Tags
At the heart of Mushtaq’s inability to see that the Church which gave us both the NT Canon and the Trinity knows how to read the Book it gave us, is a relativistic, and possibly Protestant-influenced view of what the Church is. We see it here in one of his many comments to the same effect:
The Church founded by Christ, its members died after some years, and replaced by Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, Unitarian Christians, each one of them claims that Christ is the founder of his own Church, and their Church knows how to read the Book which it, itself, canonized.
This is in denial of the very words of Jesus Himself. In his list of the times Jesus mentions the word ‘church’ Mushtaq misses out the key passages here: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” So, Jesus either told the truth, and that means that His Church survived, or He didn’t, in which case it really does not matter what he says. Of course, Christians believe that His Church survived, as both Catholics and Orthodox can show the direct lineage. That some heretical bodies disagree is sort of obvious; dissent from orthodoxy is what defines heresy; one might as well use Mormonism as one’s critique of Orthodoxy; heresy plus heresy = heresy to the power of two!
The Early Church, as we have seen here many times, placed a great emphasis on orthodox – that is ‘right’ interpretation of the traditions it had received. That there were disagreements is, as the history of Islam shows, natural. Mushtaq seems to think somehow this invalidates the Orthodox view of the Trinity:
Next you used words “that agreed at Nicea”. This agreed word proves that:
Before Nicean Council, Christians were in disagreement on Trinity.
Trinity/ concept of God is basic requirement of salvation, therefore, in initial three centuries, Christians were not agreed upon basic requirement of salvation i.e. Concept of God i.e. Trinity. Blessed Jesus caused this confusion for not reciting Nicean Council creed in his times, therefore, Blessed Jesus was unaware of basic requirement of salvation to be taught to his disciples i.e. Concept of God i.e. Trinity.
No one ever denied that Christians disagreed on the definition of the Trinity, but Nicaea in 325, followed by Constantinople in 381 fully defined it for all time. I quoted to Mushtq extensively from St John to show that Jesus himself is the origin of Trinitarian thought, so it is incorrect to say He did not know the Trinity. That would have been strange since He is part of it. This, of course, is why Muslims spread old, outdated stories about St John, as he and his Gospel were central to the developing debate in the early Church on the Trinity and its history, which can be followed at the links given.
Mushtaq’s fifth argument is that ‘Everyday language contradicts Trinity’. This is irrelevant. The Church establishes doctrine, not ‘everyday language’, so I have not bothered with what is a long an irrelevant set of comments. I pick up his comments again here:
Why stick with it? Why do you Love so much Church of 4th century? Why do you not love teachings of Blessed Jesus and Prophets who never speak and hear “Father is full and complete God, Son is full and complete God, Holy Spirit is full and complete God, but these are not three gods, but One full and complete God.”?
Because the Church of the 4th century is the Church founded by Jesus in the first century. It is the only body authorised to teach in His name.
When I wrote: “God is the completeness of Father, Son and Spirit”, Mushtaq writes:
Who says this? From Adam till Moses and Blessed Jesus, no Prophet said this. But pagans of later centuries who corrupted Monotheism teaching of Blessed Jesus.
There are six Synonyms of “completeness” are “wholeness”, “entirety”, “totality”, “unity”, and “fullness”. Let’s test these 6 words completeness and five synonyms to test whether Trinity is three parts of God or three gods or something else?
The Church, founded by Jesus Christ, says this. That Church, not playing with the words of men, is the only authority, so, again, there is no point responding to the vain words of non-Christians, unless they can show they know how to read the Book of the Church better than the Church itself.
On the subject of St Athanasius he comments:
St Athanasius and St Cyril are not superior to Blessed Jesus and Prophets. How can they wrestle with each other to forge concept of God untold and unheard by Blessed Jesus?.
I did ask Mushtaq to read some of what has been written here on St Athanasius and the Trinity, and if he had, he would have seen, as he would had he read the books I recommended here:
James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (2005)
Franz Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity (2007)
Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy (2004)
Khaled Anatolis, Athanasius (2004)
Larry W Hurtado, How on earth did Jesus become a God? (2005)
that it is incorrect to assert that the idea of the Trinity was ‘forged’. It arises, as I have shown repeatedly, out of Scripture and the life of the Church founded by Jesus.
Now, in one of his later answers, Mustaq writes:
2-MUSHTAQ (Dialogue is exchange of Questions and Answers, not exchange of list of books)
Dialogue is exchange of Questions and Answers, Dialogue is not exchange of list of books, if you yourself have not capability to read these books and extract required answer for dialogue, then you are not eligible to participate in Dialogue. Go and first learn these books yourselves to find out how to extract required answers from these books at time of Dialogue.
You may cite few book in dialogue, but just only as a reference to what you say in dialogue, not as a replacement of question and answer for “Recommended study”.
I cite these books as the sources for my arguments, and they are used in the pieces here to which I asked Mushtaq to refer. He has not done so, neither has he answered the argumentsI used based on them. It is this which is not dialogue.
Mushtaq asserts;
Blessed Jesus wrote no book, he left oral traditions which took form of conflicting Gospels over a period of years by unknown authors. These books became a useful tool for Church to propagate conflicting traditions attributed to Blessed Jesus such as number three, Trinity, Triune God etc.
He also asserts
We know Scripture through various conflicting Gospels. Blessed Jesus founded a Jewish community that was diverted to Gentiles by St. Paul (who never saw Blessed Jesus) and many scholars have argued that he must be called real founder of Christianity.
Both statements are incorrect, as the books I have cited would show him, as well as the pieces on this blog on the Trinity (which are listed in the next post). The early church paid great attention to the words of Jesus and to the traditions of his disciples, and there is no reason to presume, as Mushtaq does, that church did not know its Master’s voice or how to hear him. The argument that Paul never saw Jesus is incorrect, he did, as his own letters and Acts makes clear. The idea that he diverted the Church from its mission is, again, incorrect, and if Mushtaq reads Geoffrey’s piece here and Chalcedon’s here he will see why. It does not seem unreasonable to me to expect him to read what is written here.
He also misunderstands what it means to say that the Spirit inspired the Gosple writers. I wrote, clearly:“God dictated a text. This is not what Christians believe”, to which he responded
It is incorrect and contradicted to well known Christian belief that Holy Spirit inspired or God inspired to Bible writers. Don’t you believe Holy Spirit inspired in writing of Scriptures?
Yes, I do, but that does not mean that the Spirit dictated the text. It means that the Spirit protects the Evangelists and the Church from misunderstanding it. Jesus himself told us here that in cases of doubt: ‘And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.’ Well, Mushtaq refuses to hear the Church, so what are we to do?
All Along the Watchtower 
Because the Church of the 4th century is the Church founded by Jesus in the first century. It is the only body authorised to teach in His name.
This statement throws me into a bit of confusion. Is self authorization valid? All the other denominations claim the same roots and self declare the same self authorization. On the other hand in reading Eusebius we find that the early church tried ever so hard to remain true to apostolic tradition. Protestant denominations claim the RCC’s teachings and dogma are not substantiated in that same tradition or a variation of intent of that tradition. Certainly this is why the Puritans declared full separation from Church of England as Anglican and RCC constitute a diversion from original intent with distorted proclamations according to them. Ironically all involved have the same degree of qualified scholarship to make affirmations for each particular view and enabling them to declare conflicting opinions counterfeit. Seems every one is right and every one is wrong.
LikeLike
Carl, I don’t think I understand what you are saying. The point Jessica was making was that the Bible is a product of the Church and must be approached from a Christian understanding. Historical Christianity has not treated the Bible in the same way Moslems treat the Koran.
LikeLike
Thank you for clarifying for Carl – that is just what I meant 🙂 x
LikeLike
Thanks.
LikeLike
Jessica – the Noel Coward song springs to mind, ‘I read a book once; can’t remember when. It really was a most exciting thing! Maybe some day I’ll do it again!’
I agree one hundred percent with Carl on this one. Yes, a Christian approaches the bible with a Christian understanding. Holy Scripture is the ‘bouncer at the door’ as it were – as a Christian, you refer yourself back to Holy Scripture to decide whether or not ‘the Church’ is trying to sell you a pile of horse manure, or if it is trying to lead you in the right direction.
As I indicated before, it seems to me that the whole discussion misses the central gospel message. (Understandable from Mustshaq’s point of view, but not from the Christian point of view).
LikeLike
And you know that what that Church you reject said was Scripture how?
LikeLike
….. as with all things Christian, it’s basically common sense guided by the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
In which case, how odd that the early Christians lacked both, in so far as they needed the Canon setting 🙂
LikeLike
And how do I know the Church wasn’t “selling horse manure” to begin with, by way of a selective decision about what books are to be considered scripture?
LikeLike
Jessica – I don’t think that Christians were sitting around waiting for Anasthasius to come along – it would appear that he only formalised that which had been received (although you’d need Chalcedon to give the precise wording of the council).
I quite liked Chalcedon’s analysis – that all the New Testament material was probably written before AD 70. Before that, the book of Isaiah seemed to be the main source (judging, for example, on the amount that Paul quotes Isaiah).
LikeLike
No, they weren’t, but nor where they relying on common sense and the HS. Some churches received parts of the NT, but even the earliest codices had in them books we don’t receive. I know I don’t receive them because the Church did not, in the end; I don’t know why you don’t, though.
LikeLike
Jessica – I do think you’re putting the cart before the horse. Why I accept what I do? Because it makes sense based on the OT Scripture.
Acts 17v11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
They didn’t accept the authority of Paul – they examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Scripture was the bouncer at the door – if the teaching of The Church (in this case Paul) was compatible with Scripture then they accepted it; the implication is that they would not have accepted Paul if his teaching had not been compatible with Scripture.
The Bereans of Acts were approximately 400 years prior to Anasthasius – they had established the principles of deciding whether or not some proposed NT text was valid – and they used Scripture to judge The Church and not the other way round.
LikeLike
The Scripture they used was the OT – how do you know that is not the only Scripture there is Jock?
LikeLike
The issue is why did the church receive some books and why did it reject others.
What were the criteria used by the church and how do we justify their validity and why were other book excluded. To simply accept what the church accepted without rational consideration or explanation of the criteria will hardly assist a sceptic or a Muslim.
I have been doing some reading on the subject and have the general picture but I am sure there are others on this site that could valuably cover this important matter for us in a post.
LikeLike
Some of the posts here I link to deal with it in more detail – I didn’t want to repeat what C and Geoffrey had written.
LikeLike
Thanks I will search other post – Generally from my reading I would simply state that I accept the conclusions of the church about what scripture is on the same criteria that led the church to accept it. Rather tan upon a blind acceptance of a church pronouncement. Does that make sense?
LikeLike
Yes, it does 🙂
LikeLike
Jessica – because the NT only ever clarifies the theology of the OT in the light of the crucifixion and resurrection as an event that has actually happened.
If there was anything at all in the NT that was incompatible with the theology of the OT – as laid out in Genesis, then I would indeed be sceptical about the NT – but there isn’t.
To get back to Carl’s point – the writing of the OT was certainly highjacked at some point by nasty sanctimonious Levites. All Scripture is God – breathed and there for a purpose and much of the more grotesque passages in the OT (particularly Ezra, who took it upon himself to destroy perfectly good marriages because the women were not of the correct race) teach us the dangers of letting a fanatical priesthood have too much power. But beneath the garbage, the message of the plan of salvation, God’s character and man’s need rings through (at least for those who have the mind to see it).
LikeLike
I don’t dissent from the last point, but it does not explain why you accept the Book of the NT as they are, and not as they were in the first codices. Now those early fellow, they were guided by the Spirit and common sense, but they thought Barnabas and Hermas should be in the canon – it was the early Church which decided to omit them, and you, whether you admit is or not, seem to be guided by that decision, not the original one 🙂
LikeLike
Perhaps because I find the Holy Scripture that I have quite sufficient and therefore I haven’t taken the time and energy to look at the books that you suggested. Maybe they’re in line with the theology handed down from the time of Genesis, maybe they’re not. Holy Scripture, as it stands, certainly tells me what I need to know about salvation.
As I pointed out, Holy Scripture also teaches me (through some of the utterly grotesque things that the Levitical priests wrote) that I shouldn’t trust The Church as an infallible source of authority.
LikeLike
Jess just because they were found bound together with books in the current cannon does that prove they were considered scripture in the same way. I’m aware Irenaeus mentions Hermas as scripture but I’m still not sure it means he thought of it as Genesis or John.
LikeLike
Interesting point, Rob. I think it does, because those codices were very expensive to reproduce. I will ask C, as he knows more about this than me – oh, and thanks for your help and emails 🙂 x
LikeLike
I am fairly sure they would have considered the books by those such as Clement and Hermas differently to those written by the apostles who were eye witnesses to Lord or those or those who wrote during their lifetime. These books carried apostolic authority and related to the special apostolic role as eyewitnesses of the Lord ‘from the beginning’ a condition in the choice of Judas replacement. In the case of Paul (who Mushtaq claimed to be the inventor of Christianity) he particularly tells he checked his gospel out with those who had known Christ “in case he had run in vain”.
The appeal to apostolic authority for writings seems to have been one of the early criteria use to establishing their validity.
However writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, fragments of Papias, Clement, Hermas etc and later orthodox 2nd & 3rd century works are extremely valuable for instruction, establishing the understanding of the early church and evidencing the prior existence of the canonical books that they allude to or quote.
I will be interested in C’s view.
LikeLike
Jessica – what do you consider the function, or role of the NT?
I don’t think its function is to teach the paths of righteousness, even though some parts do this rather well. The paths of righteousness were already there in (for example) the Psalms – and many other places in the OT. The function of the NT is purely and simply to establish that Jesus was exactly whom he claimed to be – the Messiah – and testimony to the fact that he was crucified for our sins and that he rose again, showing that he had conquered death on our behalf; that he really was the ‘man of sorrows’ described by Isaiah.
I haven’t read Barnabas or Hermas – and therefore have no idea whether or not their works fall into this context. But if these books are simply a commentary, no matter how well written and no matter how theologically correct, then they do not fall into this context.
In response to one of the points that Mushaq made: The accounts of the life of Jesus show that Jesus cannot be considered as simply a good man, not even an exhalted prophet. He is qualitatively different. Every other ‘good man’ who has ever lived has had to strive to mortify the flesh and the sinful nature. Jesus didn’t; he simply lived according to his nature. From a human point of view, that makes him very different; he can’t be regarded as a ‘prima inter pares’, not even among the prophets.
There are clearly certain requirements for authorship (i.e. experience of Jesus, or at least relating the experience of those who met Jesus) if we claim that certain texts establish this.
LikeLike
I agree with most of this Jock. The function of the NT is to be, as the early church called it ‘the memoirs of the Apostles’ – they are, in written form, the traditions Paul mentions.
LikeLike
Jock,
I have just read through the Shepherd of Hermas to see what has been suggested as scripture. I would compare in length to a medium to longer Biblical book. The author Hermas is said to be brother to Pius the bishop of Rome. In the book Hermas is told to send the book to Clement with instruction that it should be sent to all the foreign cities. The supposed prestige of the author and this instruction may be why it is found bound along with NT books in some collections of manuscripts.
It’s basically a moral treaties set out as an imaginary series of visions shown to Hermas by the shepherd i.e. the ‘angel of repentance’ – who then interprets these long rambling visions allegorically.
If this was scripture I would have favoured giving a place in the Bible to Pilgrim’s Progress.
LikeLike