Mark Bennett Reviews Ijaz and Yahya "Review" (PART I)



Yahya is correct that the Scriptural terminology doesn't use the word "person" or "being" or show a differentiation between the two. However Perkins has not shown the word "person" or "being" is applied to the Father anywhere in the Bible either. Clearly not only does a differentiation not exist, but the words themselves are not mentioned! Hence Perkins must also be guilty of violating sola scriptura if Yahya is correct. But that is a questionable assumption itself because  I haven't found a definition of "Sola Scriptura" that says that we cannot infer distinctions in persons or beings or infer such conceptions given our language, in fact it seems this concoction of Yahya's was far from the intent of the pioneers of such doctrine. We could obviously say that the being/person of the Father is not the same person/being as Yahya (John), yet that differentiation isn't made explicitly anywhere, yet it is still obviously true that Yahya does not share the same person or being as the Father. Also it is not at all clear how 'extra biblical material' cannot be used as a yard-stick to interpret the Bible given that any language the Bible exists in, has pre-defined terminology, we must learn the language, linguistic and meaning, before attempting to interpret anything. It is therefore in fact impossible to interpret the Bible without a yardstick given from the basis of the science of linguistics or philosphy of language itself.

Ijaz presumptive claim that the vast majority of doxologies are added is a non-sequitor. Even if that were the case, the distinctions of being and person can still be ascertained (the personhood of the F, S  HS are distinct) without such doxologies. It is not shown how historically Christians were at all wholy dependent on such doxologies to infer distinctions in person or being. This would also be irrelevant to the O.T. (or even largely the Gospels) where such "binitarian/trinitarian" doxologies do not exist yet Trinitarians still infer distinctions based on personhood.

Further more it is not explained why James White has common ground with such assertions (doxologies were developed/added), it would seem highly unlikely White would agree with such a contention, hence it would be irrelevant to his own set of interpretative principles. Hence under the interpretive principle of Tota Scriptura, White is perfectly within his right to inteprete accordingly, the Bible as a "whole" unless Ijaz can demonstrate that such a spiritual interpretative tradition is off the hook in a historic theistic tradition, which is dubious.

Ijaz claim that "Godhead" is absent from the N.T is just false (Col 2:9), it is an old English term meaning "divinity" and is translated that way in the KJV as such. The claim that person or being is absent is not shown to be important, as even if that is the case, one can infer God is an almighty "being" who is a "person", no more or less could also be inferred about John the Baptist who is also a "person" and a human "being". The claim that it is "read into" or "eisegeted" is therefore dubious, since "inference" is a valid hermenutical methodology that even Unitarians (and even Muslims) themselves enjoy and employ when reading the Bible (and/or Qur'an). For example the Bible never refers to God as a "self" but most conceive of God as a self or a personal agent. A self with consciousness, awareness or a disembodied animating spirit, all possibly valid descriptions. yet none of which are used of God in the totality of Scripture.

Ijaz questions whether Paul had the authority to change or arbitrarily reform the Shema. However Christians in general (who view Paul as possessing such authority and agree with this particular interpretation of Corinthians) are not obligated to assert Paul "changes" the Shema in the sense entailed by Ijaz, but rather he "interprets" or "modifies" the Shema due to it and an older tradition possessing a pre-existing embedded multi-personal notion of God as either recorded in the judeo tradition or revealed in the relevant recent history by the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul's views are also in perfect accordance and conjunction with the interpretive methodology and principles of the Hellenistic Judaism of his period. In addition we would expect given the anticipated progressive revelation held to by the Jews, who had not argued all revelation was sealed, and this would have to be even more true, due to the recent advent of the Messiah sent to Israel. For example two Scholars report:

"The references to the roles of the Father and of the Lord Jesus Christ in creation (“from whom and through whom”) also reflect traditional scriptural affirmations of the roles of God and of Wisdom in creation (for the latter, see Prov. 8:22–31; Wis. 9:4, 9; Philo, Flight 109). In prophetic literature Yahweh’s absolute power as creator of heaven and earth is what sets him apart from idols, which, on the contrary, are human creations (e.g., Jer. 10:3–16; Isa. 44:9–24). The description of Christ in terms normally attributed to Wisdom (Wis. 8:1–6; 9:1–2, 9; Sir. 24) suggests that just as Jesus takes the place of “the Lord” in the Shema, he also takes the place of “Wisdom” within Hellenistic Judaism: “Paul has indicated that everything one might hope to gain through possessing [sophia (Wisdom)] can be gained rather by possessing Christ” (N. T. Wright 1992: 130)." Beale, G. K., & Carson, D. A. (2007). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (pp. 717–718). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos. 

Or simply read Dr Michael Lakey work.

Hence according to many scholars the only way in which Paul diverges from the Shema (as understood in his time) is by the precise "identification" of the Wisdom/Logos with the historical personage of "Jesus" himself, which is truly unique. The Logos is no longer merely God's creative principle, but is revealed in a historical person, the Messiah of Israel.

The final objection I will address is that the H.S is not mentioned in the Christianized Shema. Personally I find this objection the most persuasive, however it would have to be combined with other evidence, by itself it's not compelling enough. For example Paul has some other creeds that omit mentioning the Father "sending" the Son (Phil 2:6-11) in the context of the salvation/restoration of mankind, yet clearly this is an essential part of primitive Christian theology as a whole when it comes to salvation and/or restoration. Nor do any of these creeds mention the H.S at all, let alone as "God", yet despite this obviously the H.S. played a vital role in the view of the early Christians. Do we conclude they rejected the H.S due to it's absence? Or do we conclude, their theological development advanced as they were able to access the increasing knowledge of the totality of Scripture and Tradition? Ultimately this appears to be nothing more than an argument from silence, that needs to be cojoined with other data to be made useful.

WHO AM I?

Mark Bennett (also known under the pseudonyms: Dk, Derek Adams) is a Christian debater, blogger and apologist. He was born and raised in Wellington, New Zealand. He is the owner and operator of the blog www.AnsweringAbraham.com and former contributor to a prominent interfaith polemical website: www.Answering-Islam.org (1).

He has engaged in numerous dialogues, exchanges and controversial interactive style debates with Atheist and Muslim figures including: Islamic extremist Abdullah Al-Andualsi (2), Apologist, Activist and Reporter Sami Zaatari (3) Director of the MDI-USA(Muslim Debate Initiative-USA) and Imam Shadid Lewis (4) and Muslim apostate and passive homosexual Paul Williams (5). He is featured critically by various Islamic organisations (5).

Mark has had several informal heated exchanges with other Islamic apologists such as Nadir Ahmed, Ijaz Ahmad, Bassam Zawadi and Osama Abdullah (7), though only the later is publicly available (8).

Mark has spent the better of 15 years (including approximately 6-7 years as an Atheist) learning theology, philosophy, religious studies, debate polemics and Christian apologetics. Mark was invited on ABNSat Network by presenter and Christian philosopher David Wood to share his views and testimony as a former Atheist.

Being raised in a Pentecostal Church, he later in life attended a Baptist and then non-denominational Church. At 16 years of age Mark discovered theology and apologetics, after listening to Christian speaker Kent Hovind he described himself as becoming a evangelist, apologist, fundamentalist, literalist and Young Earth Creationist.

It was not until many years later and quite a while into the studying Islam that he began to have very serious doubts about his own Christian world view, primarily from an ethical point of skepticism. Mark apostatized from Christianity with the recognition that many of his own criticisms of Islam could be as equally applicable to a fundamentalist view of Christianity. However in 2014 Mark embraced deism, and finally theism. At this point he adopted an unorthodox view of Christianity including synthetic elements of Buddhism, Hinduism, Platonism and Paganism which he has adhered to until this day.


END NOTES:



(1)  Answering-Islam (also known under the domains: AnsweringIslam.net and Answering-Islam.net) is a Christian missionary forum engaged in evangelism and proselytization to Muslims and criticism of Islam.

(2) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11733968/By-day-at-heart-of-counter-terror-policing.-And-by-night-preacher-of-extremism.html

(3) http://gulfnews.com/writers/sami-zaatari?module=recent-articles&page=4

(4) http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/responding.htm

(5) http://web.archive.org/web/20140226133655/http://bloggingtheology.org/2014/02/25/1862/

(6) http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_derik_adams

https://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/10/09/the-intolerance-of-the-intolerant-why-anti-muslim-polemicists-misrepresent-muslim-groups-a-case-study/

https://callingchristians.com/2012/04/30/refutation-where-did-jesus-say-i-am-god-worship-me/

https://callingchristians.com/2014/04/13/james-white-shamoun-and-friends-behaviour/

https://callingchristians.com/2014/04/22/mark-bennet-inciting-deceit-for-popularity-and-anthony-rogers-support/ 

(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJrxmjaSd6c

(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi9vPvEWQVw

When Feminism Goes Wrong ~ Richard Carrier

The SJW, Feminist Richard Carrier has recently discovered the painful way that feminist Social Justice Warriors don't represent real justice. Carrier has been booted off his own blog and banned from various Atheist Conferences for the dreadful crime of hitting on chicks. That's all. Not assaulting them, not raping them, not even verbally abusing them, but attempting to politely seduce them, making them feel uncomfortable and getting rejected.

Before he was banned, Carrier made a post defending himself from one of the allegations. When asked by a blog user whether Carrier is blaming his victim (as per the normative SJW model), he replies:

"Victim blaming is the act of blaming the victim for their victimization. I’m saying that she wasn’t victimized. Beyond learning of my interest in a possible future date."

But unfortunately for Carrier as several users noted, in SJW philosophy the women's (aka victims) testimony must be favoured (smirk: privileged) over the men (the predator) in these kind of circumstances:

"I thought you had to “listen and believe” when it came to women? Guess it’s a little bit troubling when it happens to you huh? There is a reason it is innocent until proven guilty. I have no sympathy for you because you have sided with these psychopaths doing the whole A+ nonsense." (source)
And:

"There’s no real evidence either way, Richard. It’s mostly your word against hers. I should probably just “listen and believe” Amy, then. That seems like the virtuous thing to do. Further to what Damion said, can you confirm that false accusations are vanishingly rare unless the accused is a SJW blogger?" (source

And unfortunately following an objective analysis, one blog-user reveals that every method that Carrier uses to defend himself is actually a violation of his very own SJW principles and certainly constitutes victim blaming:

"Checklist useful for #24 victim blaming:
Beginning with suggestion that the alleged victim misled you about crucial details like her name and highlighting every possible error or fact in dispute – check. 
Quibbling over irrelevant details like employment status of employees vs volunteers – check. 
Highlighting where the alleged victim has changed details – check. 
Assumption that failure initially to report something which is then later reported then that’s evidence of dishonesty – check. 
Garnering character references from supporters – check. 
Downplaying witting breaches of SSA policy – check 
Pedantic quibbling over on-the-job vs off-the-job for leaders with duty of care for young students – check. 
Expressing dismay that someone you praised as a very competent adult turns out to be too immature to be the subject of an above-board flirt from a person of your standing – check 
Making a show of how you never wanted to make trouble for someone in an abusive relationship by defending yourself, then being reluctantly forced to retaliate with a truckload of trouble – check. 
Skipping over why you never mentioned to the SSA that you had thought you were sacked from the speakers bureau for a separate incident in a completely different state – check. 
Proof by Bayesian something or other that it couldn’t possibly have happened – check. 
Ready supply of bystanders requiring exceptional evidence – check.
Deleting trolling outright but allowing sexist hyperbole #19 to receive only a mild tutting – check. 
Redefining ‘creepy/sleazy’ to be whatever would have been more creepy/sleazy than what you did – check. 
Telling your side of the story in your own framing and implying that failure by the other side to do so shows bad faith – check. 
Writing a long-winded screed in 2015 which stresses the importance of learning from mistakes, then allowing the exact same situation to recur – check. 
This sounds so much like the sort of thing a victim-blamer would do. Someone as wise as you could have followed the oft-useful maxim “guys, don’t do that”. But… don’t heed anything I’d suggest because it would be to do the exact opposite of what you’re doing." (source)

And that's it for Carrier, his Career is over.

How To Lose A Best Friend By Defending Free-Speech

After months of trying we finally figured out how CTW could access his account (GuardofGold showed us how on a phone). After CTW got access, and he gave me the password (and it finally worked!) so that I could make the changes we already had agreed upon. The changes were to make me a super admin (as we are both co-owners). So I took the super-admin status off others (including Chris-Claus), and made myself super-admin, as had historically always been the case, the room was back to it's default, I've always been the co-owner but now my powers are operational. Everyone (Jai, Dragonlady, TheVine etc) knows that CTW and I have been co-owners of the room for about 8 years, even, CTW has frequently mentioned it on the mic.

He asked me to leave Jaihabor as a super-admin, so he could operate while we were not present, so I reluctantly co-operated. Being co-owners is about compromise, but I my own view was that only me and CTW should have these admin powers. The next thing we agreed upon is that Alana could come to the room as a participant but she couldn't admin because she allows her personal feelings about certain members to interfere with her objective admin duties (such as repeatedly censoring me when we have heated disputes). Besides it's only fair that we should complete the process, if GuardofGold cannot admin, neither should Alana, since they both have dotted one another in the past. In addition we had previously agreed we would have no new female admins.

Within a day after this happened, I found out later CTW pmed ChrisClaus and told him to create a new room. They gave Jai an admin hat and he opened it. At the time I thought it was a random thing to do, since I haven’t seen Chris with a room open, but then later I realized it was part of a grand plan. CTW had been privately pming people not to go to the his old room (the room I am super-admin in) but instead, go to Chris's new room. No one told me about this, not CTW, not Chris, this information came from my questions in pm to others. I began asking these questions because every time Chris, CTW and others would pop into CTW’s room they immediately left and opened/joined Chris's room. I started to repeatedly observe this and wonder why? I pmed people asking questions and got answers about what CTW has been pming people.

The answer was simple, CTW had been telling people there is a new room, a new regime, the old is done, the new has come. He removed every admin in the old room excluding me and Vine and told Chris to give them admin authority in his new room, so that everyone would cross-over to the new regime and leave the rest of his dying room as rotten corpses. He took all our regular admins away without mentioning a word, and left me isolated not having a clue what was happening. This happened within hours of finally fixing all our problems, we had been trying to fix for months! So it's mind-boggling that he did this, when finally everything was resolved. He even made new admins in the new room like IonlyserveJesus, Viking etc, to ensure the successful popularity of his new room, (spent days in the orthodox room building up Viking to offer him adminship when the time was right) while he left me alone stranded on an island. But did he throw a life savior? He gave a super-admin to manysparrow! This explicitly violated our agreement, no new female admins, and the co-owners would be me and CTW and Jai who would function as super-admin in our absence. Okay maybe he violated our agreement, but was the his room that I co-own at least recoverable?

Surely he left it so I could choose new admins and keep the room operating/functional? He changed his password, so I couldn't access the options and create new admins, the exact same password I used earlier to make the changes, was now invalid. So we have me, Vine and Manysparrows, and none of us can be online 24/7, and all of us are going to need standard help when we are admining, which will never be available, thanks to CTW's decision to transport all the admins elsewhere. So this room is now doomed. It is with this in mind, that I simply aided CTW in his journey to create a new room, by closing the room and banning the regulars, since our room was now disappointingly defunct. However rather than thanking me for helping boost the new room and it's numbers, they decided to return to the old room, and ban me as a super-admin and co-owner and even participant. What on earth?

If the whole idea was really to create a new room with a variety of unique types of Christians admins distinct from the old, refreshed with a new style and variety then why on earth would you end up going back to the old room? The first thing they did, when they got rid of me is reinstated the old room, the room I co-owned, and the one they abandoned. For CTW this was never about having a new room, it was about removing me out of the picture (and CTW got what he wanted, I am out of his picture for good).

The simple fact is CTW created a new room so that Chris could continue to have super-admin powers so that he could have power to silence the likes of CT and Guard at his own will. CTW thinks this childish game is more important than having freedom and fairness. One of the first actions they took in Chris's new room is they gave Alana an admin hat, and they gave her an admin hat on their return to the old room. She bounced Guard, and CTW gave the go-ahead to bounce Inolyserve for defending Guard (a person they previously had admined!). They bounced Vine for harassing Millie, but after Vine was exposing Alana. It didn't take long for CTW's new co-owner the Claus and Alana and her agenda to begin the tyranny. Finally they banned Millie for complaining about Vine. The room progressively gets ridiculously worse without me enabling a higher level of freedom. Margesimpson thanked me for my efforts in the room allowing her as a Catholic woman (often attacked by some protestants) to have her say, and I have enforced her freedom to do so. And this is what I stand for and I do it well, even for people like Chris and Alana. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing there should be no limits or no restrictions on speech, I am merely saying these people too often let their personal feelings dictate their modus operandi as admin.

If CTW wanted a room with Chris as owner and Alana as admin, why not just tell me to begin with? Why go to all the hassal of the games, the deception and the ballshit? If he said this to begin with, I could easily have said "okay dude, it's been nice working with you, lets part ways with this room since we can't agree on this". But he went through all the usual chess board maneuvers, shifting the newbies and even the naive around like pawns in his game, and they know it and I know it, and some of them still support him, because CTW knows he can treat them like that, but they'll keep coming back because it's about popularity and numbers. So CTW wins the game. He gets Chris and Alana, popularity and numbers over one of his best long-term friends: me. Sad but that's the way life goes. Never trust anyone but God, even your own bestie. CTW rants about women and then acts like a bitch. I will not reconcile with CTW until he publicly apologizes for the games that he intentionally plays.

I also hear that CTW may have told Chris that I was the "new co-owner" and I will be owning the old room, and the new room will be Chris. However everyone knows that I have been the co-owner for 8 years, I am not a new co-owner. And you don't leave two rooms open by sabotaging the first room and angering me by violating our word in pm. And you don't make it all the more suspicious by privately pming everyone this information except for me. Enjoy your creepin, CTW bro.

Google+Badge