Tag Archives: Sam Shamoun

Christian Polemicists Declare Trinity Channel Heretical

Posted on by 3 comments

Some would remember that a few months or so ago, Sam Shamoun used to hold shows and debates on the Trinity/ ABN Channel. At some point both him and David Wood stopped appearing on the channel. David in an email indicated it was because he could no longer work with the unprofessional Christian staff of the channel and also could not tolerate the ignorant Christian audience of the channel. In an email dated September 15th, 2105 he says:

Also, why would we take callers in the middle of such short debates? Was this your idea, or did Haifa suggest it? I see multiple problems here. First, we’re not in the studio, and I anticipate all kinds of technical difficulties arising. (We often have technical difficulties with questions in the studio, so I can’t imagine things going smoothly with everything happening somewhere else.) The more complicated the set-up, the more problems are going to slip in to derail the debates. Second, the vast majority of viewers would rather listen to us address a topic than a questioner asking us questions. It would be nice if all callers asked relevant, probing questions, but they won’t. Good questions will be only a fraction of the actual questions we get. People will call in with insults, they will start yelling and we’ll have to cut them, and most of the questions will be completely irrelevant to the topics. That’s just what happens when phone lines are opened for anyone to call in.

In another email on the same date he also said:

As for ABN, I’ve been working with them for years, but I’m at the end of my rope. I simply want to get these debates out of the way so that I don’t have to deal with this network ever again. (Yes, name redacted, years of working with ABN allows us to be frank with each other, and too many frustrating experiences have taken away any inclination I have to soften my words. This is why there’s a need to part ways. We simply don’t work well together and can’t agree on anything. I’m to the point where I get a miserable, sinking feeling whenever I’m contacted by ABN, because I know it’s going to ruin my day.)

Today, Sam has tried to create another excuse as to why the TV station no longer wanted to work with Sam and David, he says on Facebook:

cc-2016-ss-trinitychannelolsteen

Here’s the problem, at the time David and Sam stopped appearing on the Trinity/ ABN Channel, David sent out numerous emails claiming that he was upset, angry and frustrated with both the ignorant and unprofessional staff at the station, as well as with the Christian viewers who supported him, calling in and insulting guests. Sam, some ten months later in an attempt to deflect the personal differences that led them to part from the Christian polemics TV station, instead blames his lack of appearances due to the “false Gospel” message that the station is now sharing, some ten months later. In other words, Sam is blaming something that happened yesterday, ten months after he was booted from the station due to personal conflicts with the staff, as the reason for why he no longer appeared on the station ten months ago. That simply does not make sense for anyone who spends more than a few seconds to contemplate the claims made.

All in all, both Sam and David had seriously negative and angry views about the station and their viewership, and found themselves no longer having an amicable relationship with the TV station’s staff. They had no public excuse at that time to mask the personal conflicts that led to their leaving of the station so they remained silent until they could use another excuse to explain their glaring absence. Today, that excuse came in the form of the Trinity Station endorsing a heretical form of Christianity with Joel Osteen at its head. Thus, the issue presents itself that the Trinity Channel is now preaching a brand of Christianity that Sam and company fundamentally view as heretical. An entire TV station converted to a heretical form of Christianity and Sam Shamoun, who views himself as a great Christian teacher and apologist, who has the Spirit of God allegedly inside him, could not convince his own Christians to remain in their faith.

The question thus begs itself, if people like Sam Shamoun, David Wood and their student Jonathan McLatchie who consider themselves educated and guided by the Holy Spirit cannot save their own Christian brothers and sisters from following what they consider to be heretical and false Gospels, then why don’t they focus on the Christian community rather than on Islam? It means to say that they cannot save their own Christians, and so they need to find some other way to keep themselves relevant, which is to deflect from the dire situation they are in within the Christian community and in so doing are using Islam as a distraction from the growing apostasies in their own Christian communities. Sam and David spent years preaching on the Trinity/ ABN Channel, only for the channel and its viewers to begin preaching what they call a false Gospel.

Clearly there is a problem with Christianity, if its “greatest” and most “popular” apologists cannot save their fellow Christians from abandoning their faith en masse.

and God knows best.

Calling Jonathan McLatchie to a Higher Standard

Posted on by Leave a comment

Jonathan has just released another article about me, and I’m honestly flummoxed with respect to his opening few words. Polemicists like Jonathan, have always claimed that Muslims do not understand the Trinity (well, who does?), and so we should rely on the Christian community for the explanation of this doctrine. Therefore it causes me concern that when Muslims do seek counsel from the Christian community about the statements of their polemicists about the Trinity, we are regarded as promoting division and discord. If we don’t ask them about the Trinity, it’s because we’re allegedly ignoring what they say and when we do ask them, it’s because we allegedly want to sow discord amongst them.

I’m okay with Jonathan making false claims about me, because I understand that he’s upset that during a discussion about Jonathan’s heretical ideas about the Trinity one of his close friends denounced his views as “not orthodox”. One can see that video here:

Here’s the funny thing about Jonathan and his friend, Jonathan’s friend is now attempting to backtrack on his statements after putting Jonathan into hot water. Unfortunately, in a poor attempt to save face, Jonathan falsified comments about his friend, here is one such example:

cc-2016-jm-lieaboutrudolph

Here’s the thing though, I did meet Jonathan yesterday, and I did play the clip for him up until 1 minute after the sound bite in the video ends. Nowhere in that 1 minute after the sound bite above does his friend Rudolph ever say, “But Jonathan did not say that”. In fact, nowhere in the 36 minutes and 31 seconds Jonathan’s friend and I spoke, did he ever utter such a statement. In fact, the entire conversation is currently circulating and has been circulating among both Muslims and Christians since yesterday, Jonathan was even told he could come to Hyde Park and collect a copy if he wished. What this means, is that in order to save face, Jonathan has lied about his friend Rudolph, and even after hearing the clip himself and never hearing Rudolph ever state “But Jonathan did not say that”, Jonathan continues to claim his friend Rudolph was misrepresented. Simply, what’s going on here is that Jonathan has found himself in a bad position and I do not blame him for going to desperate ends. Jonathan’s very friend is also in a tough position and is put between his faith and his friend. It’s a very uncomfortable position for Jonathan, his friends and fellow Christians. The interesting thing though, is that I don’t need a voice recording to show Jonathan that his friend has already publicly criticized him for his heretical views about the Trinity.

cc-2016-jm-heresy3

Take note of the above public conversation. Christians are “not quite comfortable” with the claims of Jonathan regarding the Trinity. In fact, his friend Rudolph replies that he agrees, he says, “I agree”. So what do we have now? We have a voice conversation where his friend states clearly that Jonathan’s view were not orthodox as expressed in the video, we have a conversation on Facebook where his friend agrees that he’s uncomfortable with what Jonathan said, and then as a good friend he goes on to correct Jonathan by trying to explain what Jonathan meant to say, as opposed to what he did say. Jonathan tried and fell into error, his friends are in agreement that they’re uncomfortable with what he stated in that video and now they have to try and say what Jonathan didn’t in that video clip in Hyde Park. It’s clearly caused division among them, and that’s why Jonathan blames me in his article. It’s his way of expressing that his friends themselves, have publicly denounced him as being in error.

With respect to his claims about me “misrepresenting” Sam’s article, Jonathan has also changed his position. Yesterday he proclaimed I misquoted Sam. Today, I’ve apparently no longer misquoted but misrepresented Sam. The problem is this, Sam claims the Qur’an makes an error by stating:

They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. – 5:73.

So here’s the problem, for a number of years Sam has claimed that Christians do not teach that God is a third of three. On Sunday, Jonathan claimed in Hyde Park that God was a third of three. So now there’s a conundrum. If as Jonathan said that God in Christianity is a third of three, then it makes Sam Shamoun a liar in his numerous articles claiming the Qur’an is wrong. If Jonathan is wrong and what Sam claimed in his articles is true, then Jonathan is a heretic. Either way, Jonathan has put Sam into hot water and that’s why you see Sam not commenting on the issue but only Jonathan, because once Sam makes a statement one way or the either, he then publicly embarrasses himself and Jonathan. That’s one of the reasons that Sam’s quote was used and why Jonathan had to change his false claim of me misquoting, to me misrepresenting Sam. Jonathan then goes on to say:

Ijaz also, unfortunately, butchered the comments of Dr. James White regarding the meaning of theotetos, translated by the KJV as “godhead” but which White objects to since Godhead is commonly used to refer to the Trinity and the word theotetos is referring to Deity, i.e. to that which makes God God.

Jonathan completely missed the point. I in fact, didn’t touch the comments of Dr. James White, they are unedited and properly cited, this is just another poor attempt at deflection and deception by Jonathan. With respect to the quote itself, I agree with Dr. White, in fact, in the video I published the very quote was used to show that Christians do believe the Godhead is God, is a Deity. Jonathan is so caught up in trying to respond to the trouble he’s found himself in, he doesn’t even recognize when I agree with him. So, uh, thank you Jonathan for demonstrating that you’re simply not paying attention and are merely trying to respond rather than to understand what is being said, your mistake and your haste speaks volumes about your character.

I also do not see why he had to re-explain Dr. White’s words on the Father not being 1/3rd of God. That’s exactly what the quote I used said:

“The Father is not ⅓ of God, the Son ⅓ of God, the Spirit ⅓ of God. Each is fully God, coequal with the others, and that eternally.”

White, James R.. The Forgotten Trinity (p. 27). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

The quote stands as is, I’m in agreement with what Dr. White said, not in disagreement. That’s exactly why I quoted him in the first place. Now, what Jonathan said next is extremely important to the situation he now finds himself in, he says:

“What I meant is that the Father is a third of the Godhead in the sense…”

Jonathan accepts he made a heretical claim about the Trinity, he distinguishes between what he said in the video, and today by what he currently means. It’s no longer, “what I said…,” but is now, “what I meant…”. Jonathan knows that he screwed up, his friends know that he screwed up, and now the recorded conversations, the recorded Facebook comments, the silence of some of his friends, the criticism from the Christian community and now Jonathan’s lying and falsification of statements all stand against him. Jonathan himself acknowledges that he’s disappointed in himself, that he has to write such articles:

“It disappoints me that I even need to write responses like this.”

I agree Jonathan, we are all disappointed in you, that you need to write such poor articles. We recognize and stand in solidarity with the disappointment you have in yourself. We do call you to a higher standard, so that you can no longer be disappointed in yourself.

and God knows best.

All of God, not one third of God.

Missionary Mishap: Sam Shamoun’s Cursing Rage

Posted on by 21 comments

Tonight I find myself disappointed in the Christian inter-faith community. In my possession is an image of a comment on YouTube by Sam Shamoun. When we speak of good, moral people, we expect them to behave in a certain manner. It is strange to me, that people like Nabeel Qureishi and Jonathan McLatchie endorse and continue to promote Sam as not only a Christian teacher, but as a friend and someone to support. It says a lot about their characters that they consider a man who behaves in such a manner to be someone they endorse and support. That they hold this man on a pedestal, when he behaves and speaks like a thug. Curses more than a drunken sailor. I really need to ask if this is Christian behaviour, if this is the work of the Holy Spirit guiding Sam. It is absolutely a shame that people like Nabeel and Jonathan endorse Sam as someone to learn from and that they endorse his behaviour. We need to ask, where have Jonathan and Nabeel ever condemned Sam’s behaviour, rebuked him for unChristian-like speech, corrected him for his thuggish behaviour? The answer is nowhere, because to them, this is the example of a good Christian, that Sam is a good representation of what Christianity can do to a person. This, is sad.

Note: The image has been censored because of the extreme obscenities and vulgar language used. Curses to the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa salam) have been censored, but the language has been left to bear witness of Sam’s character.

cc-2016-ss-samcntimage-clicktoreveal

If clicking the image does not open it, click this link to see the Facebook post about it.

Yes, he was arguing with someone and they traded insults. However, as an adult, as a faith leader, he should know to behave in a manner befitting his Christian faith. Is Christ not the one who said to turn the other cheek? Or was he the one who said to behave in an uncouth and obscene manner? I do not hold Sam to be a representative of the Christian faith and I am concerned that people, especially the two mentioned above continue to hold him as such.

and God knows best.

Missionary Mishap: Jonathan McLatchie & Sam Shamoun Target Dr. Shabir Ally

Posted on by 4 comments

I write this with extreme disappointment and sadness. A few months ago, Jonathan broke unto the Muslim-Christian interfaith debate scene. In his debate with Dr. Shabir he was respectful and it looked as if Christian apologetics had finally moved beyond the vitriol of Sam Shamoun and David Wood. Unfortunately, Jonathan has fallen quite far in the months following the debate. Instead of moving Christian apologetics into the future, he’s joined hands with Sam and has even begun advertising joint events with himself and Sam!

cc-2016-jm-shamounclass

Jonathan’s friend and mentor, Sam Shamoun recently made these comments on Facebook about our beloved brother in Islam, and teacher, Dr. Shabir Ally:

You mean when I demolished and screwed Shabir, your p*******e prophet and your demon you call Allah Shabir has been passing gas every night just like your satan called Allah does according to your prophet. And if you have a problem with praising oneself then that means you just condemned Muhammad and his satan since no one loved to be praised more than them.

I have censored one of the insults, as this is a website that tries to cater for all ages. I apologize for having to quote Sam’s curses and abuses, but this is the kind of person that Jonathan McLatchie endorses as true Christian scholarship, someone he is not only willing to work with, but someone he is willing to promote and hold classes with. In an email dated Friday 19th February, 2016, in which some 20+ Muslim and Christian debaters and preachers were tagged, Jonathan was asked to distance himself from Shamoun’s curses, abuses and insults of the Islamic Prophet, of God and of Dr. Shabir. Jonathan responded by saying:

my personal dealings with Sam are not your concern. I am accountable to God, not to you or anyone else.

This is quite shocking from someone who claims to want to have civil and professional dialogue with Muslims about interfaith topics. Not only did he not condemn Sam’s curses, abuses and insults, he refused to distance himself from Sam’s behaviour. How can Jonathan claim to be civil and professional, when he not only works with someone with such hatred and despotic behaviour, he even advertises him as someone to learn from! This is quite absurd to be honest. Jonathan dreams of once again sharing a stage with our esteemed teacher, Dr. Shabir, and yet advocates on behalf of someone who publicly curses, abuses and insults Dr. Shabir. This is quite underhanded behaviour, two-faced behaviour, deceptive behaviour.

Just how low is Jonathan willing to go?

and God knows best.

Sam Shamoun’s Tirade Against Dr. Shabir Ally – Hypocrisy Incarnate

Posted on by One comment

The GED “educated” Sam Shamoun, has recently accused Dr. Shabir Ally of being, among other things, a “deceptive”, “dishonest”, “slanderer”, who is a purveyor of, “smoke and mirrors”. He’s dedicated several days to attacking Dr. Shabir Ally for apparently “misquoting” Robert Gundry on Matthew 28:19. The irony of all this, is that Sam is quite desperate to one-up a man that he has been obsessing about for the past decade, after a debate in which Dr. Shabir, to put it lightly, “embarrassed Sam”:

As indicated in Dr. Shabir’s responses to Sam, see Part 1 here, see Part 2 here, Sam had to manufacture quotes and lie about what Dr. Shabir said during the debate, to maintain the illusion that Dr. Shabir “misquoted” anyone. Thus, Sam, has shifted the goalposts from first claiming Dr. Shabir misquoted Gundry, to now claiming he “misrepresented Gundry about the Trinity”. These are two different positions, they are not the same. This is typical of the character of Sam, he’s unable to competently understand his opponents, and spends an inordinate amount of time trying to deflect from his stunted intellectual abilities. One might say that I’m exaggerating, but this is not the case. Sam has done the same to Br. Zakir Hussein. Let’s look at Sam’s inability to read. In an article slandering Br. Zakir, Sam accuses him of lying about a quote from a work by Ostrogorsky, by first stating:

Thirdly, Hussein’s assertion concerning what Ostrogorsky says in his book is a boldfaced lie, since there is nothing about a decisive victory taking place in the year 622 on that page. More importantly, this author emphatically says that the Byzantines defeated and vanquished the Persians in 627-628 AD!

Please note that Sam claims to have read the page, and that the author says “nothing about a decisive victory taking place in the year 622 on that page”. He then proceeded to present the following quote from page 101:

Here is the quote:

“The threatening attitude of the Avar Khan made it essential for the Emperor to return to Constantinople. The tribute paid to the Avars was then raised and near relatives of the Emperor were sent to the Khan as hostages, so that Heraclius was able to resume the war with Persia by March 623. In spite of the defeat of the previous year, Chosroes II REFUSED TO CONSIDER A TRUCE, and he sent the Emperor a letter full of the most insulting expressions and blasphemous utterances against the Christian faith.”

Please take note of where Sam begins the quote. Read and re-read that line. Now here’s page 100:

cc-2015-ss-dec3

What year is the author speaking of? 622 CE. As the book clearly says, “he left the capital on Easter Monday, 5 April 622.” Now, here’s page 101:

cc-2015-ss-dec1

On this page, which is page 101, on lines 11-14, the Ostrogorsky says:

“The two forces met on Armenian soil and the result was a decisive victory of the Byzantines over the great Persian general Sahrbaraz. The first goal was reached: Asia Minor was cleared of the enemy.”

What does this mean? Not only is the quote he claimed on the same page, he has intentionally misquoted the book, by starting his own quotation one line below the relevant quote used by Br. Zakir Hussein! It clearly states that their was indeed a “decisive victory”!

Perhaps though, if Sam had read the very quote he pasted in his article, it speaks about and I quote, “In spite of the defeat of the previous year….”, it really can’t get more obvious than that, does it? The previous year of 623 CE, would be what? (If Sam is reading this, previous means before, so you minus 1 from 623). That would mean 622 CE. What was the defeat in 622 CE? The decisive victory by the Byzantines!

Not only is Sam deceptive for lying about what Dr. Shabir claimed during the debate, and then later shifting the argument to be about a “misrepresentation of Gundry about the Trinity”, when it comes to his own claims, and his own research, Sam is shown to be, in Shamounian terms, quite functionally illiterate.

Sam further alleged in an article, that Dr. Ally needed to be “exposed” and put to shame as a person notorious for “misquoting and mishandling scholars”. Given that Sam has been refuted en toto by Dr. Shabir Ally, and that Sam in this article, has been shown to be notorious of misquoting and mishandling scholars, shouldn’t he then expose and put himself to shame? Perhaps then, this is a case of irony. If Sam spent less time feeding his ego and his stomach, maybe he’d have the cognitive capacity to recognize that attacking people more intelligent than himself is a bad move.

and God knows best.

Sam Shamoun and Lying by Dr. Shabir Ally – Part 2

Posted on by Leave a comment

Shabir Ally

October 1, 2015

Now that I am back in Toronto, and have access to my books, I am able to write a more telling response to Sam and his accusation about lying. I also had a chance to review the recording of what I said during the debate, and Sam’s interaction with me during the Q&A.[1]

Two things (at least) will become evident below:

  • I correctly cited that book of Robert Gundry to which I was referring;[2]
  • In order to generate his proof that I misquoted Robert Gundry, Sam actually misquoted me!

This is a sad day for Muslim-Christian dialogue.

Having listened to the recording, I still have the question that I had put to Sam during that conversation. Sam had said that he had two books right in front of him: one book is Robert Gundry’s commentary on the New Testament; the other book is Gundry’s commentary on Matthew’s gospel in particular. Sam read a portion from the commentary on the New Testament which obviously includes a brief commentary on Matthew’s gospel.[3] That is not the book I had cited. I had studied and cited the other book: the commentary on Matthew’s gospel in particular.

So, I asked Sam for the page number of the relevant section of the commentary on Matthew’s gospel in particular. Instead of supplying this simple piece of information, Sam kept telling me pages 135-36 of the book which he had read from. I asked him why he could not simply tell me the page number of the relevant section of Robert Gundry’s commentary on Matthew’s gospel which he said he also had in his possession at the time. Sam admitted that the page numbers he was giving me were from Gundry’s commentary on the entire New Testament, But when I asked him again for the page number of the commentary dedicated to Matthew’s gospel, there was a definite silence. I thought he had hung up. But he was still on the call. Why the silence?

Moreover, in listening to the recording I realized all the more how bizarre was the conversation between me and Sam. I kept asking him for the page number of a book which he claimed to have with him. In response, he kept challenging me to read a book which I did not claim to have in my possession at the moment. Naturally, I could not read a book I did not have in my hands; I could only accurately quote the most relevant line from my head. But, for some reason, Sam was unable to give me the page number of the book he had in his hands even though the relevant page number is easy to find. The commentary progresses from the start to the end of Matthew’s gospel, and the page headers show the progression verse by verse. It would have been a snap for Sam to thumb through the commentary following the page headers to chapter 28 and then to its verse 19 and give me the page number.

Obviously, he later located the relevant page number of a commentary on Matthew’s Gospel, this being the first book Sam referred to in his article composed on that same date.[4] It would be interesting to trace the relationship between this commentary and the one I was citing. It seems that the one Sam is referring to is the second edition of the same book, now with a different subtitle.[5] The page numbers of the relevant sections are the same, and the wording is strikingly similar, though the subtitles are different.

Now, the book I was citing really said on p. 596 what I cited it to say. So too does the second edition, as is evident from Sam’s citation in his article. But both of these are dissimilar to the book which Sam was reading on air.

To understand what is going on here between me and Sam, one has to see the big picture, as follows. In debates between Muslims and Christians, Muslims argue that in the Old Testament Yahweh is the only God. Jews agree. Many Christians also agree. Consequently, for Jesus to be God, he would have to be Yahweh. But if he is Yahweh, then he is the only God, and therefore the Father and the Holy Spirit would not be God.

In response to this clear logic, some Christians cite Matthew 28:19 as proof that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each Yahweh, and yet altogether Yahweh. In that verse, Jesus directs his followers to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Christians point out that the name here is singular, though the named persons are three. Hence they insist that Jesus is Yahweh, the Holy Spirit is Yahweh, the Father is Yahweh; yet altogether the three are Yahweh.

This is the big picture, the context within which I am using the citation from Robert Gundry. I am saying that according to Robert Gundry the verse does not imply that the three persons bear the same name. According to him, the verse is not actually referring to their name; rather, the verse is saying that the baptism should be done with fundamental reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Here is an approximate transcript of what I said, as evidenced by the video recording:

In Matthew’s gospel towards the end where Jesus says, “Go and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” some will take that as an expression of Trinitarian doctrine. But in fact, as Robert Gundry says in his commentary on Matthew’s Gospel, it does not actually mean that—it does not mean that the three of them have just one name—it means, ‘Go and baptize with fundamental reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.’ It does not mean that the three are one. In fact, there is no passage in the New Testament gospels or in any of the writings of the New Testament that says that the three—the Father Son, and Holy Spirit—are together as one God.[6]

This is what Sam needs to address. Instead, he changes the subject to me. But attacking me will not remove the problem. The problem, as the clear logic above indicates, is that there is only one God Yahweh, as Jews, Christians and Muslims agree.[7] According to Matthew 12:18, Jesus is the servant of Yahweh. This too Muslims and even Christians accept. But Christians insist that, in addition to being the servant of Yahweh, Jesus is also Yahweh himself. I have been refuting this latter claim with my clear logic. And now Sam wants to attack me. But my logic is not exclusively mine. Logic is universal. To get rid of this problem, Sam does not need to attack me, he needs to battle with the fundamental laws of nature, or the designing work of God who fashioned us to think logically. He needs to battle with his own thoughts which cannot escape the same logic.

When Sam called, he accused me of claiming that Robert Gundry in his commentary on Matthew’s gospel denies that Mt. 28:19 is a Trinitarian text.[8] But that is not what I claimed.

In the above transcript of the relevant portion of my speech, I started out with my own statement, cited Gundry, and then ended with my own statement. I can see where at first glance it may not be clear to others where I intended to end my citation of Gundry. But if that was not clear at first, during the call I explained to Sam:

In that commentary, Robert Gundry says very plainly that the idea that the mention of Father, Son and Holy Spirit should mean that they share the same name—that is not the idea. He is saying that the idea there is that the baptism should be done with fundamental reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I am not saying anything more than this.[9]

Notice that last sentence: ‘I am not saying anything more than this.’ Now it should be clear that I am only claiming as follows: in a particular book, Gundry denies that Mt 28:19 implies that the three persons bear the same one name.

Despite my taking pains to clarify the point on air, however, Sam charges in his writing composed after the debate:

Ally basically claimed that Gundry denies that this text supports the Triune nature of God.[10]

That is not what I claimed.

I am not saying that Gundry is not a Trinitarian, or that he denies that Mt. 28:19 can be put to Trinitarian use, etc. It should be clear to all students of logic that a statement of the form,

‘A does not imply B’

does not mean the same as,

‘A implies that B is not the case,’

and it does not mean the same as,

‘I deny B.’

In what follows, I will replace B with ‘the Father, Son and Spirit share the same name.’

Logically, therefore, when I cite Gundry to say,

‘Mt. 28:19 does not imply that the Father, Son and Spirit share the same name,’

that is not the same as citing him to say,

‘Mt. 28:19 implies that the Father, Son and Spirit do not share the same name.’

And it does not mean the same as citing him to say,

‘I deny that the Father, Son and Spirit share the same name.’

It is really sad to see Sam misquoting me to prove his charge that I misquoted someone else. Sam does not like my message. But does that justify shooting the messenger? Dialogue between Muslims and Christians need to move beyond such tactics. We need to listen to each other, learn, and pray to God asking him to guide us all.

Finally, the book I was citing was published in 1982 for an academic level of readership. It caused a stir in evangelical circles leading to Gundry’s resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society. The book Sam read on air was published 28 years later in the year 2010 for a more common readership.

This latter work, from which Sam’s read to me on air, and which he cited second in his article, clearly supports Sam’s contention that Gundry believes that the three divine persons are included in ‘the name.’ I am grateful for this information. I did not know it until Sam pointed it out. And I am glad that I did not overstate my case in citing Gundry. However, if I do cite him again, on this matter, it will be appropriate for me to add that Gundry apparently changed his mind about this as is evident from his later writing. Why he apparently changed his mind would be interesting to learn. Is it that the two books were meant for two different audiences, in which case he was willing to tease the academic community but not the masses? Did the negative response to his earlier book cause him to be more cautious? Or, did he find new evidence to convince him that his earlier statement was incorrect?

In short,

  • I correctly cited Gundry’s earlier statement,
  • I am willing to incorporate his later statement in future citations, and
  • I am grateful to Sam for alerting me to this, but
  • I find it at least ironic that Sam would misrepresent me to prove that I misrepresented Gundry.

[1] The recording can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idHxegbSunQ&feature=youtu.be. Sam’s call comes in at 2 hours and 14 minutes into the recording. My thanks to Brother Nazam for pinpointing this location.

[2] Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) p. 596.

[3] Sam was referring to Gundry, “Matthew,” Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-Verse Explanations with a Literal Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2010) pp. 135-136.

[4] http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2015/09/catching-shabir-ally-red-handed.html?m=1

[5] Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).

[6] This begins at approximately 19:55 and lasts for about 40 minutes.

[7] Though Muslims call him by another name Allah, which is also in the Bible in Arabic translations. See Genesis 1:1.

[8] At 2:14 in the recording.

[9] At 2:16:40.

[10] http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2015/09/catching-shabir-ally-red-handed.html?m=1

Sam Shamoun and Lying by Dr. Shabir Ally – Part 1

Posted on by Leave a comment

Shabir Ally

September 30, 2015

During my debate with David Wood on ABNSAT, Sam Shamoun called in to challenge one of my statements. According to my statement, Robert Gundry said that the formula in Matthew 28 does not imply that the three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same name. Rather, the formula means that baptism should be done with fundamental reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Sam claimed that Gundry wrote no such thing, and he had Gundry’s books to prove it. I pointed out that I was referring to another book by Gundry. But Sam was not convinced by my plea. Rather, he was convinced that I was lying. Hence he wrote to that effect here:

http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2015/09/catching-shabir-ally-red-handed.html?m=1

In that document, Sam cites two books of Gundry, and links to a third, all to prove that Gundry did not voice the view I attributed to him.

However, in each case he is referring to a book other than the one I was referring to. As I am away from my hometown at the moment, I cannot check the reference at the moment, but here is something I found on my laptop that I had written elsewhere complete with a reference to the book I was referring to.

As for the apparent Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19, Robert H. Gundry writes that “Matthew seems to be responsible for the present formula.”[1]

As will be immediately clear, this is not the same as any of the three books Sam cited or referred to in his above linked article. It should also be clear that Gundry is saying that Matthew is responsible for the saying whereas we would expect Christians to think that Jesus actually said this.

Sam apparently assumed that the books he came across are the only books that Gundry wrote on the subject. Instead of hastily composing an article claiming that I was lying, he should have asked me for the reference to the specific book I was citing, and then check the reference in that book. As it turns out, people these days are too quick to assume the worst about other people but the best about themselves.

Even if it turns out that the book I was referring to does not contain the material I cited, does this necessitate a charge of lying? Or, could it be a case of citing from memory and recalling incorrectly as humans sometimes do?

During the debate itself, I cited many other books, some of which I had on the desk before me. These too I cited from memory, as is my usual style in debates. I do not claim that my memory is impeccable. However, in how many cases did Sam find a significant discrepancy between my citations and my named sources? If it is just this one, does that require such a serious charge? Is Sam here exhibiting the usual charitableness of Christians? If we go about slinging such uncharitable accusations against each other will that lead to better dialogue and mutual understanding?

When I get back to Toronto, I will check again to see if my memory serves me correctly, and thus that Gundry said what I cited him to say. Otherwise, I will issue a public retraction. But if what I cited is correct, will Sam retract his article and issue an apology for his false accusation?

Meanwhile, it is interesting to know that after Gundry published this critical commentary in 1982, some evangelical scholars called for his resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society. He resigned in 1983.

Does that sound like Gundry was saying in this book what Sam wants to hear?

[1] Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) p. 596.

Financier of Sam Shamoun Threatens a Terrorist Attack

Posted on by 27 comments

A well known financier of Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers and David Wood, has made quite a startling threat to innocent civilians.

cc-2015-robertwellsterroristMany schizophrenics who are Christians and proclaim to hear voices in their heads, otherwise known to them as “God”, pose a very real and terrifying threat to human life. It is quite disturbing to see the extent to which this Christian has been radicalized. Speaking on Christians who claim to hear God speaking to them, psychologist Tanya Marie says:

“Most people reading the ancient scriptures understand these accounts of hearing God’s voice as miracles that really did happen but no longer take place today, or maybe as folkloric flourishes to ancient stories. Even Christians who believe that miracles can be an everyday affair can hesitate when someone tells them they heard God speak audibly. There’s an old joke: When you talk to God, we call it prayer, but when God talks to you, we call it schizophrenia.”

This is a very real threat, one recent example of a Christian hearing voices in her head, believing the voice to be God, almost murdered a man:

Police later found the driver of the car, Prionda Hill, at the Rally’s several blocks down the road from where she hit [motorcyclist Anthony] Oliveri. She told police “she was driving and out of no where God told her that he would take it from here and she let go of the wheel and let him take it.” She’s now facing several charges.

We call upon Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers and David Wood, to contact the authorities and help prevent a massacre in the name of Christianity, by a psychopath who claims he would absolutely kill everything that breathes if the voices in his head told him to do so.

and God knows best.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »