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,

David

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].

James White’s recent attacks on Islam

James White, during the last few months, has spent a considerable amount of time attacking Islam, and in particular, the Qur’an, in radio broadasts and via “YouTube” videos. This recent barrage follows on the heels of James’ debate with the Muslim apologist Shabir Ally in October, 2007 (which was preceded by another debate by the two in May, 2006.) Much of James’ polemic centers around the textual integrity of the NT and Qur’an; but an interesting ‘rabbit-trail’ is embedded within the greater context of his ongoing ‘discourse’ with Islam. This ‘rabbit-trail’ is capsulized in the following radio broadcast excerpt:

“…Muhammad did not understand what the doctrine of the Trinity was. I think there is pretty good evidence that he understood Christians to worship uh, Allah, Jesus and Mary. In fact there is a text in the Qur’an [5.116, 117] where, where, Allah asks Jesus did you ever command me to worship yourself and Mary as gods in derogation of Allah; and, uh, of course, Jesus you know, said, no, certainly I never commanded anything like that; well there wasn’t anyone running around worshipping God, Jesus and Mary as a Trinity at that time…” (The “Iron Sharpens Iron” radio program, 11-06-07 - http://sharpens.blogspot.com/search/label/James%20White - 38:00 min. ff.)

This ‘rabbit-trail’ is repeated at:

“YouTube” video (“Surah 5 and the Real Jesus” – 02-07-08):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRV0AIoR1kM

And again:

The “Dividing Line” radio broadcast (02/07/08):

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2513 - 42:00 min ff.

There are two significant problems with this ‘rabbit-trail’, the first being that there were Christians (heretical) “running around worshipping God, Jesus and Mary as a Trinity at that time”—the heretical sect known as the Collyridians. For a brief introduction to this sect:

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//questions/yq2/yq315.html

[See also: The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis – Books II & III, trans. by Frank Williams, 1994, pp. 618, 620-629.]

The second problem is that many Islamic scholars do not believe the Qur’an is addressing the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity in passages usually invoked by Christian and Muslim polemicists (e.g. Surah 5.116, 117). Note the following:

Hasty interpretation, without judicious weighing of the evidence, persuaded Muslim exegetes that the Koran condemns the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Christian apologists fell into this same snare…But those texts condemned a “tritheism” that has nothing to do with the formulation of the dogma of the Trinity. The same is true of the Koran’s supposed condemnation of the Incarnation. It condemns not the doctrine of Chalcedon, but Monophysite and Nestorian formulations of the doctrine. (Giulio Basetti-Sani , The Koran in the Light of Christ: A Christian Interpretation of the Sacred Book of Islam, p. 136.)

It has often been thought that the Qur’an denies the Christian teaching of the Trinity, and commentators have taken its words to be a rejection of orthodox Christian doctrine. However, it seems more likely that it is heretical doctrines that are denied in the Qur’an, and orthodox Christians should agree with most of the statements. (Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, p. 133.)

The fourth-century Christian heresiologist Epipahius mentions the Andtideco-Marianites who worshipped Mary as a goddess. It is possibly they who are envisaged in the Qur’anic insinuation that Christians deifed both Jesus and this mother. (Neal Robinson, Christ In Islam and Christianity, p. 21.)

What Christians mean by “God in Christ” is not adoptionism. This, as earlier noted, was a misreading which early Christianity itself resisted and rejected. But is a way of thinking which, in rebuking Christians, the Qur’an itself has frequently in view. Its rejection of Christology is in fact a rejection of adoptionism which Christians also repudiate. (Kenneth Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 203.)

…there are considerable differences between the Qur’an and the New Testament. It should be noted, however, that so far as the actual statements of the Qur’an are concerned, the differences are not so great as they are sometimes supposed to be. Modern scholars, Christian and Muslim, tend to read later controversies into the wording of the Qur’an. Thus the rejection of the doctrine that ‘God is one of the three’ [5.73/7] is usually taken to be a denial of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; yet strictly speaking what is rejected is a doctrine of tritheism which orthodox Christianity also rejects. Similarly the rejection of the fatherhood of God the Father and the sonship of God the Son is strictly speaking a rejection of fatherhood and sonship in a physical sense; and this Christianity would also reject. (Watt and Bell, Introduction To The Qur’an, p. 158.)

I do not know exactly how long James has been involved in Islamic studies (he mentions a debate with a Muslim apologist back in 1999), but I have had a keen interest in this field since the mid-90s, adding well over 500 books on Islam to my ever-expanding library, and must admit that I am at a bit of a loss trying to figure out why someone who has spent at least 8 years in the field would use such a weak, shallow argument—an argument which is, at least in part, based on a falsehood if one accepts the testimony of Epiphanius.

But then, as readers of this blog already know, James has used faulty arguments before…


Grace and peace,

David