Can Church Father Quotations Reconstruct the New Testament?

This is an excerpt from Islamic Awareness

 

PATRISTIC CITATIONS CAN RECONSTRUCT THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT

 

The claims that the numerical strength of the New Testament manuscripts give it textual reliability and that the Patristic citations can reconstruct the New Testament makes good sound-bites for Christian apologists. As for the latter claim, this is something that is oversold by Christian apologists. It is true that New Testament scholars and apologists have made this claim but a few of them have added caveat about the problems concerning constructing the text of Patristic citations. For example, Metzger says about the Patristic citations:
 

Indeed so extensive are these citations that if all the sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.^[21]

If this is indeed true then what is stopping the textual critics to go ahead and reconstruct the text of the New Testament on the basis of Patristic citations? This brings us to the caveat where Metzger and others have cautioned against over-enthusiasm. The caveat comes in the form of three problems one encounters when dealing with the Patristic citations.
 

The first problem in dealing with the Patristic citations is the order of the quotation of scriptures. The Fathers do not quote the New Testament chapter by chapter and verse by verse except in a few commentaries. They quote passages as they are useful in whatever argument they are making. So, the first step is to sort out their citations into an orderly fashion. This requires the production of critical texts of the citations which are now slowly in the process of getting published.^[22]
 

The second problem is regarding the accuracy of the citation. Most fathers did not refer to manuscripts when they quoted scripture. They just used the wording they remembered. It goes without saying that reminiscences and allusions are of less value to the textual critic than specific citations of the very words of the scriptural passage.^[23]
 

The third and the last problem is that of transmission. Just like we do not have the original autographs of the New Testaments, we no more have the original manuscript of Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian or Jerome. Ehrman says:
 

The other set of problems unique to Patristic sources concerns the history of their own transmission. The MS traditions of virtually all the church fathers show that later copyists tend to "correct" quotations of the Bible to the form of text prevalent in their own day... Biblical citations in such sources do not necessarily represent the text of the Father, but often only known to his later copyists.^[24]

Similarly, the Alands observe that:
 

It is as true of the New Testament quotations in the Church Fathers as it is of the versions that they are often misjudged and consequently misused. The route from a modern edition of a Church Father's works back to the text which he read in his New Testament may be long and tortuous... But even when a modern critical edition is available there is no certainty that it preserves the New Testament quotations of a work as they occurred in its original form.^[25]

Since these writings have their own history, before we can treat these citations as reliable and trustworthy, they must be subjected to textual criticism. As R. M. Grant a few decades ago said, "patristic citations are not citations unless they have been adequately analyzed."^[26] Such an analysis should attempt at least two things; firstly, to gather all the data from the literary remains of each Father and, as much as possible, reconstruct his biblical text and secondly to evaluate the Father's citing habits in various kinds of works for accuracy of quotation. And this should be done before the evidence of the Father is brought to court.^[27]
 

Given these problems, the Patristic citations are nevertheless quite useful, unlike manuscripts, in determining both where and when a particular author wrote. Many of the Fathers are early. Their texts predate many of the early manuscript witnesses. Thus their testimony can enable us to localize particular readings and text-types.
 

As one can now judge, the popular statement that the New Testament can be reconstructed solely from the citations of the early Church Fathers is rather far-fetched. Given these problems, what role do the Church Fathers' citations actually play in modern critical editions of the New Testament? They play no more than a 'supplementary and corroborative function' according to the Alands and others. The Alands say
 

5. The primary authority for a critical textual decision lies with the Greek manuscript tradition, with the versions and Fathers serving no more than a supplementary and corroborative function, particularly in passages where their underlying Greek text cannot be reconstructed with absolute certainty.^[28]

In other words, the Patristic citations can't overrule the readings present in the manuscripts except where there is an uncertainty. Readings with exclusively Patristic support struggle to make it into the critical apparatus of a critical edition of the Greek New Testament, let alone ever being considered as an actual verse of the New Testament! So, the claim that the Patristic citations can completely reconstruct the New Testament, without reference or recall to any other form of evidence, is overstated and far-fetched and constitutes more wishful thinking on the part of the missionaries and apologists.
 

For instance, let us examine the selection procedure behind the recently released Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior (1997 – initial volume), a critical edition of the New Testament under the supervision of the Barbara Aland at the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung at Münster, Germany. What makes this critical edition of the New Testament particularly distinctive are the comparatively vast number of witnesses cited. With regard to the Patristic quotations, Barbara Aland states:
 

In addition to these primary witnesses, the edition includes all the Greek patristic quotations to the time of John of Damascus (7th/8th century) plus some important later authors. The difficult task of distinguishing between quotations and allusions is somewhat alleviated by the fact that the edition contains all the textual variants found in the manuscript tradition of the first millennium. The text of the Letter of James preserved in the writings of the Fathers corresponds in most instances to variants known in the manuscript tradition; in other New Testament writings the situation may differ. Readings with exclusively patristic support are cited only rarely, and usually then only if they are attributed to manuscripts which no longer survive. (Allusions have been considered only if they clearly reflect a known reading).

Attempts have been made in the past to reconstruct parts of New Testament text using the Patristic citations. For example, D. Mollat used the views and the resultant reconstruction of the Gospel of John by of M. -E. Boismard for his translation in the Jerusalem Bible. Boismard's views lead to the acceptance of the shorter version of the text of John in almost every case, even when the Patristic sources stand alone in the attestation of this text. Subsequently, articles by Fee and Metzger have been directed against Mollat's overly zealous appropriation of the Patristic evidence for his translation.^[29]
 

We conclude with Ehrman's terse statement that elegantly sums up both the strengths and weaknesses of patristic evidence.
 

Patristic sources provide primary evidence for the history of the text but only secondary evidence for the original text itself.^[30]

A Refutation of the ISIS is Islam Rhetoric - Tommy Robinson Needs to Read This!

A “Christian” missionary organisation put out an anti-Islam propaganda tweet. It’s standard Islamophobic spiel which one comes across amongst anti-Muslim trolls on the internet. The tweet reads:

ISIL: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Identified as Muslims. Funded by the Quran and sunnah. Follower of Islam. Enemy of non Muslims

There are a number of issues with this tweet, aside from their misuse of the word “funded”.

1. “Identified as Muslims”. There are Muslims who don’t pray, gamble, steal, eat pork, drink alcohol, go out clubbing and partying, fornicate, watch porn, etc.. Just because an act is done by a Muslim does not mean it’s Islamic. We have to draw a distinction between the actions of Muslims and Islam – the two aren’t always in harmony due to human weakness. Likewise for Christians who drop bombs on people’s heads, carry out terrorist attacks, have gay marriages, divorce, fornicate, gamble etc., are we going to say these actions stem from Christianity?

2. “Funded by the Quran and the Sunnah. Follower of Islam”. The person misused the word “funded” here, I think they were trying to say ISIS’ actions are inspired by Islam. Let’s just analyse ISIS’ actions in he UK. They killed innocent civilians in Manchester and London. Is that allowed in Islam? No:

Dr Timothy Winter of Cambridge University states "terrorism is the arbitrary targeting of the innocent in order to place pressure on governments, which is something which doesn't have origins in Islamic culture or ethics and comes out of the French revolution and certain 19th century anarchist movements that used terrorism. As a doctrine in the Muslim world it's very recent and it's an expression of Westernisation. Terrorism, 9/11 for instance, according to classical Islamic Law is classified as hiraba which carried the death penalty" 

An excellent quote from Muhammad Asad's book rebuking evangelical Christians (Jeremiah Johnston and Craig Evans) who parse terrorist attacks in a similar manner to Islamophobic evangelical Christian propagandists "Simply put, every Muslim scholar - whether Sunni, Shia, Salafi, Deobandi - has condemned and spoken out against Daesh. Their arguments against Daesh and its acts are derived from traditional Islamic religious texts and based firmly in Islamic jurisprudence". 

So clearly they aren’t acting in accordance with Islam therefore they are not inspired by the Quran and the Sunnah. Now , for sure many of them may feel they  are acting in accordance with Islam but the vast majority of Muslims worldwide and all recognised Muslim scholarly bodies denounce their terrorist actions. The question here is who do we allow to interpret Islam, the majority of Muslims and the scholarly bodies of Islam or an obscurantist fringe and minority radical group that has very little traction and support amongst Muslims? The intellectually honest person would opt for the majority of Muslims and the scholarly bodies rather than a terrorist group.

Just to show how problematic extremist fringe interpretations of religious texts can be let's focu on a Bible verse. 1 Samuel 15:3 has been used to support mass violence:

The story of the Amalekites has been used to justify genocide throughout the ages. According to Pennsylvania State University Professor Philip Jenkins, a contributing editor for the American Conservative, the Puritans used this passage when they wanted to get rid of the Native American tribes. Catholics used it against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics. "In Rwanda in 1994, Hutu preachers invoked King Saul's memory to justify the total slaughter of their Tutsi neighbors," writes Jenkins in his 2011 book, Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can't Ignore the Bible's Violent Verses (HarperCollins). [Guardian]

On a similar theme please listen to pastor Brian McLaren:

 How Bible Stories Were Used For Genocide, White Supremacy, Racism + Sectarian Violence


Would the same Christian be consistent and say those who massacred the Native Americans were followers of Christianity and backed by the Bible?

3. “ Enemy of non Muslims”. Erm, how about the “ISIS are also the Enemy of Muslims”? ISIS have killed more Muslims than non Muslims.

According to the Counter Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy at West Point, Al-Qaeda kills over seven times more Muslims than non-Muslims. According to the UN, Muslims are the largest victims of ISIS. According to the State Department, Muslims are the largest victims of terrorism in general [Omar Alnatour – Huff Post]

And how about “Muslims are at the forefront of opposing ISIS”?

Muslims want to defeat terrorism just as much as any other American, if not more. This is why we have Muslim women like Niloofar Rahmani and Kubra Khademi who are at the very frontlines fighting terrorists. This is why millions of Muslim youth are taking a stand against ISIS. This is why tons of Muslim groups and scholars repeatedly issue statements condemning ISIS, many even being beheaded by ISIS for doing so.

This is why more than 120 Muslim scholars from around the world joined together to write an open letter to ISIS, denouncing them as un-Islamic by using Islamic terms. This is why Muslims are being killed by ISIS for publicly opposing this terrorist group’s persecution of Christians. [Omar Alnatour – Huff Post]

How can we defeat ISIS?

Right so how can an intellectually honest, fair and balanced person talk about terrorism committed by extremist fringe Muslim groups? Obviously they are motivated to have effect politically and they are reactionary – reacting to Western imperialism (be it direct of indirect) in most cases. Many of them have clearly adopted interpretations of Islam which depart from mainstream Muslim positions to suit their reactionary and geo-political agendas.

There has to be a two-pronged effort to defeat ISIS:

1. This is something which has been going on for a while. Muslim scholars have been refuting ISIS via the Islamic tradition. Lay Muslims and the MSM should help to disseminate scholarly denouncement and refutation of ISIS in order to stymie their flow of new recruits and to help convince ISIS members that they are in the wrong.

2. There clearly is a correlation with Western foreign policy and ISIS terrorism.
Despite what we might like to think, foreign policy is key to understanding why terrorists attack us. We may hope they only attack us because they’re barbaric or because they ‘hate our freedoms’. But time after time the terrorists clearly state that they attack us because we attack them. And it’s uncomfortable to admit, but these terrorists know they are not lying in saying that our military has been involved in killing and harassing tens of thousands of civilians, whether directly through invasions, bombings and drone strikes, or whether indirectly through propping up oppressive regimes. Our aggressive and utterly selfish foreign policy will always leave us open to attack.[Dr Leon Moosavi, Liverpool University]

There’s a cycle of violence which has to stop. We all (Muslims and Non Muslims) all have to start being more active in lobbying Western governments against unjust military and economic policies. We’ve got seriously try to build a fairer world for everyone.


 Jonathan Mclatchie: Gay Marriage is "Madness" but Terrorism is..

What the Jihadists Who Bought ‘Islam For Dummies’ on Amazon Tell Us About Radicalisation

It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent - letter to Baghdadi

9/11 was against Sharia - Dr Timothy Winter

Book Review: Jesus, the Fake Jihadis & Evangelical Christians by Muhammad Asad (A Response to 'Jesus and the Jihadis')

The Truth About ISIS - Dr Yasir Qadhi

Russell Brand: Haters of Islam Encourage Muslims towards Extremism

 

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk 

 

Notes and Select Quotes from the Book Mecca the Sacred City

Mecca The Sacred City, Ziauddin Sardar, Bloomsbury




Mecca has had many names. It was known as al-Balad (the main city) and al-Qaryah (place large numbers of people congregate like water flowing into a reservoir). Mecca was also known as Baca as mentioned in Psalm 84:5-6

5 Blessed are those whose strength is in you,
in whose heart are the highways to Zion.[a]
6 As they go through the Valley of Baca
they make it a place of springs;
the early rain also covers it with pools.


The Arabic form of Baca, Bakkah, can be translated as ‘lack of stream’. The valley indeed was a dry place with no vegetation.

Archeology and Mecca

 p4 Today’s Mecca, in the modern Saudi Arabia, has for the past eighty years been ruled by a family with a horror of history, of historical evidence, that includes evidence from archaeology, as well as from manuscripts. The government ensured that Mecca was washed clean of its history in June 1973 when entire districts of the city were bulldozed and its cultural property and historic sites were erased from the landscape as easily as one rubs out pencil marks on paper. The little archaeology that has been undertaken in Saudi Arabia occurs far removed from the Holy Places. As far as the Saudis are concerned Mecca has no prehistory, no history before Muhammad, and no history after Muhammad. This denial of Meccan history is based on a single reason: the Saudis do not want anyone to venerate Muhammad. The fear is that historical sites, rather than God, will become objects of worship.

Archeological evidence, however, is not our only source of insights into history. Our window into the past includes words as well as memories, what today is known as oral history...p4

...Many of the Psalms are attributed to the Prophet King David, whose reign is tentatively dated 1040-970 BCE. Psalm 84, however, is attributed to ‘the sons of Korah’, believed to be either a family of religious singers or a guild of singers and musicians. Originally, the sons of Korah were appointed by the David to provide songs and music during the building of the Temple in Jerusalem. However they continued to function long after. Psam 84 might have come into existence at any time from the era of King David up to the time when the 150 Psalms found in the Old Testament are known to have existed in written form. This spans a period from somewhere after 1040 BCE up to around 165 BCE. p5

We can, however, agree with Edward Gibbon, the eighteenth century historian and author of the celebrated Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, that the genuine antiquity of Caaba ascends beyond the Christian era’. Gibbon knew of claims that the existence of Mecca was known to the ancient Greeks. Diodorus Siculus, the Greek historian who lived during the first century BCE, mentions the Kaaba in his Bibliotheca Historica, a book describing various parts of the discovered world: ‘ a temple has been set up there, which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians’. The city is also mentioned by Claudius Ptolemy, the Egyptian Roman citizen who wrote his classic text, Geography, in Greek, and lived around 90-168 CE...In his survey of the inhabitable world he provides a list of cities in Arabia Felix. Amongst them is ‘a place called Macroba’, which ‘allows us to identify it as a Southern Arabian foundation created around a sanctuary’. P5-6

A string of archeological sites from modern-day Iraq to Pakistan, home of the Indus Valley civilization of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, provide evidence of a trade route dating back to around 3000 BCE. When the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II was buried in 1224 BCE several peppercorns that would have originated in India or even South East Asia were used along with other unguents as part of the embalming process. P6

In the stories and poems of Arabia before Islam, Mecca was the city of Abraham, biblical prophet, patriarch of Israelites and Ishmalites, and founder of the monotheistic faiths. P7

Location of Abraham and Hagar

According to the Bible, Hagar wandered in the city of Beersheba, located in the Negev desert, and eventually settled in the desert known as Paran. If that is the case, then it is highly unlikely that she would turn up several hundred miles away in Mecca; or that Abraham would visit her frequently. It is possible, as recent research suggests, that Abraham and his family were located not in Egypt and Palestine, but in the Asir province, which shares its western border with Yemen, in the southwest of Arabia [FN to Kamal Al Salibi, The Bible Came from Arabia (Jonathan Cape, London, 1984)] That, of course, would make the Muslim account more plausible. And Abraham would be able to visit Hagar and Ishmael relatively easily and more frequently. p11

 Early historians

P12-13 The first book to be written about Mecca was put together before 865 by a native of the city: Meccan Reports by al-Azraqi....But Meccan Reports is not history as we conventionally understand it. To begin with it concentrates on the city monuments, for example the Kaaba and Muqam Ibrahim, and the living quarters of the city. What it tells us about ancient Mecca is based on oral traditions and the stories familiar to the city’s inhabitants. Whereas al-Azraqi tells us little about the social and political makeup of Mecca, more general histories focus on the city’s notables, its politics and struggles. One of the most important of these is the monumental forty-volume History of al-Tabari, the ninth-century historian, theologian and commentator. Al Tabari (838-923), who was of Persian origins, was an avid collector of stories; and he includes them all, good and bad, true and false, without comment, in his work. The biographer ibn Saad (784-845), who was born in Basra, Iraq, and worked as a scribe before blooming into a writer, seemed just as open-minded...Other historians were more discerning. The biographer and historian ibn Ishaq (d. 767 or 761) was more discerning in what he included in The Life of Muhammad, the first part of which deals with the ancient history of Mecca.
 
Prophet Muhammad illiterate but not uneducated

p20 Muhammad was ‘unlettered’: he could not read or write. This does not necessarily mean that he was uneducated. He was the product of an oral culture, where history and tradition were passed from generation to generation through sagas, genealogical narratives, and most importantly poetry. He was probably well versed in the ancient history of his city: he would have heard the sagas repeatedly told , the epic poems, the odes, the satires, as well as the lament of Mudad, and the couplets of Amr of the Luhayy.

[couplet begins: We became the custodians of the Kaaba after Jurhum]

Oral history of Mecca

...The history of Mecca was constantly being recited in the streets and squares, alleys and assemblies, and within and around the Sanctuary. The Meccans lived and breathed their history. In this fiercely tribal society Muhammad would, of course, have been familiar with the history of his own tribe – the Quraysh.


Boycott/blockade on early Muslims

 Back in Mecca, the Quraysh leadership prepared its next move: this would be a boycott of all those who had any connection to Muhammad’s Banu Hashim clan. Today we would call this a blockade or extreme form of ‘sanctions’. Back then it included a ban on marrying into the Banu Hashim, as well as forbidding all trade and other forms of association. The pact was written down and hung on the door of the Kaaba. The boycott would continue till the Banu Hashim agreed to hand Muhammad over to the Quraysh.

Comprehensively shunned and excluded from society, members of the Banu Hashim, including Muhammad, had little choice but to leave the city. Under the leadership of Muhammad’s uncle Abu Talib, who still insisted on protecting his nephew, clan members moved to a nearby mountain cave. But not everyone did. Some in the Banu Hashim, such as another of Muhammad’s uncles, Abu Lahab, chose to side with the Quraysh leadership and remained in the city.


Life outside the city, without food and provisions, was harsh. Reports from the time say that the new Muslims were reduced to eating leaves. Abu Jahl, Abu Sufyan and other Meccan leaders watched like hawks to ensure that isolation was strictly enforced. The blockade continued for almost three years and became so intense that the screams of hungry children from behind the mountain pass could be heard in the streets and squares of the city. p44-45
Some Christians used to perform the pilgrimage before Islam

‘Even Christian Arabs made pilgrimage to Kaaba, honouring Allah there as God the Creator’ Marshall Hodgson, The Venture of Islam (Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1974) vol. I p.10
Sourced from page 24 Mecca The Sacred City, Ziauddin Sardar

Early Caliphs and rulers:

Abu Bakr 2 years
Umar 10yrs
Uthman 12yrs
Ali becomes Caliph in 656. Battle of the Camel.

Muawiya takes control in 660. He’s the son of Abu Sufyan. First Ummayad ruler. He sets his base in Damascus. His son is Yazid. Yazid takes control in 680.

In 683, there’s a rebellion in Mecca after Hussain was killed. Blackstone broken by projectile from Yazid’s army.

684 Marwan

685 Abdal Malik Ibn Marwan (rules 685-705). His commander was Al Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf. There was another siege on Mecca in 692.

Ummayad: 13 Caliphs from 661-750. From the family lineage of Abbas Ibn Abdal Mutallib.

Mystics

Persian Mansur al Hallaj was a mystic with heterodox views. He died in 922. He believed in union with God. “On the whole the Meccans paid very little attention to the mystics in their midst” 96

It is unlikely that the city’s inhabitants, locals or visitors, were impressed by the heterodox views of Mansur. He believed in union with God and was in the habit of losing himself in mystical introspection. While in this state, he would declare: ‘I am the Truth’. This declaration eventually led to his long trial and imprisonment in Baghdad, culminating in his execution by the order of the orthodox jurists in March 922. 96

The Mihna persecution

The Mihna was an attempt by the Abbasid Caliph al-Mamun to impose his own theological views on his subjects. This is what comes closest to the Spanish Inquisition in Islamic history. Mihna means ‘testing or ‘trial’. He wanted people to believe the Quran was created. The Mihna continued after al-Mamun’s death under his successors al Mustasim (r. 833-42) and al-Wathiq (r. 842-7), and was finally ended in 861 (ref pages 97-99)

Some notable dates and events

By the 9th century 4 schools had been established.
Qarmatians attacked Mecca in 930. Abu Tahir al-Qarmati. They took the black stone. Returned broken in 951.

1202 in Mecca: Ibn Arabi. Philospophy of Unity of Being (Wahdat al Wujud)

The demon of the West: Reynaud de Chatillon 1180

Abdal Wahhab 1703-92. His teachings were strongly opposed. His own father and brother rejected his call.

Muhammad bin Saud made a pact with in 1747. Ottomans compared Wahhabis to Qarmatians of the 9th century. Ottamans were unable to deal with Wahhabis due to European expansionism. 1803 Wahhabis entered Mecca. It was retaken by Sharif Ghalib.

The end of the First World War revealed the existence of the secret Sykes-Picot Treaty of 16 May 1916 by which the British and French had agreed on the distribution of territories of the defeated Ottoman Empire. Mandated territories were a polite fiction for colonial rule and the wholesale remaking of lands and their peoples towards the interest of the European powers. Arab independence had been gained from the Ottomans, only to become mortgaged to Britain and France. 295

Upon King Abdul Aziz’s rule, the 4 stations of different schools of thought were removed and prayers were now led by a single Wahhabi imam.

Slavery

Rutter discovered many ageing slaves in the city, freed or abandoned by their owners because they were no longer fit to work. ‘Several of these poor creatures, some of them women were living in the Haram during my stay in Mecca’ surviving on begging. Rutter had studied the Quran and was an expert in Islamic Law. He could not reconcile the teachings of Islam with the prevalence of slavery in the Holy City. If the injunctions of Islam were ‘rightly practised’, he observed, it would lead to ‘the complete cessation of slavery in the Islamic state....again and again, the Koran reiterates the teaching that one of the most acceptable acts in the sight of God is the liberation of the slave. 310

What is the Kaba

The function of the Kaaba, a cuboid structure made of brick and mortar and draped in black cloth, is to provide Muslims with a sense of direction. Wherever they may be on God’s benevolent earth, Muslims turn towards the Kaaba during their five daily prayers. They walk around it seven times when they are performing the Hajj, or Umra, the lesser pilgrimage. It is a symbol, a sign of direction for Muslims to turn towards and inculcate a sense of unity amongst themselves 342

"It is a familiar category mistake, blaming revelation, the Divine, for the failings of the human beings who so imperfectly adhere to its word" 345


Vocab

Erstwhile
Staunch the flow
Acme
Interloper
Presage
Redoubtable
Sharif - man of importance
Intransigent
Annals
Internecine
Opulent
Haven of consumerism
Obscurantism
Predeliction
Scion
Shibboleth

Muslim Defends John Sentamu vs Andrea Williams, Timothy Benstead, Christian Concern and James Gibson

Muslim Reads Mere Christianity

Non-Arab Muslims With Surnames Like Qureshi, Related to Quraish Tribe?

Muslim Reads Mere Christianity

Mere Christianity, Collins, 2012. Clive Staples Lewis d. 1963

This work was originally a broadcast aired during WW2.

Overall I was surprised to see it was not a typical Christian apologetics and polemics discourse. Having heard modern Christian apologists talk this work up, I was expecting an apologetics tome. It had more of a spiritual theme and actually reminded me a little of a Muslim book Purification of the Heart, Translation and Commentary of Imam al-Mawlud’s Matharat al Qulub by Hamza Yusuf.

Lewis has a great turn of phrase, a very elegant writer. I guess that is part of the appeal of his work. Style. Is it style over substance though?

I skipped much of the latter part on Christian life and ethics. For some sort of foundational book of apologetics I was surprised at the lack of apologetics (apologetics one would expect from Christians in 2017). Much of it was speaking to Christians and/or those from a Christian background with a spiritual emphasis. The already convinced or those half-heartedly into the religion (nominal Christians?) are the target audience in my view. This makes sense considering this book was a series of radio broadcasts in a Britain which was suffering aerial bombardment by the Germans - the majority of people would have been Christian.

CS Lewis believed it was OK to skip parts in books.

Moral law

CS Lewis believed, rightly, there was a moral law which is a law of human nature common to all men and nations. Perhaps something similar, in part or loosely at least, to the Muslim view of natural disposition: fitrah.

He believed all folks, even those who would have disagreed with his concept of right or wrong principles always invoke them when they feel wronged.

He does go through objections or naturalist explanations of the moral law: herd instinct and social convention.

I thought it was ironic he drew a distinction between Christian and Nazi morality. Ironic because the Nazis were Christians too. His example to help his argument for the existence of a moral standard or real morality to judge which morals are better was linked to what was happening at the time WW2, how does one judge which is superior, Nazi morality of Christianity, if there is no moral standard?

What lies behind the law?

Materialist view: people who believe matter just happens to exist and always has existed. By chance thinking beings came into existence.

Religious view: A conscious being is behind the universe. Universe is made for a purpose.

From this Moral Law he deduces God is intensely in right conduct, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty and truthfulness. “Absolute goodness”

SC Lewis teaches: Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness thus it’s talking to people who know there is a Moral Law and a Power behind it.

2 views on God

1. God is beyond good and evil. I.e. Pantheism. This idea was held by the Prussian philosopher Hegel

2. God is “good” righteous” i.e. Christianity, Judaism and Islam. God is good and is separate from the world – some things in the world are contrary to His will.

“Christianity and water”, this term coined by CS Lewis represents what I call “Westernised Christianity”. There’s a sugar coating and a complete emphasis on parts of Christianity which are about love and what fits in with Western norms. This is destroying Christianity consciously or unconsciously (whatever the case may be). It ignores “the difficult and terrible doctrines about sin and hell and the devil and redemption”

 
CS Lewis Misguided about Jesus

This idea that Jesus turns up and claims to be God is an idea that deep scholarship of the NT does not take on board I wonder whether Lewis would have said such if he had access to the type of historical Jesus scholarship and the widespread Unitarian arguments which so many are influenced by today to form different conclusions about Jesus and the church doctrine of the Trinity and Jesus deification:

51: Among the Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed.

51: I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God’. This is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.

What does “in Christ” mean?

This is an interesting definition which is problematic for Christian communities espousing Islamophobic (anti-Muslim), pro-homosexual and pro-divorce views amongst other Westernised views which are contrary to the Bible.

“...they mean Christ is actually operating through them; that the whole mass of Christians are the physical organism through which Christ acts – that we are His fingers and muscles, the cells of His body”

3 parts of morality according to CS Lewis

“Morality in the minds of men is seen as something which interferes and stops someone from having fun.”

Moral rules are there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction in the running of that machine.

3 things morality is concerned with:

1. Fair play plus harmony between individuals

2. Harmonising/tidying up things within individuals

3. With the general purpose of human life (what man was made for)

Cardinal virtues [Word cardinal comes from the latin meaning hinge of a door...pivotal]:

Prudence – avoiding risks, being careful.

Temperance – Control of behaviour

Justice

Fortitude – guts, underpins other virtues

Be as hamless as doves and as wise as serpents

Moral teachers: remind us of old simple principles [In a way this would apply to Moses, Muhammad, Buddha and Jesus]

Golden rule of the NT (do as you would be done by) is a summing up of what everyone, at bottom, had always known to be right. [me: Christianity does not have a detailed system in applying this principle. This highlights the need for Islam]

CS Lewis on what a Christian society would be like

All the same, the New Testament, without going into details, gives us a pretty clear hint of what a fully Christian society would be like.


To that extent a Christian society would be what we now call Leftist. On the other hand, it is always insisting on obedience – obedience (and outward marks of respect) from all of us to properly appointed magistrates, from children to parents, and (I am afraid this is going to be very unpopular) from wives to husbands.

If there was such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic...

I think CS Lewis would have supported the Hijab in Muslim countries under the idea of social propriety

The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed...thus while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians the rule of propriety changes. 94

A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally ‘modest’, proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste).

CS Lewis on marriage

The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside of marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the total union.

Church marriage: solemn vow to stick to his/her partner till death.

CS Lewis’ time: some churches did not allow divorce while others allowed it reluctantly in very special cases.


CS Lewis and Just War Theory

The idea of the knight - the Christian in arms for the defence of a good cause – is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, thought I think he is entirely mistaken. 119

Being the big noise at the party

Pride or self conceit

Opposite of which is the centre of Christian morality – humility.

Cardinal theological virtues:

Faith
Hope – mind on heaven
Charity

Theology matters

Theology means the science of God

153: I think any man who wants to think about God at all would like to have the clearest and most accurate ideas about Him which are available

This is something a Muslim can appeal to when talking to Christians about the Trinity doctrine - a doctrine that Jesus clearly never believed in.

179: The Eternal Being, who knows everything and who created the whole universe, became not only a man but (before that) a baby, and before that a foetus inside a woman’s body. [This is a quote which can be used by Muslims to show the fact this god-man doctrine does not make sense, why would God become a baby and even a foetus? I know the Christian may say he came to die for sins but why not just become a man and then die for the sins rather than be a foetus, baby, infant, teen and then a man according to the Christian ideology?]

Various interesting quotes

“Everyone says forgiveness is a lovely idea until they have something to forgive"

“Just as when Christianity tells me that I must not deny my religion even to save myself from death by torture, I wonder very much what I do when it came to the point” 115

"Everybody must work so they have something to give to the needy!"

“...God will make us good because he loves us”

You will find this again and again about anything that is really Christian: every one is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out those bits and leave the rest.

“Free will although makes evil possible also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having”. It gives "good" extra meaning.

“There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake”

Phrases/words:

Who the dickens am I

Filthy quislings (describing witches)

Asinine fatuity

Christianity and water

Jibbed: unwilling to accept or do something

Prig: self-righteous moralistic person acting as superior to others

The “natural life” wants to be admired petted [similar to nafs in Muslim thought – a need for regulating and controlling nafs]

Notes on Christians and the Fall of Rome, Penguin Books – Great Ideas

Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism V.I. Lenin 1916

Notes on Christians and the Fall of Rome, Penguin Books – Great Ideas

Christian Attitudes to Wife Beating Have Changed...

This is a British newspaper cutting from the mid 1800s. Reverend Bird would have got feminist knickers in a twist. He believed the Bible allowed husbands to beat their wives. On that note, he was not contradicted by the big man, Luther centuries earlier: "Although he disapproved of wife-beating, he did not categorically condemn it if no other means of discipline sufficed" [p13 of Luther on Women]

DCCI Ministries' Lizzie Schofield: Theological Problem of Christian Domestic Violence

Church of England Churches Asked To Investigate Beth Grove!

For any Church of England church leaders who want to be socially responsible stewards as to who they invite into their churches to speak, perhaps you'd like to start off by looking at the Jay Smith section a long with reading this piece and following any links herein. Thanks. Love from a Muslim.

Here I am to interact with a few comments by Beth Grove which seem to be a defence of her in your face approach to “evangelism”. She comes across as a cultural Christian advocate who is bound by old bygone parochial ideas of nationalism which are propelled by a wild-eyed paranoia that Muslims are going to take the keys to "our" (Christian) kingdom. Rhetoric not too dissimilar to that coming out of Britain First - that well known beacon of evangelism. This is unsurprising seen as her influences come from America – a place riddled with Christians who have conflated patriotism with Christianity. Let’s see what she’s got to say.

This erosion of Christian influence in public life continues, and at times encouraged even by ‘Christians’ engaged in public life. I refer to a symposium in 2015 whereby the speakers (Christian missionaries to Muslims) emphatically stated that we must “aid our Muslim friends to have as much influence in public life as we [Christians] do!”

I understand their motives. Essentially, their ideas are driven by ‘love’. Nonetheless, to encourage, or more accurately, to propel an Islamic ideology into public life, seems to be an action of misappropriated ‘love’ at the cost of ‘truth’? You see, if we love people, including Muslims, should we really transfer the keys to our kingdom to a people with no Christian memory?

OK, so smart people would have realised that the keys to her kingdom have already been taken away. That's why you have folks telling Christians to marry Bill and Bob (and Jill and Jane) to each other in churches or telling Christians to bake cakes which support lifestyles contrary to traditional Christian values.

The obvious question here is, why isn't she trying to get her keys back from the secularists? Erm, it's because they are seen as folks who share the same culture. Interesting considering Christians are meant to be "set apart" yet it's so difficult to distinguish them from Atheists in British society!

Secularist, are seen by the Christians to be their intellectual superiors, their professors, their family members, their friends and part of the fabric of the West (in fact the engine room and pioneers of the modern Western world). Not to mention liberators of Christian women, Christian women can now go out wearing whatever they want. Miniskirts, high heels and all that jazz! Not to mention the small matter of being able to divorce and remarry after the divorce.

Whilst Muslims are seen as pretty much the opposite thus when they see Muslims out-debating a Christian it turns their world upside down. The same happens when aboriginal Westerners convert to the faith of Islam. Westerners have been dropping the gown of Christianity for various secular ideals yet the eruption is barely palpable from the Church.

I’ll give you a couple of examples to illustrate this shared culture and inferiority complex when it comes to Secularists and Christians in Britain. Tom Holland, upon making the claim of Christianity being the root of Western civilisation, saw Christians were fawning over him. Little did they realise his main focus was on the “Christian” teaching of separation of Church and State (something that in the West has ironically precipitated the rise of faithlessness and secularism!). Folks like John Calvin would not have agreed but nevertheless the Christians were lapping it up – their superior (a secularist) dropped a bit of praise on their faith. If a Muslim had done the same I doubt the same servile attention would have been given to him/her.

Christians have even compromised their faith principles (relented on female pastors, gay clergy, gay marriage, divorce, marriage after divorce if the ex is still alive, turned a blind eye to sex outside of marriage, loosened the concept of modest dress, minimized the Bible, etc.) in an effort to accommodate and (try to) bring into the Christian fold the secularists. They prize the secularist because the secularist is their superior, their family member and their professor/fave celeb.

But contrast that with what they do to Muslims. The Muslim is the other. Not a superior like the secularist. Not an equal. But, effectively, a lesser specimen.

And that is why there's a hue and cry about Muslims and the "keys to our kingdom" but not  a peep about those who currently carry the keys and will do so for the foreseeable future - the secularists.

I wonder if Beth Grove enjoys the taste of those cakes celebrating gay marriage which her co-religionists are forced to bake.

Ignoring their texts which call on them to wound and kill those who disagree with Islam (Sura 5:33).

Yawn, this is typical Beth Grove. You know, intellectually dishonest stuff she learnt from her predecessor Jay Smith. That Quranic Verse was revealed in response to those who committed highway robbery (murder and theft), jurists may nowadays use this Verse to decide on the punishment of those who commit rape at knife/gun point.

It has NOTHING got to do with "disagreeing" with Islam. Of course Beth would have known that if she had shown an inkling to be fair and scholarly. Must be the Jay Smith influence!

Many a refugee, the large majority being Muslim, have fled lands heavily controlled by Islamic doctrine. Some openly admit they have come here for economic and religious freedom. Quite a few even change their religion. Some become Agnostic, or outright Atheists (due to what they previously witnessed in Islam), and others turn to Christianity. The latter is what any Christian, who loves as Christ loves, would invest their best efforts towards. Many refugees from Islamic lands, who respect Christians but are not Christian, tell of their fears of that same Islam becoming an influential dynamic in this land. The threats of freedoms diminished is all too real to them as they see the numbers of influential Muslims gain, or given, access to some of the highest institutions of Britain and similar Western European Countries.

And the elephant in the room. There's credible evidence many of them just pretend to convert to Christianity or leave Islam to help with their asylum process. See here.

As for this supposed paranoia that Muslims will take away their "freedoms" inn Britian and other parts of the West, erm, where's Beth getting this stuff from? Look, Muslims are light years away from having that type of influence. This is just the politics of fear-mongering. Muslims aren't going to be taking any Christian's miniskirt, porn stash or right to marry a person of the same agenda any time soon. Calm yourselves down. Most level-headed Brits will know where I'm coming from and will see such fear-mongering as ludicrous.

The Christian has a responsibility to speak against that which ‘sets itself up again the knowledge of the one true God’. The Bible is clear that we are in a battle, a battle for souls, and a battle for the soul of nations (2 Corinthians 10:4; Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 2:15).

Well, if you're in the midst of  a battle Beth, where are you in holding the tide of secularism back?

The secularisation of Britain has been thrown into sharp focus by new research showing that for every person brought up in a non-religious household who becomes a churchgoer, 26 people raised as Christians now identify as non-believers. [The Guardian]

Beth also talks about the one true God. Has she stopped to think who that is. Clearly it was not Jesus, Jesus did not believe in a Trinity idea. That idea came about after Jesus. Muslims believe in the God of Jesus. Can Beth say the same or is she bound to a church tradition from the 4th century called the Trinity.

Edgar G Foster: Trinity Came After the Council of Nicea

Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian

Ephesians 6:10-20 tells us to put on the ‘belt of truth’ and the ‘sword of the spirit which is the word of God’, and to be ready to share the ‘gospel of peace’.

Beth please don't mention the word "sword". All that springs to mind is the verse of the sword from the Bible which your colleague Lizzie Schofield was using to threaten Muslims into believing in Christianity. Threatening them with JESUS coming back and killing them with a SWORD.

Here's your colleague in action.

And this is the irony, Beth talks about withholding the keys to the kingdom from a bunch of (mainly brown) foreigners migrating here but she's very open to worshipping a brown man who is foreign to Britain. A man who she believes ordered the killing of women and children in 1 Samuel 15:3, allowed the severe beating of female (and male) slaves in Exodus 21:20-21 and who her colleague believes will come back with a SWORD to terrorise Muslims (and those who have the keys to the kingdom, the Secularists)

Of course, that's Trinitarian Jesus in her mind.

We are to confidently engage a broken world, clearly exemplified in the one million Muslims (and a few others) who entered our lands these past couple years from the outflow of the bloody borders of Islam.

Ad nauseam we are told, this warfare is due to ‘cultural’ or ‘political disenfranchisement’ or accomplished by ‘crazies’. This I heard from an influential Christian working in close connection with the European Parliament. ‘Terrorism has no religion’ say our movie stars. The real experts of course. Whether they believe their rhetoric or not, we cannot know, yet all the evidence defies them.

Bloody borders? Erm who made those borders bloody? A bunch of Christians and/or those the keys to the kingdom.

As for the causes of terrorism, Beth Grove would do well to take off her current hat of Islamophobia and fear-mongering. How about actually thinking a bit deeper rather than imbibing the non-thinker's rhetoric of "oh it's their religion they are meant to kill us":

After the Manchester massacre… yes, and after Nice and Paris, Mosul and Abu Ghraib and 7/7 and the Haditha massacre – remember those 28 civilians, including children, killed by US Marines, four more than Manchester but no minute’s silence for them? And of course 9/11…

Counterbalancing cruelty is no response, of course. Just a reminder. As long as we bomb the Middle East instead of seeking justice there, we too will be attacked. But what we must concentrate upon, according to the monstrous Trump, is terror, terror, terror, terror, terror. And fear. And security. Which we will not have while we are promoting death in the Muslim world and selling weapons to its dictators. Believe in “terror” and Isis wins. Believe in justice and Isis is defeated. [Robert Fisk]

In that vein, it is not the Muslim we are against; we are for them. Christ is for them.

As mentioned, your colleague believes Jesus will terrorise those who you are "for" with a sword.

He died for them!

What you believe Jesus died for Muslims? Erm, not according to Christians like John Piper and James White who believe you're not preaching the gospel by making such a claim. Now this is an issue, how can you believe they have the Holy Spirit in them when they disagree with you theologically whilst you are imbued by the same Spirit according to Christian ideology?

It is the ideology behind their lives we critique.

Well considering the ideology behind the lives of Muslims makes them the least likely to have sex before marriage out of all faith groups whilst those in the "kingdom" which Muslims should never get the keys to are pumping out children out of wedlock at a rate faster than those who do not have Christian cultures. I think, you as a Christian who has a misguided sense of loyalty to a culture of yesteryear, should move over the divide. Go on, it beats churning out anti-Islam propaganda by isolating Quranic verses in order to make Muslims out to be killers in the waiting.

You may also want to think deeply about the ways in which your propaganda against Islam can amp up Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment. As you should know, your group Pfander Ministries has had followers who have levelled veiled death threats at Muslims as well as racist sentiment.

Is there any wonder that non-Muslims even consider you and your group to be Islamophobic.

What would Jesus do? Would he really wantBeth Grove to be a propagandist against his brothers and sisters (yes, Muslims are the brothers and sisters of Jesus)?

Think about it Beth.

Churches part of the Church of England should also think about it.

Pfander Films Questioned Over Conversion Figures. Speakers Corner

Is Pfander Centre for Apologetics Islamophobic?

Muslim Defends John Sentamu vs Andrea Williams, Timothy Benstead, Christian Concern and James Gibson

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Muslim Defends John Sentamu vs Andrea Williams, Timothy Benstead, Christian Concern and James Gibson

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, has been attacked for comments in relation to an amendment proposed by Andrea Williams. This has been blown out of proportion, the metaphorical pitchfolks and torches are out in force circling Dr Sentamu.

As a Muslim, who visits a CoE church for observation purposes from time to time, I'd like to add some balance to proceedings and insight from outside the church to help folks look beyond the goldfish bowl that is the CoE.

Firstly, the Archbishop of York is spot on, common good is common to all people. This is not a novel idea amongst Christians either, CS Lewis expresses the same view in Mere Christianity. Let me set a few pulses racing, I do wonder if there would have been such a hullabaloo if the bishop making the same remarks was a white bloke with an English accent in the stead of a black bloke with an African accent (I'm not saying anybody is racist here, all I'm saying here is that a black CoE bishop may be a little more noticeable when it comes to these comments hence the level of public reaction). Who knows?! However, one thing is for sure, he did not reject the Bible. Folks please stop with the sensationalism of him rejecting the Bible.

I will interact with various comments online from those criticising Dr John Sentamu's comments.

The Church of England, as an institution, is thoroughly apostate...As Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby is a train wreck. Worse, however, is his colleague from York. John Sentamu is a prairie fire consuming every last vestige of orthodoxy in the Mother Church. His behavior at Synod, as witnessed below, was particularly odious [James Gibson]

Hmmm to say the CoE is an apostate institute is a hefty claim for a Christian to make. Assuming James is a Christian, who else is an apostate in James' eyes? Where does this conveyor belt stop? How about the "Christians" involved in 381 to usher in a Trinitarian understanding involving the Holy Spirit, are they "thoroughly apostate"? What about all the church men who decided what books to call inspired and include in the canon, are they "thoroughly apostate" too:

..it is not quite accurate to say that there has never been any doubt in the Church of any of our New Testament books. A few of the shorter Epistles (e.g. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude) and the Revelation were much longer in being accepted in some parts than in others; while elsewhere books which we do not now include in the New Testament were received as canonical. Thus the Codex Sinaiticus included the 'Epistle of Barnabas' and the Shepherd of Hermas, a Roman work of about AD 110 or earlier, while the Codex Alexandrinus included the writings known as the First and Second Epistles of Clement; and the inclusion of these works alongside the biblical writings probably indicates that they were accorded some degree of canonical status. [FF Bruce]

And then what about those Christians after Von Tischendorf's 19th century discovery of Codex Sinaiticus who subsequently declared the ending of Mark and the Pericopae Adulterae (in John's Gospel) to be, effectively, unauthorised additions to the text, are they "thoroughly apostate" or those who came before faithfully believing those two chunks from the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit? How about those who are lax on standing out against divorce and sex before marriage in the Church, surely that's pretty much all of the Church in the West, are they all "thoroughly apostate"?

James Gibson may want to rethink his use of the word "apostate".

On Friday 7 July, The Archbishop of York John Sentamu rejected the authority of the Bible in response to an amendment proposed by Andrea Williams, to insert the words "as revealed in the Bible and taught by the church" to a motion calling for politicians to "prioritise the common good of all people."...John Sentamu responded: "If you’re going to serve the whole community please don’t limit our language…The Word became flesh and sadly we are now making it Word, Word and Word again. Resist the amendments." [Christian Concern on FB]

Again, this is utterly hyperbolic to claim John Sentamu has rejected the authority of the Bible, thus it's misleading. He never did such a thing. Sure, his wording could have been less emotive and he could have expressed himself with a little more clarity to stymie the potential wildfire of hyperbolic criticism.

As John Sentamu responded, the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby was seen to be clapping and nodding in agreement. The amendment was rejected. [Christian Concern on FB]

Clearly the head honcho did not see it as a rejection of the Bible hence the gestures of approval.

The PCC considers the response by the Archbishop of York to Mrs Andrea Williams’ amendment of Item 48 at the July General Synod of the Church of England, 2017, in terms of what was said, to indicate theological ineptitude at best and error at worst; and how it was said, as intemperate and ungodly.  [Timothy Benstead St. John Newland PCC]

Actually Timothy has a point in the way it was said. I don't believe Dr John Sentamu is inept when it comes to Christian theology. A lack of deliberation over his wording would be an understandable critique on the part of those Christians upset with Dr Sentamu.

As such there was a failure to meet the standard required of a bishop according to Titus 1:7-9. Neither did the Archbishop display his canonical duty to ‘with all faithful diligence…. banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same’ in relation to Item 58...The PCC looks forward to receiving an indication of repentance from the Archbishop and will offer prayers to that end.  [Timothy Benstead St. John Newland PCC]

It seems like this is quite selective. A selective rod to beat the Archbishop of York. Would Timothy Benstead be willing to extend the same critique to his church and church members with regards to divorce, sex before marriage as well as his "Christian" predecessors outlined above with respect to James Gibson's comments. Timothy Benstead would be calling many Christians in the West to repentance if he was consistent with this standard, he wouldn't have time for anything else as he'd be constantly writing letters asking for indications of repentance for various "Church misdemeanours".

The PCC has also been grieved by the general direction of the Synod and the appalling manner in which those who hold to the teachings of Jesus have been ridiculed, mocked and scorned. We fear that the Synod has imbibed the ‘spirit of the age’ and we request satisfactory assurances from the leadership that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable and that it will work towards creating a more courteous and biblically responsive environment in the future. [Timothy Benstead St. John Newland PCC]

The spirit of the age has been imbibed by the Church and by all Christians in the UK. The lack of protest over various ills in our society which we are desensitized to says as much; women's dress, dating, the state of British TV, porn addictions amongst Christians, gay marriage, apathy towards protesting against wars in the Middle East and aganst austerity and financial inequality etc. etc.. In addition, I'd like to ask when was the last time a concerned Christian ever sent letters asking for Christians to repent after being imbibed by the current climate of Islamophobia - certainly Christian missionaries in the UK are imbibed by such spirits of the age.

I hope this post helps to add balance and encourages further reflection on a broader scale amongst the members of the CoE.

Muslim Interviews Sid Cordle of the Christian Peoples Alliance

 

Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?

Christian Voice ‘Mosque Watch’

Did Peter Believe in the Trinity?

 

Textual Criticism of 2 Corinthians By Bart Ehrman

 

Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?

Why Islam

Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

A Video Shining Light Toward Farhan Qureshi and the Hindu Community

A Hindu friend of mine, Farhan, goes into what appears to be Hindu nationalist ethno-centred PSYOPS against Indian Muslims. It comes across as really low brow stuff. This is a video responding to his comments about Muslims. Hopefully this can be a light to Hindu friends to help people see beyond nationalist and ethno-centred arguments that say Islam is an Arab religion and Indian Muslims should not follow Islam because it's not native to India.


This video is also uploaded here and here


Muslim responds to Hindu

Polygamy IS in the Bible - Christians Stop Being SCARED of Liberals

Muslim Indonesian Women Tricked By Christiam Missionary Men?

She Left Islam Because She Misunderstood Salvation in Islam

Christian Ex Muslim Al Fadi Challenged by a Muslim

Discussion: Ex Muslims, Slogan "Free If You Leave Islam", Atheism, Nihilism, Consumerism and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk