Friday, March 7, 2008

Turretinfan: Attempting some damage control

I got back from my bike ride to discover that Turretinfan (hereafter TF) is attempting some damage control. Rather than reply in the original thread HERE which prompted his in depth, protracted, scholarly (i.e. Google [grin]) research, he chose instead to post his response on his blog HERE, where he has rejected a previous attempt of mine to respond to another one of his ATTACKS. Oh well…free country...

Once again, in this THREAD, TF made some pretty bold assertions in his attempt to rescue his apparent hero, James White. Here are his words:

"There is no evidence of anyone worshiping a trinity of the Father, the Son, and Mary at the time of Mohamed."

In reaching this conclusion TF adamantly rejected Christian Islamic scholars who believe that the Qur’anic passage in question (5.116) was not addressing any form of Trinitarianism at all, but rather, Tritheism. He also rejected the possibility that heretical Christian sects who worshipped Mary also worshipped the Son and the Father (which seems quite absurd to me, for when has any worshipper of Mary not also worshipped her Son, and His Father???) And lastly, he rejected the Qur’an’s testimony that there were Christians who worshipped three Gods—the Father, Jesus, and Mary.

Now, if one takes the time to read through all of TF's posts on this issue, a basic mantra keeps reoccurring: there is NO evidence that ANY Christians (even heretical ones) worshipped three Gods—the Father, Jesus, and Mary. One can certainly discern that TF and I disagree on what actually constitutes “NO evidence”. Be that as it may, I began a search for either a hard copy or an online version of the source quoted in Gibbon's (Eutychius’ Annals), finding a pdf online version on the morning of March 3, 2008. I later that day typed up the info and posted it in the combox (with some typos that are not allowed to be corrected [wink]).

TF finally had some more evidence (uh, I mean ‘evidence’) to deal with. I suspect he first became aware of my response via my rejected attempt to post on his blog; but putting aside the exactly when and how, he now knew that it was time for some damage control (Google…please help…).

Let’s now examine his damage control:

"Eutychius was a 10th century Melkite Patriarch in Alexandria. He reigned in the Coptic church in Egypt during a time when he was surrounded by the ruling majority of Sunni Muslims. To maintain the position I presented on the previous page would have been dangerous to his health."

Error #1 – Alexandria was in full control of the Fatimids, NOT the Sunnis, during the period that Eutychius was Patriarch.

Error #2 – “your position” has NOTHING to do at all with the Nicene period that Eutychius was commenting on. He was merely supplying historical information on some of the diverse sects that attended the council. (Nice try though.)

TF then spends most of the rest of his post attempting to impugn the credibility of Eutychius, invoking a double-standard by linking to scholars—I say double-standard because in a previous POST he makes light of my use of scholars, with this gem:

"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)"

Returning to the scholars that TF linked to (Google previews and older, brief references), I happen to own one of them: C. Wilfred Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity (btw, Griggs is a Mormon scholar), and if needed/requested, I will type up a post demonstrating that what Griggs has to say about Eutychius lends little (if any) support for TF’s position, and at times, speaks to the credibility of Eutychius.

Anyway, enough for now, dinner is ready, and I am really hungry after my brisk bike ride.

Grace and peace,


P.S. Will check for typos later, must take care of the hunger; at least I can correct any typos on my blog posts [grin].

1 comment:

Anonymous said...


I have been a frequent lurker on your blog for a couple of months now. Many of the subjects you delve into interest me, hence my curiosity. However, it is your last few posts concerning Islam which have been compelled me to respond for the first time.

I have done due diligence and read through all the posts connected with your threads on Islam, and must say that I am truly stunned by the responses of your protagonists in this grand theater of ideas. I must ask myself: are they actually reading what you post with any objectivity? I am sure that my words, if read by your detractors, will count as nothing, but I do hope that I have offered, meager as it may be, some encouragement to strengthen the resolve in your efforts to dispel the arguments that display, with great clarity, a predisposed and subjective interpretation of data at hand.