I received a very interesting email from a friend of mine this week, and he shared with me the fact that he was standing on the edge of a soteriological shift. I found his ideas provocative, and therefore I thought I would share them here for comments . . .
Hello Ruth (and another recipient)
I am, I believe, standing on the edge of the second significant shift in soteriology of my Christian life. I suspect that watching the link to the panel discussion at the THINK conference on TULIP was the catalyst, although other things doubtless also played their part.
The first significant shift happened when I was about 18 when I moved, (more as a result of reading Scripture rather than any Reformed literature), from what I would now understand as an Arminian perspective (albeit a very garbled one) to what I would now understand as a Calvinistic perspective (counting my dalliance with Kendall-Eatonism as a sub-set of Calvinism). I have tended in the past, if asked to define my viewpoint on this issue, to label myself as an “infralapsarian Calvinist” or a “moderate Calvinist” or a “Simeonite Calvinist” (after Charles Simeon’s statement, regarding the conflict between divine sovereignty and human freedom, that the truth lay, not at either extreme, nor in the middle, but at both extremes) depending on who is asking.
However, when discussing these issues with non-believers and newer (or less academically minded) Christians, I have been finding it difficult to present the Reformed viewpoint in a way which avoids advocating (or seeming to advocate) either determinism or the heresy of predestination to sin, I have wanted to remain faithful to Scripture and to be intellectually coherent, I have wanted to show God as responsible for salvation and humanity as responsible for sin, and, to be honest, I have increasingly found myself tending to shy away from overtly “Calvinistic” answers to questions and instead drawing on ideas found in C. S. Lewis and J. P. Holding’s work, which I would now understand as, respectively, Thomist and Molinist solutions.
Now, I still have a lot of reading to do on the subject (I have at least one book on order), but I am finding myself moving slowly toward a Molinist perspective on salvation (albeit at the Calvinistic end of Molinism), and, as people whose musings on matters theological I hold in high regard, and with whom I have spoken already at inordinate length on these topics, I would be interested to hear your views.
As I know that you are both very busy, I have appended the text of a good blog post (from The Wardrobe Door blog) which was part of a three “flowers” of salvation series (i.e. the Calvinist’s TULIPs, the Molinist’s ROSES and the Arminian’s DAISY) and which I found to be a very clear and balanced explanation of the three systems. The entry appended below is, of course, the one on the ROSES (or Molinist) system.
The home page for the articles on all three flowers can be found here if you wish to read the author’s views on TULIP and DAISY and his general outline.
I look forward to speaking with you again soon.
Ring Around the ROSES: Molinism in Brief
This article was first written for the CCK Reason Blog here: http://www.cck.org.uk/reason/isn’t-story-jesus-creation-based-mythology-came-christian-era
In the last few centuries, there has been an attempt to relate the life, work and message of Christ to earlier mythology. Some of the arguments have led some to the conclusion that Jesus didn’t exist, but was mythological like the gods that came before him.
The most scholarly and influential works that champion the alleged similarity between Jesus Christ and pagan mystery religions and mythology are by Franz Cumont and Richard Reitzenstein, from the late 1800s and the first half of the 1900s. These theories today are thought inaccurate due to recent research:
‘In recent years, however, the critical discussion of principles and concepts have been advanced, especially by Italian scholars. As a result a gradual erosion of Cumont’s and Reitzenstein’s positions is taking place’ (10/p.2)
Yet, there has been a revival of Cumont’s theories in recent years, most of which has been produced on a popular level in the form of the Zeitgeist Internet movie, and works by Tom Hurpur and Achrya Sanning. These works claim similarities between Jesus and dieties such as Mithra, Horus, Attis, Dionysus, Adonis and Zoroaster.
On a basic level, similarities should be expected between Greek and Egyptian mystery religions and Christianity. This is because the term ‘religion’ suggests foundational principles that are held in common. For example, they all seek ‘salvation’ in some sense of the word, though the various definitions of salvation involved may be so diverse that the similarity stops there. It is perhaps also true that in other secondary, non-doctrinal issues, Christians in the first four centuries were influence by the surrounding pagan culture, as there are similarities in art and the dating of festivals (18, 20/pp.24-25). But these parallels cannot be used to judge the veracity of the New Testament, as they do not affect the prescribed tenets of the faith, but are rather a matter of taste and culture. Much like most churches today worship with a guitar, which is an influence of contempary culture, but which does not rewrite the historic principles of the faith.
Dating the sources
It should be mentioned that this debate revolves around the dating and placing of the sources. Many online articles claim parallelism due to the belief that Christians copied mythology that came before the birth of Christ. Often these articles do not study the connection between Christianity and Judaism, and therefore do not consider the Old Testament prophesies regarding the Messiah, that he would be born of a virgin (parthenos: Greek translation of the Old Testament, Hebrew version translates ‘young woman’: almah), would suffer to redeem Israel and the world (Isaiah 52:13-53;12, Psalm 22). These prophesies precede most myths the proponents of parallelism would use to discredit the New Testament (11/p.169,19).
Also, although most of the worship of the gods of parallelism did exist before Jesus was born, the textual sources, which are alleged to prove parallelism, postdate the 1st Century. As a result, we cannot be certain that these texts themselves were not influenced by Christianity, and not rather than the other way round (11,19).
It has been argued that Jesus Christ has much in common with Horus and Osiris, who were gods of Egyptian mythology. Some, but by no means all of the supposed similarities are as follows: Firstly, that Horus was conceived by a virgin (Isis), and secondly, that Osiris was killed and resurrected.
Firstly, Isis was not a virgin when she conceived Horus. Osiris was killed by his brother Seth, and dismembered into parts. As Osiris’ wife, Isis magically restored the body of Osiris, except the penis (which had been eaten by a fish). Therefore, Isis fashioned him a new member, and they coupled together. Thus Horus was conceived. There are different accounts of the tale some including direct sexual contact, and others metaphorical. In either case, Horus was the result of the intercourse between Isis and Osiris. (23, 21/p.77)
Secondly, it is true that Osiris was killed and resurrected, but the surrounding events are vastly different to that of Jesus’ life (and there are various versions of the Osiris myth). After Isis had restored him, Osiris was assigned god of the underworld, as he was not allowed to return to the land of the living (19), which suggests quite a different resurrection to that of Jesus Christ.
Lastly, W. Ward Gasque, theologian and author, contacted twenty leading Egyptologists on the issue of the comparison between Horus and Jesus. All denied the validity of such comparisons. (16, 15, 11)
Common statements about Mithra by the proponents of parallelism, which are claimed to be identical to that of Jesus Christ, are: Firstly, that Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave. Secondly, as the “great bull of the Sun,” Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace. Thirdly, He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again, among many other claims.
Firstly, Jesus was not born on 25 December, this is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament, the date was chosen for convenience in later church history to coincide with the winter solstice for social reasons. Therefore, this parallel is null and void. Likewise, Mithra was born from a rock, which cannot be argued to be a virgin, as a rock is a non-sexual object. (18,11/p.171, 19, 17)
Secondly, online resources (see references) suggest that Cumont’s theories about Mithra and the Bull were discredited mainly due to his presupposition that Ancient Iranian Mithraism was identical to its later Roman counterpart, which had been affected by Zoroastrianism. But Iranian Mithraic sources do not conclusively match the Roman legends of the slaying of the bull (12, 18). The Second Mythraic Congress of the 1970s in Tehran came to similar conclusions (18,11/p.168). In any case, Mithra (in Roman mythology) did not die for humanities redemption, but rather killed a bull, the blood and semen of which fell to the ground and symbolises the rebirth of all living things (21/p.58). Note that it was the blood (and semen) of the bull, rather than that of Mithra (unlike Jesus, who shed his own blood). And the rebirth of all living things, as in the time of spring, is quite different to the rebirth of those who accept Jesus as their saviour, which is eternal. It is also worth noting that the expression “he (Jesus) suffered under Pontius Pilate” in the Apostle’s Creed serves to link the death of Christ to a specific historic time and context, which again differs from the timeless, or seasonal, account of Mithra.
Thirdly, in response to the claim that Mithra was buried and rose after three days, there is no evidence that Mithra ever died; therefore he could not have risen from the dead. (17, 18, 19, 21/pp.58-59)
Although we have not looked at every parallel comparison in the short space available, it is very clear to see that the key comparisons between Jesus and the mythological gods are (on closer inspection) negligible. The terms ‘resurrection’ and ‘virgin birth’ have been used by proponents of parallelism to give credence to what is in truth, a very far fetched conspiracy theory, which has been widely discredited by scholars today.
Additionally, to suggest that Jesus did not exist on the basis of such comparisons is illogical on two levels. Firstly, because the comparisons are not convincing, and secondly, because there is good historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and no such evidence for the gods of mythology.
Proponents of Parallelism:
1. Cumont, Franz. Texts and Illustrated Monuments Relating to the Mysteries of Mithra (1894-1900, with an English translation in 1903)
2. Reitzenstein, Richard. Hellenistic Mystery Religions, (trans. 1978, Pittsburgh: Pickwick)
3. Acharya Sanning, The Christ Conspiracy. Acharys’s website: http://www.truthbeknown.com/
4. Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries
5. Fideler, David. Jesus Christ: Sun of God: Ancient Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism. (The Theosophical Publishing House,1993): http://books.google.com/books?id=hAB2s6-xeoQC&pg=PA143&dq=jesus+and+mithras&hl=en&ei=RpRpTL6AIIiNOKewvLgF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=jesus%20and%20mithras&f=false
6. Hurpur, Tom. The Pagan Christ.
7. Massey, Gerald. Ancient Egypt in the Light of the World
8. Nash, Ronald. The Gospel and the Greeks
9. Yamauchi, Edwin M. Persia and the Bible
10. Burkert, Walter. Ancient Mystery Cults, Harvard College, 1987. p.3: ‘Now it is true that some ancient Christian writers were struck by certain similarities between Christian worship and mysteries, and they denounced the latter as devilish counterfeits of the one true religion . . . and even orthodox Christianity adopted the mystery metaphor that had long been used in Platonic philosophy: to speak of the ‘mysteries’ of baptism and the Eucharist has remained common usage. Yet this does not imply that Greek mysteries by themselves should be seen as predestined to move towards Christianity. The constant use of Christianity as a reference system when dealing with the so-called mystery religions leads to distortions as well as partial clarification, obscuring the radical differences between the two.’ http://books.google.com/books?id=qCvlvqCXF8UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the%20gospel%20and%20the%20greeks&source=gbs_slider_thumb#v=onepage&q=the%20gospel%20and%20the%20greeks&f=false
11. Stroble, Lee. The Case for the Real Jesus. (Zondervan, 2007)
13. By Stanley E. Porter, Stephen J. Bedard, Unmasking the Pagan Christ: An Evangelical Response to the Pagan Christ. (Clements Publishing, 2006).
14. Metzger, Bruce. Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian. (E. J. Brill, 1968)
20. Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church, (Revised Edition 1993, Penguin Books)
21. Essential Visual History of World Mythology, National Geographic Society.
A friend at work forwarded me this link yesterday:
I was quite surprised that an academic book on theology got a review in the Guardian, and by Rowan Williams no less. Perhaps I wouldn’t be, if I read the Guardian more! I’m always one to read the headlines on BBC News, rather than dig my teeth into the more comprehensive broadsheets/mini-broadsheets (as I call them). Although, if I had time, the Guardian would be a paper I’d pick up.
The article reviewed a book called ‘Christian Beginnings’ by Geza Vermes. This article was the first I’ve heard of the book. But after reading the article I thought I may purchase it because of the questions it raised (not new question, in a theological sense, but question from a fresh perspective)
As I read the article, these were the question that I asked myself, and perhaps the book will answer for me if I bought it:
(it must be noted that I am not a church historian, so my knowledge is a little rusty)
Vermes argues that Christianity brought such new concepts to the world that a new vocabulary needed to be created to understand them. I assume he must be talking about ancient equivalents of ‘trinity’ and ‘incarnation’. My question is this: is this a new question? Or, to put it another way, is this revelation about Christian vocabulary meant to be controversial? It seems obvious to me that Christianity must have created a new ‘language’. Perhaps the book is highlighting this point to develop a theme rather than bring something new to the table. Perhaps?
‘I said a moment ago that this is not an unfamiliar account for scholars of Christian origins. It has much in common with the picture elaborated in the great theological schools of the European universities, especially in Germany, from the late 19th century onwards. What makes Vermes’s version new is his refusal to follow these earlier scholars in their negativity towards Judaism and in the fact of his unparalleled familiarity with the entire spread of Jewish thinking in the age of Jesus and Paul. His Jesus is very much the representative of an intensified version of Mosaic and prophetic faith, set against a Jewish world that is dramatically diverse and bubbling with new and radical bids for defining Jewish identity.’
My limited understanding of current theology is that the Jewishness of the New Testament is being taken very seriously, especially by scholars in the ‘New Perspective on Paul’ camp. To see my comments on NNP, see here:
So my question would be what new work does Vermes bring to the table? It would be interesting to find out.
‘The creeds are the product of a very secular chain of political and intellectual influences, serving to obscure the historical core of what was new in Jesus’ life and work. But the story is not so simple. Vermes shows how the sort of thing that was being claimed in the creed of 325 had very clear antecedents within a century of Jesus’ crucifixion – so that it is odd to speak of a “revolutionary” position advanced in 325. Everyone at the Council of Nicaea believed they were defending immemorial tradition; and they were right to the extent that extravagant language about who Jesus “really” was goes back a long way.’
I’m pleased that Vermes has highlighted that the Council of Nicaea did not insert revolutionary ideas into the Christian faith. It was, rather, a formalising of what was generally understood, and a measure to those who went against the consensus.
‘it is hard simply to deny that Christian scripture does show people praying to the exalted Jesus from very early indeed. Someone reading the convoluted texts of early Christian argument might well see them less as a series of baroque elaborations on a theoretical theme than as a series of attempts to capture an elusive but inescapable insight.’
This is a very descriptive way of saying that Christian thought, and the discussions of early Christianity, might not so much represent dialogue between church leaders on theology, but rather a struggle of semantics where the new vocabulary of Christianity was being nit together.
‘This is a beautiful and magisterial book; but it leaves unsolved some of the puzzles that still make readers of the New Testament pause to ask what really is the right, the truthful, way to talk about a figure like the Jesus we meet in these texts.’
This seems to be true of many books about Jesus. I often wonder why more faith is not placed in the New Testament itself. Even the most sceptical of scholars recognise that there are remnants of truths of the ‘real’ Jesus in the New Testament. But I have yet to be convinced that the New Testament obscures him as much as some suggest. I know I am merely a layperson spouting my opinion, but why is it that we search and search for the ‘real deal’, when it seems rather plain to me that it is plastered over the best selling book in the western world: the Bible.
Comment on the following text: ‘The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Was the only messenger of God. And his word that he committed to Mary and a spirit from him. So believe in God and his messengers, and say not ‘Three’’ (Sura 4:171)
With a cursory glance this ayah may seem to affirm Christian truths about Jesus. But although the terms use to describe Jesus may be very similar in Islam and Christianity, they are understood in very different ways. This essay will aim to comment on the names Jesus is given in this text.
The first name that is given Jesus in this ayah is ‘Messiah’, which is particularly interesting because it is a term that was first defined in the Judao-Christian tradition. Even though it is used in the Qur’an eleven times, Qur’anic commentators have admitted that Masih ‘Messiah’ is a foreign word, originating from the Hebrew Mashiah. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, it was translated ‘Christos’, and Christians still call Jesus by this title derived from the Greek, hence why we see ‘Jesus Christ’ written on the pages of the New Testament, rather than ‘Jesus Messiah’. Geoffery Parrinder explains in his book Jesus in the Qur’an that although the term Messiah was understood in a Jewish context as the Deliver that was to come, but also as a term to describe the Lord’s anointed, it was not so well understood in the Gentile context. Therefore, as Christianity grew and an increasing majority in the church were Gentile, often the meaning of ‘Messiah’ was not understood except as a title of honour.
This is likely why there are many differing understanding of the term in Islam. If the term was used of Jesus as a title in Arabiain the 7th Century, it is likely that Muhammad likewise used the term as a title without understanding it’s Jewish history. However, as the term frequently appears in the Qur’an, and Muslims believe the title to be given to Jesus by Allah, the all-knowing, then the term must mean something. Whether it derive it’s meaning from Jewish history, or it is redefined, or corrected, by the Qur’anic meaning is the decision of the commentators. Likewise, ‘Messiah’ cannot be defined by Christian doctrine because that would contradict Islamic doctrine. ‘Messiah’ by Christian definition means the one that has delivered humankind from sin and death and restored us to a relationship with the Father God. For Messiah to be defined as such would raise questions about the need for Muhammad to come at all, if Jesus has already brought eternal life.
This is why there are many theories Muslim commentators have presented concerning what ‘Messiah’ actually means. Some commentators believe that Messiah is a personal name. Others have tried to link the meaning to the Old Testament ‘anointed’, claiming that Jesus had been specially ‘blessed’ by Allah during the course of his life. Others linked meaning to a root word msh ‘to touch’, and extrapolated that Jesus’ touch had special religious properties. Parrinder records that there are up to fifty different interpretations for ‘Messiah’ in Islam. However, what is clear is that, whatever the definition, the Qur’an is very clear that Jesus was the Messiah, which is stated unequivocally by Muhammad Ata’ur-Rahim:
There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that Jesus was the promised Messiah
3.Son of Mary
The phrase ‘son of Mary’, is used to refer to Jesus in the Gospels (Mark 6:3 ESV) as well as the Qur’an. The difference lies in the frequency with which it is used in the Qur’an compared to the New Testament, twenty three times for the former, and only once for the later. Clearly, the Biblical use of the phrase was descriptive, whereas the Qur’an seems to have made a title of it. The title is used so often that scholars have asked why the name became so popular. One view is quoted below By Eric Bishop in his work Jesus of Palestine:
The Qur’an repeatedly speaks of him as ‘Jesus the messiah, son of Mary’ . . . it must have been the Ethiopic church which gave it to the Muslims
However Parrinder disagrees with this view, because the migrants returning from Ethiopiadid not arrive in time to influence the Meccan surahs, but only the later Madinan surahs, but both categories of surah use the phrase extensively. Parrinder looks to other sources that may have caused the popularity of the title. The New Testament only uses it once, and even apocryphal and heretical works rarely use it. However the Arabic and Syriac infancy Gospels are the only heretical works that do use the title enough that it be significant. There is uncertainty regarding the dating of the Arabic version, but the Arabic was translated from the older Syriac, which could have been accessible in Arabiain the 7th century.
It is interesting to note that this title that is so often used for Jesus in the Qur’an could have, without doctrinal hesitation, been used in Christian worship. The only reason it wasn’t, it seems, was due to inopportunity in church history and the fact that is not mentioned enough times in the Bible to cause it to roll naturally off the Christian tongue.
3. His Word
In this ayah Jesus is described as the Word of God, but this is understood very differently to the ‘Word’ in Christian thought. The context in which it is given is: ‘his Word which he bestowed on Mary’. Fakhruddin Razi, the 12th century Muslim theologian, emphasises that Jesus is given this title because of his virgin birth. Jesus was created at the word of God, as was Adam, and unlike any of the other prophets who were all procreated in the normal way. Due to context, this is an understandable and reasonable explanation.
4.Spirit from him
Jesus is called a Spirit from God in this ayah. ‘Jesus’ and ‘Spirit’ are titles that Christians are used to hearing in conjunction with each other. Jesus was lead by the Spirit in Matthew 4:1, and in the opening chapter of 1 Peter, he exhorts his readers: according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ.
However, for the Muslim, references to Jesus and the Spirit are treated as synonymous. Whereas in Christian texts there is a clear definition between Jesus and the Spirit, in Muslim theology both terms refer to Jesus. Parrinder quotes from a letter Muhammad sent the Negus of Abyssinia in which Muhammad confirms that Jesus is ‘the spirit of God.’ This is very important in Christian-Muslim relations because of what this might imply in Muslim theology, and whether there is any indication here that Jesus was different to other prophets, and perhaps even more highly esteemed?
Razi gives us a list of five possible interpretations of ‘a Spirit from him’, some of which are: Gabriel was the spirit that breathed on Mary in order that she might conceive, and therefore this is why Jesus is called a Spirit from God. Also, Allah’s revelation is sometimes referred to by the same word that is translated ‘Spirit’, and therefore, this passage means that Allah had given Jesus revelations as he has the other prophets. Lastly, in surah 58:22 we read: God has engraved faith in the hearts of such believers and strengthened them with a spirit from himself, and therefore in the sense that Allah is here giving ‘mercy’ to his people, so too dose 1:171 refer to the mercy of Allah that was given to Jesus.
Islam is monotheistic, as is Christianity; however, Islamic understanding of monotheism is dissimilar to Christian understanding due to the different definitions of the concept of monotheism. The Islamic doctrine is called Tawhid, which teaches that Allah is an absolute unity without parts. The Qur’an uses two words to describe Allah’s oneness; Ahad and Wahid. Ahad is an adjective, and describes Allah’s oneness as a single entity. Allah is not one in a unity of parts, but has no parts at all, and no associates.
As such, the Christian doctrine of Trinity has been criticised heavily by Muslim and Qur’anic commentators for the last 1,400 years.
5.2.Questions Regarding Interpretation
The beginning of the ayah we are looking at reads ‘Oh People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion . . .’, and ends with the exhortation ‘say not three’. This is one of the main passages in the Qur’an in which the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is criticised, along with 5:116 and 5:73. What the ayah in question begins to affirm about Jesus in common with Christian thought, at the end sharply contradicts.
Muhammad Ata’ur-Rahim’s argument is just that, a criticism of Trinity, in his book Jesus: Prophet of Islam. He argues that Jesus was a monotheist in the Islamic sense, and that the early church was also Unitarian until the official doctrine of the Trinity was enforced at the council of Nicaea. Al-Rahim paints Jesus in Muhammad’s likeness; he is portrayed as a zealot ‘prepared to fight anyone who tried to prevent [him] from living as [his] Lord wished’, and a monotheist in line with Essene doctrine, which is close to the Islamic understanding of monotheism than Christianity. Al-Rahim further enforces this picture of the Tawhid-teaching Jesus by pointing to The Gospel of Barnabas and the Sheppard of Hermas, the first explicitly Islamic, the second implicitly. He claims that these Christian books were as authoritive in the early church as any other New Testament book, but were simply voted out at Nicaea. He also insists that many early Church Fathers and theologians, including Iranaeus, and later church theologians were anti-Trinitarian. He points to the fact that Iranaeus quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in the 2nd Century. But Al-Rahim has made a mistake; it is the Epistle of Barnabas that is quoted not the Gospel of Barnabas:
On examination one finds that Irenaeus in his writings quoted from the Epistle of Barnabas and not from what Rahim calls the Gospel of Barnabas.
This revisionist interpretation of Christian history indeed fits nicely with Islamic theology, but does not cohere with current scholarly opinion. Al-Rahim’s assertion that Jesus adopted Essene monotheism is based on the fact that similar language is used in the Gospels as in the Dead Sea Scrolls; but this reasoning is unsatisfactory. Similar wording and phrasing is common to particular cultures and contexts all around the world. It is not the turn of phrase that synthesises two texts, but the message within them. Therefore, one need only compare the teaching of Jesus, on the relationship between the Father and himself, with the Essene teaching of God to notice the difference. Similarly, Al-Rahim refers to Jesus’ words in Luke 22: 36 to prove that Jesus was willing to use violence: and let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. But he fails to consider context, for just a few verses on we read: And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. Likewise, Al-Rahim’s assertion that Iranaeus ‘believed in One God and supported the doctrine of the manhood of Jesus’ is not controversial and shocking, as he presents it. These things are believed to be true by any Trinitarian. Al-Rahim’s claim that Iranaeus was anti-Triniatarian is misleading, as Iranaeus writes:
He [John] thus plainly points out to those willing to hear, that is, to those having ears, that there is one God, the Father over all, and one Word of God [Jesus, as described in John’s Gospel], who is through all, by whom all things have been made; and that this world belongs to Him, and was made by Him, according to the Father’s will
However, Al-Rahim’s reconstructions of Christian history are felt necessary by many in the Muslim umma if one holds to the literal teaching of the Qur’an, and in particular ayah 4:169/4:171.
Yusif Ali also agrees that this ayah is directly addressing the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and forbidding that any Muslim believe that Jesus is a part of it. He even goes so far as translating thalathatun as ‘Trinity’ instead of ‘three’. This makes a significant difference when considering what this ayah means. It is commanded of Muslims that they do not think of Jesus as a member of a three-way God-head. The crucial point being that thinking of Jesus as one God in a three-way God-head is also heretical to Christians, and orthodox Christians could agree with the sentiments of this ayah. However, with the translation ‘Trinity’ this changes the meaning, and will forbid Muslims from believing the Christian doctrine even though Jesus’ relationship to the Father is defined differently in Christian thought than it is in the Qur’an. And, of course, Christians could not agree with this ayah if ‘Trinity’ is what is actually meant by ‘three’.
However, there are other ways that some Muslims interpret this ayah and its meaning. Mahmoud Ayoud believes that ‘this theological barrier is not an impenetrable wall dividing the two communities’. He basses his hope on the word used in the Qur’an to describe ‘offspring’. The Qur’anic condemnation of the supposed Christian three-God is closely linked in Muslim thought about the reprehensible notion that God would physically procreate a Son. This idea is not explicitly stated in the Qur’an, but can be implied from certain references to a three-way God-head between Allah, Mary, and their son Jesus. Ayoud attempts to resolve this conflict by studying the word the Qur’an uses to describe Jesus’ relationship with Allah: ibn and walad. Ibn is used to describe a filial relationship, but can be taken metaphorically, to imply adoption. Walad, on the other hand implies physical generation.
The Qur’an no-where accuses Christians of calling Jesus the walad offspring of God
Therefore, Ayoud argues perhaps Qur’anic commentators have been to hasty to criticise Christians for claiming that Jesus is the Walad of God, when the Qur’an and Gospel accounts both treat Jesus’ birth as spiritual rather than physical.
Therefore, in conclusion, although traditionally this ayah has been the cause of some misunderstanding between the Muslim and Christian communities, and still causes misunderstanding today, there are those that are working to present the Muslim umma with the correct understanding of Christian doctrine, especially of the Trinity. And evidently there are Muslims who are also thinking critically about the Qur’an and studying what the Qur’an is really saying about Christianity. Dose this ayah contradict Christian doctrine, or does it actually affirm it? I would say the later.
 Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, p.30
 Ibid, p.31
 Ibid, p.33
 Moucarry, C., Faith to Faith, p. 179
 Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, p.31
Al-Rahim, Jesus: Prophet of Islam, p. 280
 Bishop, E. F. F., Jesus of Palestine, 1955, pp.61
 Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, p.27
 Moucarry, C., Faith to Faith, p. 177
 Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, p.50
 Geisler N. L. & Saleeb, A., Answering Islam, p. 18
 Al-Rahim, Jesus: Prophet of Islam, p.36
 Ibid, p.36
 The Essenes were a Jewish sect/community that lived in the desert and created the writings we now call the Dead Sea Scrolls.
 Al-Rahim, Jesus: Prophet of Islam, p.86
 Iranaeus, Against Heresies, Book VI. XVIII. ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus – Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 2012. ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus – Christian Classics Ethereal Library. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xix.html. [Accessed 02 July 2012].
 Abdullah Yusif Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary. P. 234
 Mahmoud Ayoud ed. By Irfan A. , A Muslim View of Christianity, p.118
 Qur’an 5:116: O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'”
 Mahmoud Ayoud ed. By Irfan A. , A Muslim View of Christianity, p.118
 Ibid, p.119
I have sometime heard people say, ‘I know Andy Murray is one of our best, but I don’t really like him’, or ‘he’s just always angry’. To be honest, I had never agreed with this view of the man, and have always held him in high regard. Perhaps this is due to the fact that my younger brother plays tennis often, and use to play at county level, being reasonable good for his age (He used to have to travel quite far to find someone that matched his skill). In some ways I have always thought that Murray may be a little bit like my brother, I even think they have a similar look! My brother is not an ‘emotional’ man, I of course when I say that I mean that he just doesn’t show it. But knowing him as I do, I knew that tennis games could bring deep emotional strain. Those who didn’t know him, or who didn’t understand the pressures of the game, wouldn’t perhaps have realised this about my brother. His emotions would only ever come out a high pressure moments, and even though I was aware of how he felt, I would always be slightly surprised to see his public displays of emotion. How much more then, would those who didn’t know my brother personally, find these moments surprising?
This is why I was not very surprised to see Murray’s emotions displayed so clearly for the whole world to see yesterday. I remember thinking ‘yes, of course you feel like that, you’re like my brother, I think he would feel the same’. On the other hand, I was also not surprised that the news reporters and tennis supporters were a little shocked. Wasn’t this the man that was always grumpy and seemed not to care?
My heart goes out toMurray, for he is a great tennis player, but he has never been good at ‘public relations’. And why should he be? His job is to play tennis, not to people please – although the two are connected, I know. But the ironic thing in all of this is that while Murray was trying so hard to repress his tears for fear of the shame they might bring, they were what brought him his glory. Although he may not have wanted to seem ‘weak’, the fact is what he showed us was that he cared, and he cared as much, and more than, us. And this is what has won the hearts of the nation.
I read the following this morning and thought it an excellent summary of Murray’s Victory (you can find it here: http://sport.uk.msn.com/blog/wimbledon-blogpost.aspx?post=24192a56-6e17-47d9-9f2a-e14c0d7cf434&_nwpt=1)
A Hero, if not a champion
Today was a lose/lose situation for Andy Murray. He was facing the best player in the world ever in a home tournament where he could – theoretically – have ended Britain’s search for a Grand Slam trophy. And as every Englishman knows, Murray is a man who can even turn a win/win situation to his own disadvantage, right?
Wrong. Murray may not have done the impossible in beating the Emperor of tennis but he did achieve the unthinkable in winning over the hearts of a nation.
In a venue that stands for everything he is not – neatness, suavity, privilege and the establishment – Andy Murray produced an unchoreographed and inspirational performance that overshadowed even a record-breaking feat by Wimbledon’s best-loved champion.
- Federer: an old man is master of a young man’s game
It was like a scene from Gladiator. The plucky Celt, after beating off a few worthy but expendable challengers, was brought onto the stage in a battle the promoters had billed as deciding the future of the empire. He was supposed to spit and curse defiantly before surrendering meekly to be spared to fight another day only by the magnanimous and forgiving crowd.
But Murray hadn’t read the script. He came out with confidence and gusto, keen to win every point, not just stay in them. This was a figure that bore no resemblance to the mumbling, muttering, awkward, overgrown teenager that BBC viewers had come to know, often begrudgingly, as their number 1.
Even so, Murray was not to find redemption in victory, that would have been too easy. Once Federer awakened to the threat and raised his game it became clear that he had too much for his challenger: too much skill, too much power, too much authority. As we’ve seen before, he seemed to float above the court effortlessly hitting the lines or dropping the ball over the net.
In chasing shadows, Murray slipped and fell heavily. For a few moments he lay on the turf and in front rooms around the country the munching of Pringles was interrupted by an echo of the criticisms of his detractors. “This is where he pretends to be injured,” or “First it was his shorts, now he’s bound to start blaming his shoes.”
There was the barest hint of angry fire in his eyes as he regained his feet but a couple of points later he was throwing himself – heroically, not despairingly – across the court to chase another thunderbolt fired from whatever mountain the Swiss gods live on.
The brilliance which he showed in the first and second sets and the bravery of the third and fourth would have been enough to dispel any negative headlines from the thoughts of Fleet Street subs. But what happened next was truly extraordinary. Barely had Roger Federer lifted the trophy when a microphone was thrust into Murray’s face and his pain and disappointment was exposed to the scrutiny of millions of strangers.
This was the time for shifty, uncomfortable Andy, whose eyes glance furtively anywhere except for into the camera, as though looking for a means to escape. Instead we were presented with a human being who did what he felt was right even when every sinew of his body was urging him to run off and hide.
He’d endured the spotlight for more than a month but spoke with heartfelt thanks to the people on whose behalf he had been hounded and persecuted by camera crews and flashbulbs. Time and again he broke down but refused to give up. Suddenly it occurred that Andy Murray needed and deserved our sympathy, wanted our approval.
It had never occurred before that his failure to deliver the honours that our proud history and, well, general Britishness so richly deserved was a matter of any personal angst on his part.
Then the penny dropped.
I recently wrote an article complaining that it has been my experience in discussion of my faith that on occasion my discussion partner has provided me with some ad-hoc anti-religious quotes for me to go away and think about. I explained that, depending on the content of the quotes, it can sometimes just come across rude, and is often counter productive, even if they don’t mean to be. For the full article see here:
However, one of my good friends pointed out an obvious point I had missed: the fact that it is very frustrating when Christians quote scripture as authority when trying to defend thier faith. And I do, in part, agree with her.
Obviously, some caveats are in order: when a non-Christian asks about what the Bible says, or about what Christians believe, then of course quoting scripture is appropriate. This is because the question is directed at ‘what’ Christian belief is, rather than ‘why’ we as individuals believe it.
Let me give you an example. Recently, I was reading a blog by a Muslim who was trying to defend the principles of Islam. And I take my hat off to him because He attempted to tackle the issue of polygamy. And not many do in our Society! To be honest he didn’t argue the case very well, and made reference to the fact that there were more women living in America than men, so it was a kindness to marry more than one women, or there will inevitably be women who are left single (as if no-one would EVER choose to be single???).
As I suspected, a western women had made a comment. In a nutshell she wrote something like this: ‘I’m not a Muslim. I found your article on polygamy quite offensive. Your arguments are weak and bizarre. Do you have any better arguments?’ It is the response to this that we shall focus on. The answer this lady was given was a string of Qur’anic ayat stating that polygamy was ok:
‘And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.’ (4:3)
Do you think that is a satisfying answer? No? Why not?
It is not a satisfying answer because the lady doesn’t believe that the Qur’an is authoritative. So quoting the Qur’an is no more persuasive than quoting any other work, that is, in the perception of the western lady.
Also she was not asking ‘what does the Qur’an teach about polygamy?’, but rather, ‘why do you, Muslim, believe that polygamy is ok?’ Therefore, it is not a question about Islam, rather it is a question about why the individual believes Islam is ethically sound. She is asking for individual thought, not confirmation of an ideal that one has subscribed to without any evidence of personal consideration.
It might be that the Muslim’s answer is: ‘because the Qur’an says so’, which is called a circular argument because he believes the Qur’an is true because it says it is true. I.e. there is no outside reference to support his belief. If that is the case then it is honest that he admits this. However, I would imagine, and hope, that this conversation would prompt the Muslim to think about why he believes polygamy is right.
Christians can do exactly the same. How many times have you seen a conversation like the following on the Internet?
Christian: Jesus loves you!
Non-Christian: How do you know that?
Christian: ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.’
Non-Christian: But I don’t think I believe the Bible is accurate.
Christian: ‘All Scripture is God-breathed’
I don’t think the last comment was helpful, and might just annoy the non-Christian. The reasons for this are that either the Christian has not listened to what the non-Christian has said, or the Christian hasn’t understood. The Non-Christian confirms that they do not believe the Bible in accurate, so quoting scripture is not going to help! Unless of course the Christian’s answer was something like this:
Christian: ‘All Scripture is God-breathed’. I believe this because I have studied the History of the 1st century and am persuaded that the New Testament is accurate. I’m also convinced because the ethical principles of the Bible, I feel, are still very relevant today. On top of all of this I have met God personally, and it a similar way as described in the Bible.
I.e quoting scripture isn’t the problem – its quoting scripture without explaining why we believe it that can aggravate those who do not believe the Bible is authoritative.
Therefore, lets try to be attentive to the objections of our friends and colleagues, and aim to ‘always be ready to give an answer to those who ask about the hope that is in us’ (You see, I can use that quote because I’ve just spent an hour explaining it, and I am also directing it to Christians who already view the Bible as authoritative ;))
Have you ever been in discussion with someone who holds a different opinion to you, on a subject that you are both are passionate about? Perhaps this conversation has taken place on the internet? Or by text? Have you ever had your friend or acquaintance pass on some quotes that contradict your position by way of end note to the discussion? I have.
Being a Christian, I have had people sending me quotes saying that ‘religion is evil’ or ‘those who have faith throw away their intelligence’. When this has happened they have been very nice about it. Usually they are sending me something they think I would find interesting, or they are highlighting the fact that an intelligent and influential person agrees with them. As a result these questions occur to me: do they agree with the sentiment of the quotes? And, are the quotes meant to aid their argument? I’ll ask these questions about a few quotes that can often find their way to Christians:
- ‘Faith means not wanting to know what is true.’ — Friedrich Nietzsche
- ‘Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.’ – Robert Anton Wilson
- ‘Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile.’ — Kurt Vonnegut
- ‘Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses.’ – Arthur C. Clarke
Do they agree with the sentiment of the quotes?
This question makes me laugh, because these quotes can come across so harsh when I don’t think it is normally (I hope) meant by the sender. Even if a friend or acquaintance is violently anti-belief they are usually respectful and value me as a person. Therefore they will find ways of saying things that are not harsh or offensive. For example, a friend might say to me ‘I think religion causes wars’. Fair enough, I can engage with that. But I wouldn’t expect a friend or acquaintance to say ‘I think you are more likely to cause a war because you are religious.’ That’s quite harsh and extremely judgmental. (I have never been told the latter, thankfully!)
When I am sent quotes like these, however, it gives you the harsh side of someone’s opinion. It is evident that the sender agrees with the quotes, and so, from looking at the above I can deduce that the sender believes I, a) don’t want to know the truth, b) I have put to death my intelligence, c) I am ‘terrifying and absolutely vile, and, d) have contracted a malevolent mind virus.
Flattering isn’t it?
That’s why it makes me laugh, because put like that it sounds almost ridiculous because it’s so insulting. And it’s also funny because often I don’t think the sender ever has the intention to insult! Therefore, I think we must remember to take this into account and not allow ourselves to get hot under the collar.
Although I would say to potential readers who are prone to quoting their favourite authors, celebrities and scholars, try and be sensitive and consider how you might come across!
Are the quotes meant to aid their argument?
So, on the other hand, are the quotes meant to aid their argument? I really don’t see how. Because I can also quote famous and influential people:
- ‘A string of opinions no more constitutes faith, than a string of beads constitutes holiness.’ – John Wesley
- ‘While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.’ – George Washington
- ‘Today not only in philosophy but in politics, government, and individual morality, our generation sees solutions in terms of synthesis and not absolutes. When this happens, truth, as people have always thought of truth, has died.’ – Francis Schaeffer
- ‘Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods.’ – C. S. Lewis
- ‘Atheists themselves used to be very comfortable in maintaining that the universe is eternal and uncaused. The problem is that they can no longer hold that position because modern evidence that the universe started with the Big Bang. So they can’t legitimately object when I make the same claim about God-he is eternal and he is uncaused.’ – William Lane Craig
So that cannot be the goal of the sender. Is it that the other person wants to me to know that intelligent and prominent people agree with them, and not me? Again, it would be unkind of me to think so little of my friend or acquaintance, but even if this were one of their motives, it can never add anything to their argument because, as shown above, many famous and influential people have disagreed with them.
My last guess is that my friend or acquaintance would like me to engage with the truth claims made in each quote. So I will attempt to link to pages which may do that better than I:
- Faith means not wanting to know what is true. — Friedrich Nietzsche
- “Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.” – Robert Anton Wilson
- Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile. — Kurt Vonnegut
- “Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses.” – Arthur C. Clarke
Richard Dawkins famously popularised the idea that religion is a meme (An element of a culture or behaviour that may be passed from one individual to another by non-genetic means, esp. imitation.) or even a ‘mind-parasite’, below the link will take you to a friendly debate between Dawkins and a Christian professor.