tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post4883904698907653073..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Rhology's Wish Comes TrueJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20819819845212743092008-03-04T19:11:00.000-05:002008-03-04T19:11:00.000-05:00David,Hope all is well with you.I just wanted to t...David,<BR/><BR/>Hope all is well with you.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>God bless,<BR/><BR/>ShahirozShahiroz W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08438347249692394851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30330227376253613732008-03-03T18:36:00.000-05:002008-03-03T18:36:00.000-05:00Hello Turrentinfan,This thead has probably been lo...Hello Turrentinfan,<BR/><BR/>This 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:<BR/><BR/>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.>><BR/>DW: False, we have the testimony of the Qur’an ...<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: even if it is merely a human document with no inspiration from God, it is evidence. <BR/><BR/>TF: It is not evidence in support of its own claim. But, yes - it is "evidence" in some sense of FSM-trinitarians.>>>><BR/><BR/>Followed with:<BR/><BR/> TF:>>>>TF: Finding elements is not like finding pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, unless the edges line up. They don't here.<BR/><BR/>DW: which include: the worship of Mary as a goddess; <BR/><BR/>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.>>>><BR/><BR/><BR/>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 <I>Decline</I>:<BR/><BR/>"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 <BR/>tongues is of the feminine gender, and is figuratively styled the mother of Christ in the Gospel of the Nazarenes." (Gibbon, <I>The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire</I>, ch. 50, The Modern Library edition (n.d.), pp. 81, 82.)<BR/><BR/>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) <I>Annals</I>. This work is found in volume 111 of Migne’s <I>Patrologiæ Græca</I>, 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:<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I> (<I>Patrologiæ Græca, Tomus CXI</I>, col. 1005, sec. 439-440.)<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-32599024523239284742008-02-28T08:54:00.000-05:002008-02-28T08:54:00.000-05:00Shahiroz,Could we leave TurretinFan and DW to cont...Shahiroz,<BR/><BR/>Could we leave TurretinFan and DW to continue their discussion on this topic here and bring the talk into <A HREF="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/02/some-dealings-with-islam.html" REL="nofollow">this other thread</A>? <BR/>Please see my response in the post's body.<BR/><BR/>Thanks!<BR/><BR/>-RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67544107414906369092008-02-28T03:03:00.000-05:002008-02-28T03:03:00.000-05:00Bismillah-In the Name of GodDear Turretinfan,S: Th...Bismillah-In the Name of God<BR/><BR/>Dear Turretinfan,<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>TF: With respect, most of your "points" are off-topic. I'm not going to get sidetracked with them.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>"“2. The Koran denies Christ's divinity.”<BR/>>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?"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>""3. Christ affirmed his own divinity."<BR/>> 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!!!"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/> <BR/>""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."<BR/>> 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."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>Was Christ the end of prophecy?<BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>* 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<BR/> * 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<BR/> * 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<BR/> * A right conception of the incarnation of Christ is also a pointed test. 1 John 4:2 <BR/>* 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!<BR/> * The church reaches full maturity only in the end under prophetic light. Ephesians 4:13; 2 Peter 3:11,12<BR/> * In the last days, we should be especially attentive to prophecy. 1 Th 5:20,21<BR/> * 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<BR/> * 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<BR/> * The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Revelation 19:10; 1 Corinthians 1:5-7<BR/><BR/>PLEASE TELL ME WHY MUHAMMAD IS NOT ATLEAST A CANDIDATE?<BR/><BR/>">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!"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>">The just and merciful God saves everyone…some verses cited."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>"“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.”<BR/>> 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."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>">So why I ask you would you not consider Muhammad as a true prophet?"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>"Your allegations against Muhammad are completely unsubstantiated..."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>"and your conviction to Jesus is based on faith"<BR/><BR/>I gladly admit the truth of this charge.<BR/><BR/>"-for only accepting the claim of the NT can give you that interpretation of Jesus Christ being the Messiah-absolutely nothing else. "<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what you meant here. The NT identifies Jesus Christ as the Messiah. It does so clearly and unequivocally.<BR/><BR/>S2: So does the Quran.<BR/><BR/>"In the Love of Jesus and Muhammad, Shahiroz"<BR/><BR/>If you loved Jesus, you would do the things Jesus commanded: namely to repent of your sins and trust in Him for salvation.<BR/><BR/>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! <BR/><BR/>…'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.<BR/><BR/>In the Love of Jesus and Muhammad Always and Forever, <BR/><BR/>ShahirozShahiroz W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08438347249692394851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-21642623324618495812008-02-28T03:00:00.000-05:002008-02-28T03:00:00.000-05:00Bismillah-In the Name of GodDear Rhology,“I thank ...Bismillah-In the Name of God<BR/><BR/>Dear Rhology,<BR/><BR/>“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.”<BR/><BR/>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 <BR/>-more in understanding then anything else. <BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>“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?”<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>“This would seem to go directly against what you said above.<BR/>More to the point, I thought you were a Muslim; “<BR/><BR/>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 <BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>“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?”<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Muhammad affirming His own authority makes Him worthy of the same acceptance<BR/><BR/>You realise that we do not accept Muhammad's authority, right? But you, I thought, accept Isa's authority and truthfulness. Why not now?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>“thats why the Christians have to erect the doctrine of the 2nd coming.<BR/><BR/>Are you unaware of the numerous New Testament references to the 2nd Coming, even from Jesus' own lips and that of angels?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>S: These labels don’t change what I believe. Simply put “There is one God, Muhammad and Jesus are two of his Divine Messengers.<BR/><BR/>“the interpretation of the Quran you accept leads you to think that it is contrary.”<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>S: I will demonstrate if you like in a post dedicated to this.<BR/><BR/>I could easily say that since Christianity rejects unity and accepts trinity the teacher of that doctrine must be a false prophet<BR/><BR/>And I would say you possibly had a point, except the teacher was God in flesh, Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>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".<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>ShahirozShahiroz W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08438347249692394851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88593493817339481412008-02-27T17:38:00.000-05:002008-02-27T17:38:00.000-05:00TF:>> TF: What I've seen is that you have zero evi...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.>><BR/>DW: False, we have the testimony of the Qur’an ...<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: even if it is merely a human document with no inspiration from God, it is evidence. <BR/><BR/>TF: It is not evidence in support of its own claim. But, yes - it is "evidence" in some sense of FSM-trinitarians.<BR/><BR/>DW: Starting with this primary evidence, an objective investigator will search for clues as to why FSM tritheism is mentioned, <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: and such a search reveals that the all elements of FSM tritheism are attested to in extant documents, <BR/><BR/>TF: Finding elements is not like finding pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, unless the edges line up. They don't here.<BR/><BR/>DW: which include: the worship of Mary as a goddess; <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: the Father, Son, and Mary as the “three powers” of the universe; <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: Mary as Sophia; <BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>DW: Sophia as the Holy Spirit; <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: and the Holy Spirit as the Mother. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: "The questions everyone should ask are: did the above elements survive in some form to the beginning of the 7th century?"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: "It there any evidence that they did not?"<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>DW: "Given what we know about the socio/political and religious environment of Arabia between the 2nd and early 7th centuries ..."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: "... the more logical conclusion suggests that they probably did survive;"<BR/><BR/>TF: It seems more like desparate optimism that would suggest such a conclusion than logic.<BR/><BR/>DW: "this when coupled with the evidence from the Qur’an suggests that James’ conclusion was wrong."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: I shall make this argument even simpler: E1 + E2 +E3 = C1 (E being evidence & C conclusion).<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: What you demand is an E4 instead of C1; <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>There are two conclusions involved.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>The second conclusion is whether there was a sect of people who held to FSM-trinitarianism.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-70671193568134411722008-02-27T13:29:00.000-05:002008-02-27T13:29:00.000-05:00Hello again TF,Still taking it slow…You also wrote...Hello again TF,<BR/><BR/>Still taking it slow…<BR/><BR/>You also wrote:<BR/><BR/>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.>><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Off for a snack; more later the Lord willing.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-6461112189827792072008-02-27T12:53:00.000-05:002008-02-27T12:53:00.000-05:00Hello TF,I am going to take it a bit slower today,...Hello TF,<BR/><BR/>I am going to take it a bit slower today, and try to focus on one or two points at a time. You posted:<BR/><BR/>>>TF: No, the irony is that your post was combative and uncharitable.>><BR/><BR/>Me: I disagree, I was merely responding in kind; why this would be construed as “combative and uncharitable” escapes me.<BR/><BR/>IMHO, comments like the following fit into the categories you suggested much better:<BR/><BR/>TF:>> I'm not interested in clearing up your idiocy regarding church history at this time.>><BR/><BR/>Me: “Idiocy” ??? Nice…<BR/><BR/>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 <A HREF="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2007/08/apostasy-bringing-mormonism-into.html" REL="nofollow">HERE</A>.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88053500406302803872008-02-27T10:05:00.000-05:002008-02-27T10:05:00.000-05:00S: That’s the second time you’ve ignored my points...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.<BR/><BR/>TF: With respect, most of your "points" are off-topic. I'm not going to get sidetracked with them.<BR/><BR/>"“2. The Koran denies Christ's divinity.”<BR/>>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?"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>""3. Christ affirmed his own divinity."<BR/>> 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!!!"<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>""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."<BR/>> 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."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>">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!"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>">The just and merciful God saves everyone…some verses cited."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>"“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.”<BR/>> 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."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>">So why I ask you would you not consider Muhammad as a true prophet?"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>"Your allegations against Muhammad are completely unsubstantiated..."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>"and your conviction to Jesus is based on faith"<BR/><BR/>I gladly admit the truth of this charge.<BR/><BR/>"-for only accepting the claim of the NT can give you that interpretation of Jesus Christ being the Messiah-absolutely nothing else. "<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what you meant here. The NT identifies Jesus Christ as the Messiah. It does so clearly and unequivocally.<BR/><BR/>"In the Love of Jesus and Muhammad, Shahiroz"<BR/><BR/>If you loved Jesus, you would do the things Jesus commanded: namely to repent of your sins and trust in Him for salvation.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-5069855371411023072008-02-27T09:31:00.000-05:002008-02-27T09:31:00.000-05:00DW: So you do not think I can ask for God’s grace ...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?<BR/><BR/>TF: No, the irony is that your post was combative and uncharitable.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: I have given plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge the possible conclusion that I (and others) have drawn from it. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>TF:>> Be honest, did you really think that I meant that he was referring to ALL Muslim exegetes?>><BR/>Me: Yes, why else would you have mentioned it…<BR/>TF: If that's really what you thought, you have serious reading comprehension problems.<BR/><BR/><BR/>TF:>> He existed, and I was not around then. Of course, neither were you. Existing is not the least help in preventing confusion.>><BR/>DW: ???<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>>1. Mohamed represented the Trinity as though it were FSM-trinitarianism.>><BR/><BR/>DW: Muhammad was not discussing the Trinity; he was discussing deviant, tritheistic beliefs, and the terminology of the Qur’an substantiates this.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>>>2. Mohamed was trying to interact with Christianity, not with some minor sect.>><BR/>DW: Which form of Christianity are you referring to? <BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: Do you know FOR SURE that Muhammad did not have a minor sect in mind? <BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>TF: Do you consider the Nestorians and Monophysites Christian sects?<BR/><BR/>>>3. Christianity does not teach FSM-trinitarianism.>><BR/>DW: Once again, which Christian sect are you referring to?<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>>>4. Therefore, Mohamed erred.>><BR/>DW: You have not even remotely proven point #1 and point #2; hence, not need to comment on #4.<BR/>TF: Actually, if you agreed with point (4), there would really be no need for your comments on (1) and (2).<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59002314814411158162008-02-27T08:23:00.000-05:002008-02-27T08:23:00.000-05:00Shahiroz,I thank you for your time and interaction...Shahiroz,<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>This would seem to go directly against what you said above. <BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><I>Muhammad affirming His own authority makes Him worthy of the same acceptance</I><BR/><BR/>You realise that we do not accept Muhammad's authority, right? But you, I thought, accept Isa's authority and truthfulness. Why not now?<BR/><BR/><I>thats why the Christians have to erect the doctrine of the 2nd coming</I><BR/><BR/>Are you unaware of the numerous New Testament references to the 2nd Coming, even from Jesus' own lips and that of angels? <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>the interpretation of the Quran you accept leads you to think that it is contrary.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>I could easily say that since Christianity rejects unity and accepts trinity the teacher of that doctrine must be a false prophet</I><BR/><BR/>And I would say you possibly had a point, except the teacher was God in flesh, Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-52889512708351232462008-02-27T04:00:00.000-05:002008-02-27T04:00:00.000-05:00Bismillah-In the name of God.Dear Turretinfan,“I s...Bismillah-In the name of God.<BR/><BR/>Dear Turretinfan,<BR/><BR/>“I started to respond line-by-line to your post. I stopped. A few things need clarification:”<BR/><BR/>>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.<BR/><BR/>“1. Truth is absolute.”<BR/>>Absolutely-there is only one truth.<BR/><BR/>“2. The Koran denies Christ's divinity.”<BR/>>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? <BR/> <BR/>"3. Christ affirmed his own divinity."<BR/>> 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!!! <BR/><BR/>>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).”<BR/><BR/>“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.”<BR/><BR/>>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.<BR/><BR/>“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.<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>> 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.<BR/><BR/>"In reading your response, I wish to make two important comments:<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>> 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”. <BR/><BR/>-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<BR/><BR/> Cyrus chosen by God subdues nations, and he would later allow the exiles from Babylon to return home and rebuild the Temple. <BR/><BR/>-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.<BR/><BR/>>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.<BR/><BR/>“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.”<BR/><BR/>>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!<BR/><BR/>>The just and merciful God saves everyone…some verses cited.<BR/><BR/>-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.<BR/><BR/>-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).<BR/><BR/>-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).<BR/><BR/>-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).<BR/><BR/>-God performed miracles for His people as a testimony to all peoples (Joshua 4:23f; II Kings 19:19; Isaiah 37:20, 36).<BR/><BR/><BR/>“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.”<BR/><BR/>> 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.<BR/><BR/>-Matthew 10:41<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>>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.<BR/><BR/>>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. <BR/><BR/>>FROM A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES:<BR/>(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.)<BR/><BR/>What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:<BR/>A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).<BR/>B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).<BR/>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)<BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>>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!!!<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your time.<BR/><BR/>In the Love of Jesus and Muhammad,<BR/><BR/>ShahirozShahiroz W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08438347249692394851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-83848167316754261682008-02-26T21:00:00.000-05:002008-02-26T21:00:00.000-05:00>>In all seriousness, are you a closet universalis...<I>>>In all seriousness, are you a closet universalist?>><BR/><BR/>NO</I><BR/><BR/>Out of the closet universalist?Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-47293160953481210872008-02-26T20:55:00.000-05:002008-02-26T20:55:00.000-05:00Yo Turretinfan,You posted:TF:>> "Grace and peace,"...Yo Turretinfan,<BR/><BR/>You posted:<BR/><BR/>TF:>> "Grace and peace,"<BR/><BR/>What irony. I assume this discussion is over, since you have no answers to the issues as clarified.>><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>TF:>> No, I don't plan to provide any. My objective is obtainable without turning this into a cite-war.>><BR/><BR/>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!)<BR/><BR/>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.>><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/>TF:>> TF: Be honest, did you really think that I meant that he was referring to ALL Muslim exegetes?>><BR/><BR/>Me: Yes, why else would you have mentioned it…<BR/><BR/>TF:>> Your arguments are getting less and less cogent, David.>><BR/><BR/>Me: What is that old saying about the pot and the kettle…<BR/><BR/><BR/>TF:>> Evidence? None.<BR/>Opinion? You've got plenty, but you cannot back it up>><BR/><BR/>Me: I have given plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge the possible conclusion that I (and others) have drawn from it. <BR/><BR/><BR/>TF:>> He existed, and I was not around then. Of course, neither were you. Existing is not the least help in preventing confusion.>><BR/><BR/>Me: ???<BR/><BR/><BR/>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.>><BR/><BR/>Me: Was just trying to match yours; but I can see I am but a mere amateur in comparison.<BR/><BR/>But for the record:<BR/><BR/><BR/>>>1. Mohamed represented the Trinity as though it were FSM-trinitarianism.>><BR/><BR/>Me: Muhammad was not discussing the Trinity; he was discussing deviant, tritheistic beliefs, and the terminology of the Qur’an substantiates this.<BR/><BR/>>>2. Mohamed was trying to interact with Christianity, not with some minor sect.>><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>>>3. Christianity does not teach FSM-trinitarianism.>><BR/><BR/>Me: Once again, which Christian sect are you referring to?<BR/><BR/>>>4. Therefore, Mohamed erred.>><BR/><BR/>Me: You have not even remotely proven point #1 and point #2; hence, not need to comment on #4.<BR/><BR/><BR/>May God’s Holy Spirit be at work on your heart, mind, and soul.<BR/><BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-10757353048336289372008-02-26T20:09:00.000-05:002008-02-26T20:09:00.000-05:00Shahiroz,I started to respond line-by-line to your...Shahiroz,<BR/><BR/>I started to respond line-by-line to your post. I stopped. A few things need clarification:<BR/><BR/>1. Truth is absolute.<BR/><BR/>2. The Koran denies Christ's divinity.<BR/><BR/>3. Christ affirmed his own divinity.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>In reading your response, I wish to make two important comments:<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-25503805282178382572008-02-26T19:30:00.000-05:002008-02-26T19:30:00.000-05:00DW: "So far, I do not remember that you have provi...DW: "So far, I do not remember that you have provided any Islamic scholar who disagrees with the scholars I cited."<BR/><BR/>No, I don't plan to provide any. My objective is obtainable without turning this into a cite-war.<BR/><BR/>DW: "Sorry, James does not count, his two non-accredited PhDs are not in Islamic studies."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>TF: Be honest, did you really think that I meant that he was referring to ALL Muslim exegetes?<BR/><BR/>Your arguments are getting less and less cogent, David.<BR/><BR/>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.]"<BR/><BR/>I'm not interested in clearing up your idiocy regarding church history at this time.<BR/><BR/>DW:"“It has often been thought” that baptismal regeneration is plainly taught in the Bible…should I now conclude that this makes it so?"<BR/><BR/>TF: Nope.<BR/><BR/>DW: "Uhhh…keep reading: [see DW's quotation above]"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: "That’s fine, just ignore them, they are a bunch of bums [eyes roll]."<BR/><BR/>TF: If the idea of a handful of scholars disagreeing is a rebuttal, you're going to have trouble staying Catholic.<BR/><BR/>DW: "You are certainly welcome to your opinion;"<BR/><BR/>Okey-dokey.<BR/><BR/>DW: "here is mine: Muhammad was not confused, you are;"<BR/><BR/>Evidence? None.<BR/>Opinion? You've got plenty, but you cannot back it up.<BR/><BR/>DW: "Muhammad was there at the time; you were not."<BR/><BR/>He existed, and I was not around then. Of course, neither were you. Existing is not the least help in preventing confusion.<BR/><BR/>DW: "And this more importantly: your opinion will not be taken seriously by Muslims."<BR/><BR/>I'll let time tell on that one.<BR/><BR/>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’."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>"Grace and peace,"<BR/><BR/>What irony. I assume this discussion is over, since you have no answers to the issues as clarified.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-53372493787601396312008-02-26T19:23:00.000-05:002008-02-26T19:23:00.000-05:00Bismillah. (In the name of God)Dear Turretinfan,“S...Bismillah. (In the name of God)<BR/><BR/>Dear Turretinfan,<BR/><BR/>“Sadly, because you do not follow the teachings of Isa, the son of Marium, you are not our sister in the faith.”<BR/><BR/>>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.<BR/><BR/>“But consider whether you should? For even Mohamed was unable to deny that Jesus was the Messiah.”<BR/><BR/>>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.<BR/><BR/>“And yet the great prophet Daniel prophesied that:<BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>>Let’s talk about the word “Messiah”<BR/><BR/>-by definition it means anointed.<BR/>-origin: Old Testament, Jewish Messianic Tradition.<BR/>-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.<BR/>-if you are true to the above Jewish Tradition, it is very difficult to establish Jesus Christ as “Messiah”<BR/><BR/>“And the apostles of Jesus all testified to Messiah's being cut off, but Mohamed denied it.”<BR/><BR/>>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.<BR/><BR/>"For Mohamed declared:<BR/><BR/>Surah 4:157-158<BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>> 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.<BR/>> 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.<BR/>> 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. <BR/><BR/>Here is interpretation from an Ismaili Dai/Philosopher on the Verse: btw. I’m an Ismaili Muslim:<BR/><BR/>Abu Ya’qub Ishaq al-Sigistani wrote:<BR/><BR/>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.)<BR/><BR/>And here is a comment from a Muslim Scholar:<BR/><BR/>Islamic scholar, Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub wrote:<BR/><BR/>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.)<BR/><BR/>“But it is not only the prophet Daniel that Mohamed contradicts, but the prophecy of Isa himself:<BR/><BR/>Luke 9:20-22<BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>> 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.<BR/><BR/>“Therefore, Shahiroz, harken to my warning and following the teachings of Isa, whom we call Jesus.”<BR/><BR/>> My dear, I only hold to one authority the Lord/God Almighty and His is the only warning I will harken to.<BR/><BR/>“As He himself taught:<BR/><BR/>John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”<BR/><BR/>>Absolutely agreed.<BR/><BR/>“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:<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>>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? <BR/><BR/>“Now then, there is one way of escape from the wrath of God against sin.<BR/><BR/>As it is written in the Psalms (Psalm 2):<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>But continue on denying the resurrection and you will be lost.<BR/><BR/>For the apostle Paul truly wrote (Romans 10):<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Therefore call upon the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and be saved.”<BR/><BR/>> 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.<BR/><BR/>“You must know that you cannot be friends with Christians and be a devout Muslim. For does not Surah 5:51 prohibit this?<BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>>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.<BR/><BR/>>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.<BR/><BR/>“For truly it is written:<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>And likewise Jesus said in another place:<BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>>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.<BR/><BR/>“But Mohamed contradicted Jesus saying instead:<BR/><BR/>Surah 112:1-4<BR/>1Say: He, Allah, is One. 2Allah is He on Whom all depend. 3He begets not, nor is He begotten. 4And none is like Him.”<BR/><BR/>> 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”.<BR/><BR/>“I hope you will see this contradiction and follow the Messiah, for there is no other name under heaven whereby men can be saved.”<BR/><BR/>> 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.<BR/><BR/>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)<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your time and consideration.<BR/><BR/>In Love of Christ Jesus and Muhammad,<BR/><BR/>ShahirozShahiroz W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08438347249692394851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-42809869772163511872008-02-26T19:10:00.000-05:002008-02-26T19:10:00.000-05:00>>In all seriousness, are you a closet universalis...>>In all seriousness, are you a closet universalist?>><BR/><BR/><B>NO</B>David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-3848067546735100742008-02-26T19:08:00.000-05:002008-02-26T19:08:00.000-05:00Hey Turretinfan,Wait just one second while I find ...Hey Turretinfan,<BR/><BR/>Wait just one second while I find that ‘dead-horse’..ah there it is [grin]. You posted:<BR/><BR/><BR/>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)>><BR/><BR/>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.)<BR/><BR/>TF:>> 1. Your first quote acknowledges that Muslim exegetes agree with the conclusion you oppose.>><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>[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.]<BR/><BR/><BR/>TF:>> 2. Your second quote acknowledges that agreement with the conclusion you oppose is widespread.>><BR/><BR/><BR/>Me: “It has often been thought” that baptismal regeneration is plainly taught in the Bible…should I now conclude that this makes it so?<BR/><BR/><BR/>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.>><BR/><BR/>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. <B>It is, however, almost certainly an oversimplification. There are other movements which need to be taken into account</B>. Monophysitism spawned a number of heresies of its own including Tritheism…”<BR/><BR/>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.>><BR/><BR/><BR/>Me: That’s fine, just ignore them, they are a bunch of bums [eyes roll].<BR/><BR/><BR/>TF:>> The smoke is explained via the Mohamed talking with a Nestorian monk mechanism.<BR/><BR/>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.>><BR/><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/>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’.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-68266273329873544972008-02-26T17:43:00.000-05:002008-02-26T17:43:00.000-05:00I am going to be brutally blunt here: you have an ...<I>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;</I><BR/><BR/>David, <BR/><BR/>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 <B>thought</B> was Reformed teaching. <BR/><BR/>In all seriousness, are you a closet universalist?Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-40202967608866984172008-02-26T17:40:00.000-05:002008-02-26T17:40:00.000-05:00David,Oh wow, scholars disagreeing over something....David,<BR/><BR/>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)<BR/><BR/>Although, note that:<BR/><BR/>1. Your first quote acknowledges that Muslim exegetes agree with the conclusion you oppose.<BR/><BR/>2. Your second quote acknowledges that agreement with the conclusion you oppose is widespread.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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’."<BR/><BR/>The smoke is explained via the Mohamed talking with a Nestorian monk mechanism.<BR/><BR/>The absolute claim that they did not exist (<I>i.e.</I> that Mohamed simply got confused) is so far supported by the complete absence of evidence that they did exist.<BR/><BR/>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?"<BR/><BR/>TF: I don't know what you're missing exactly. Let me lay it out for you, in case it is not clear.<BR/><BR/>1. Mohamed represented the Trinity as though it were FSM-trinitarianism.<BR/><BR/>2. Mohamed was trying to interact with Christianity, not with some minor sect.<BR/><BR/>3. Christianity does not teach FSM-trinitarianism.<BR/><BR/>4. Therefore, Mohamed erred.<BR/><BR/>That's the main conclusion.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>6. Thus, even if (2) were wrong, we still believe that Mohamed erred.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44514190864566437722008-02-26T15:44:00.000-05:002008-02-26T15:44:00.000-05:00Hello Turretinfan,Thanks for responding to my last...Hello Turretinfan,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for responding to my last contribution in this thread; you posted:<BR/><BR/>TF:>> He seems twice in Surah 5 to identify the trinity as Allah, Jesus, and Mary.>><BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>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 , <I>The Koran in the Light of Christ: A Christian Interpretation of the Sacred Book of Islam</I>, p. 136.)<BR/><BR/>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, <I>Jesus in the Qur’an</I>, p. 133.)<BR/><BR/>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, <I>Christ In Islam and Christianity</I>, p. 21.)<BR/><BR/>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, <I>Jesus and the Muslim</I>, p. 203.)<BR/><BR/>…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, <I>Introduction To The Qur’an</I>, p. 158.)<BR/><BR/>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…<BR/><BR/>With this in mind, ask yourself this question: from an apologetic standpoint, whose interpretation do you think Muslims are going to take more seriously?<BR/><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Any of those might explain why Mohamed might not have a proper understanding of the Trinity.>><BR/><BR/>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’.<BR/><BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>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.>><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Looking forward to your response.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-26448072824219778502008-02-26T10:36:00.000-05:002008-02-26T10:36:00.000-05:00David,Let me cut to the chase:DW: "first, the asse...David,<BR/><BR/>Let me cut to the chase:<BR/><BR/>DW: "first, the assertion that “Muhammad did not understand the Trinity” rests on very dubious grounds.<BR/><BR/>He seems twice in Surah 5 to identify the trinity as Allah, Jesus, and Mary. <BR/><BR/>[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.<BR/>[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.<BR/>[5.74] Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.<BR/>[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.<BR/><BR/>and again<BR/><BR/>[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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>DW: "second, any denial that Mary was worshipped by some Christians with Jesus and God the Father, rests on unsubstantiated, empty claims."<BR/><BR/>Actually, it relies on definitional claims of Christianity, as being monotheistic. Christians do not worship anyone but God.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>Aside from that definitional matter above, a denial that anyone existed who fell into some category is <B>necessarily and inherently</B> going to be largely "unsubstantiated" because it is a negative claim. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Any of those might explain <B>why</B> Mohamed might not have a proper understanding of the Trinity.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>The person would still be confused: for those who excessively honor Mary do not consider her the the third person of the trinity.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I say apparently, because so far no such evidence has been presented. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>He is presenting an apologetic against Christianity.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-17128673729706480542008-02-26T09:30:00.000-05:002008-02-26T09:30:00.000-05:00Shahiroz,Sadly, because you do not follow the teac...Shahiroz,<BR/><BR/>Sadly, because you do not follow the teachings of Isa, the son of Marium, you are not our sister in the faith.<BR/><BR/>But consider whether you should? For even Mohamed was unable to deny that Jesus was the Messiah.<BR/><BR/>And yet the great prophet Daniel prophesied that:<BR/><BR/>Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks <B>shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:</B> 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. <BR/><BR/>And the apostles of Jesus all testified to Messiah's being cut off, but Mohamed denied it.<BR/><BR/>For Mohamed declared:<BR/><BR/>Surah 4:157-158<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>But it is not only the prophet Daniel that Mohamed contradicts, but the prophecy of Isa himself:<BR/><BR/>Luke 9:20-22<BR/><BR/>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, <B>The Son of man must</B> suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and <B>be slain, and be raised the third day. </B><BR/><BR/>Therefore, Shahiroz, harken to my warning and following the teachings of Isa, whom we call Jesus.<BR/><BR/>As He himself taught:<BR/><BR/>John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd <B>giveth his life</B> for the sheep. <BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>John 1:29 The next day John [the Baptist] seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, <B>Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.</B> <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Now then, there is one way of escape from the wrath of God against sin.<BR/><BR/>As it is written in the Psalms (Psalm 2):<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>But continue on denying the resurrection and you will be lost.<BR/><BR/>For the apostle Paul truly wrote (Romans 10):<BR/><BR/>If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt <B>believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead,</B> 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. <BR/><BR/>Therefore call upon the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and be saved. <BR/><BR/>You must know that you cannot be friends with Christians and be a devout Muslim. For does not Surah 5:51 prohibit this?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>For truly it is written:<BR/><BR/>But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou <B>tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. <BR/><BR/>Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said:</B> 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. <BR/><BR/>And likewise Jesus said in another place:<BR/>John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but <B>for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.</B><BR/><BR/>But Mohamed contradicted Jesus saying instead: <BR/><BR/>Surah 112:1-4<BR/>1Say: He, Allah, is One. 2Allah is He on Whom all depend. <B>3He begets not, nor is He begotten.</B> 4And none is like Him. <BR/><BR/>I hope you will see this contradiction and follow the Messiah, for there is no other name under heaven whereby men can be saved.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69575744453415077882008-02-26T05:32:00.000-05:002008-02-26T05:32:00.000-05:00I must make a couple of corrections to my last pos...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…<BR/><BR/>Corrections: “are” in my opening comment should read “our”; “if it were the latter” should read, “if it were the former”.<BR/><BR/>Thanks in advance for your latitude to the Beachbum…<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com