2Allah is He on Whom all depend. 3He begets not, nor is He begotten. 4And none is like Him.
I hope you will see this contradiction and follow the Messiah, for there is no other name under heaven whereby men can be saved.
-Turretinfan
David,
ReplyDeleteLet me cut to the chase:
DW: "first, the assertion that “Muhammad did not understand the Trinity” rests on very dubious grounds.
He seems twice in Surah 5 to identify the trinity as Allah, Jesus, and Mary.
[5.72] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.
[5.73] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.
[5.74] Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[5.75] The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.
and again
[5.116] And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.
That's the evidence. Of course, that evidence would be offset if Mohamed had ever given any indication of a correct view of the Trinity, but - of course - there is no such counter-evidence to weigh in Mohamed's favor. There is some evidence presented that Mohamed ought to have known Christian doctrine (by his interactions with a Nestorian monk etc.), but no evidence that Mohamed understood anything that Christians said about the Trinity.
DW: "second, any denial that Mary was worshipped by some Christians with Jesus and God the Father, rests on unsubstantiated, empty claims."
Actually, it relies on definitional claims of Christianity, as being monotheistic. Christians do not worship anyone but God.
That definitional matter only gets a person so far, though - because there are people who call themselves Christians who worship Mary, as one might expect the Nestorian monk to have informed Mohamed.
So then the question becomes whether there was anyone at all who worshiped Jesus, the Father, and Mary as the Trinity (as the "three" of Surah 5). Not as "three of four" but the Father as "the third of three."
Aside from that definitional matter above, a denial that anyone existed who fell into some category is necessarily and inherently going to be largely "unsubstantiated" because it is a negative claim.
The claim: "Jesus did not visit North America after the Resurrection and Ascension" similarly has no direct testimonial evidence: and yet it would be silly and pointless to insist that those who deny the fictions of Mormonism provide some positive evidence that Jesus wasn't in North America when Joseph Smith claims he was.
The answer to such criticism (both as to the presence of Jesus in North America and as to the presence of supposed FSM-trinitarians (for lack of a better term)) would be to set forth the evidence that Jesus was in that place or that there were FSM trinitarians.
But, of course, there is no such evidence. There is no evidence of anyone worshiping a trinity of the Father, the Son, and Mary at the time of Mohamed.
The appeal to the sect of Collyridians or to any of the other Philomarianite heretics, or even to the excesses of Marian honor of the Latin and Greek churches, falls short of supporting the alleged existence of FSM-trinitarians.
Any of those might explain why Mohamed might not have a proper understanding of the Trinity.
To put it another way, if some stranger came and hear about the concept of the Trinity and then attended a church named "Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception" - it is possible that the person could walk away confused about whether the "Queen of Heaven" was a goddess, and the third person of the Trinity.
The person would still be confused: for those who excessively honor Mary do not consider her the the third person of the trinity.
Indeed, there is apparently no reason to suppose (aside from Mohamed's confused claim) that there was ever any group of people that held to an FSM-trinitarian view, even among the Collyridians (assuming they existed) or Philomarianite sects.
I say apparently, because so far no such evidence has been presented.
You pose a counter-hypthesis: that Mohamed was "addressing a doctrinal deviation." That's not really the case in the sense you seem to mean. One has only to read Surah 5 in its entirety to see that. Mohamed is attempting to interact with Christianity and Judaism. Mohamed is not correct deviant forms of Christianity, but to correct Christianity itself.
He is presenting an apologetic against Christianity.
-Turretinfan
Hello Turretinfan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding to my last contribution in this thread; you posted:
TF:>> He seems twice in Surah 5 to identify the trinity as Allah, Jesus, and Mary.>>
Me: I am going to be brutally blunt here: you have an ‘ax-to-grind’ with Islam, and as such, I sincerely believe that your interpretation of the Qur’an is going to reflect a certain bias; with this in mind, I am inclined to accept the views of the following Christian Islamic scholars over yours:
Hasty interpretation, without judicious weighing of the evidence, persuaded Muslim exegetes that the Koran condemns the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Christian apologists fell into this same snare…But those texts condemned a “tritheism” that has nothing to do with the formulation of the dogma of the Trinity. The same is true of the Koran’s supposed condemnation of the Incarnation. It condemns not the doctrine of Chalcedon, but Monophysite and Nestorian formulations of the doctrine. (Giulio Basetti-Sani , The Koran in the Light of Christ: A Christian Interpretation of the Sacred Book of Islam, p. 136.)
It has often been thought that the Qur’an denies the Christian teaching of the Trinity, and commentators have taken its words to be a rejection of orthodox Christian doctrine. However, it seems more likely that it is heretical doctrines that are denied in the Qur’an, and orthodox Christians should agree with most of the statements. (Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, p. 133.)
The fourth-century Christian heresiologist Epipahius mentions the Andtideco-Marianites who worshipped Mary as a goddess. It is possibly they who are envisaged in the Qur’anic insinuation that Christians deifed both Jesus and this mother. (Neal Robinson, Christ In Islam and Christianity, p. 21.)
What Christians mean by “God in Christ” is not adoptionism. This, as earlier noted, was a misreading which early Christianity itself resisted and rejected. But is a way of thinking which, in rebuking Christians, the Qur’an itself has frequently in view. Its rejection of Christology is in fact a rejection of adoptionism which Christians also repudiate. (Kenneth Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 203.)
…there are considerable differences between the Qur’an and the New Testament. It should be noted, however, that so far as the actual statements of the Qur’an are concerned, the differences are not so great as they are sometimes supposed to be. Modern scholars, Christian and Muslim, tend to read later controversies into the wording of the Qur’an. Thus the rejection of the doctrine that ‘God is one of the three’ [5.73/7] is usually taken to be a denial of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; yet strictly speaking what is rejected is a doctrine of tritheism which orthodox Christianity also rejects. Similarly the rejection of the fatherhood of God the Father and the sonship of God the Son is strictly speaking a rejection of fatherhood and sonship in a physical sense; and this Christianity would also reject. (Watt and Bell, Introduction To The Qur’an, p. 158.)
Once again, all the above men are Christians, and they are also highly respected Islamic scholars—they understand the Qur’anic verses you cited the same way I do; yet I sincerely doubt you will give their scholarly reflections any serious consideration; hope I am wrong about this; but, as I just said, I doubt it…
With this in mind, ask yourself this question: from an apologetic standpoint, whose interpretation do you think Muslims are going to take more seriously?
TF:>> The appeal to the sect of Collyridians or to any of the other Philomarianite heretics, or even to the excesses of Marian honor of the Latin and Greek churches, falls short of supporting the alleged existence of FSM-trinitarians.
Any of those might explain why Mohamed might not have a proper understanding of the Trinity.>>
Me: Yes, it does (as I have already said) fall “short” of an explicit statement affirming the existence of “FSM-trinitarians”; but most certainly, not nearly as “short” as the as the absolute claim that they did not exist; generally speaking, ‘where there is smoke, there is a fire’.
TF:>> So then the question becomes whether there was anyone at all who worshiped Jesus, the Father, and Mary as the Trinity (as the "three" of Surah 5). Not as "three of four" but the Father as "the third of three."
Aside from that definitional matter above, a denial that anyone existed who fell into some category is necessarily and inherently going to be largely "unsubstantiated" because it is a negative claim.>>
Me: I need some further clarification on the above; in the first part of your post you stated that Muhammad did not “have a proper understanding of the Trinity” and the Qur’anic verses you cited are teaching a deviant form of the Trinity (not addressing a heresy as the scholars I cited believe)—armed with this notion you then jump to the conclusion that no one (I guess other than Muhammad) believed it! What am I missing in this equation?
Looking forward to your response.
Grace and peace,
David
David,
ReplyDeleteOh wow, scholars disagreeing over something. Remarkable. I feel totally rebutted. (rolls eyes again - I've been having to do that way too much in this discussion)
Although, note that:
1. Your first quote acknowledges that Muslim exegetes agree with the conclusion you oppose.
2. Your second quote acknowledges that agreement with the conclusion you oppose is widespread.
3. And, as to the third quotation, if you turn to the previous page, you'll find that the main explanation is precisely the one I already presented: that Mohamed confused a Nestorian misrepresentation of Christianity for Christianity. Likewise, if you turn to the subsequent page, you'll find the author explaining that the external evidence favors the Nestorian hypothesis, while asserting that the internal evidence favors another hypothesis.
In short, the fact that a handful of "scholars" have disagreed with a widespread interpretation of the Surah is hardly compelling evidence that Dr. White's (and my) view of the Surah is wrong.
DW: "Yes, it [the citation to the potentially legendary Collyridians] does ... fall “short” of an explicit statement affirming the existence of “FSM-trinitarians”; but most certainly, not nearly as “short” as the as the absolute claim that they did not exist; generally speaking, ‘where there is smoke, there is a fire’."
The smoke is explained via the Mohamed talking with a Nestorian monk mechanism.
The absolute claim that they did not exist (i.e. that Mohamed simply got confused) is so far supported by the complete absence of evidence that they did exist.
DW: "...in the first part of your post you stated that Muhammad did not “have a proper understanding of the Trinity” and the Qur’anic verses you cited are teaching a deviant form of the Trinity (not addressing a heresy as the scholars I cited believe)—armed with this notion you then jump to the conclusion that no one (I guess other than Muhammad) believed it! What am I missing in this equation?"
TF: I don't know what you're missing exactly. Let me lay it out for you, in case it is not clear.
1. Mohamed represented the Trinity as though it were FSM-trinitarianism.
2. Mohamed was trying to interact with Christianity, not with some minor sect.
3. Christianity does not teach FSM-trinitarianism.
4. Therefore, Mohamed erred.
That's the main conclusion.
5. Even if (2) is wrong, there is no external (external to the Koran/Hadith) reason to suppose that there was a sect of FSM-trinitarians.
6. Thus, even if (2) were wrong, we still believe that Mohamed erred.
-Turretinfan
I am going to be brutally blunt here: you have an ‘ax-to-grind’ with Islam, and as such, I sincerely believe that your interpretation of the Qur’an is going to reflect a certain bias;
ReplyDeleteDavid,
Why would TF have an ‘ax-to-grind’ with a false religion system? By your commentary I'm wondering if you are trying to find some peaceful ground with Islam by pretending the differences are really a "big misunderstanding". If I remember correctly, this is the same route you try to take with Trent by implying that Trent was condemning what they thought was Reformed teaching.
In all seriousness, are you a closet universalist?
Hey Turretinfan,
ReplyDeleteWait just one second while I find that ‘dead-horse’..ah there it is [grin]. You posted:
TF:>> Oh wow, scholars disagreeing over something. Remarkable. I feel totally rebutted. (rolls eyes again - I've been having to do that way too much in this discussion)>>
Me: So far, I do not remember that you have provided any Islamic scholar who disagrees with the scholars I cited. (Sorry, James does not count, his two non-accredited PhDs are not in Islamic studies.)
TF:>> 1. Your first quote acknowledges that Muslim exegetes agree with the conclusion you oppose.>>
Me: Be honest, do you really think Basetti-Sani was referring to ALL Muslim exegetes? For the record, not all Muslim exegetes have been influenced by: “Hasty interpretation, without judicious weighing of the evidence”, to which one could add polemics.
[BTW, even IF every single tafsir up to the time Basetti-Sani wrote his book did succumb negatively to the above influences, you should be the first to acknowledge that this means nothing, for no one between 125 AD and 1517 AD interpreted the Biblical doctrine of justification the way you do.]
TF:>> 2. Your second quote acknowledges that agreement with the conclusion you oppose is widespread.>>
Me: “It has often been thought” that baptismal regeneration is plainly taught in the Bible…should I now conclude that this makes it so?
TF:>> 3. And, as to the third quotation, if you turn to the previous page, you'll find that the main explanation is precisely the one I already presented: that Mohamed confused a Nestorian misrepresentation of Christianity for Christianity. Likewise, if you turn to the subsequent page, you'll find the author explaining that the external evidence favors the Nestorian hypothesis, while asserting that the internal evidence favors another hypothesis.>>
Me: Uhhh…keep reading: “The above explanation of the Qur’anic representation of Jesus exclusively in terms of Nestorian an Monophysite influence is attractive because it is a neat solution to the problem. It is, however, almost certainly an oversimplification. There are other movements which need to be taken into account. Monophysitism spawned a number of heresies of its own including Tritheism…”
TF:>> In short, the fact that a handful of "scholars" have disagreed with a widespread interpretation of the Surah is hardly compelling evidence that Dr. White's (and my) view of the Surah is wrong.>>
Me: That’s fine, just ignore them, they are a bunch of bums [eyes roll].
TF:>> The smoke is explained via the Mohamed talking with a Nestorian monk mechanism.
The absolute claim that they did not exist (i.e. that Mohamed simply got confused) is so far supported by the complete absence of evidence that they did exist.>>
Me: You are certainly welcome to your opinion; here is mine: Muhammad was not confused, you are; Muhammad was there at the time; you were not. And this more importantly: your opinion will not be taken seriously by Muslims.
As for your last 4 points toward the end of your post, all are pure speculation, and spring (IMHO) from your desire to portray Muhammad in the worst of light; and though ‘strawmen’ are easy to build, they are just as easy to cast away…good luck with your approach to those who are not members of your ‘choir’.
Grace and peace,
David
>>In all seriousness, are you a closet universalist?>>
ReplyDeleteNO
Bismillah. (In the name of God)
ReplyDeleteDear Turretinfan,
“Sadly, because you do not follow the teachings of Isa, the son of Marium, you are not our sister in the faith.”
>I wont refer to you as a "brother in faith" if you prefer I not. However whether or not I am a sister in faith is not for anyone to judge but the Lord/God Almighty.
“But consider whether you should? For even Mohamed was unable to deny that Jesus was the Messiah.”
>I never, in anything I said denied Jesus IS the Messiah. And yes, not a single Jew ever agreed-even though the word Messiah originates in Jewish tradition and they should be experts on His recognition- Instead, a tribesman in Arabia attests to this Christian doctrine-in a land where traditions were more Jewish than Christian as you yourself have implied and-he certainly didn’t learn this from the Jews.
“And yet the great prophet Daniel prophesied that:
Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”
>Let’s talk about the word “Messiah”
-by definition it means anointed.
-origin: Old Testament, Jewish Messianic Tradition.
-in Jewish Eschatology: many Messiahs, not only one. One of whom is a future King in the Davidic Line, who will rule an age of national independence for Israel.
-if you are true to the above Jewish Tradition, it is very difficult to establish Jesus Christ as “Messiah”
“And the apostles of Jesus all testified to Messiah's being cut off, but Mohamed denied it.”
>So there you have it. Your own words state the possibility of “Messiah’s”. Okay granted the suggestion exists that one such Messiah is cut off and even when it is cut off. But the interpretation you choose of Jesus being that Messiah is one of many possibilities– one that has no authority in the NT and one that does not deny the possibility of more Messiah’s. Further even your interpretation of the words “cutting off” referring to the death of this Messsiah is again only one possible interpretation. As for the Quran denying it, that is your reading of the verse derived from one sect of Muslims.
"For Mohamed declared:
Surah 4:157-158
157And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. 158Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.”
> First, to me as Muslim (which btw, by definition is simply someone who submits to the will of God) the Quranic text is in God’s first person and therefore the words of God as relayed by Muhammad.
> Second, this is scripture and has many interpretations as attested by my authority being the Quran-everyone is free to interpret. And various levels of interpretation hold true.
> Third, just as there are various sects in Christianity so also there are in Islam – and there are Muslims who believe that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. I am one such Muslim. And I will present other commentary on this verse for you…just for food for thought. And just to acknowledge, my quote for the source here is an article by David Waltz.
Here is interpretation from an Ismaili Dai/Philosopher on the Verse: btw. I’m an Ismaili Muslim:
Abu Ya’qub Ishaq al-Sigistani wrote:
Without doubt murder and crucifixion were inflicted upon his body. The pronoun (hu) since it appeared at the end of the words ‘murdered him’ ‘qataluhu’, or crucified him is a pointing letter to the spirit (huwiyya) of Jesus. So in this exists the evidence he who suffered death and crucifixion was not the spirit (huwiyya) of Jesus. (Kitab Ithbat al-Nubuwat, Al-Matb’aa al-Kathulikiah, Bierut, Lebanon, 1966, p. 185.)
And here is a comment from a Muslim Scholar:
Islamic scholar, Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub wrote:
The Quran...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 the messenger of God. The death of Christ is asserted several times and in various contexts, see for example S. 3:55; 5:117; 19:33. (“Towards an Islamic Christology II”, The Muslim World, Vol. LXX, April 1980, #2, p. 106.)
“But it is not only the prophet Daniel that Mohamed contradicts, but the prophecy of Isa himself:
Luke 9:20-22
20He [Isa] said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God. 21And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; 22Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.”
> Whether or not Jesus is “The Christ of God” is a matter of conviction that rests on whether or not you accept the NT claim, not even Jesus’s claim is without doubt undeniable, for that can also be interpreted. And the resurrection for a muslim is a matter of conviction based on which interpretation of the Quran one chooses to accept.
“Therefore, Shahiroz, harken to my warning and following the teachings of Isa, whom we call Jesus.”
> My dear, I only hold to one authority the Lord/God Almighty and His is the only warning I will harken to.
“As He himself taught:
John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”
>Absolutely agreed.
“Furthermore, as the greatest of all the prophets before Jesus (Jesus said: "Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist") stated:
John 1:29 The next day John [the Baptist] seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
You see, Christ's sacrifice was necessary to take away sin. For the wages of sin is death, and God is the Most Holy One, who cannot tolerate sin.”
>Again a matter of conviction, let me ask you a question just for food for thought. IF it was proven that Christ was NOT crucified, would you denounce Him as the Messiah? Does His Messiahship to you rest on the crucifixion. To me His entire life was more of a sacrifice then his death and in fact to me He is FOREVER alive...is He not for you?
“Now then, there is one way of escape from the wrath of God against sin.
As it is written in the Psalms (Psalm 2):
Be wise now therefore, ... be instructed, ... Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Now is your chance. Seize the day. Follow Christ - be His disciple. Place your trust for eternal life in Him and Him alone, and you will be saved.
But continue on denying the resurrection and you will be lost.
For the apostle Paul truly wrote (Romans 10):
If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Therefore call upon the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and be saved.”
> I already follow The Christ in my conviction, and my conviction only need be accepted in His eyes…no one elses. Maybe you therefore need to reconsider your treatment of the Quran with more humility lest you be depriving yourself of another communication from the Lord/God Almighty...just a suggestion.
“You must know that you cannot be friends with Christians and be a devout Muslim. For does not Surah 5:51 prohibit this?
So then you must choose between David and Mohamed, between Daniel and Mohamed, between Paul and Mohamed and most importantly between the Messiah and Mohamed.”
>5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
>As the Quran says “he amongst you that turns to them is of them”. I call myself “A sister of faith” because I consider myself to be "of them" a Jew, and a Xtian first, and a muslim is simply one who submits to the will of God.
“For truly it is written:
But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
And likewise Jesus said in another place:
John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.”
>I have no problem accepting Jesus as Christ, Son of man, or even Son of God. Our interpretations may vary, that I don’t know but I have conviction in the above.
“But Mohamed contradicted Jesus saying instead:
Surah 112:1-4
1Say: He, Allah, is One. 2Allah is He on Whom all depend. 3He begets not, nor is He begotten. 4And none is like Him.”
> The Quran here is addressing those who believe God is not unique. And surely you are a monotheist and believe He does not beget and is not begotten in the physical sense. For even the text of the begotten Son of God in the NT can be read in translation as “Unique Son of God.” All this reminds me of the muslim debater Ahmad Deedat, who so eloquently put it “God in the Bible has sons by the tons”.
“I hope you will see this contradiction and follow the Messiah, for there is no other name under heaven whereby men can be saved.”
> In my conviction I already do follow the Messiah. I however disagree that his is the only “name” under heaven men can be saved. God, you will agree is just and as such likely to provide a Messiah for everyone in everytime.
A common modern rabbinic interpretation is that there is a potential messiah in every generation. The Talmud which often uses stories to make a moral point (aggadah) tells the tale of a highly respected rabbi who found the Messiah at the gates of Rome and asked him "When will you finally come?" He was quite surprised when he was told, "Today." Overjoyed and full of anticipation, the man waited all day. The next day he returned, disappointed and puzzled, and asked, "You said messiah would come 'today' but he didn't come! What happened?" The Messiah replied, "Scripture says, 'Today, if you will but hearken to His voice.' " (Psalm 95:7)
Thank you for your time and consideration.
In Love of Christ Jesus and Muhammad,
Shahiroz
DW: "So far, I do not remember that you have provided any Islamic scholar who disagrees with the scholars I cited."
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't plan to provide any. My objective is obtainable without turning this into a cite-war.
DW: "Sorry, James does not count, his two non-accredited PhDs are not in Islamic studies."
And if he had a PhD in Islamic studies would you listen to him? If no, your comment demonstrates that you brought up the matter simply to criticize Dr. White.
DW: Be" honest, do you really think Basetti-Sani was referring to ALL Muslim exegetes? For the record, not all Muslim exegetes have been influenced by: “Hasty interpretation, without judicious weighing of the evidence”, to which one could add polemics."
TF: Be honest, did you really think that I meant that he was referring to ALL Muslim exegetes?
Your arguments are getting less and less cogent, David.
DW: "[BTW, even IF every single tafsir up to the time Basetti-Sani wrote his book did succumb negatively to the above influences, you should be the first to acknowledge that this means nothing, for no one between 125 AD and 1517 AD interpreted the Biblical doctrine of justification the way you do.]"
I'm not interested in clearing up your idiocy regarding church history at this time.
DW:"“It has often been thought” that baptismal regeneration is plainly taught in the Bible…should I now conclude that this makes it so?"
TF: Nope.
DW: "Uhhh…keep reading: [see DW's quotation above]"
TF: oh yes - and the other influences also include Jews as well. He thinks blaming it entirely on the Nestorians is to simplistic an explanation.
DW: "That’s fine, just ignore them, they are a bunch of bums [eyes roll]."
TF: If the idea of a handful of scholars disagreeing is a rebuttal, you're going to have trouble staying Catholic.
DW: "You are certainly welcome to your opinion;"
Okey-dokey.
DW: "here is mine: Muhammad was not confused, you are;"
Evidence? None.
Opinion? You've got plenty, but you cannot back it up.
DW: "Muhammad was there at the time; you were not."
He existed, and I was not around then. Of course, neither were you. Existing is not the least help in preventing confusion.
DW: "And this more importantly: your opinion will not be taken seriously by Muslims."
I'll let time tell on that one.
DW: "As for your last 4 points toward the end of your post, all are pure speculation, and spring (IMHO) from your desire to portray Muhammad in the worst of light; and though ‘strawmen’ are easy to build, they are just as easy to cast away…good luck with your approach to those who are not members of your ‘choir’."
Charming rhetoric - but not an argument or rebuttal. The antipathy that is a driving force in this discussion, though, is actually your antipathy for Dr. White.
"Grace and peace,"
What irony. I assume this discussion is over, since you have no answers to the issues as clarified.
-Turretinfan
Shahiroz,
ReplyDeleteI started to respond line-by-line to your post. I stopped. A few things need clarification:
1. Truth is absolute.
2. The Koran denies Christ's divinity.
3. Christ affirmed his own divinity.
Thus, one must choose whether to follow Christ or to follow Mohamed. I do not know your heart, and I do not your thoughts: I know only your words.
If you do not repent of your sins, and trust in Christ alone for salvation, you will perish for your sins, for there is no other way to be saved.
I am not original. That is not my warning. It is Christ who preached: Repent and Believe. It is his gospel that I convey to you, as a warning that may save you, if you will trust it.
In reading your response, I wish to make two important comments:
1. "Messiah's" is simply the possessive form of Messiah. The Bible speaks of one coming Messiah in the Old Testament, and Christ is the one Messiah in the New Testament.
2. My reason for believing is the work of the Holy Spirit in my heart, convincing me of the truth of the gospel. I will pray for you that he will work in yours as well, if he has not already begun to do so. You can pray as well for that, for the Father is merciful and compassionate, and it may be that He will grant your request. It is not the reverse, in which I believe in God somehow because of the crucifixion.
3. The Word of God warned us that there would come false prophets. We are not surprised that these prophecies have come true. We judge the Koran by its contents. It is contrary to the Scriptures, and consequently it is not what it claims to be.
-Turretinfan
Yo Turretinfan,
ReplyDeleteYou posted:
TF:>> "Grace and peace,"
What irony. I assume this discussion is over, since you have no answers to the issues as clarified.>>
Me: So you do not think I can ask for God’s grace and peace to be upon you? Or, is it that you do not need God’s grace and peace?
I honestly think the “discussion” between us was over before you made your first response. I cannot help but think that your mind is stone-cold set, and that no amount of evidence will change it. Hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
TF:>> No, I don't plan to provide any. My objective is obtainable without turning this into a cite-war.>>
Me: I see…your objective being that Muhammad, and Muhammad alone believed that Christian orthodoxy consisted of the worship of Allah, Jesus and Mary; that NO ONE ELSE believed such a thing; that he got this teaching from via a distortion of his dialogue with Bahira; and that anyone who does not believe this is deluded…got it. (Scottie, please beam me up!)
TF:>> And if he had a PhD in Islamic studies would you listen to him? If no, your comment demonstrates that you brought up the matter simply to criticize Dr. White.>>
Me: If James had an accredited PhD in Islamic studies I would certainly give more import to his arguments; and for the record, I do “listen” to James, probably not as much as he thinks, but on the topics that he writes and speaks on that interest me (e.g. Catholicism, Islam, Mormons, and JWs), I do “listen”. As for your comment that I “brought up the matter simply to criticize Dr. White”, you are, quite simply, dead wrong.
TF:>> TF: Be honest, did you really think that I meant that he was referring to ALL Muslim exegetes?>>
Me: Yes, why else would you have mentioned it…
TF:>> Your arguments are getting less and less cogent, David.>>
Me: What is that old saying about the pot and the kettle…
TF:>> Evidence? None.
Opinion? You've got plenty, but you cannot back it up>>
Me: I have given plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge the possible conclusion that I (and others) have drawn from it.
TF:>> He existed, and I was not around then. Of course, neither were you. Existing is not the least help in preventing confusion.>>
Me: ???
TF:>> Charming rhetoric - but not an argument or rebuttal. The antipathy that is a driving force in this discussion, though, is actually your antipathy for Dr. White.>>
Me: Was just trying to match yours; but I can see I am but a mere amateur in comparison.
But for the record:
>>1. Mohamed represented the Trinity as though it were FSM-trinitarianism.>>
Me: Muhammad was not discussing the Trinity; he was discussing deviant, tritheistic beliefs, and the terminology of the Qur’an substantiates this.
>>2. Mohamed was trying to interact with Christianity, not with some minor sect.>>
Me: Which form of Christianity are you referring to? Do you know FOR SURE that Muhammad did not have a minor sect in mind? Do you know which Christian sect was the largest in Arabia at the time of Muhammad? Do you know which Christian sect was the most vocal in the area of Mecca and Medina?
>>3. Christianity does not teach FSM-trinitarianism.>>
Me: Once again, which Christian sect are you referring to?
>>4. Therefore, Mohamed erred.>>
Me: You have not even remotely proven point #1 and point #2; hence, not need to comment on #4.
May God’s Holy Spirit be at work on your heart, mind, and soul.
David
>>In all seriousness, are you a closet universalist?>>
ReplyDeleteNO
Out of the closet universalist?
Bismillah-In the name of God.
ReplyDeleteDear Turretinfan,
“I started to respond line-by-line to your post. I stopped. A few things need clarification:”
>That’s the second time you’ve ignored my points and gone of into some tangent and brought up new ones. Nonetheless I will respond to this post directly as I have your previous posts.
“1. Truth is absolute.”
>Absolutely-there is only one truth.
“2. The Koran denies Christ's divinity.”
>That’s quite the claim coming from someone who does not hold the Quran in authority. Then you must be able to demonstrate this for me. What if I can demonstrate that it does not deny Christ's divinity as I demonstrated previous that it does not deny the crucifion and ressurrection?
"3. Christ affirmed his own divinity."
> How does Christ affirming His own divinity make Him divine? By that reasoning, Muhammad affirming His own authority makes Him worthy of the same acceptance. Come on!!!
>Further, I don’t think you can demonstrate this beyond a shadow of doubt in fact the contrary can be shown easier. Jesus denies equality with God or possessing any of God’s divine attributes (see for example John 8: 28-29, 14: 10, 24. 28. 31. Mk. 13: 32, 10: 18). In a serious matter like belief in God, implicit evidence or an allegorical statement is far from adequate. Nor is it reasonable to claim that Jesus kept that serious matter as a guarded secret and hence caused confusion to multitudes for centuries. No miracle attributed to Jesus signifies that he was God-Incarnate. There is no major miracle attributed to Jesus, which does not have some parallel in the Bible. Including resurrection (see for example Heb, 7: 3, I kings 17: 22, 20: 35-36, II Kings 4: 7, 34, 44, 6: 17, 20, 13: 22, Ezk 37: 1-14). How revealing is Jesus’ statement, “I can do nothing on my own authority” (John 5: 30).”
“Thus, one must choose whether to follow Christ or to follow Mohamed. I do not know your heart, and I do not your thoughts: I know only your words.”
>Nor do I know yours and quite honestly I don’t understand the reasoning of your words either -whether its in response to my posts or Davids for that matter.
“If you do not repent of your sins, and trust in Christ alone for salvation, you will perish for your sins, for there is no other way to be saved.
I am not original. That is not my warning. It is Christ who preached: Repent and Believe. It is his gospel that I convey to you, as a warning that may save you, if you will trust it."
> Again this is a circular argument. What Christ says about Himself does not constitute a proof it simply constitutes a claim and there have been many claimants.
"In reading your response, I wish to make two important comments:
1. "Messiah's" is simply the possessive form of Messiah. The Bible speaks of one coming Messiah in the Old Testament, and Christ is the one Messiah in the New Testament."
> The word for “Messiah comes from the Hebrew root word, “Msh” which to “touch lightly” or “rub with oil” this word is applied to Priests (Exodus 28:41), Kings (I Kings 19:16), and Prophets (I Samuel 12:5) who were chosen by God to accomplish specific tasks. King Cyrus of Persia is addressed as “Anointed”.
-Thus says the Lord to His anointed, To Cyrus, whose right hand I have held-To subdue nations before him And loose the armor of kings, To open before him the double doors, So that the gates will not be shut” Isaiah 45:1
Cyrus chosen by God subdues nations, and he would later allow the exiles from Babylon to return home and rebuild the Temple.
-David calls Saul “the Lord’s anointed” (I Samuel 24:6). Therefore, in one sense there are many anointed of the Lord, or messiahs, people specifically chosen by God, to accomplish specific tasks.
>The Bible describes many attributes of “Messiah” and these descriptions however can be read to refer to one or more messiah. For the descriptions don't all fit Jesus's personality and thats why the Christians have to erect the doctrine of the 2nd coming. I’m sure you are familiar with the verses so I wont waste my time quoting.
“2. My reason for believing is the work of the Holy Spirit in my heart, convincing me of the truth of the gospel. I will pray for you that he will work in yours as well, if he has not already begun to do so. You can pray as well for that, for the Father is merciful and compassionate, and it may be that He will grant your request. It is not the reverse, in which I believe in God somehow because of the crucifixion.”
>If Christianity is a matter of faith only…then so can I say Islam is and I can say I will also pray for you that you also receive God’s next revealation to mankind and recognize Muhammad as His Prophet. And you can pray for that too so the Holy Spirit blesses your heart with the Truth speedily. Come on!
>The just and merciful God saves everyone…some verses cited.
-When Adam and Eve sinned, God freely offered His redemption to them—all people then living and the ancestors of everyone (Genesis 3:8ff). In contrast to Christianity, all major human religions began later, as much as thousands of years later.
-God promised to and through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to bless all peoples or nations on earth (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14 cf. Matthew 1:1–17; 28:19).
-God intended that His Temple provide for not only Jews but also Gentiles to enter His redemptive covenant (I Kings 8:41-43; Isaiah 56:1–8 cf. Mark 11:17).
-Isaiah, the greatest writing prophet, revealed that God’s salvation reaches out to all peoples (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:9-12; 42:6-12; 45:22; 49:6; 52:10,15; 55:5; 56:1-8; 59:19; 60:2f; 66:18-23).
-God performed miracles for His people as a testimony to all peoples (Joshua 4:23f; II Kings 19:19; Isaiah 37:20, 36).
“3. The Word of God warned us that there would come false prophets. We are not surprised that these prophecies have come true. We judge the Koran by its contents. It is contrary to the Scriptures, and consequently it is not what it claims to be.”
> False prophets can arise however so can true prophets. The Quran is not contrary to scripture-the interpretation of the Quran you accept leads you to think that it is contrary.
-Matthew 10:41
He who receives and welcomes and accepts a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward, and he who receives and welcomes and accepts a righteous man because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
>The meaning of navi Arabic Nabi (prophet) is in Deuteronomy 18:18, where God said, "I will put my words in his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him." Thus, the navi is thought to be the "mouth" of God. For Christians the authenticity of a prophet is judged as Jesus said that one should judge a prophet, by his fruits (Gospel of Matthew 7) and by checking whether his predictions come true.
>So why I ask you would you not consider Muhammad as a true prophet? Your allegations against Muhammad are completely unsubstantiated and your conviction to Jesus is based on faith-for only accepting the claim of the NT can give you that interpretation of Jesus Christ being the Messiah-absolutely nothing else.
>FROM A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES:
(Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.)
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
>Christianity takes its authority from Judaism. The Judaic view of God is “unity”. I could easily say that since Christianity rejects unity and accepts trinity the teacher of that doctrine must be a false prophet…Come on!!!
Thank you for your time.
In the Love of Jesus and Muhammad,
Shahiroz
Shahiroz,
ReplyDeleteI thank you for your time and interaction. You may not want to answer these, but I'll ask them anyway b/c I think they're important; far more important than the discussion was before, in fact.
What if I can demonstrate that it does not deny Christ's divinity as I demonstrated previous that it does not deny the crucifion and ressurrection?
If Christ is divine, then Islam is false, is it not? Or do you claim that Islam can incorporate a polytheistic doctrine of God and survive? Or a Trinitarian doctrine of God?
How does Christ affirming His own divinity make Him divine? ...What Christ says about Himself does not constitute a proof it simply constitutes a claim and there have been many claimants.
This would seem to go directly against what you said above.
More to the point, I thought you were a Muslim; do you not believe that Isa speaks the truth as a prophet of Allah? How then could you say that Isa might have been making a false claim, lying?
Muhammad affirming His own authority makes Him worthy of the same acceptance
You realise that we do not accept Muhammad's authority, right? But you, I thought, accept Isa's authority and truthfulness. Why not now?
thats why the Christians have to erect the doctrine of the 2nd coming
Are you unaware of the numerous New Testament references to the 2nd Coming, even from Jesus' own lips and that of angels?
In all seriousness, sometimes you speak like a Muslim and sometimes like a naturalist. I must confess that it is difficult to follow arguments that shift between radically different worldviews as yours have been.
the interpretation of the Quran you accept leads you to think that it is contrary.
I guess this gets back to your saying that you can demonstrate that the Quran teaches Christ's divinity. But I very much doubt that this is true.
I could easily say that since Christianity rejects unity and accepts trinity the teacher of that doctrine must be a false prophet
And I would say you possibly had a point, except the teacher was God in flesh, Jesus Christ.
Peace,
Rhology
DW: So you do not think I can ask for God’s grace and peace to be upon you? Or, is it that you do not need God’s grace and peace?
ReplyDeleteTF: No, the irony is that your post was combative and uncharitable.
DW: I honestly think the “discussion” between us was over before you made your first response. I cannot help but think that your mind is stone-cold set, and that no amount of evidence will change it. Hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
TF: What I've seen is that you have zero evidence of any FSM-trinitarians. I entered this conversation specifically to address your criticism of Dr. White's comment that stated that there were no FSM-trinitarians. If you had presented evidence, I would have dealt with it.
DW: I have given plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge the possible conclusion that I (and others) have drawn from it.
TF: "Plenty of evidence" bah. It turns out your single piece of evidence that is supposedly relevant to Dr. White's claim is an unverified account in Epiphanius (born in Judea, and later became bishop in Cyprus) of a sect that supposedly lived in Arabia several centuries before Mohamed. Oh, and even that distantly removed (in time) sect is only relevant because of their worship of Mary - not because they were FSM-trinitarians. In other words, what you consider "plenty of evidence," I think most people would consider the most tenuous of straws.
Furthermore, I'm guessing that's all you have. We checked to see if John of Damscus was a verifying witness, but it turns out he just accepted Epiphanius list (in toto) and added items (with respect to other sects) to the list.
DW: If James had an accredited PhD in Islamic studies I would certainly give more import to his arguments; ... As for your comment that I “brought up the matter simply to criticize Dr. White”, you are, quite simply, dead wrong.
TF: Why are you so hung up on accreditation? Do you imagine that if it is not accredited it means the person didn't study? What if Dr. White had a PhD in Islamic Studies, but it wasn't accredited? Would you feel yourself in a position to blow off his scholastic achievement?
TF:>> Be honest, did you really think that I meant that he was referring to ALL Muslim exegetes?>>
Me: Yes, why else would you have mentioned it…
TF: If that's really what you thought, you have serious reading comprehension problems.
TF:>> He existed, and I was not around then. Of course, neither were you. Existing is not the least help in preventing confusion.>>
DW: ???
TF: Your argument was that Mohamed existed. That doesn't help you, because people who exist make mistakes: they get confused. It's not as though only fictional people can be confused.
>>1. Mohamed represented the Trinity as though it were FSM-trinitarianism.>>
DW: Muhammad was not discussing the Trinity; he was discussing deviant, tritheistic beliefs, and the terminology of the Qur’an substantiates this.
TF: The major problem with that theory is that there is no external reason to suppose that there were FSM-trinitarians running around. The minor problem with that theory is that Surah 5 is - to a large extent - addressing the Jews and the Christians. See, for example, verses 18-19.
>>2. Mohamed was trying to interact with Christianity, not with some minor sect.>>
DW: Which form of Christianity are you referring to?
In general and as contemporary to him - not a specific form. Notice how he deals with Jews as a group and Christians as a group.
DW: Do you know FOR SURE that Muhammad did not have a minor sect in mind?
TF: Why on earth would "FOR SURE" be the standard? They convict criminals on a lower standard than that. But there is no internal reason to doubt that Mohamed was trying to deal with contemporary Christianity generally.
DW: Do you know which Christian sect was the largest in Arabia at the time of Muhammad? Do you know which Christian sect was the most vocal in the area of Mecca and Medina?
TF: Do you consider the Nestorians and Monophysites Christian sects?
>>3. Christianity does not teach FSM-trinitarianism.>>
DW: Once again, which Christian sect are you referring to?
TF: In this case, I could just say, "all of them." There has never (to my knowledge) been a sect that held to FSM-trinitarianism. More importantly, though, by definition Christianity is opposed to FSM-trinitarianism.
>>4. Therefore, Mohamed erred.>>
DW: You have not even remotely proven point #1 and point #2; hence, not need to comment on #4.
TF: Actually, if you agreed with point (4), there would really be no need for your comments on (1) and (2).
-Turretinfan
S: That’s the second time you’ve ignored my points and gone of into some tangent and brought up new ones. Nonetheless I will respond to this post directly as I have your previous posts.
ReplyDeleteTF: With respect, most of your "points" are off-topic. I'm not going to get sidetracked with them.
"“2. The Koran denies Christ's divinity.”
>That’s quite the claim coming from someone who does not hold the Quran in authority. Then you must be able to demonstrate this for me. What if I can demonstrate that it does not deny Christ's divinity as I demonstrated previous that it does not deny the crucifion and ressurrection?"
Not holding something in authority does not prevent someone from understanding what it means. I am not going to debate your esoteric interpretation of the Koran, though.
""3. Christ affirmed his own divinity."
> How does Christ affirming His own divinity make Him divine? By that reasoning, Muhammad affirming His own authority makes Him worthy of the same acceptance. Come on!!!"
You missed the point. The point is that you cannot follow Christ and call Christ a blasphemer, which is what he would be if his claim of divinity were false.
""I am not original. That is not my warning. It is Christ who preached: Repent and Believe. It is his gospel that I convey to you, as a warning that may save you, if you will trust it."
> Again this is a circular argument. What Christ says about Himself does not constitute a proof it simply constitutes a claim and there have been many claimants."
Again, you miss my point. You commented that you would not listen to a warning from me, but only from God. Christ is God - this is His warning to you: heed it.
">If Christianity is a matter of faith only…then so can I say Islam is and I can say I will also pray for you that you also receive God’s next revealation to mankind and recognize Muhammad as His Prophet. And you can pray for that too so the Holy Spirit blesses your heart with the Truth speedily. Come on!"
Again, you miss the point. The point is to point you to the way of truth. You can ignore that way, or make false mirror claims of your own, but that does not change the truth.
">The just and merciful God saves everyone…some verses cited."
Universalism is a bankrupt theology. If it is true, we do not need it, and if it is false, we do not want it. Christ taught that the punishment of the wicked will be endless. If you refuse to believe His words, you will eventually receive the proof that I cannot now provide to you.
"“3. The Word of God warned us that there would come false prophets. We are not surprised that these prophecies have come true. We judge the Koran by its contents. It is contrary to the Scriptures, and consequently it is not what it claims to be.”
> False prophets can arise however so can true prophets. The Quran is not contrary to scripture-the interpretation of the Quran you accept leads you to think that it is contrary."
If you make the Koran meaningless by applying a sufficiently esoteric exegetical method to it, you can make it harmonious with atheism. That's not understanding the document on its own terms, though.
">So why I ask you would you not consider Muhammad as a true prophet?"
Because he did not worship the Lord Jesus Christ, because he openly blasphemed God by denying the Son of God, and because he attempted to impose dietary laws.
"Your allegations against Muhammad are completely unsubstantiated..."
That's ludicruous. I substantiated my allegations with citations to the Koran. Your only response appears to be to esoteric interpretations to avoid the literal sense of the words.
"and your conviction to Jesus is based on faith"
I gladly admit the truth of this charge.
"-for only accepting the claim of the NT can give you that interpretation of Jesus Christ being the Messiah-absolutely nothing else. "
I'm not sure what you meant here. The NT identifies Jesus Christ as the Messiah. It does so clearly and unequivocally.
"In the Love of Jesus and Muhammad, Shahiroz"
If you loved Jesus, you would do the things Jesus commanded: namely to repent of your sins and trust in Him for salvation.
-Turretinfan
Hello TF,
ReplyDeleteI am going to take it a bit slower today, and try to focus on one or two points at a time. You posted:
>>TF: No, the irony is that your post was combative and uncharitable.>>
Me: I disagree, I was merely responding in kind; why this would be construed as “combative and uncharitable” escapes me.
IMHO, comments like the following fit into the categories you suggested much better:
TF:>> I'm not interested in clearing up your idiocy regarding church history at this time.>>
Me: “Idiocy” ??? Nice…
For the record, my view of Church history is an informed one, not one based on wishful thinking. When you get the time, you can start with HERE.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello again TF,
ReplyDeleteStill taking it slow…
You also wrote:
TF:>> TF: What I've seen is that you have zero evidence of any FSM-trinitarians. I entered this conversation specifically to address your criticism of Dr. White's comment that stated that there were no FSM-trinitarians. If you had presented evidence, I would have dealt with it.>>
Me: False, ww have the testimony of the Qur’an; even if it is merely a human document with no inspiration from God, it is evidence. Starting with this primary evidence, an objective investigator will search for clues as to why FSM tritheism is mentioned, and such a search reveals that the all elements of FSM tritheism are attested to in extant documents, which include: the worship of Mary as a goddess; the Father, Son, and Mary as the “three powers” of the universe; Mary as Sophia; Sophia as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit as the Mother.
The questions everyone should ask are: did the above elements survive in some form to the beginning of the 7th century? It there any evidence that they did not?
Given what we know about the socio/political and religious environment of Arabia between the 2nd and early 7th centuries the more logical conclusion suggests that they probably did survive; this when coupled with the evidence from the Qur’an suggests that James’ conclusion was wrong.
I shall make this argument even simpler: E1 + E2 +E3 = C1 (E being evidence & C conclusion). What you demand is an E4 instead of C1; yet without an E4 you then accept C2 (with no Es to lead up to your C2), which IMHO is a much less logical conclusion than C1.
Off for a snack; more later the Lord willing.
Grace and peace,
David
TF:>> TF: What I've seen is that you have zero evidence of any FSM-trinitarians. I entered this conversation specifically to address your criticism of Dr. White's comment that stated that there were no FSM-trinitarians. If you had presented evidence, I would have dealt with it.>>
ReplyDeleteDW: False, we have the testimony of the Qur’an ...
TF: Yes, of course, I meant "other than the Koran." If the Koran did not make the assertions it did, we wouldn't be placing it on trial.
DW: even if it is merely a human document with no inspiration from God, it is evidence.
TF: It is not evidence in support of its own claim. But, yes - it is "evidence" in some sense of FSM-trinitarians.
DW: Starting with this primary evidence, an objective investigator will search for clues as to why FSM tritheism is mentioned,
TF: Actually, the starting place is to read the Surah and try to understand it on its own terms. What is it communicating? Who are these FSM-trinitarians according to Mohamed? If the answer we find is that FSM-trinitarianism is a criticism directed at Christians generally, and that is the most straightforward reading of the Surah, then the clue-investigation you mention is for an explanation as to why Mohamed was mistaken. If, instead, one divines from reading the Koran that Mohamed is referring only to a regional/local sect of Christianity, then one might search for clues as to whether the sect existed. You seem to have so concluded, and searched.
DW: and such a search reveals that the all elements of FSM tritheism are attested to in extant documents,
TF: Finding elements is not like finding pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, unless the edges line up. They don't here.
DW: which include: the worship of Mary as a goddess;
TF: The edges don't line up here, because there is no indication about Mary's relation to the Trinity in those rare groups who explicitly worshiped Mary as a goddess, and there was a pretty clear distinction of Mary from the Trinity among those groups (especially the iconophiles) that treated Mary de facto as though she were a goddess.
DW: the Father, Son, and Mary as the “three powers” of the universe;
TF: This evidence, if it exists, hasn't been presented. It would be interesting to see it presented, so that we could see whether the "three powers" had anything to do with divinity. If so, it would sound like the best evidence so far.
DW: Mary as Sophia;
TF: I don't recall any of this before the late part of the medieval period. Of course, this connects back to Rhology's wish come true, but I haven't seen the evidence that such an error was ancient. On the other hand -- what's the history of Hagia Sophia?
DW: Sophia as the Holy Spirit;
TF: More probably we should reverse the order there, and say: the Holy Spirit as Sophia. I've seen this in a few Gnostic writings, but nothing in any ancient Christian writings (which is not to say that one might not be able to find something similar in a Christian writer). Of course, since you seem inclusivist, you might deem Gnostics Christians. The edges don't line up, though, because Gnostics would not have typically confused the Holy Spirit and Mary.
Likewise, since the Holy Spirit is the source of Wisdom (sophia), one might expect to see some sort of equation even in Christian writings between the Holy Spirit as Wisdom personified.
DW: and the Holy Spirit as the Mother.
TF: Presumably you mean, "as a mother." Again, I've seen hints of that in Gnostic writings, and I wouldn't be surprised to find something similar in a few ancient Christian writings. But the edges don't line up: none of them seem to suggest that the blessed Virgin was the Holy Ghost.
DW: "The questions everyone should ask are: did the above elements survive in some form to the beginning of the 7th century?"
TF: The first question is whether anyone combind those elements. Without combination, those elements fall short of what is needed. After that, then the question is whether that combination survived from whatever date it can be established, until the beginning of the 7th century.
DW: "It there any evidence that they did not?"
TF: There's indirect evidence. There's no account of the destruction of the Collyridians. Nevertheless, if they were a sect of women who idolized a perpetual virgin, one can imagine that the sect would be sterile, and die out after a few generations.
DW: "Given what we know about the socio/political and religious environment of Arabia between the 2nd and early 7th centuries ..."
TF: This sword has two edges: if we know a lot, then the absence of records of relevant FSM-trinitarians becomes more significant; if we know but little, we cannot derive many conclusions from our knowledge.
DW: "... the more logical conclusion suggests that they probably did survive;"
TF: It seems more like desparate optimism that would suggest such a conclusion than logic.
DW: "this when coupled with the evidence from the Qur’an suggests that James’ conclusion was wrong."
TF: Given the extreme paucity of evidence for the elements themselves, and the complete absence of evidence of their combination, and keeping in mind that the "logical conclusion" was acutally a desparately optimistic conclusion, when we evaluate the Koran's claim we find virtually nothing to support it.
DW: I shall make this argument even simpler: E1 + E2 +E3 = C1 (E being evidence & C conclusion).
TF: Evidence plus evidence equals conclusion? This does not make much sense in terms of the way arguments are constructed. A conclusion is not simply a summation of evidence.
DW: What you demand is an E4 instead of C1;
TF: I think its fair to ask you to back up your apparent claim that Mohamed was correct. So far, the evidence presented simply falls short.
There are two conclusions involved.
The first conclusion is that Mohamed was attempting to interact with a particular sect of Christianity, rather than Christianity generally. That conclusion seems weak based on the internal evidence from Surah 5.
The second conclusion is whether there was a sect of people who held to FSM-trinitarianism.
DW: yet without an E4 you then accept C2 (with no Es to lead up to your C2), which IMHO is a much less logical conclusion than C1.
TF: If we don't find any collaborative evidence of a sect being in existence, and we don't see any particular reason to trust the single source of the sect's existence, our best guess is that it didn't exist. Is that somehow illogical? It would be lovely if we had some testimonial from a contemporary Christian Arabian explicitly stating that no FSM-trinitarian sects exist. It's hardly fair to expect us to produce such evidence, though.
-Turretinfan
Bismillah-In the Name of God
ReplyDeleteDear Rhology,
“I thank you for your time and interaction. You may not want to answer these, but I'll ask them anyway b/c I think they're important; far more important than the discussion was before, in fact.”
S: Thank you too, Rhology. I will attempt an answer but it is difficult b/c we think differently and our beliefs vary albeit I think
-more in understanding then anything else.
What if I can demonstrate that it does not deny Christ's divinity as I demonstrated previous that it does not deny the crucifion and ressurrection?
“If Christ is divine, then Islam is false, is it not? Or do you claim that Islam can incorporate a polytheistic doctrine of God and survive? Or a Trinitarian doctrine of God?”
S: I’m sorry but I don’t follow. How is Islam false if Christ is divine? There is only one God in both Christianity and Islam…please tell me you agree with me.
How does Christ affirming His own divinity make Him divine? ...What Christ says about Himself does not constitute a proof it simply constitutes a claim and there have been many claimants.
“This would seem to go directly against what you said above.
More to the point, I thought you were a Muslim; “
S: How? Again I don’t follow. Accepting a claimant by what he says is insufficient proof. There are many tests that must be performed to conclude this as per the OT and NT. Even my faith is not enough to conclude this. However, I do believe Christ is Divine. And
I am a muslim- by definition is one who “Submits to the will of God”…Nature is muslim, a true Jew or Christian is Muslim, Abraham as per Quran is Muslim. Did you know in Mohammad’s time after Christians, Jews accepted Islam, they were able to continue to follow their own customs of worship if they preferred to do so. For that is just the form, and its not the form it’s the essential understanding that is important to accept…for the form can change perpetually.
“do you not believe that Isa speaks the truth as a prophet of Allah? How then could you say that Isa might have been making a false claim, lying?”
S: Of course I believe Isa spoke truth. I didn’t say Isa might have been making a false claim…I simply said establishing a claim holding for proof the claimant alone is a circular argument and difficult to demonstrate to a non-believer. My comment was purely to demonstrate that our conviction is not based on proof its based on inner conviction. It is human nature to believe what we want to believe and what we’ve accepted. If we don’t like something we will fight not to believe it.
Muhammad affirming His own authority makes Him worthy of the same acceptance
You realise that we do not accept Muhammad's authority, right? But you, I thought, accept Isa's authority and truthfulness. Why not now?
S: I do. Just cause (Christians) don’t accept Muhammad does not mean He is not an authority. The Jews do not accept Jesus Christ-this does not mean He is not Messiah. I accept the authority of God Almighty who teaches me to acknowledge his Prophets…both Muhammad and Jesus and I Do.
“thats why the Christians have to erect the doctrine of the 2nd coming.
Are you unaware of the numerous New Testament references to the 2nd Coming, even from Jesus' own lips and that of angels?
S: I have no problem with a 2nd coming of Jesus Christ and neither does Islam. However, I also believe He can come and go anytime He wants. Islam speaks of a return on the Day of Judgement where He will fight the AntiChrist. I was speaking Hypothetically.
In all seriousness, sometimes you speak like a Muslim and sometimes like a naturalist. I must confess that it is difficult to follow arguments that shift between radically different worldviews as yours have been.”
S: These labels don’t change what I believe. Simply put “There is one God, Muhammad and Jesus are two of his Divine Messengers.
“the interpretation of the Quran you accept leads you to think that it is contrary.”
I guess this gets back to your saying that you can demonstrate that the Quran teaches Christ's divinity. But I very much doubt that this is true.
S: I will demonstrate if you like in a post dedicated to this.
I could easily say that since Christianity rejects unity and accepts trinity the teacher of that doctrine must be a false prophet
And I would say you possibly had a point, except the teacher was God in flesh, Jesus Christ.
S: I have no problem saying God in flesh, we all have God in our flesh…And Christ is the full manifestation of God; such that he could say, "he who has seen me has seen the Father".
Peace,
Shahiroz
Bismillah-In the Name of God
ReplyDeleteDear Turretinfan,
S: That’s the second time you’ve ignored my points and gone of into some tangent and brought up new ones. Nonetheless I will respond to this post directly as I have your previous posts.
TF: With respect, most of your "points" are off-topic. I'm not going to get sidetracked with them.
S2: They are off topic, b/c your response to my original post is off topic. Yet, I respect it for what it is and respond to it directly.
"“2. The Koran denies Christ's divinity.”
>That’s quite the claim coming from someone who does not hold the Quran in authority. Then you must be able to demonstrate this for me. What if I can demonstrate that it does not deny Christ's divinity as I demonstrated previous that it does not deny the crucifion and ressurrection?"
TF2:Not holding something in authority does not prevent someone from understanding what it means. I am not going to debate your esoteric interpretation of the Koran, though.
S2: We are talking about scripture…I am sure you will agree of it’s complexity…it is not easy to understand…and one verse can be interpreted in many ways…that’s what results in all the different sects we see around us. I’m not asking for a debate just showing you another possible interpretation is just as valid in the eyes of a Muslim.
""3. Christ affirmed his own divinity."
> How does Christ affirming His own divinity make Him divine? By that reasoning, Muhammad affirming His own authority makes Him worthy of the same acceptance. Come on!!!"
TF2:You missed the point. The point is that you cannot follow Christ and call Christ a blasphemer, which is what he would be if his claim of divinity were false.
S2: The word blasphemer is nowhere in my post its in yours…I would never be able to put the two words so close to each other ever….Nor did I say His Claim is false…I simply said it is diificult to prove a claim holding the claimant as your proof…Christ is DIVINE.
""I am not original. That is not my warning. It is Christ who preached: Repent and Believe. It is his gospel that I convey to you, as a warning that may save you, if you will trust it."
> Again this is a circular argument. What Christ says about Himself does not constitute a proof it simply constitutes a claim and there have been many claimants."
TF2: Again, you miss my point. You commented that you would not listen to a warning from me, but only from God. Christ is God - this is His warning to you: heed it.
S2: We only have Christ’s words through the NT as represented by the Apostles-Not his words. Words from scripture need to be understood…Did you ever consider you may not be heeding his warning? Let me suggest some NT words to you:
Was Christ the end of prophecy?
He was the ultimate revelation of God (Hebrews 1:1,2), but the Bible speaks clearly of prophecy after Christ (Acts 2:16; Joel 2:28,29). All the lists of spiritual gifts appear after the death of Christ on the cross (Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, 12:27-31; Ephesians 4:8,11-16). There is a time when prophecyings will end (1 Corinthians 13:8). The purpose of prophecy after the death of Christ is to build up God's people into maturity (Ephesians 4:13; Hebrews 5:11-6:3).
Please tell me why in 2000 yrs Christianity has not accepted even one of these claimants…yet have no problem suggesting who is a false one…the test as I understand it is:
* God's previous revelations always judge revelations that come afterwards. Thus, the Bible tests all post-biblical revelations. This Spirit never contradicts His previous instruction. Isaiah 8:20
* What fruit does the ministry of the prophet bring? Does it lead God's people to holiness and purity? Matthew 7:15,20; 1 Corinthians 14:3,4
* God's predictions come true. This test is supplemented by the Bible truth that all prophecy is conditional. Jeremiah 28:9; 18:9,10; Jonah 1-4
* A right conception of the incarnation of Christ is also a pointed test. 1 John 4:2
* God sends us prophets to help us and give us forewarning. Amos 3:7. This suggests that before the end, God will do so again!
* The church reaches full maturity only in the end under prophetic light. Ephesians 4:13; 2 Peter 3:11,12
* In the last days, we should be especially attentive to prophecy. 1 Th 5:20,21
* We live in a time when false prophecy is to be especially prevalent; this points to the presence of the true. Matthew 24:3,4,11,24; 2 Peter 2:1; Jude 3,4
* The traits that identify God's people in the last days are total obedience to God's law, and the testimony of Jesus. Revelation 12:17
* The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Revelation 19:10; 1 Corinthians 1:5-7
PLEASE TELL ME WHY MUHAMMAD IS NOT ATLEAST A CANDIDATE?
">If Christianity is a matter of faith only…then so can I say Islam is and I can say I will also pray for you that you also receive God’s next revealation to mankind and recognize Muhammad as His Prophet. And you can pray for that too so the Holy Spirit blesses your heart with the Truth speedily. Come on!"
TF2:Again, you miss the point. The point is to point you to the way of truth. You can ignore that way, or make false mirror claims of your own, but that does not change the truth.
S2: I Pray If Jesus is the only way, HE show me the error of my ways…WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SAY THE SAME…IE: IF MUHAMMAD IS ANOTHER IN THE LINE OF PROPHETS TO GOD THAT JESUS SHOW YOU?
">The just and merciful God saves everyone…some verses cited."
TF2:Universalism is a bankrupt theology. If it is true, we do not need it, and if it is false, we do not want it. Christ taught that the punishment of the wicked will be endless. If you refuse to believe His words, you will eventually receive the proof that I cannot now provide to you.
S2: Give it any label there is only ONE truth whether you like it or not. The Quran teaches the punishment of the wicked is endless too. Why would I receive the PROOF, ah, b/c God is ALL MERCIFUL.
"“3. The Word of God warned us that there would come false prophets. We are not surprised that these prophecies have come true. We judge the Koran by its contents. It is contrary to the Scriptures, and consequently it is not what it claims to be.”
> False prophets can arise however so can true prophets. The Quran is not contrary to scripture-the interpretation of the Quran you accept leads you to think that it is contrary."
If you make the Koran meaningless by applying a sufficiently esoteric exegetical method to it, you can make it harmonious with atheism. That's not understanding the document on its own terms, though.
S2: I suggest you read the Quran with Christ as your witness not with the intent to detect falsity but the openness to see whatever the HOLY SPIRIT wants to show you.
">So why I ask you would you not consider Muhammad as a true prophet?"
Because he did not worship the Lord Jesus Christ, because he openly blasphemed God by denying the Son of God, and because he attempted to impose dietary laws.
S2: The Lord Jesus himself never said to worship him. You need to better understand the concept of Son of God. He denied the idea of tritheism of any kind…and he made sure it was understood that There is only one God…Monotheism-True Christianity is monotheistic.
"Your allegations against Muhammad are completely unsubstantiated..."
That's ludicruous. I substantiated my allegations with citations to the Koran. Your only response appears to be to esoteric interpretations to avoid the literal sense of the words.
S2: Actually you read as literal the English translation. Arabic is the language of the Quran. Greek is the language of the Bible. My esoteric interpretation of the Quran is no different then yours of the Bible. For this concept of the “Trinity” is an esoteric concept. Nothing literal about it.
"and your conviction to Jesus is based on faith"
I gladly admit the truth of this charge.
"-for only accepting the claim of the NT can give you that interpretation of Jesus Christ being the Messiah-absolutely nothing else. "
I'm not sure what you meant here. The NT identifies Jesus Christ as the Messiah. It does so clearly and unequivocally.
S2: So does the Quran.
"In the Love of Jesus and Muhammad, Shahiroz"
If you loved Jesus, you would do the things Jesus commanded: namely to repent of your sins and trust in Him for salvation.
Only Christ can justly judge my love for Him…if you think you can help me understand His words better, I am forever ready to listen but please leave the judging to Him. As for doing the things He commands it is my conviction that I DO...AND FOREVER WILL!
…'judge not, that you be not judged'(Matthew 7.1-2), …'for with the measure you use you will be measured'. I suggest we stick to proofs only as per the advice of our Lord.
In the Love of Jesus and Muhammad Always and Forever,
Shahiroz
Shahiroz,
ReplyDeleteCould we leave TurretinFan and DW to continue their discussion on this topic here and bring the talk into this other thread?
Please see my response in the post's body.
Thanks!
-Rhology
Hello Turrentinfan,
ReplyDeleteThis thead has probably been long forgotten by most now; but I hope this new installment to our little discussion will be observed, at least you on your part. In your last post you wrote:
TF:>>>>TF:>> TF: What I've seen is that you have zero evidence of any FSM-trinitarians. I entered this conversation specifically to address your criticism of Dr. White's comment that stated that there were no FSM-trinitarians. If you had presented evidence, I would have dealt with it.>>
DW: False, we have the testimony of the Qur’an ...
TF: Yes, of course, I meant "other than the Koran." If the Koran did not make the assertions it did, we wouldn't be placing it on trial.
DW: even if it is merely a human document with no inspiration from God, it is evidence.
TF: It is not evidence in support of its own claim. But, yes - it is "evidence" in some sense of FSM-trinitarians.>>>>
Followed with:
TF:>>>>TF: Finding elements is not like finding pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, unless the edges line up. They don't here.
DW: which include: the worship of Mary as a goddess;
TF: The edges don't line up here, because there is no indication about Mary's relation to the Trinity in those rare groups who explicitly worshiped Mary as a goddess, and there was a pretty clear distinction of Mary from the Trinity among those groups (especially the iconophiles) that treated Mary de facto as though she were a goddess.>>>>
Me: As you now know, there are Christian Islamic scholars who have read the evidence we been going over in this thread pretty much the same way that I have, essentially leaving our discussion at an impasse. But a few days ago I came across this in Gibbon’s Decline:
"The three gods in the Koran (c. 4, p. 81, c. 5, p. 92) are obviously directed against our Catholic mystery: but the Arabic commentators understand them of the Father, the Son, and the Virgin Mary, an heretical Trinity, maintained, as it is said, by some Barbarians at the Council of Nice, (Eutych. Annal. tom. i. p. 440.) But the existence of the Marianites is denied by the candid Beausobre, (Hist. de Manicheisme, tom. i. p. 532;) and he derives the mistake from the word Roxah, the Holy Ghost, which in some Oriental
tongues is of the feminine gender, and is figuratively styled the mother of Christ in the Gospel of the Nazarenes." (Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. 50, The Modern Library edition (n.d.), pp. 81, 82.)
Me: Until I read the above, I had never heard of attendees of the Councial of Nicea maintaining of a view of the Trinity that consisted of “the Father, the Son, and the Virgin Mary”. Gibbon’s reference is to Eutychius’ (10th century Patriarch of Alexandria, and noted historian) Annals. This work is found in volume 111 of Migne’s Patrologiæ Græca, a volume, which until this morning, I did not have access to. I wanted to check Migne’s before mentioning Gibbon. Here is the quote from Migne’s:
Mittens ergo Constantius rex in omnes passim regiones, patriarchas et episcopos convocavit, adeo ut post annum et duos menses Niceæ convenirent his mille quadraginta octo episcopi, sententiis et religionibus inter se discrepantes. Erant ex illia qui affirmarent Christum et Matrem ipsius duos esse deus præter Deuni [summon :] errant hi Barbari, et Marianitæ audierunt. (Patrologiæ Græca, Tomus CXI, col. 1005, sec. 439-440.)
So, as you can now see for yourself, we now have Christian source for the existence of at least two Christian groups/sects that held to FSM (God [the Father], Christ, and Mother "in one"), backing up the testimony from the Qur'an.
I will be posting this ‘new’ material (at least new to me) on my blog sometime tomorrow, along with solid evidence that your reading of Surah 5 is highly suspect (especially concerning your contention that was speaking of Christianity in “general” throughout the entire Surah).
Grace and peace,
David
David,
ReplyDeleteHope all is well with you.
I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you for taking the time to do the research and for posting your response in an objective manner.
God bless,
Shahiroz