April 5th, 2010 at 02:15pm
Albert McIlhenny
Reviewing books is an interesting hobby but there is always a certain defensiveness about it. I can critique all I want but at least the author has put his words into print. Even blogging is not as adventuresome; I could always delete or edit a post later. Particularly given the availability of various self-publishing venues, I have decided to place some of my own thoughts in print.
The topic I will be tackling is the whole issue of whether Jesus was based on various pagan deities as presented in the film Zeitgeist and authors such as Tom Harpur, D. M. Murdock (Acharya S), and the duo of Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. It is almost commonplace to state the whole thing is silly but few Christians ever bother to explain why it is silly in any but the most basic fashion. Givent the vast internet presence of such drivel, I believe it is time to make clear exactly why it is silly.
I will not at this time be dealing with the more general topic of “Jesus Mythicism” – the thesis that Jesus never existed. It is, like its predecessor, built on long discredited ideas from the nineteenth century but dealing with it in detail as well would cause the book to baloon greatly in size. There will naturally be some overlap and I will hopefully have a chance to turn to the more general subject in the future.
You will probably notice some of my future reviews will focus on books that pertain to this discussion. I guess I might as well make double use of my time and review some of the books I am reading as part of my research. I will still be reviewing other books as well but you will probably notice a definite correspondence to the issue of the historicity of Jesus and accusations of “pagan copycat” theses.
Tentatively, the book is titled Myth of the Pagan Christ: Refuting Zeitigesit and Affirming the Uniqueness of the Christian Message. I am in the process of writing some parts and rewriting others. I hope to have it finished in some form in the next few months but things could always change. I will be posting updates as I progress.
April 4th, 2010 at 07:41am
Albert McIlhenny
I wish to take this opportunity to wish everyone a very blessed Easter Sunday. It is on this day the Church in the West celebrates the victory of Jesus Christ over death and the tomb. Christ has risen!! The Lord has risen indeed!!
April 2nd, 2010 at 01:09pm
Albert McIlhenny
Almost three and a half years ago, I wrote a review for Ergun and Emir Caner’s book Unveiling Islam. With 9/11 still a vivid memory, I thought it important to understand Islam from the perspective of those who lived under it and how best they could be reached with the Gospel message.
The Caners seemed almost too good to be true: they were not the only converts but they certainly were the ones who understood both Islamic and Western popular culture the best. It was almost as if they came from central casting. That might not have been too far from the mark.
Some damaging accusations have been circling around the Caners – particularly Ergun who is president of Liberty University Theological Seminary. At first they were in relation to his claims to have debated Muslims and his naming particular ones with whom he had debated and the contents of those exchanges. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries questioned whether any such debates took place. It appears they were at best quick, informal exchanges and some of those mentioned denied ever had any such exchanges with Caner.
I had been willing to let all of this pass and give Caner the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he had not undestood the term “debate” in the context of an apologist’s claims would be construed as a far more formal setting than he had claimed. Perhaps a lapse in memory had confused two individuals – I have done that myself on occasion. Besides, it had no bearing on his testimony as an ex-Muslim and the points made in the book.
Recently, more damaging accusations have been made against Caner. These call into question whether he was ever a Muslim at all. I had heard such things from some Muslim apologists against others and they all had the tone of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Thus, until now, I had again given Dr. Caner the benefit of the doubt.
Now it turns out these may have been more than just vague accusations. This item gives evidence that Dr. Caner may have been dishonest in describing his past and stating he was Muslim. If the accusations are true, it would appear his knowledge of Islam is neither as extensive nor his commitment to Islam as deep as he claimed.
I have absolutely no way of telling whether he was truly a Muslim or not. It is now important that Dr. Caner step forward and give an honest account. His current policy of editing his website as various inconsistencies appear will not stand. He should give a full disclosure of the nature of his previous status as a Muslim and either defend himself with evidence or apolgize for misrepresentation and let the chips fall where they may.
I have no doubt he has a better grasp of Islam than many Christians. He had some exposure to Islamic culture at least at the basic level from his father. But this is far from being the committed Muslim he has stated in the past. If he was not truly a Muslim but only an occasional wanderer into his father’s mosque and subculture, then he has misled the public about his past.
This is not only unfair to Muslims but to Christians as well. Those who have pointed to the Caners as examples of how Muslims can be brought to faith in Christ may now have their credibility called into question as well. Then there are the effects any such discrepancies might have on the work of Liberty University and his publisher Kregel Publications. Both have placed great trust him and have invested in his personal integrity.
For now, I am not removing the review but will wait to see how this affair plays out. I will add a note at the beginning of the review pointing to this post. The review may be withdrawn or substantially changed in the future.
