A
little sombre note to begin with. I did not appreciate Jonathan McLatchie's
approach in this debate - it smacked of insincerity. I don't believe that is an
attitude anybody who is putting information out into the public domain should
espouse.
This
is such a simple yet potent argument. If early Christians were really teaching
Jesus was divine, co-equal and consubstantial with YHWH there would have been a
huge controversy. Where's the evidence of this controversy? Where are
the councils? They had a council on the practice of circumcision yet
Trinitarian apologists believe there was no controversy in teaching a man was
God? Come on, let's be frank here folks - this does not add up. Think about it..
Yusuf
made good points, how did Jonathan respond?
Jonathan
McLatchie gets polemical
Jonathan
McLatchie goes into polemical brawler mode and tosses in a shoddy Shamoun
polemic which he clearly did not think through critically. I'm not too sure if these were premeditated
debate tactics but this is a microcosm of some of the problems around
Muslim-Christian debates.
Jonathan's
contention is that the Quran 61:14 and 3:55 basically teach the followers of
Jesus will be victorious. He then claims Pauline Christianity was victorious.
He then puts these together and intimates the Quran teaches Pauline
Christianity is true. Unimpressive argumentation. More on this later!
McLatchie counters Yusuf's claims around 2 Cor 11: 4 by stating this verse is unclear.
Hmm, so who were these people preaching a different Gospel?
Jonathan
McLatchie noticeably fails to address Yusuf's point on the nature of Jewish
monotheism which would have found a 'high Christology' deeply controversial - where's
the controversy? These things don't just seamlessly pass by without a commotion.
McLatchie offers no answers. This was a crucial objection in the debate - it
was not countered at all. Telling!
Yusuf
Ismail is unimpressed + a challenge for Jonathan McLatchie
Yusuf was
unimpressed by Jonathan's polemics. Ironic considering Jonathan was appealing
to context when it came to 2 Cor 11:4. However for some reason, Jonathan's
desire for context is thrown out of the window while he plays the role of polemical
brawler.
Yusuf
challenges Jonathan to provide documentary evidence to prove the original
disciples believed in the deity of Jesus. Jonathan's scenic route
through Paul is clearly not convincing Yusuf. [This is another challenge that
is unmet, what does this say? Jonathan does not have a strong case]
The
debate now veers off the topic even more - irretrievably so.
Yusuf
talks about the Gospel authorship:
Luke
written by a companion of Paul.
Mark is
generally agreed to have not been written by a disciple of Jesus. He was said
to be a disciple of Peter.
Matthew
isn't a disciple either - why would he take from Mark if he was actually a
disciple? Matthew was changing and 'improving' the accounts (citing Gundry).
John's
Gospel. Yusuf talks about the 5 stages of editing (referencing Raymond Brown)
Low to
high Christology (increased deification) in the Gospels
Jonathan
McLatchie: Intellectual dishonesty or just a victim of uncritically accepting special
Shamounian material?
Jonathan
persists with fleshing out his low-level polemics. Jonathan's influences become
more apparent. Hint; a bloke on the net who used to claim Islam allows sex with
animals amongst other crazed claims.
On 61:14,
Jonathan cites Al Qurtobi in showing this verse was revealed about Jesus. OK what was
the point of that - it's apparent it's about Jesus through the text!!
Jonathan
then mentions Ibn Isaac who apparently thought there was a disciple called
Paul. Jonathan takes it waaaay too far by stating Ibn Isaac and Al Tabari affirms
Paul as a true apostle (unbeknownst to him Al Tabari in his comments teaches
those who say Jesus is God are liars - more on these internet polemics later).
Is
this intellectual dishonesty on his part or is he just guilty of uncritically
accepting arguments from a shoddy Christian polemicist on the net.
Jonathan
McLatchie: I see Jesus AKA eisegesis
McLatchie
endeavours to show a high Christology in the earlier Gospels
Matt 11
and Luke 7 (he theorizes this is a Q saying) - Jonathan believes this is high Christology. I don't see it.
Justin Brierley (the host) has to ask him how that quote (from Matt 11) teaches
the deity of Jesus. It's clearly not an explicit teaching of divinity! Jonathan
is guilty of reading his own understanding into the text. We are seeing
eisegesis and not exegesis here.
Ask yourself
why? Why is Jonathan continually trying to elucidate the obscure with obscure speculations?
[Note:
son of Man is mentioned here - please see Dale Martin on Son of Man]
Jonathan
uses Mark 1 in an attempt to prove high Christology. Mark 1 is where he tries to draw high Christology in
using Isaiah 40 (apparently a ref to YHWH) and Mark 1:7 (a ref to Jesus). Again, this is eisegesis where
Jonathan is foisting an inference upon Mark. If Mark really believed that, why
did he not just say it? Why would he be so cryptic and leave it to fertile imaginations
of later Christians like Jonathan to expound upon?
Jonathan
McLatchie on Gospel authors - disappointing
Jonathan
believes the names attributed to the Gospels are actually the authors. His
reasoning about Mark being an unlikely choice as there are "better"
individuals to attribute to that Gospel such as Peter and James. He's basically
arguing bigger names (authorities) could have been used, why use a relatively
small name?
OK, Jonathan is really annoying critical
thinkers - AGAIN. Look, folk (at the inception of Mark's Gospel) would have
known Peter was illiterate as he passed away shortly before that Gospel was
written, thus to claim Peter wrote that Gospel would have been ridiculous as
all the contemporary audiences would have been aware that Gospel came about
AFTER Peter's death. In addition, any semi-smart contemporaneous liar would
have known the audience would be familiar with Peter's inability to write such
a work. To attribute a Gospel to him at that time would have effectively been
asking to be called out as a liar.
So, it doesn't take a great deal of
critical thinking here to see why folk would have attributed it to Mark rather
than Peter. Mark was close to Peter thus attributing it to Mark would have been
tantamount to linking it to Peter. In fact, it seems it's the closest one could
link a Gospel to Peter.
For Jonathan to claim Mark must have been
written by Mark as there would have been no real desire to attribute that
Gospel to Mark who was a relatively small personality is invalid argumentation.
One, upon having thought this through critically in the cold light of the facts
available, could quite easily see the motivation for dishonest men to attribute
that Gospel to Mark.
Yusuf
Ismail slams Jonathan McLatchie for poor scholarship and ludicrous interpretation
Jonathan
was asking for this sharp rebuke. He continued building his polemics he got from his colleague. It finally reached a crescendo.
Yusuf
chimes Jonathan for poor scholarship - basically the Shamoun argument. Ibn
Isaac and At-Tabari would have presupposed Paul believed in Jewish monotheism
and rejected the ideas of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. Yusuf thinks
Jonathan's (aka Shamoun's) spin around this is ludicrous.
Their
comments germane to this discussion would have been subsumed upon the information they had access to
at that time thus confusing Paul for a disciple is nothing to write home about
for the serious and critical thinker.
Yusuf
Ismail: To interpret this group that PREVAILED as being believers in the Trinity
in light of the whole Quran would be a ludicrous interpretation.
McLatchie
came to the table furnished with quotes from Al Tabari yet if his source was an honest
man he would have informed him of one of Al Tabari's commentaries on Quran 3:55
concerning the group who are made superior - in this opinon it's those who
follow Islam according to Al Tabari's commentary. In another opinion it's one
of the groups from the Jews. Thus we see all that huffing and puffing by
Jonathan to build this polemic throughout the discussion was a waste of effort
and time.
Al Tabari's commentary on Quran 61:14 indicates Jonathan is a victim of
misinformation and spin again. Al Tabari seemingly teaches those who were made
uppermost were made uppermost by the revelation of the Quran which confirms the
true followers of Jesus - i.e. those who reject the Trinity idea. Al Qortubi
has similar commentary.
On
3:55 Al Tabari's commentary indicates he believed it was the MUSLIMS who are
the fulfilment of being placed above (made superior to) the disbelievers as
Muslims have the correct beliefs about Jesus and follow his message of pure
monotheism.
Jonathan
McLatchie devoted a lot of time in promulgating second-hand polemics and speculations
about what the Quran teaches and the teachings of Muslim historians. A lot of
time to devote to ultimately throw dust in the air. Not a good reflection on
Jonathan McLatchie. Not helpful for sincere Muslim-Christian dialogue. Not
helpful for the serious minded researcher.
Shamoun
just made McLatchie look like a right fool in the middle of a debate. Shamoun
has a history of making his colleagues look foolish - James White, David Wood
and Anthony Rogers have publicly been embarrassed by borrowing Shamoun's
snippets of spin. All such episodes have been documented. To be fair, White, largely, gives Shamoun a wide berth nowadays.
Yusuf
Ismail on Matt 11 and linking it with Malachi 3
Yusuf
states Matthew has reworked material to bring out later Christian teachings.
[NOTE:
How about the possibility a later scribe amended Matt to add this theme into
the text?]
Yusuf and Jonathan on
evolution of Christology.
Yusuf
gives his example: Mark and Matt differ in the story of Jesus in the boat
during the storm. In Mark the disciples 'rebuke' Jesus while in Matthew the
disciples 'pray' to Jesus.
Yusuf
suggests an agenda on the part of Matthew to increase the Christology.
Jonathan
responds to Yusuf's developing Christology claim. He appeals to the understated evidence fallacy here and he
gives two examples of this "understated evidence" that Yusuf
overlooked:
Mark 9
(boy looking like a corpse) not in Matthew 17 or Luke 9 - accounts of the
same story.
Trial in
Mark 14 according to Jonathan has Jesus depicted in high Christology. Again,
Jonathan hoists his church tradition onto the text. More eisegesis! The understanding of Son of Man is anachronistic to the original understanding and
the "trial" of Jesus is not considered to be historical.
I don't think giving 2 examples counters a
general trend especially with regards to John's Gospel.
Yusuf Ismail
responds adroitly? He responds by
categorising Jonathan's examples as telescoping and not as the evolution of
Christology.
It's
a smart pick-up here by Yusuf Ismail if that is the case. Most debaters would
have got bogged down here in my opinion.
What do
you think? How would you have handled that objection from Jonathan?
[PS the
fallacy Jonathan mentioned would not be commonly understood amongst those
involved in inter-religion debates. It's more commonly understood amongst
Atheist-Theist apologetics]
Can
Jonathan give any examples of lower Christology in parallel accounts between
Mark and John?
As the
dialogue progressed they veered further away from the topic of the disciples
and what they believed.
Does the Carmen
Christie support the idea of deity of Jesus?
This
is not really related to the debate subject either but it may be interesting
for folks to delve deeper into this.
A
lot of evangelicals use this argument. However, does the Carmen Christie really
teach the deity of Jesus in the manner in which Trinitarians would have us
believe? I don't think so.
For
those who are interested in researching this area, look into the idea of
exaltation theology and subordinationism too.
Again,
are we seeing evangelicals thrusting their later church traditions on to the
text?
Conclusion
I hope there
were a couple of points in the debate and over here which have provoked thought
charitably. Look, we have to love God with all our heart and mind, right? Thus
it's imperative for the Trinitarian to ask whether they are dividing their love
for God between 3 rather than focussing their love directly at 1 - the God of
Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.
I was surprised
at Jonathan's decision to base his claims on speculation around the
relationship between Paul and the disciples. I don't understand why he, as an
evangelical, did not sift through the NT and attempt to piece together the purported
theology one can make out through quotes attributed to the disciples in the
actual NT. I don't recall him employing this methodology.
So for instance, why
did he not search for the purported statements of somebody like Peter in the
NT? And why did he not try to cite texts such as 1 Peter and 2 Peter (and talk
about the 'Granville-Sharp' construction for 2 Peter 1:1) - does he not believe
these are linked to Peter? I know there is scholarly opinion that those texts
could not have been written by the same person but the big question here is why
did the evangelical Christian decide not to use those texts?
IIRC correctly,
Jonathan was unable to address Yusuf's common sense objection of why there was
no controversy regarding the idea of Jesus being God in the climate of Jewish
monotheism? If people saw fit to have councils over the practice of
circumcision, what of something practicing Jews were reciting every morning -
the Shema. The very idea of who God is!
- Jonathan failed
to meet Yusuf's challenge of providing documentary proof for his assertion the
disciples believed Jesus was God. To tickle the taste buds of the sincere
researcher, think about Acts 2: 14-36 where Peter is purported to have preached
and subsequently thousands of people were saved. There was no preaching about
Jesus being God.
- Jonathan was
relying on speculating on a relationship and uniformity between Paul and the
disciples. Nowhere was this proven. It was just that, speculation on his part.
Speculation is
not what the sincere researcher wants to hear.
What next for
Yusuf Ismail and Jonathan McLatchie
My sincere
advice to Jonathan is to ask yourself why you're doing these debates. Is it
self promotion? I don't think the sophistry and the attempted gotcha polemics bode
well for one's views on your approach to serious matters.
I echo Dale
Tuggy here, apologetics is an in-house activity in many cases and apologists
play to their particular crowd. Jonathan's arguments and approach may appeal to
his particular crowd but it has no place on the anvil of serious debate to assist the
earnest researcher. Some food for thought for Jonathan, this is not a place for
the ego, gotcha moments, misleading polemics and sophistry.
Yusuf Ismail
seems to have scant opportunity to involve himself in discussions with folk who
would be conducive to a meaningful dialogue/debate. From what I can see there
really isn't much scope for high-level discussions in South Africa -
one of the Christian pastors/debaters there is unable to recognise a model he used to describe the Trinity belief would be deemed heretical in orthodox
Trinitarian circles. I'd like to see him further advance Christian-Muslim apologetics
through teaching in his locality and help pass on his research to younger
students over there through lectures and classes. In many cases folk may cry
out for debates but in reality they need lectures and classes much more than
debates.
How about you?
The most
important people when it comes to debates of this nature are always the
viewers. What did you think about it? How would you have approached this
discussion?
Here are some
interesting suggestions:
How about
scanning the literature to see what Peter's theology according to the quotes
attributed to him in the New Testament? A starting point could be this video on what Peter believed.
What do you say
about looking into the theology of Paul? Sure he was'nt an apostle but that
doesn't mean he has to believe in the Trinity idea by default. I think looking
into the theology of Paul for oneself would be better than presupposing he was
a Trinitarian.
In debates
about what the disciples believed quite often Jesus is forgotten. It sounds odd
but it's true. Odder still, the debate really is just a variation on what Jesus
believed too. Think about it, if we believe the disciples of Jesus were
faithful to Jesus then they would have identical beliefs to Jesus. One way of
approaching this discussion could be to begin by citing some quotes attributed
to Jesus. How about quotes which negate the idea he was divine:
In Mark 13 Jesus states he does
not know that day or hour. How is it if Jesus was the same substance and
co-equal to the Father that he did not have information the Father had?
32“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the
angels in heaven, nor the Son, but
only the Father
Jesus
prays to God in Matthew 26:39 so
clearly it's ridiculous to believe Jesus is God. Also, why is he only praying
to the Father and not to the Holy Spirit and himself?
Going a little farther, he fell with his
face to the ground and
prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet
not as I will, but as you will."
If Jesus was God why does he have to
call on the Father for support from angels? Why does he even need support?
Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? [Matt 26:53]
John 14:28 teaches Jesus is lesser than
the Father
"You heard me say, 'I am going away
and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am
going to the Father, for the
Father is greater than I.
Jesus denies he is God explicitly in
John 17:3. The word only in Greek is monos. It clearly teaches
there's no other.
Now this is eternal life: that they know
you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
In John 20:17 Jesus affirms he has a
God
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me,
for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell
them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
