Dr James White disparages non-Westerners as unsophisticated in their approach to logic, reasoning, argumentation and etiquette. I understand recently he has been criticised by some folks on his comments he made about an African American teen. Those comments indeed lacked wisdom to be mild. However, I don't think folk can label him a racist for those comments although they are problematic.
The comments about Non-Westerners are troublesome. He stereotypes Middle Easterners as dim-witted folk
Firstly his comments on an African Christian (Mr Wario) were replete with condescension and bigotry:
Mr. Wario is not a Westerner in outlook. Sometimes this leads to not only linguistic, but logical problems..
..So aside from providing a rebuttal to what Mr. Wario is claiming (the rebuttal is found in allowing my entire statements to stand as a whole) I think we have here an example of the cultural chasm as well. Often Westerners are left standing with their mouths open at the kinds of arguments Muslims find convincing. Ahmed Deedat is a great example of this. So often his arguments were so shallow, so poor, so disjointed, and yet you will find men shouting Allahu akhbar! in response. Why? There seems to be a cultural chasm at times that is difficult to bridge. Part of it may be language based, but much of it goes beyond mere language. Insistence upon logical thought, coherence, context, argument, is not necessarily the same across cultural boundaries. The video of James White talking to Mr Wario is here:
James White needs to learn from his mistakes. Society moved on - this is not 1975. Society demands folk talk about other races with care, sensitivity and respect. I personally think James White knows his comments were in bad taste and were unedifying but he is stubborn thus struggles to backtrack and apologise.
James White is an elder at Phoenix Reformed Baptist church thus folk would expect a higher standard of behaviour, respect and humility from him. It clearly was lacking here.
What is the original of 2 Corinthians? We cannot say!
Notes from Prof. Bart Ehrman's analysis of 2 Corinthians:
2 Corinthians, is one of the Pauline epistles. It was
written to his congregation in the city of Corinth c. 60CE. We are missing the original.
Theearliest manuscript of 2 Corinthians
is P46, it dates from c. 200CE. P46 is not a complete manuscript of 2
Corinthians. Our first complete manuscript dates to around 350CE.
The theoretical problems Dr Bart Ehrman outlines in
considering the original text of 2 Corinthians:
1. There's good evidence Paul dictated his letters to
scribes. Suppose Paul dictated 2 Corinthians and the scribe made mistakes in
rendering Paul's words into text.
Is the original text what the scribe wrote or what Paul
dictated?
This is not a big point of contention.
2. Paul did not write 2 Corinthians as it has come to us
today. Scholars have long recognised for over a century that 2 Corinthians is
made up of two different letters spliced together; chapters 10-13 do not come
from the same letter as chapters 1 to 9!
[This problem could be compounded as there's a large number
of scholars in Europe and the US
of the opinion 2 Corinthians is made up of 5 separate letters that Paul wrote!]
Whichever way you look at it 2 Corinthians we have is not
originally from Paul. It's from whoever amalgamated the different letters (2, 5
or however many letters were used to make up 2 Corinthians).
3. This gets messier still. The original letters from Paul
may have gone through scribal change prior to them being amalgamated by the
unknown person. This amalgam would then have gone through scribal change prior
to the earliest complete manuscript of 2 Corinthians c. 350CE.
How can somebody truly say 2 Corinthians is from Paul? They
cannot.
Ravi Zacharias relayed a strange story about Sheikh Ahmed Deedat in an interview in which he was addressing the atheist, Richard Dawkins. Ravi Zacharias claimed Sheikh Ahmed Deedat slapped a Christian on stage and asked the Christian to give him his trousers and the Christian took them off on stage.
Strange story. There's no video evidence of this incident.
In fact Sheikh Deedat's son, who was asked about this, has denounced this as untrue. See the screenshot (click to enlarge):
A South African pastor (Bobby Freddy) who knew Sheikh Deedat wrote:
"The story about the late Deedat from Zacharias is highy Questionable. I don't think Zacharias verifed his source/information.I knew the Late Ahmed Deedat personally and engaged with him often since early 70s. I personally don't think he would have done such a thing."
A Malaysian who is a former student at the university Ravi Zacharias refers to denounces Ravi's story as a fib (click to enlarge):
One of Sheikh Deedat's students who spent a lot of time with him suspects it's a made up story:
"I spent a lot of time with Deedat and know cameras were even in his office to record encounters with missionaries. If it were the case it would be on film as he recorded everything" [Yusuf Bux]
I have skimmed through 3 different Sheikh Deedat lectures held in Malaysia which are online (see links below) and I did not see this alleged incident! Here are the three I skimmed through:
Lastly, the story does not even seem plausible. Why would a grown man take their trousers off on stage at a university. Much less a lecturer? And evenIF this part of the story was true how can one use such a story to malign Ahmed Deedat? Shouldn't one be looking at this 'lecturer' who chose to strip on stage?
Conclusion
This story seems like a lie. Whether Ravi was a victim or perpetrator of this suspected lie is in question. A public comment from Ravi Zacharias' organisation as per the scandal concerning his credentials would be most welcome.
If Ravi is unwilling to commit to this story a public apology to Sheikh Ahmed Deedat's students, friends and family would be highly encouraged too. This of course must be upsetting and emotional for them. May Allah give Sheikh Ahmed Deedat paradise and may Allah bless Sheikh Deedat's family and friends with further good. Ameen.
The Jewish lady did try to poison Prophet Muhammad. She even put more poison into the part which the Prophet Muhammad p would eat. If you have a look at the story in full you will see the Prophet was forewarned of the poison by the food itself. An amazing miracle. Praise be to God.
You can listen to the story in detail here, I've combined clips from Dr Bashar Shala and Dr Muhammad Salah. Have a listen, it's a must listen:
A really quick response to Vladimir Susic's article on Pastor Boshoff's Ad Lucem website.
Vladimir Susic wanted to show the Trinitarian viewpoint behind an oft-used text by Unitarian Christians. John 17:3 seems straight forward enough in showing Jesus not to be divine and disproving the Trinity idea.
Vladmir offers a Trinitarian response. I skimmed through his response. I don't think his Trinitarian response is convincing.
Vladimir writes:
John 17:3: “And this is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent” —Jesus the Messiah. John 17:3 (ISV) Now our dear unitarian friends will obviously jump on it and say that we are done, but that is indeed not so. In our Trinitarian Theology The Father is indeed The Only True God, so is The Son, and The Spirit! Jesus can easily say that Father is The Only True God yet not deny his divinity for The Son is THE SAME GOD as the Father! So in saying that The Father is The Only True God, Jesus is in fact, affirming HIS OWN divinity for he is the same God as The Father!
Vladimir is insisting John 17:3 fits into a Trinitarian framework. I think the reasoning he gives here is flawed and it opens Vladimir and other Trinitarians to the charge of making Jesus out to be a bad communicator. If I say David is the only true manager, what does that mean? Does it mean, I'm a manager on par to David too? Nope, I've excluded myself from being a true manager. So why is Vladimir overlooking the word 'only' here?
Just read Vladimir's reasoning and ask yourself, is it convincing?
Vladimir wants to appeal to the context of John 17:3 but we should ask ourselves, is this not a standalone teaching? Not every teaching needs to be contexualised. Theological statements are stand-alone. For example, the Jews would point to the Shema (Deut 6:4) and verses such as 'Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,' [Isaiah 46:9] for their theology concerning God.
The Jews won't be talking about context here. Why is Vladimir appealing to context here? Simple, he has his motivations as a Trinitarian. He's reading catholic tradition into the text. Catholic with a small 'c' as Dr Dale Tuggy would say.
Vladimir's appeal to context hinges on John 17:5 where Jesus is asking the Father to glorify him. For Vladimir and other Trinitarians this is a big deal. They use this text to claim Jesus is equal to the Father - that's to say he is God. It's a big leap of faith. Vladimir and other Trinitarians stop short here but what about others who are given glory according to writing attributed to John? In John 17:22 the glory is given to others so it's problematic for Trinitarians to use this type of argumentation to support the idea Jesus is the same substance as God.
There are other verses in John which cause further problems with the Trinitarian stance
John 14:28 teaches Jesus is lesser than the Father "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
In John 20:17 Jesus affirms he has a God Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
What about Paul here?
Going back to John 17:3, the Trinitarians have another problem here in the form of Paul. Paul seems to repeat the same belief of the Father being the only God in 1 Cor 8:6. This is further supported in 11:3 in the same book.
1 Corinthians 11:3 teaches that Jesus is subordinate to God
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 8:6 teaches only the Father is God
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
I'd ask Vladimir and Trinitarian Christians to reflect on this information. Also pray about this to God Almighty. How can one love God with all their heart and mind if that love is being shared 3-ways when in reality it should be solely focussed on the One who created us all. The God of Jesus, Muhammad, Moses and Abraham (pbut). God Almighty.
Trinitarians and 1 John 5:20
Vladimir Susic then moves to 1 John 5:20 and argues this is calling Jesus the 'true God'. I don't find this convincing either. I would like to state, this does not seem to be a common Trinitarian argument. Perhaps I'm wrong. Vladimir, genuine question; do you have any audio or video of a Trinitarian scholar making this claim concerning 1 John 5:20? I have Dr James R White in mind here, has he made this argument before, do you know? If he has please link me to it. If not, why not? Thanks.
1 John 5:20: “We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the true God. We are in union with the one who is true, his Son Jesus the Messiah, who is the true God and eternal life”. 1 John 5:20(ISV)
Vladimir contends Jesus, and not the Father, is being called the true God here. This type of argument does not work in English either. It's not convincing. Come on Vladimir, it says at the beginning Jesus came so people can know the true God; it's suggesting Jesus and the true God are distinct beings. Here's a video arguing responding to the Trinitarian efforts and arguing it's the Father who is described as the true God.
Watch the video folks, he does a good job in breaking it down
Conclusion
Do you ever wonder why the Trinity is not explictly taught in the New Testament? If Jesus wanted us to believe in the Trinity, don't you not think he would have just taught directly? Ponder upon it.
Dr James R White is accused of dividing Christians by his fellow Christian missionary. This Christian missionary calls Calvinism unbiblical and challenges James White to a debate. Will James White accept this Arab Christian's challenge?
I've scrambled to get this on to the blog. Overlook any typos and mistakes, trust me I rushed to transfer my notes into something that you could follow
Bit of an uncomfortable discussion. Both parties pitched up with different intentions and expectations. Think about having a kick about with your mates. One of your mates turns up wearing a full kit, football boots and shin pad (there's always one of those guys in every group!). While your other mate has a wedding to go to in a few minutes - he's spruced up wearing a tuxedo.
Jonathan was wearing the full kit - he came for a debate and was getting his metaphorical slide tackles in (polemics) while Abdurraheem just came for a quick chat.
Abdurraheem Green starts off by giving an outline of his journey to Islam from Christianity. The Trinity was complex and problematic for Green - he was drawn to the simplicity of Tawheed. Green explains Tawheed and says the term is not Scriptural and it literally means making something one - it's a reference to the Oneness of God. He also explains the universality of the religion in that it's a continuation of the same message of previous Prophets.
Jonathan McLatchie describes the Trinity and he affirms he gets this concept from taking the Bible as a whole rather than from one particular verse or passage outlining this belief. In support of this he did cite the Shema in Deut 6 pointing to pure monotheism and then (later on) he references the Alpha and Omega title given to Jesus as being a divine title (Rev) which is attributed to Yahweh in Isaiah 44:6. Jonathan also cites John 17:5 and draws it in with Isaiah 42:8 suggesting Jesus has the same glory as God. He does not explain how he accepts the Holy Spirit into this Godhead though. Jonathan has had this issue before where he was asked to give a proof text for the Trinity idea and just wound up giving a text that he considered to affirm Jesus as divine
The obvious difference here, the Muslim can easily point to Quranic Verses which affirm Tawheed (Pure Abrahamic monotheism) whilst Jonathan McLatchie and other 'orthodox' Trinitarian Christians would struggle or more realistically, the majority would be unable to amalgamate numerous Bible verses to support the Trinity idea.
Green missed an opportunity here. It would have been useful if he asked McLatchie to show support for the 3 persons of the Trinitarian Godhead. I've never seen this done in a debate/discussion - no Trinitarian apologist has done such in a debate setting. Why? Trinitarians, be honest, has anybody done that in your church or Sunday school and convinced you?
A Developed Apologetic
It didn't take Jonathan McLatchie long to go into the Law of Non-Contradiction. This is interesting as it seems to be a common theme amongst Trinitarians. RC Sproul begins with this in his book on the Trinity too IIRC. You can see Trinitarians have a developed apologetic around this which has been honed with arguments against it in mind - clearly many do label it as contradictory so one can understand why they go into this pre-emptive spiel right off the bat. However, I think it's best not label it contradictory in these types of discussions as if you understand that Trinitarian framework you wouldn't label it contradictory in the sense Jonathan was pre-empting against - you'd understand they don't conflate the WHO's with the 1 WHAT. A key question is whether it's a contradiction to the texts. For instance do the singular pronouns used by God according to the Old Testament (OT) not cause a problem for the Trinitarian position of 3 in 1? Biblical Unitarians certainly believe so.
Tertulian heretic, good thing John Calvin wasn't about!
Jonathan McLatchie is upfront in apprising - thought I'd use a fancy word :) - the audience of the history behind the word 'Trinity'. Tertulian was the first person to use the term 'Trinity', Jonathan tells us in his Scottish brogue.
Interestingly enough, Tertullian appears to be the first person to introduce the word persona into Christian theology.
FYI: Tertulian would be deemed a heretic by most Christians of today.
Ignatius and Polycarp, is it fair to say these chaps were Trinitarians?
Mr McLatchie (thought I'd do the annoying James White stuff and go all formal - it's not much fun and seems stiff - metaphorically tosses the bow-tie away) said Ignatius and Polycarp affirmed Trinitarian concepts around the 11 min mark but what's he referring to here?
Remember the Trinity is 3 in 1. What text does he draw upon here to support the assertion these gentlemen were Trinitarians? I don't think it's right to intimate they held to the same beliefs as Jonathan and orthodox Trinitarians of today - especially given our investigations into Ignatius.
We can see a discussion on Ignatius and Trinity ideas here
An old polemic..
I don't get the presupposition Trinitarians come with when they talk about the Quran. They say the Quran should address their theological views of the Trinity. Why aren't they consistent and presuppose their NT should address the Jews' Unitarian theology?
Inconsistency is the sign of a bad argument.
Trinitarians such as James White fall into this fallacy - all because they build their arguments on false premises. Sadly, some folk just don't see it. Good thing I and others are about. I and these others are one :)
It didn't take long before the polemic of 'Mary in the Trinity' was proffered. This is not an intellectually honest argument, James White has a lot of explaining to do here as he is popularising this old missionary polemic. If White considers this a valid argument then he's opening the gate for a lot of bad arguments against the Bible if he's consistent. He's consistently inconsistent. Ohhhh that old cheesy line :)
Denouncing Maryoloatry is not the same as talking about the Trinity. I'm not going to dwell on it, it's already been discussed in this video Does Quran Teach Mary is in the Trinity? Ali Ataie and Taylor Marshall Crush Christian Polemics
To be clear, Jonathan is just repeating these arguments, so too is James White. However, one would call for discernment here rather than repetition.
Abdurraheem does touch on it. He does mention Maryolotry, he answers it well once he gets into it. I like the way he takes it all the way back to Tawheed.
Having said that, we really need to further our research into the theology of Christian groups in 7th century Arabia. The standard line is that these people consisted of Monophysites and Nestorians. If you have a look at Salman Al Farsi's story it's indicating these people even had different Scripture to what we see in churches today, why not different beliefs? These communities were cut off from the Byzantine empire and were, perhaps, exiles or refugees in that area. A really interesting area of research. Sop bombing the Middle East, get a few archeological digs set up!
Angry Christian extremists, what do yo say? Care to stop calling for military intervention in Muslim countries...
Sonship and Polytheistic
Jonathan McLatchie states there's a conflict between the Quran and the doctrine concerning the Sonship. Jonathan operates from his theological framework of an Eternal sonship. I think this is quite naive to think in this way - imposing one's understanding of this doctrine onto Christians in the Arabian peninsula. In fact, would Jonathan even impose his understanding of the sonship and trinity onto the Christian in the pew ahead of him this Sunday? IIRC, on the Trinity Channel, he has stated 90% of Christians would give a heresy if they were asked to explain the Trinity idea!
I think when Triniarians keep superficial polemics like these going they aren't being intellectually honest, consistent and fair.
Perhaps I will do a separate post or video on this argument in the future. For now, I think most people can see it to be an unconvincing line of argumentation.
Abdurraheem Green labels the Trinity polytheistic. That should have set a few pulses racing amongst the Christian audience. He states the Quran does not get into complex theological discussions and deals with broad principles. Theology of the son being literally God comes from the reasoning my son is like me...
"Coming after the Trinity"
Quran 4:171 - Do not say 3
Jonathan McLatchie suggests this is talking about 3 gods and thus getting the Trinity theology mixed up. This argument doesn't make sense. The simple statement of do not say 3 would refute the 3 in 1 concept in any case. Later in this verse, the Quran further shows the Trinity (whether Tritheism or the orthodox Trinity idea) is false by stating innama Allah ilah wahid (Allah is only one god).
As for Jonathan's claim it suggests 3 divine beings (gods).Jonathan and other Trinitarians miss the boat here and end up talking across Muslims. In Islamic theology any being put to the level of God is considered as being taken as a God thus Jonathan does have 3; God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This is a really contrived and fallacious argument from old missionary tomes being re-energised by Trinitarian folk like James White.
How does one expect to have serious and meaningful dialogue when one cannot even get passed superficial Trinitarian polemics?
Here's the thing, Jonathan is using his theological understanding of the Trinity idea to attack the Quran but if he looked at it from our point of view - from Islamic theology - he would see there's no issue here. As outlined above. These polemics James White and others repeatedly use all seem irrelevant and boring.
Mr Green (sounds a bit Reservoir Dogs-ish) gets frustrated!
Abdurraheem Green seemed to be getting frustrated at Jonathan's lines of argumentation, for him it all seemed to be irrelevant - understandably so. Most lay Christians don't understand the Trinity. The Quran is talking to these people and also people versed in theology as Mr Green puts it. I can't disagree.
Uncreated Word of God argument
I'm not sure if Abdurraheem Green thought this through but, without any impetus from Justin or Jonathan, he alludes to the Trinitarian polemic on the Eternality of the Quran. He was difficult to follow here. Why he brought it up I'm not sure. If I was to guess I think he was trying to pre-empt Jonathan McLatchie after observing Jonathan was getting quite polemical in this discussion.
Again, I think arguments like this from Trinitarians do not show their side in a good light.
. Clear and obvious
Abdurraheem Green contends the Trinitarian Christians are focussing on ambiguities in the New Testament and Old Testament to come to the Trinity belief while the unambiguous verses clearly show Jesus to be a man (Green appeals to ' the Father is Greater than I' in John 14:28 and Jesus' lack of knowledge of the day or hour, Matt 24:36). He calls for accuracy.
Limited Man
In response to John 14:28, Jonathan McLatchie appeals to a reading of the entirety of the verse and then to John 17:5. However, Jonatan stops short and misses out John 17:22 where the glory is given to others so it's problematic for Trinitarians to use this type of argumentation to support the idea Jesus is the same substance as God.
However, Jonathan Mclatchie's idea does not stack up. How so? Well the verse also teaches the Holy Spirit did not know the Hour - Jonathan as a Trinitarian would believe the Holy Spirit is the same ousia (essence) as the Father. Why does the Holy Spirit not know? The idea of kenosis and opting to limit oneself does not explain this issue for the Trinitarians. Trinitarians are in a bind here. The unravelling of the Trinity idea is apparent here - surely even to staunch Triniarians. Go on take that step towards pure Abrahamic monotheism..
Jewish Christians
Abdurraheem Green mentions Jewish Christians who seemingly did not believe in the Trinity idea. The orthodoxy of today cannot be applied to all early groups of Christians. Christianity was variegated - just like it is today.
Jonathan McLatchie, really?
Jonathan claims to be able to historically demonstrate Jesus considered himself God and taught his followers. This contradicts Larry Hurtado and Bart Ehrman.
Persecution, the reason behind the lack of early historical support for the Trinity idea?
Jonathan McLatchie talks about the church having faced intense persecution until the edict of Milan in 313 (alluding to the reason why the Trinity was not formalised prior to the 4th century). Does this argument stand up to scrutiny? I'm going through Amanda Threlfall-Holmes' book on the history of Christianity and here's something we can glean from her work which does pose some problems with the idea of persecution being behind the late formulation of the Trinity idea. I grabbed this chunk from my notes on that book thus far:
Apart from Emperor Nero's reign 54-68 AD the persecution from the Roman Empire was sporadic and local until 250AD. Roman society was essentially pluralistic and tolerated most religions as long as they did not threaten the stability of the Empire (civil disobedience). Christians were seen as anti-social as they did not partake in pagan traditions and were seen as an economic threat in instances of them refusing the eat meat sacrificed to idols.
Persecutions intensified from the mid 3rd century to the early 4th century as the Roman Empire began to hit hard times. These difficulties were blamed on a moving away from the old gods. Emperor Decius demanded sacrifices from every household. Each household was issued a certificate of compliance. Christians were persecuted when they refused to comply although many did comply or manage to purchase a certificate. Emperor Diocletian (303-305) intensified the persecution further
Nicea and the canon?
Jonathan McLatchie is correct in saying the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with deciding the canon of the Bible. There's no evidence it discussed the canon. I hear people linking the canon to Nicaea - correcting misunderstandings is a good thing
The council was about the Arian controversy so it was really about Christology.
MUSLIMS involved in dawah DO NOT make this mistake. DO NOT link Nicea with the NT canon. DON'T do it. Accuracy helps build trust and confidence in YOU.
Some bizarre comments from Jonathan McLatchie of the Apologetics Academy
"Church fathers unanimously teach the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ from way back, all the way to the apostles themselves". The example he gives is Ignatius of Antioch teaching the "hypostatic union" in a hymn.
Abdurraheem Green labels Jonathan McLatchie's statement slightly dishonest. The discussion gets even messier. Jonathan sounds unnerved and makes a comment that was outrageous - Jonathan continues with the odd comments the "word Trinity is closer to the Bible than what Tauhid is to the Quran" This has been demonstrated to be untrue here.
"Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of John and both taught the Trinity". We've touched on this above, however, can Jonathan provide us proof for this claim concerning the Trinity?
Conclusion
Abdurraheem Green was appealing to unambiguity while Jonathan McLatchie was relying on ambiguities to support the Trinity idea.
Look folks, we must not say of God that which is not true. How one can claim God is triune without any evidence for it is putting oneself in spiritual danger. Why believe in the Trinity? There's no reason to believe in it. If God wanted you to believe in it don't you not think He would have had Moses, Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad teach it?
The fact nobody can find any statement of any of those Prophets (pbut) teaching a Trinity idea speaks volumes. Trinitarians, please think about it. Peace.
Recently this video, above, was posted on the Acts 17 Apologetics FB group. It was removed, seemingly by Marie Wood. Marie is an admin of that group. Perhaps they have another admin who did it but Marie was active at that time so it seems.
Whatever the case maybe, Marie Wood, the wife of Answering Muslims' David Wood, why would you consider that video censorship worthy? It's correcting David Wood on his misunderstanding of the word 'white' in classical Arabic pertaining to skin colour. Surely, accuracy is more important than David's ego, right? Surely accuracy is more important than keeping folk falsely under the impression David Wood knows what he's talking about herem right?
Why censor? Why remove the video? Why not want folk to see it and have a better understanding?
Marie Wood, you knew Negeen Mayel. She was your friend, right? Why not have a read about her experiences with Acts 17 Apologetics Ministries?
I'll post an old email convo in full, although the most of the interesting comments from her have been on my blog for a while now.
Sure David Wood is making an income right now out of the internet but the anti-Muslim market is saturated on the net. Folk like David are a dime-a-dozen on the net. Don't you not think David should be trying to find a better career, one which is not about doing whatever he can for internet views regardless of whether it's moral or not, accurate or not?
That's not the comment I was referring to, but that's okay, I think one day I'll be able to sit down and really tell people what happened and what I was thinking during that time in my life. All I can say is that I was very young and because of my age I was in a vulnerable position. I was incredibly naive, and incredibly influenced by those around me. As far as reaching out to David, I have tried talking to him several times about the way he comes across and how often his methods are just simply unproductive and damaging to the Christian-Muslim relationship. But he does not listen to me, he insists that I am the one who lacks good sense. I maintain that I was in no way ready to be put in the position I was placed. Every time I was put in front of a camera-It was never my own idea. It was always at the prodding of those around me who did not understand the consequences of putting a teenager in front of a camera to speak on such complex and heavy matters such as religion. I do feel largely exploited as a result of everything that has happened. While no one physically forced me to do the things I did and say the things I did, there was psychological pressure. The psychological weight of feeling as though every Muslim person's salvation was dependent upon whether or not I went out and became a public spokesperson resulted into feeling as though I would almost be committing a sin if I didn't go out and publicly speak about religion. However, as I have said before I was too young and far too naive to be given such a platform. I do not believe today that the people around me at that time had any real regard for my own personal well being, but only in pressing their own agenda.
-Negeen
Hi Negeen,
I hope all is well.
Firstly I'd like to thank you for standing against the malice towards Muslims that is being churned out by Dave and others associated with that blog.
Negeen I did log into that blog (it's a surplus blog that I have neglected somewhat) and searched for your comment but could not find it. However, I did see a recent comment from yourself on my regular blog:
Yahya,
I honestly to this day have never viewed that video that David posted. I don't need to, he is wearing a womans spaghetti strap and posted it on his website that is associated with his ministry that seeks to win Muslims to Christ. This degree of outlandishness displays a lack of sheer respect towards the muslim community and that video should not have been posted. Over time I have come to seriously doubt the wisdom behind certain things that David does. Self radicalization can happen to anyone. Unfortunately, I think David has self radicalized himself into having a perspective of Islam that is heavily influenced by evil actions committed by bad people. If I wanted to spend all day reading articles about evil actions committed by Afghanis I would begin to hate all Afghans, but because I have a broader understanding of the Afghan community, because I have been around Afghans who love, laugh, and give generously I understand that not all Afghans are terrorists who hate women. I really wish David would spend less time self radicalizing himself and spend more time amongst the homes of normal muslims who love the good things in this world
Is this the comment you refer to?
I would be very much interested in hearing your experiences. Life is a journey and people do make mistakes.
Perhaps you could have some influence on David and help turn him around? I doubt his wife and kids are really impressed by his internet manner and actions. I think Nabeel has moved away from much of that approach but Dave seems to have allied himself with Sam who is very antagonistic and disrespectful towards Muslims.
This is really odd. I only came across David's response to my work in countering their thighing hoax last
night after I was on my phone trying to search for one of my posts on a hoax
conversion via Google.
It's dated 2014, David Wood is having a testosterone-fuelled
blast at me. Playing the big man while trying to belittle the other guy.
Typical internet shenanigans. Sad.
OK, here's the serious bit, he's accusing me of
concealing evidence Prophet Muhammad 'thighed' Aisha. Erm, we've been through
this before. David claimed before Aisha moved in with Prophet Muhammad p, the
Prophet would 'thigh' her (intercrurual sex) because she was too young for
actual sex. The guy just made that up. See the video above. He was exposed on that a few years ago.
He never responded to it back then but all of a sudden we see this post which
really does not prove his case.
Firstly, a 'Fatwa' is not evidence for anything.
It just means opinion. To have evidence the Prophet did something you need a
narration (Hadith). A sound one at that. The local imam down the road can give fatwas on whether
it's permissibile to listen to music, use a fridge, wear Nike trainers or
whatever. It's a legal verdict. Not historical evidence about Prophet Muhammad
p.
I had a look at his link, I couldn't find the
narration the website was quoting. So, for the time being, I cannot delve into
the Arabic, if it the narration from Ibn Majah exists. However, notice the
"narration" does not mention Aisha and it does not mention anything
about pre-puberty. Quite how Wood thinks this validates his claims is beyond
me. It doesn't. Why wait all these years and produce something so insignificant
that doesn't even touch on the claims YOU made?
If I have time, I may look into all this further
and produce another blog post as that crowd seem to be trying to throw some
dust in the air to distract people from their unsubstantiated claims and
deceptions of the past. Sad.
I am also being accused of censorship. These folk
have a screen shot of some comments that were deleted. I'm not sure if it's
from my blog but there's a discussion in the comments on his blog and it seems
like it's not just David who is accusing me of censorship (of links to this
thighing fatwa) so I guess some comments were deleted, unless David made a sock
account or two. I honestly don;t remember. As far as I recall, this is the
first time I've seen this post from David and this fatwa webiste which does not
prove anything. Perhaps I thought somebody was spamming. On newer posts I close off comments generally, they are time consuming, but the ancient posts on this blog have comments enabled so I assume, if what they must be referring to an older blog post. Whatever the case, I have no recollection of this. Clearly it was a big thing over at the AM blog :)
For anybody interested, David's post can be foundhere. All the stuff on his blog has been refuted. I always find it interesting
that he censors and then he makes a big deal out of me apparently censoring
(which I have no recollection of). Happy David? It's on my blog, now how about
you start allowing my comments and links on your blog, worried your donors will
follow Negeen Mayel through the exit door? BTW, your wife recently censored one of my vids in the Acts 17 group. Yep one of my vids was posted there and soon removed. What have you folk got to hide?
PS I found your belittlement odd considering at least
3 contributors of your blog (including yourself) have asked to debate me while your
buddy Shamoun regularly throws out debate challenges my way. Why debate a fly while
you boys are giants? Or is it really a case of you boys knowing this website and my
vids have harmed your credibility in the eyes of your supporters? Cutting through
all the childish insults, it's obvious that I'm not the fly he tries to paint me
as while David and his associates aren't the giants they style themselves as. More
humility and realism is required.
For the record, I challenge you to a debate. Any topic,
you can choose. As long as you agree to reciprocate and accept a topic from me.
We'll have the debate on YouTube. The place where falsehood and spin perishes :)
The place where so many have seen the Answering Muslims team stumble.
OK, I'm out. If anybody wants more history on the thighing stuff and more info on it, just search for the word on this blog and you will get a ton of posts on it. Have a good day. Peeeace.
If you're a supporter of Acts 17 or Answering Muslims, and want a private chat (perhaps you have concerns about some of their content and the way they do things) please email me: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Hi Dr James White, just so you know, I've missed the Liverpool match for you this afternoon. I was too busy putting my research together to assist you in this undertaking of understanding why Prof. Bart Ehrman considers you to be "offensive" and not a nice fella.
I understand you believe he does not look at your material but perhaps some of your comments prior to his comment filtered through to him via second-hand information? [For those unaware, you can read Bart's comment in the video presentation - let's call it a video]
It transpires you labelled him all the following prior to Bart calling you offensive and not a nice chap:
Slanderer
Dishonest
Anti-Christian (not anti-Christianity)
Anti-Christian weapon of mass deception
Unhappy
Miserable
Arrogant
Did I miss anything? Let me check, you also said he's on a crusade, he makes his money out of attacking Christianity, you spoke about his 'background' and your buddy was laughing at one of your mean jokes about him.
That's a lot of stuff there, James. I've documented it in this video. However, seen as I did you a good turn I'm going to ask for a favour from you. Accept one, preferably two seen as I missed the match as well, from the 5 below:
1. You publicly apologize for recently attacking me for videos I did not make. BTW those comments you made about me were mean, as mean as the anti-Bart Ehrman comments. Making mean comments about somebody based on something they didn't actually do seems really unfair. Don't worry, I have a thick skin.
3. Accept to field some questions prepared by yours truly [that's me:)] on the Trinity idea and NT reliability for you to answer later on a DL episode.
5. Recommend me to Dan Wallace so we can hop over to North Africa (or wherever he's sifting around for NT manuscripts) and try to find some new early manuscripts to help discern which parts of the New Testament are forgeries or not ala Dr Von Tischendorf's find in the 1800s. As you can see, I have a knack at finding stuff. I will however need a team to help me - you can't seriously expect me to do it all by myself. Give me Mr Wood (minus his wife's underwear, wouldn't want to upset the natives in the East) and Mr Shamoun. They look like hardy fellas who could do some digging and other manual labour. I'm joking, this one is silly. Or, at least, I think it's silly. Perhaps Dan or yourself see some potential in the idea after all, when you're desperate you resort to desperate measures :)
OK, I'm done here. Over to the James White supporters to pass this on to James. Don't worry, he won't bite. Just email it to him. It will help him. Perhaps he will even change his ways. Maybe he never realised how mean he comes across to the average listener/viewer/reader?
If you're a Trinitarian Christian, let's face it, out of all the Christians (including Mormons, if you want to lump them in there too) the evangelical Christians on the net are the loudest and rudest. I find Catholics and Mormons to be better human beings - based on my limited experience of them. Not sure what's going on over there in the evangelical camp but you've got some rude, obnoxious and offensive missionaries, pastors, church elders and apologists.
When you evangelical boys and girls say you are guided by the Holy Spirit we look at you with puzzled looks.
Ohhhhh yesssss!!! I just checked the Liverpool score. We won 2-1 against Crystal Palace. Happy days. I'm going to be a happy bunny tonight. Definitely happier than Bart :)
Did Ignatius of Antioch believe in the Trinity idea? Some Trinitarian apologists claim Ignatius taught the Trinity idea before the 4th century (in the first or second century). Is this a valid claim? No.
Firstly, the letters of Ignatius are suspected to be highly interpolated thus cannot be used as proof of Ignatius' beliefs as they are unreliable. See
..even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its authors. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form [Source]
Also:
There may be serious question whether these epistles of Ignatius have not been emended or edited by later writers. There are some words and phrases alien to early Christianity which raise suspicion that some of the works have been manipulated or added to by later church [Source]
Secondly, the quote Trinitarians use to contend Ignatius believed in the Trinity is thus:
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever,"
Notice there's no mention of the Trinity idea here. Remember the Trinitarians teach 3 in 1. This verse mentions three but there's no mention of the three being co-equal and of the same substance.
Thirdly, the Trinitarian is quite selective here in terms of which Triune formula they reference as it seems there's Triune formula including Mary:
A "triune formula" -- often used to prove the Trinity -- is a phrase which includes three things or three persons. The answer to this question is yes. There is one surprising Trinitarian formulation which seems alien to early Christian. In To the Ephesians, section 7, there is a trinity of God, the Son, and Mary. Or, in section 18, the trinity of Jesus, Mary and the Holy Ghost.[Source]
Conclusion
To say Ignatius taught the Trinity would be misleading.
