Pope Joan

Peter Stanford's work, The She-Pope, is apparently being turned into a film. The basic gist of the work is that one woman managed to become pope, only to give birth to a child in public (thereby betraying her secret). Allegedly this all took place in the late 9th century. The story should be taken with a whole shaker of salt, for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, it is an interesting story with more and better factual support than, say, the alleged bodily assumption of Mary.

(Link to article: CAUTION - web page features immodest women, and story is a little explicit about how the Church allegedly avoids another Pope Joan. Thus, this link is neither for those with lust problems, or for children.)

Second Awal Debate Canceled

The report is here (link to report). The stated reason for refusing to honor his word and debate is so absurd that one wonders if the real reason is the outcome of the first debate. God knows. I look forward to the videos from the first debate being made available.

Harold Camping on Judgment Day

Back in 1994, Harold Camping's predictions regarding the end of the world did not come true. The world continued on. He has new predictions that the rapture will occur on May 21, 2011, with world continuing for another 153 days from then. (link to interview) One of his predictions, as you will see in the clip, is that there will be a massive earthquake that is large enough to open all of the graves of, in essence, everyone who has ever been buried. I hope that those who have been following Camping's teaching will realize on May 22, 2011, that this was a serious mistake.

Mr. Camping's method of Biblical interpretation is flawed. Rather than using the grammatical-historical method of exegesis, Mr. Camping applies a highly arbitrary method of trying "decode" a "hidden meaning" in the text of Scripture. The arbitrary method permitted him to predict late 1994, and now permits him to predict May 21, 2011. If that date fails, it will permit him to pick a new date, and again and again.

What's more, folks should be aware that Camping is running his organization this way: "we make decisions as if the end could be quite far away ... contracts are negotiated as if the future was altogether indefinite ... " (source - Time Has an End).

May I strongly urge those who have gone along with Mr. Camping's teachings to please at least imitate this aspect of Camping's organizations. Continue to make plans for the future beyond May 21, 2011. When the earthquake does not arrive, find a Bible-believing church near you and join yourself to that fellowship.

-TurretinFan

(Many thanks to Mr. James Swan for bringing this clip to my attention.)

Asking the Wrong Marian Questions ...

It seems as though whenever we bring up the subject of Roman Catholics worshiping Mary, someone who is a Roman Catholic will say: "Go to your local parish, and as people are leaving Mass, ask them if they worship Mary!" Their expectation, of course, is that the folks at the local parish will say that they do not worship Mary.

The problem with this question (beyond the fact that folks leaving Mass don't really want to be nagged with questions, they have places to be!) is that if we changed the question to: "Do you say the Hail Mary," we'd get exactly the opposite result - and praying the Hail Mary to Mary is one way by which people worship Mary. If we changed the question to: "Did you place any candles at Mary's side altar," we would still get a lot of affirmations. That too is an act of worship - an act of religious devotion.

The importance of asking the right Marian question is highlighted in this paragraph:

I asked the women I talked to as part of my research, "Do you think that she's more important than God?" and they say, "Oh, no." But if you say to them, "When you pray, whom do you pray to?" they say, "Guadalupe, Mary." I say, "Why would you go to her with things that you would not go to God with?" "Because she's a woman, she understands."

(source)

It is great that the women recognize that Mary is less important than God - it is sad that they think that Mary is more understanding than God - it is sad that when they pray, they pray to Mary. This particular researcher does not seem to have asked the direct question, "Do you worship Mary," but the question is answered indirectly by identifying the object of the women's prayers.

I realize you may still have doubts. Consider the story told at the conclusion of the same article:

I'll tell you this story. I was with a Spanish priest, and he was showing me around the basilica and there was this old man on the side. The priest said, "Hombre, what are you doing here?" And the old man said, I want to pray to the Lady." The priest replied, "Well, I don't see you praying." And the old man admitted, "Oh, Father, I don't know how to pray." So Father said, "OK, here's a prayer book." The old man said, "I don't know how to read," and then the priest starts yelling at him, "Well, what are you doing here?" And the old man said, "You know, it's just enough for me to look in her face."

Shouldn't those words, "it's just enough for me to look in her face," help people to see that what is going on here is not the Christian religion but idolatry?

The author of the article, a Roman Catholic, explains in the article how people ask him to pray for them to Mary - so many that he keeps a notebook with their requests. He even suggests that, though he did not pray for it, a serious illness he had may have been cured by making the pilgrimage to the shrine where this particular idol is displayed.

At that point he said:

I was able to surrender, to say to Guadalupe, "You more than anyone know what it is that I need or want. Just give me the strength to be open to that."

Is not the blasphemy of that claim transparent?

Contrast:

Ephesians 3:20-21
Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen

And following that up with a similar manifestation of the Christian religion, I shall conclude this article.

Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17)

-TurretinFan

Gideon Would be Pleased ...

... by this report of God's destruction of an idol.

(UPDATE: It seem Mark Brumley anticipated my response.)

(FURTHER UPDATE: Check out R. Scott Clark's thoughts on the subject here.)

From the Department of True But Misleading Headlines ...

"Pope Decides to Retire At End of Month" (courtesy of my friend Matthew Lankford, who runs Adferit)

The Sin-Forgiving God

One of the attributes of God is the ability to forgive sins. This is stated explicitly in Exodus:

Exodus 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Furthermore, it is found implicitly in the passages of the Old Testament where God promises to forgive sin:

• 2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
  
  
• Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Additionally, it is found implicitly in the passages of the Old Testament where men ask God for forgiveness of sin:

• Psalm 25:15-18
  Mine eyes are ever toward the LORD; for he shall pluck my feet out of the net. Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate and afflicted. The troubles of my heart are enlarged: O bring thou me out of my distresses. Look upon mine affliction and my pain; and forgive all my sins.
  
  
• Psalm 85:1-4 (To the chief Musician, A Psalm for the sons of Korah.)
  LORD, thou hast been favourable unto thy land: thou hast brought back the captivity of Jacob. Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin. Selah. Thou hast taken away all thy wrath: thou hast turned thyself from the fierceness of thine anger. Turn us, O God of our salvation, and cause thine anger toward us to cease.

We also see the same thing implicit the prayer which Christ taught his disciples:

Luke 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

On at least two occasions (and perhaps more than that), Jesus forgave sins. The first occasion that I'll mention is in the instance of the weeping woman in the Pharisee's house. Luke provides the following account:

Luke 7:36-50

And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, "This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner."

And Jesus answering said unto him, "Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee."
And he saith, "Master, say on."

"There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?"

Simon answered and said, "I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most."

And he said unto him, "Thou hast rightly judged."

And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, "Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, 'Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little'."

And he said unto her, "Thy sins are forgiven."

And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, "Who is this that forgiveth sins also?"

And he said to the woman, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace."

Notice that, in another testimony to Jesus' divinity, he knew Simon the Pharisee's heart (see discussion here). In this passage, Jesus forgives the sins of the woman who had faith in Jesus and demonstrated that faith in love by washing his feet with her tears, wiping them with her hair, and anointing his feet with precious oil (perhaps, in view of the account of Matthew 26, we should view this as being that she anointed him from head to foot with the oil). Those who heard this marveled, precisely because they realized that only God can forgive sins.

We see this also illustrated in healing of the bed-ridden man who was sick of the palsy:

Matthew 9:2-8

And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; "Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee."

And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, "This man blasphemeth."

And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, "Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, 'Thy sins be forgiven thee;' or to say, 'Arise, and walk?' But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) 'Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house'."

And he arose, and departed to his house. But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

Notice that here we are given more details about the reaction. Those who knew the Scriptures but considered Jesus to be only a man thought that he was a blasphemer, because he pretended to forgive sins. Jesus, however, knew their hearts (another proof of his divinity, as we mentioned above) and Jesus demonstrated that he was not just pretending to forgive sins by healing the palsied man.

The same or a similar event (there is no requirement that it be the same event) is found in Mark and Luke:

Mark 2:1-12

And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house. And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them. And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee."

But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?"

And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, "Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, 'Thy sins be forgiven thee;' or to say, 'Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?' But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, 'Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house'."

And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

Luke 5:18-26

And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him. And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, "Man, thy sins are forgiven thee."

And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?"

But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, "What reason ye in your hearts? Whether is easier, to say, 'Thy sins be forgiven thee;' or to say, 'Rise up and walk?' But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, 'Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house'."

And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God. And they were all amazed, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear, saying, "We have seen strange things to day."

Notice how in these two passages we are told explicitly the reason why Jesus' words of forgiveness are shocking: only God can forgive sins. Jesus specifically demonstrates his ability to forgive sins by healing palsy. In this way, Jesus provides evidence of his own divinity.

Notice that Jesus does not say, "I will pray that God will forgive your sins," nor does he say, "I pray that God will heal your palsy." Instead, Jesus declares the sins to be forgiven and heals the palsied man by command.

The apostles recognized that the forgiveness of sins comes through Jesus Christ. Thus, we see this in the speech of the Apostle Peter and the other apostles:

Acts 5:29-32

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said,

"We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him."

As an aside, it is interesting to point out this reference to the Trinity, God (the father), Jesus, and the Holy Ghost.

We see the same thing about forgiveness of sins coming through Jesus Christ in Paul's speech:

Acts 13:33-39

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, "I will give you the sure mercies of David." Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, "Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: but he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Notice that Paul not only attributes forgiveness of sins to Jesus, but explains that through belief in him one is justified from all the things from which people could not be justified by the law of Moses. You will remember that there was a way for people to obtain forgiveness from God through the sacrificial system that God gave to Israel through Moses:

• Leviticus 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.
  
  
• Leviticus 4:26 And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.
  
  
• Leviticus 4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.
  
  
• Leviticus 5:10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
  
  
• Leviticus 5:13 And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.
  
  
• Leviticus 6:7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.
  
  
• Leviticus 19:22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.
  
  
• Numbers 15:25 And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their ignorance:
  
  
• Numbers 15:28 And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.

Notice that in these cases there was the opportunity for forgiveness through the mediation of the priest who offered an atonement for the person, and the person's sin was forgiven. These things foreshadowed Christ. Christ is the sacrifice and priest - more than that he is God. Forgiveness of sins is entirely His. Those for whom he offers atonement - their sins will be forgiven.

We see this confirmed in Jesus' own words as described by Paul to King Agrippa

Acts 26:1-20

Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself.

Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself:

I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews: especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.

My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?

I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, at midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

And I said, "Who art thou, Lord?"

And he said, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."

Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: but shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Notice that Jesus explains that people receive forgiveness of sins through faith in him. And notice as well that Paul explains that he preached repentance (something sadly missing in many professing Christian circles) and turning to God, namely to Christ through whom by faith in Him, men receive forgiveness of sins.

Paul's epistle to the Ephesians teaches us the same thing:

Ephesians 1:3-12

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Notice the explicit link between the redemption by his blood and the forgiveness of sins. This is one reason we cannot have both hell and universal redemption: those redeemed by Christ's blood have their sins forgiven.

Likewise, we see the same thing in Colossians:

Colossians 1:12-17

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Same link between blood redemption and forgiveness, and Christ is the one whose blood provides us this forgiveness.

The same link between forgiveness and Christ is provided yet again in Colossians:

Colossians 2:8-15

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

The link here is specifically to Christ's death. His death forgives our sins, and it does so forensically: that's what "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances" means. There's no way to confuse that with infusion of actual righteousness.

John's general epistle also teaches the same thing:

1 John 1:1-10

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Notice how John is explicit that Jesus forgives our sins. Even if someone might say that Paul simply treats Jesus as the means to the end of forgiveness, John makes it clear that Jesus himself both forgives our sins and cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

Let us praise Him by whom and through whom we are forgiven!

-TurretinFan

Michuta Contra Athanasius

Athanasius' canon of Scripture, presented in his 39th Festal letter is famous. It's not nearly as famous as his "Athanasius Contra Mundum" rejection of the Arian heresy, but it is probably the second most famous aspect of Athanasius' life today (his excellent letter to Marcellinus on the Psalms was famous in ancient times and perhaps we can revitalize interest in that excellent work as well).

The most famous aspect of Athanasius' canon of Scripture is the fact that his list of New Testament books is the earliest list that we have that is exactly right without expressing doubt about any of the canonical books. Another famous aspect of Athanasius' canon of Scripture, however, was his attempt to follow the 22-book Hebrew canon. In doing so, he gets it mostly right, despite the fact that he omits Esther and counts Ruth separately from Judges. In particular, Athanasius explicitly rejected many of the so-called deuterocanonical books.

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

Greek: Ἀλλ' ἕνεκά γε πλείονος ἀκριβείας προστίθημι καὶ τοῦτο γράφων ἀναγκαίως, ὡς ὅτι ἔστι καὶ ἕτερα βιβλία τούτων ἔξωθεν, οὐ κανονιζόμενα μέν, τετυπωμένα δὲ παρὰ τῶν πατέρων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι τοῖς ἄρτι προσερχομένοις καὶ βουλομένοις κατηχεῖσθαι τὸν τῆς εὐσεβείας λόγον· Σοφία Σολομῶντος καὶ Σοφία Σιρὰχ καὶ Ἑσθὴρ καὶ Ἰουδὶθ καὶ Τωβίας καὶ Διδαχὴ καλουμένη τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ ὁ Ποιμήν. Καὶ ὅμως, ἀγαπητοί, κἀκείνων κανονιζομένων, καὶ τούτων ἀναγινωσκομένων, οὐδαμοῦ τῶν ἀποκρύφων μνήμη, ἀλλὰ αἱρετικῶν ἐστιν ἐπίνοια, γραφόντων μὲν ὅτε θέλουσιν αὐτά, χαριζομένων δὲ καὶ προστιθέντων αὐτοῖς χρόνους, ἵνα ὡς παλαιὰ προφέροντες, πρόφασιν ἔχωσιν ἀπατᾶν ἐκ τούτου τοὺς ἀκεραίους.

- Athanasius, Festal Letter 39, Section 7.

As James Swan has noted, however, Roman Catholic Bibles are Bigger than Athanasius' Bible. They include "The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit," which Athanasius indicated that he did not accept as part of the canon of inspired Scripture.

Roman Catholic lay author Gary Michuta provides numerous alleged examples from Athanasius, where Athanasius is allegedly quoting the apocrypha as scripture. One in particular is of interest:

Athanasius calls the Book of Judith Scripture. (FN: See Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 2.35, [L. Deus autem non ut homo est, quemadmodum testatur Scriptura], quoting Jdt 13:15. See Breen, Introduction, 374.)

- Gary Michuta Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 112.

A careful investigation of this claim requires us to take a look at Judith 13:15. My friend James Swan found the following:

• Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition: "And all ran to meet her from the least to the greatest: for they now had no hopes that she would come."
• Vulgate: "et concurrerunt ad eam omnes a minimo usque ad maximum quoniam speraverunt eam iam non esse venturam."
• KJV: "So she took the head out of the bag, and shewed it, and said unto them, behold the head of Holofernes, the chief captain of the army of Assur, and behold the canopy, wherein he did lie in his drunkenness; and the Lord hath smitten him by the hand of a woman."

There's nothing close to these in Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 2.35 (see page 367). This may seem somewhat puzzling. The puzzle begins to be resolved when one examines the secondary source on which Michuta was relying (amusingly, Michuta's ccArmstrong in tertiary-sourcing the subject avoids this particular problem when he relies on Michuta, because he cuts off Michuta's footnote).

Michuta's reference to "Breen" is apparently a reference to A.E. Breen, A General and Critical Introduction to the Holy Scripture, [Rochester, New York: John P. Smith Printing House, 1897]

The puzzle increases, because there's nothing about Judith or Athanasius on page 374 of this book. A little further searching leads to some mention that appears relevant. On page 155, Breen does present a list of similarities from Athansius citing the Apocrypha:

Judith XIII.15
"...non enim quasi homo, sic Deus comminabitur, neque sicut filius hominis ad iracundiam inflammabitur."

Idem contra Arianos, Orat. II.35
" 'Deus autem non ut homo est, quemadmodum testatur Scriptura.' "

(also mentioned at p. 160)

Breen is quoting the following from Athanasius:

But God is not as man, as Scripture has said; but is existing and is ever; therefore also His Word is existing* and is everlastingly with the Father, as radiance of light And man's word is composed of syllables, and neither lives nor operates anything, but is only significant of the speaker's intention, and does but go forth and go by, no more to appear, since it was not at all before it was spoken;

Breen makes the following comment:

To judge rightly St. Athanasius' attitude towards Holy Scripture, we must recall what has been said respecting Meliton. We must readily admit that in these ages a distinction was made between the two classes of books, but it did not deny divine inspiration to the deuterocanonical works. A greater dignity was given by some Fathers to the books that had come down to the Church from the Jews; but these same Fathers testify to the veneration in which the deuterocanonical works were held by the Church, and to the part they played in the life of the faithful. It must also be borne in mind that Athanasius flourished in Alexandria the fertile source of Apocrypha, and in his zeal to repel the inventions of heretics he was most conservative in treating the Canon. His location of Esther among the deuterocanonical books is unique, and was probably caused by the sanguinary character of the book, which also led some Jews to doubt of its divine inspiration.

His omission of Maccabees seems to be an oversight since he adverts to their history in his writings. We do not seek to establish that the status of the two classes of books was the same with Athanasius; but we judge it evident from his writings that he venerated these same books as divine, although not equal in extrinsic authority to the books officially handed down from the Jews. The testimony of Athanasius that the Fathers of the Church had decreed that these books should be read in the Church manifests clearly the Church's attitude towards these books; and the following passages, taken from the writings of Athanasius, show how deeply he also had drunk from these founts.

There are several layers of issues and problems that unravel this puzzle.

Typo in the Reference
It looks like the reference (XIII:15) is a typo.

Judith VIII:15 is

• Vulgate: "non enim quasi homo Deus sic comminabitur neque sicut filius hominis ad iracundiam inflammabitur"
• Douay-Rheims Bible translates this as: "For God will not threaten like man, nor be inflamed to anger like the son of man." (which appears to be an accurate translation of the Latin)
• Corresponding King James version (via the original Greek) has: "Do not bind the counsels of the Lord our God: for God is not as man, that he may be threatened; neither is he as the son of man, that he should be wavering." (Judith 8:16, in the KJV)
• Greek: ὑμεῖς δὲ μὴ ἐνεχυράζετε τὰς βουλὰς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, ὅτι οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ θεὸς ἀπειληθῆναι οὐδ᾿ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου διαιτηθῆναι. (Judith 8:16, in the LXX)

Ambiguous Reference
The second layer of problems for Michuta and Breen is an ambiguous reference. The second quotation he provided (for comparison in Athanasius' works) is from Athanasius' Four Orations against the Arians, Discourse 2, Section 35. Here is the relevant English translation in its immediate context:

Now man, begotten in time, in time also himself begets the child; and whereas from nothing he came to be, therefore his word also is over and continues not. But God is not as man, as Scripture has said; but is existing and is ever; therefore also His Word is existing and is everlastingly with the Father, as radiance of light.

Greek:

ὁ δὲ θεὸς οὐχ ὡς ἄνθροπός ἐστι, τοῦτο γὰρ εἶπεν ἡ γραφή [fn1], ἀλλ' ὤν ἐστι καὶ ἀεί ἐστι [fn2] (Greek: http://books.google.com/books?id=1GFKVqzjTzAC&pg=PA358&lpg=PA358 )

Fn1: Judith 8:16 [15 Vulgate] Fn2: Exodus 3:14

Perhaps you notice the issue: immediately following "as Scripture has said" there is a Scripture text from Exodus 3:14.

Proto-Canonical Alternative

Furthermore, even assuming the ambiguous reference is to the phrase preceding "as Scripture has said," the "οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ θεὸς" is the LXX for Numbers 23:19, and Judith 8:16 has exactly the same "οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ θεὸς," at least according to my LXX (I'm not aware of any reason to think that Athanasius' LXX differed on this point). Thus, especially in view of Athanasius' explicit rejection of Judith as being part of the inspired Word of God, it seems unreasonable to conclude that this reference in Athanasius is a statement that Judith is canonical Scripture.

Conclusion

What is amusing about this from my standpoint is that Michuta is obviously relying solely on his secondary source, Breen. Furthermore, Breen has overlooked (for whatever reason) the apparently equally good canonical reference to Numbers 23:19, possibly based on familiarity only with the Latin translation, or other secondary reference (such as the source I've linked above, which provides only the apocryphal reference).

- TurretinFan

Karl Joseph von Hefele - A History of the Christian Councils: from the original documents

The work of von Hefele in assembling the materials regarding the history of Christian councils is significant. While his opinions and conclusions may be subject to bias, I have yet to hear any criticism that he falsified the source materials included in his work. With that in mind, I present the following downloadable editions of his work in English translation (translation from the German original by William R. Clark):

Second Edition, Revised (1872)

Volume 1 (second copy)

(1876)

Volume 2 (Second Copy)

Second Edition, Revised (1883)

Volume 1

(1883)

Volume 3 (Second Copy)

Second Edition, Revised (1894)

Volume 1 (Second Copy)

(1895)

Volume 4 (Second Copy)

(1896)

Volume 2

Volume 5 (Second Copy)

(all links are to Archive.org)

-TurretinFan

Falwell on Ergun Caner

I recently discovered a February 12, 2005, article in World Net Daily by Jerry Falwell (link to article). There are a few interesting things to note from the article.

Falwell makes the same "an ulema" mistake we've seen elsewhere:

On Feb. 4, to the surprise of thousands of Liberty University students, I arose in a convocation service to announce that Dr. Ergun Caner, a converted Sunni Muslim and son of an ulema (Muslim scholar), was to be the first former Muslim to become the dean of an evangelical seminary in the United States. In fact, he will become dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary on the campus of Liberty University, the school I founded in 1971.

Falwell also seemed to think that Caner had already had numerous debates, although no one can seem to locate them now:

Dr. Caner has also become a voice for evangelical Christianity in the national media, debating Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Bahai leaders on more than 50 college and university campuses.

Falwell seems familiar with 1982 alleged conversion date and the claim that Caner's "family" disowned him, despite the evidence that his mother and grandmother raised him:

A Turkish immigrant who converted to Christianity in 1982, Dr. Caner immigrated with his family to America to build mosques in the Midwest. It was while he was in high school in Ohio that a young friend invited him to church and led him to Christ. He was subsequently disowned by his family.
...
"I still see myself as that little church orphan boy, sitting in the pew in a country church outside of Columbus, Ohio," Dr. Caner stated. "I cannot imagine how such a thing could come about."

Falwell seems to think that Caner received his doctorate from the University of South Africa in 2000, although the evidence suggests a later date (see also here):

In 2000, Dr. Caner received his Doctor of Theology from the University of South Africa in residence in Johannesburg.

I don't have any reason to doubt Falwell's sincerity, but it is troubling to think that his selection of Dr. Caner seems to have been premised on a number of things that are open to doubt: debates we cannot find and other claims that don't seem to match the facts.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: See also this video of Falwell discussing Caner at Liberty University Superconference 2005, note the "they'd come from Turkey" idea that Falwell had.

"Intellectual Pit Bull of the evangelical world"

One of the claims that formerly appeared on Dr. Caner's website was as follows:

He has been called the "Intellectual Pit Bull of the evangelical world" by the national media.

(see here)(see it copied at impactapologetics.com here)

A friend encouraged me to track this down. I did find a few references in the national media to such an expression. I found it in three articles:

May 5, 2005, a Marine Corps Press Release stated, among other things:

Caner has appeared on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and PAX, publicly debated Michael Moore, director of Fahrenheit 9/11, in a syndicated newspaper column, appeared in the LA Times and Washington Post, and is known to national media as the "Intellectual Pit Bull of the Evangelical World," according to his Web site.

May 1, 2005, Bill Broadway (name in "Compiled by" line) writes in the Washington Post:

The new dean of the theological seminary at the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., is a former Muslim who has been called the "intellectual pit bull of the evangelical world," according to his Web site. And Falwell's appointment of Ergun Mehmet Caner to take over the 2,000-student seminary in July has Muslim and Arab American groups bristling.

February 19, 2005, Ron Brown writes in the Winston-Salem Journal (It seems to have been published there, though Ron Brown writes for the Lynchburg paper, the News and Advance):

Caner, dubbed the "intellectual pit bull of the evangelical world" by a Thomas Road Baptist Church advertisement, has become known for his humorous and pointed preaching.

Before February 19, 2005, I could not find any reference in the "national media." If anyone is aware of any factual basis for the claim that the national media referred to him as "intellectual pit bull of the evangelical world," I'd like to see it. Obviously, the national media goes beyond my favorite form of media (print) and also includes television and radio. Perhaps Ron Brown accurately reported the TRBC advertisement, but overlooked that the advertisement was based on some earlier (as yet undiscovered) media dubbing of Caner.

- TurretinFan

Photo Credit: Lance Cpl. Michael Angelo took the photo above, which is public domain (photographer credit requested).

"Second Wife" vs. "Many Wives" or "Other Wives"

Unveiling Islam, page 19, relating to the Caner brothers joining their father at his deathbed states: "His second wife had convinced him to see us, and we flew in from all over the country, hoping." Compare that to the "many wives" or "other wives" claims that we've documented in Ergun Caner's speeches (here), (here), (here), (here), and (here).

-TurretinFan

When Was Emir Caner Disowned?

Listening to Ergun and Emir Caner talking about their reconciliation with their father on his deathbed, I noticed an odd comment from Emir Caner. He indicated that it had been 17 years since Ergun Caner had seen his father, but that it had been "a decade for me" (link to clip). That 7 year difference was quite unexpected. It had been my understanding from numerous other Caner family testimonies that the gap between the conversion of Ergun and Emir was not more than about a year, and that both the brothers were disowned not later than late November 1982.

It was at that point that I noticed that the Caner brothers' book, Unveling Islam, has this interestingly worded passage at page 19:

In 1982, Ergun surrendered to the gospel ministry. It was the last time he saw our father for seventeen years. Acar disowned his sons, although it could have been worse: according to hadith 9.57, all three of us brothers should have been killed.

Tragedies and Commitments

Seventeen years later, we Caner brothers were reunited with our father, four days before he died. His second wife had convinced him to see us, and we flew in from all over the country, hoping.

The book never actually states that Emir was disowned in 1982, though one gets that impression. One wonders whether the Caners' father disowned them because of the conversion itself or because they indicated that they were called to the ministry. It would be interesting to ask Emir Caner to clarify this matter, if he would be willing to do so.

- TurretinFan

Emir Caner's Odd Description of the Kaaba

Listening to Ergun and Emir talking about Islam, I came across a very odd description of the Kaaba. In the clip, Emir calls it a 30 foot by 50 foot stone (link to clip). The kaaba is a building, made of granite and usually covered in black cloth. It is made from stone, but not a single stone. There is a famous black stone there, at one corner of the Kaaba. Muslim pilgrims often try to kiss that stone, although apparently kissing the stone is optional. The black stone itself is relatively small, and was broken into pieces in the middle ages. The stone is said to be about 1 foot in diameter.

-TurretinFan

"Debated ... Over Sixty Times" Claim Still Up At Liberty.edu

Although Liberty University has altered the bio page for Ergun Caner to remove the claim that "For the past twenty years, he has debated leaders in twelve major world religions, including Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Bahai, Mormons ... " there are still several places where the claim that Caner "has debated Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Baha’I over sixty times at universities and colleges" can still be found (here)(here)(and here) These all appear to be various versions of the 2009 "Viewbook." We presume this will eventually be removed, since there does not appear to be any evidence to back up the claim of 60 debates. In fact, no one can seem to find video of even 30 debates ... or 20 ... or 10 ... or 5. If anyone reading this blog is aware of some video or audio of Caner actually debating someone, please let me know. The closest I've seen falls into the category of interviews featuring both Caner and a Muslim (example).

Dr. James White on Iron Sharpens Iron

Dr. White was interviewed earlier today on Iron Sharpens Iron (link to mp3) The show airs on a Spanish-language station, so there is some Spanish-language material before the actual show starts. The topic was the Caner scandal. The show actually starts about 2 minutes into the mp3. Among the folks calling in was Wade Burleson, who has also become something of a lightning rod for criticism by some Caner's worst enemies: those who are not calling him to public repentance but instead are attacking his critics.

- TurretinFan

Ergun Caner's Testimony - 28 Minute Video

Perhaps my readers are tired of clicking on mp3s. The video at the following link is 28 minutes long (link). Watch and see if you can spot where he:

• Claims to have lived in majority Muslim countries.
  
  
• Claims to have worn "a keffiyeh."
  
  
• Talks about "not an imam, not the mullah, not the mulima," although ulima (not "mulima") is the word for scholars, and the singular (to be parallel with the singular, imam and mullah) would be alim.
  
  
• Provides a story about Mohammed's first alleged revelation, citing to "the beginning of the Hadith" for a story about Mohammed foaming and roaring like a lion. (Bonus, can you find any reference to this story in Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Chapter 1?)
  
  
• Mistranslates the most core creed of Islam, the Shahada, by adding the word "final." (see the correct translation here)
  
  
• Claims that Jerry Tackett began evangelizing him "starting in my sophomore year in high school he just wouldn't let up, all the way through almost my senior year."
  
  
• States, "They didn't call me a 'towel-head,' because I walked into that church in full gear."
  
  
• Attributes a saying to Shabir Ally, as something Ally said, "before he died."
  
  
• Identifies the date of his conversion as November 4, 1982.

-TurretinFan

Defining "Christian" so as to Deceive Christians

Over in the comment box of the GreenBaggins blog, Dave Armstrong asked:

First of all, how could one who accepts the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed not be a Christian? I think that is something you should ask yourself.If those do not help clarify who is and who is not a Christian, what in the world does? This is the very purpose of creeds and confessions: to determine in a concise manner who is within and outside of the fold.

One has to ask why, i.e. upon what pretense, Dave selects the creeds of those councils, and not the Tridentine creed?

If one is going to include "heretics" who do not accept the Tridentine creed, why not accept heretics who do not accept the Nicene creed? After all, from Rome's perspective, both Arians (who reject Nicaea) and the Reformed (who reject Trent) are "outside the fold" in the same sense. Trent is not less of an ecumenical council in Romanism, nor is its authority any less.

I understand that there are Christians out there who like to use one of those creeds as being a true definition of what is involved in being a Christian. That's because they think that the essential doctrines of the faith are captured in those creeds. That's not Rome's position - Rome doesn't permit people to differ over what Trent has said: if you deny Trent, you can't reasonably call yourself a Roman Catholic.

For a Roman Catholic to select the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed as definitive of what it means to be a Christian is, at best, arbitrary. Trent and Nicaea are equally authoritative for a Romanist. Monothelitism (not condemned at Nicaea) is just dogmatically defined to be a heresy as Arianism. Iconoclasm is as strongly opposed as Monothelitism. And Trent's Canon IX on Justification defines Sola Fide to be as false as any other condemned teaching.

Unfortunately, a number of Christians fall for this sort of sophistry. They imagine that folks like Mr. Armstrong are recognizing them as true followers of Christ by calling them a Christian. You should have seen him squirm, though, when asked the simple question of whether he equated "Christian" and "saved." (he himself documented his own numerous attempts to evade the question on his own blog - link) This confusion is exacerbated by the fact that there are many folks within the Roman Catholic Church who do actually think that non-RCs are just on different paths to heaven: RC members who essentially adopt pluralism. Those two groups read Vatican II's comments "ecumenical" comments in radically different ways.

And which group reads Vatican II correctly?

-TurretinFan

The Jews Knew the Old Testament Canon - Guest Post by David King

(the following is a guest post by my friend, David King)

One frequent myth often propounded by those who prefer a 4th century Greek canon of the Old Testament (OT) to the Hebrew canon of the OT is the idea that the first century Jews did not know the canon of OT Scripture. The Scriptures abundantly discredit this myth.

Our Lord’s own words (Matt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:54; Mk. 12:10, 24; 14:49; Lk. 4:21; Jn. 5:39; 7:38; 10:35; 13:18; 17:12; ), as well as those of his apostles (Matt. 26:56; Mk. 15:28; Lk. 24:27, 32, 45; Jn 2:22; 7:42; 19:24, 28, 36-37; 20:9; Acts 1:16; 8:32, 35; 17:2, 11; 18:24, 28; Rom. 1:2; 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4; 16:26; 1 Cor. 15:3-4 Gal. 3:8, 22; 4:30; 1 Tim. 4:18; 2 Tim. 3:15-16; Jam. 2:8, 23; 4:5; 1 Pet. 2:6; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16), presuppose a recognized OT canon in their day.

Moreover, the Apostle Paul informs us implicitly that the canon of the OT was bequeathed to the NT Church from the OT Church (Rom. 3:2). Many of the early church fathers themselves affirm this to be the case. In other words, if an epistemological crisis concerning an OT canon existed in the time of Christ and His apostles, not only do their own words reveal nothing of it, but the same actually presuppose its identity.

To the contrary, would not such a claim of epistemic uncertainty strip the Jewish people of all responsibility whom our Lord engaged with His indictments of their faithlessness in the face of the testimony of Holy Scripture otherwise (Jn 5:39, Matt. 12:3ff; 19:4; 22:31; Mk. 12:26)? Do not his words presuppose their culpability for not knowing the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29)?

In short, even the apostolic church itself was never without a functioning canon (e.g., Acts 17:2, 11; 18:24, 28; 24:14). Thus, the OT canon of Holy Scripture was commonly recognized in their day, without the aid of any authoritative, conciliar declaration. When then should we entertain the alleged need for such in our day, when already in the time of the apostles themselves the NT canon was being recognized (1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Tim. 5:18 and 2 Pet. 3:16) apart from the same? How does the alleged apologetic against this revealed state of affairs avoid the charge of what amounts to a self-serving agenda of special pleading?

Again, what is being called into question is not simply the sufficiency of Scripture, but the sufficiency of God Himself to reveal and make Himself known in Holy Scripture.

It seems rather difficult to avoid the conclusion posited by Warfield:

The early churches, in short, received, as we receive, into their New Testament all the books historically evinced to them as given by the apostles to the churches as their code of law; and we must not mistake the historical evidences of the slow circulation and authentication of these books over the widely-extended church, for evidence of slowness of “canonization” of books by the authority or the taste of the church itself.

B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, reprinted 1970), p. 416.

Caner's Comments at Southwest Baptist Church - January 23, 2010

I managed to locate, via iTunes (R) , two addresses by Dr. Caner presented at the Southwest Baptist Church, Amarillo, TX, January 23, 2010. They are titled: "A Former Muslim Defends the Christian Faith." You should be able to find them through iTunes. However, should you wish to download them directly, I've found mp3s of them here (first presentation)(second presentation)

First presentation

• 1:30 Explains that Abdul Saleeb is title meaning "slave of the cross"

This contrasts oddly to his claim to have debated someone called "Abdul Saleeb."

• 2:00 Caner claims that he and his brother write under their real names
• 6:30 Caner claims his name is Ergun Mehmet Caner and explains that "Mehmet" is "Mohammed in Turkish."

He probably just means that people can link his writings to him. Nevertheless, it is a little odd that he claims this, if Mehmet is not his real name, which seems to be an open question.

• 4:15 Caner claims that "Campus Church" on Wednesday nights are "Skillet and Demon Hunter" and that the attendees wear “diesel jeans and affliction shirts”

This is basically the same story he told when interviewed by Pastor Lloyd about the famous (pseudo-?) tasing incident.

• 5:15 Caner calls his marriage a “mixed marriage”
• 7:15 Caner calls his children “half breed”
• 8:15 Caner calls his marriage the “ultimate mixed marriage”
• 8:30 Caner claims he has to spray on PAM (R) in order to get a tan.
• 5:45 Caner mentions his joke about his father-in-law coming from "Possum Kill, NC"
• 46:00 Caner tells the audience, “Thanks for listening to a towelhead.”

Caner's not politically correct, as we've noted before. The majority of his comments are directed at himself and/or his family, though, so it doesn't seem fair (to me) to accuse him of having antipathy for those he's commenting on.

• 10:15 Caner claims he didn't get saved until he was almost in college.
• 40:30 Caner claims, "I was raised to hate you, and until I was almost in college, that's exactly what I did."
• 42:00 Caner claims that Jerry Tackett started evangelizing him in 9th grade and continued to his senior year, and then “finally in senior year” he went to church with Jerry, where he got saved
• 43:10 Caner claims the same group led his two brothers to Christ a year later.

We've seen similar claims before (see here for example). This time the separation is a year, not 8 months, but that could just be rounding error. Nevertheless, it's strange that when Caner gives a date is not his senior year of high school, but his junior year or earlier (as mentioned here).

• 12:45 Caner claims, “I had no family,” after his conversion

As far we can tell, he continued to live with his mother and grandmother after his father disowned him, just as he did before his father disowned him.

• 24:30 Caner claims he was a horrible pastor, because he doesn't have the gift of mercy - he was a "Christian grump," he says.
• 27:45 Caner claims, "I stank as a Pastor," and that he drove away lots of people on purpose.

I don't necessarily believe this, though I suppose he may just being humble. He has apparently actually had success in increasing attendance.

• 41:15 Caner claims, "I lived and died trying to do one more good than bad. And if I couldn't work it out so that I had one more good than bad, I always had the option: jihad. If I was a jahid, if I was a martyr in an act of jihad, then I could get forgiveness."

As noted in a previous post, there does not appear to be any such thing as "a jahid." The term is mujahideen. See also this discussion relating to Caner's Arabic.

• 43:00 Caner claims he lived with the church after he was disowned.

Perhaps Caner just means this metaphorically, but the only evidence we can find suggests that Caner continued to live with his custodial mother (and grandmother) after his father disowned him.

• 43:25 Caner claims his father had other wives.

We have only seen evidence of two wives total, and never any evidence of their marriages overlapping.

• 44:00 Caner claims his grandmother never learned English and was "mean as a snake."
• 45:20 Caner claims that his brother tried to continue the baptism in “our language” after his attempt in English failed
• 45:25 and 35 Caner claims that his grandmother hit Emir during the baptism and told him, "Do it!"
• 45:30 Caner claims that his grandmother’s baptism is on tape.

It's interesting that Caner's comment about his grandmother's knowledge of English is confirmed by what Jerry Tackett allegedly said. The "mean as a snake" claim gets a laugh, but this isn't the first time we've seen that kind of comment from Caner. The idea of the baptism being on tape is interesting - if someone can locate this tape, we can finally get some direct confirmation of one of Caner's stories!

Second presentation

• 10:10 Caner claims to have learned about America through watching TV in Turkey, based on what the government allowed. He includes the discussion of Dukes of Hazzard and the claim that he wanted to marry Daisy and work at the Boar's Nest. He also mentions Georgia Wrestling and the Andy Griffeth show.

We've previously shown that this cannot possibly be true, because of when the Dukes of Hazzard started to air.

• 16:00 Caner criticizes political correctness and states, "I've spent ten years just offending everybody, I'm an equal opportunity offender.” He then goes on to explain why he thinks “Dora the Explorer” is an illegal immigrant. (same basic joke around 6:20 here)

I realize that Caner's comments may offend people, but I don't get the sense he does it out of hatred. He makes joking comments, but seems to be doing it to get a laugh, not to make others cry.

• 19:45 Caner states, "All the debates I've had, and you go to erguncaner.com they're free - I'm not selling anything - they're free - the debates are podcasts and you can just do with them what you want - All the debates I've ever had, I have never met one Muslim, who has ever said that the Allah of the Koran and Jehovah God of the Bible are the same god."

We've previously discussed the issue of Caner's debates that can be found on the net. And while I realize it is not a debate, Caner has been on a show with a Muslim who claimed that Christians and Muslims worship the same god.

• 24:40 Caner states, "I will say this, and I look at my students and I go, to the black students, 'They're coming after you! They're going to get your month. It's going to be "Latin history month" and you're going to be left with Cinqo de Blacko.'"

Again, a politically incorrect joke, but I don't think he means to hurt anyone's feelings.

• 29:45 Caner states, "I was raised to hate Israel, but now I stand with Israel. It's odd these days, that that seems to be more and more rare. But God will never honor a country - hear me - God will never honor a country that abandons Israel."

Caner is entitled to his opinion, of course, but expressing this kind of opinion publicly is not a great way to win over Muslims.

• 30:40 Caner states, "And if you know someone, a female, who is dating a Muslim man, first of all, why is that? I don't know. Knowing Islam the way I do, seeing the way my mother was treated, I couldn't possibly imagine why somebody would."

This is about the only negative thing that I've ever heard Caner say about his father, which I say to his praise.

• 31:40 Caner states, "I was having a debate up at the University of Chicago with a female - ironically - with a female Islamic scholar. And she said, 'Well, you do not understand. First off, the word there means "to tap"' And I said, 'No, the word there does not mean "to tap" and secondly I quote from my wife, "if you ever tap me lightly I will stomp a mudhole in you and walk it dry."'"

I cannot find any record of Caner debating any female Muslims, or any Muslim scholars. It appears that Caner is claiming to have debated “Laleh Bakhtiar” a female scholar who is also Muslim and has been involved in translating the Koran. She is from Chicago, so if Caner were to debate a female Muslim scholar there on that topic, she would be the one - though we must note that Caner did not use her name.

• 32:42 Claims that his father-in-law is from "Possum Kill."

We've discussed this before.

• 33:30 Caner states that he told his father-in-law, “You eat squirrel brains, you redneck, you can eat this.” (same comment at 12:40 here)

We've also touched on this before.

• 37:00 Caner mentions the triple talaq divorce procedure in Islam, and he claims that the husband faces Mecca when he says talaq.

This is something that Dr. White touched on his video regarding Caner's use of Arabic.

• 40:40 Caner states, "Sharia law is the operational constitution for Muslim countries. The Koran is supposedly one long speech by god - by Allah - false god, but the Hadith, it's actually multi-volumes, nine volumes - its called "Al-Bukhari's Hadith" - and it's the words and teachings and sayings and examples and laws of Mohammed. And the Hadith is the constitution for Sharia law. So if you get caught robbing, your arm is cut off - lying, your tongue is cut off. This is because that is what's taught in the Hadith."

Dr. Caner is not accurately describing the Hadith here. Al-Bukhari's Hadith, known as Sahih al-Bukhari, is one of a number of collection of ahadith (plural of hadith). It can be presented in terms of nine volumes, but of course there are other Hadith collections, such as Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawood.

• 47:30 Caner states, "I have websites dedicated to attacking Emir and I. Pastor saw some last night, Youtube videos. Guys that have done an entire Youtube channel to say, 'They were never a Muslim, because no Muslim has ever converted.' Well no Muslim has converted and lived in your country, but I'm standing right here.”

This is not an accurate characterization of Caner's critics. If that's what he sincerely thinks the criticism is, I'd be very surprised, but only God knows Caner's heart.

• 49:20 “To be really honest, I cannot thank you enough. For a kid, who came to this country in a dress, whose life has been so radically altered that the only thing left is my undying devotion to Rick Flair, for you to sit and listen to me babble on it just means the world to me. Thank you, God bless you.”

This has been addressed above.

• 54:20 The following exchange occurs:
  Caner: I cannot believe I just did that in front of a church.
  Host Pastor: Hey, just like right up there and wave, would ya? Yeah.
  Caner: You're not filming this are you? I need a job. They're gunna fire me.

I hope that Caner is not fired over this debacle. However, I do think that Caner should be more careful about his speeches, not just in terms of the particular thing that worried him in this instance (apparently it was some sort of wrestling-related action) but in general. Even leaving aside the apparent embellishments, there are a number of improvident comments in his speech. I hope that one benefit Caner receives from reflecting on this situation is that he more carefully guards his tongue.

- TurretinFan