Is the Church responsible for Islam?

[DamianWarS]

Nestorius was the bishop of Constantinople in the 5th century. I will let you read up on his controversy but to sum it up he rejected the term (not the meaning) theotokos in favour for what he thought was more theologically correct christotokos and he was one of the first to push Jesus having 2 natures. This got him exiled and labeled a heretic and during part of his exile found himself in the AP (arabian peninsula)

fast forward 2 hundred years in the 7th and a young merchant named Muhammad found himself heavily influenced by essentially Nestorian Christianity, some even say his wife and uncle may have been Nestorian and his interpretation of this, then subsequent contextualization to the polytheistic arabs started Islam.

What does the church have to do with this? Nestorius got a bum deal and was treated unfairly. At the time his main aggressor was Cyril of Alexandria who contended Christ had one nature. Nestorius christology wasn't air tight but he was trying to reconcile Christ being both divine and human at the same time to which the church had no patience for (or bishops). Because of this strong-willed culture of the bishops (Nestorius included) it got him essentially kicked out (he pushed it too much). It was not just a battle for Christendom but a battle of wits and support to which Cyril won the popularity contest, nestoris cast aside.

There was nothing about Nestorius perspective that shoul be really a deal breaker even though he missed the mark. He was still nicene as we define it today, he believed in the trinity and the gospel and Orthodox Christianity itself eventually accepted 2 natures of Christ in Nestorius lifetime. But Nestorius became synonymous with a heretic which was a bit of an ambiguous term and somewhat tarred with the same brush of all heretics. If someone heard that the AP was nestorian it would be discredited instantly and rejected as heresy regardless if you really knew why. What happened was it was left ungoverned and un-shepherded leaving it's flavour Muhammad received also cast aside as heresy and unchecked.

I can't help but think that if the Church had more grace with Nestorius they could have partnered with him in the AP keeping a checked and much more orthodox christianity in place, eventually exposing Muhammad to not a fringe disillusioned to the church christianity but an active participating member of it. Perhaps then Muhammad could have been an early father to Christian movement in the AP rather than its greatest enemy.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Wasn't Nestorius first exiled to Antioch, then to Egypt? When was he in the Arabian Peninsula and where?

Anyway, there is an alternate history book I read long ago, where Mohammed converted to Christianity. He became St. Mahomet and wrote Christian hymns, like "There is no God but God, and Jesus is the Son of God". It was mostly about the Byzantines though, if I recall.

The way I see it, Mohammed could easily have adopted a form of Christianity. Clearly, Islam has a Docetic view of Christ's Crucifixion, which suggests some heretical influence there. As you said, he had Nestorians closely related to him as well, and he personally extended protection to the Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai.
Islam shares a lot of ideas with Judaeo-Christianity and could perhaps be classed as sort-of 'Monophysitic Christianity' in which the monophysitism is in only having a human nature. This is not too dissimilar to some Unitarians perhaps.
Anyway you slice it, Mohammed was clearly working out of the same religious tradition, so I certainly agree that his religion could have ended up far more orthodox if he had been better exposed to it. In his day though, much of the East was awash with heretical groups, which perhaps explains the rapid expansion of belief in Islam there, following the Islamic Conquest.
I wouldn't blame the Nestorian Church of the East though, as Mohammed's view of Christian doctrines seem a bit farther from the pale.
I also think that if a concerted effort in converting Arabia had occurred, he would have likely been Christian. This was largely impossible though, due to realpolitik between the Byzantine and Sassanian Persian Empires. The Byzantines certainly did not have the resources to undertake it, and only needed Arabia to remain quiet. This is the same reason why Classical Rome never conquered Arabia south of Arabia Petraea, in spite of knowing of the riches of Arabia Felix (Yemen).

So long as Arabia remained outside the fold and largely Pagan, the risk of an heretical group springing up in opposition would always be high.

 

[JoeP222w]

No. Just as the church is not to blame for Joseph Smith, or Charles Taze Russell, or TD Jakes, or Joyce Meyer, or Joel Osteen or Benny Hinn.

There are false teachers out there, that is the truth of the matter. Those who teach false doctrines will be held accountable to God and they will never be able to stand before God and say, "You can't blame me, your church sent out confusing messages."

Likewise, those in the church who send out confusing messages, although not absolutely false doctrines, will also be held accountable to God.

 

[DamianWarS]

Wasn't Nestorius first exiled to Antioch, then to Egypt? When was he in the Arabian Peninsula and where?

Anyway, there is an alternate history book I read long ago, where Mohammed converted to Christianity. He became St. Mahomet and wrote Christian hymns, like "There is no God but God, and Jesus is the Son of God". It was mostly about the Byzantines though, if I recall.

The way I see it, Mohammed could easily have adopted a form of Christianity. Clearly, Islam has a Docetic view of Christ's Crucifixion, which suggests some heretical influence there. As you said, he had Nestorians closely related to him as well, and he personally extended protection to the Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai.
Islam shares a lot of ideas with Judaeo-Christianity and could perhaps be classed as sort-of 'Monophysitic Christianity' in which the monophysitism is in only having a human nature. This is not too dissimilar to some Unitarians perhaps.
Anyway you slice it, Mohammed was clearly working out of the same religious tradition, so I certainly agree that his religion could have ended up far more orthodox if he had been better exposed to it. In his day though, much of the East was awash with heretical groups, which perhaps explains the rapid expansion of belief in Islam there, following the Islamic Conquest.
I wouldn't blame the Nestorian Church of the East though, as Mohammed's view of Christian doctrines seem a bit farther from the pale.
I also think that if a concerted effort in converting Arabia had occurred, he would have likely been Christian. This was largely impossible though, due to realpolitik between the Byzantine and Sassanian Persian Empires. The Byzantines certainly did not have the resources to undertake it, and only needed Arabia to remain quiet. This is the same reason why Classical Rome never conquered Arabia south of Arabia Petraea, in spite of knowing of the riches of Arabia Felix (Yemen).

So long as Arabia remained outside the fold and largely Pagan, the risk of an heretical group springing up in opposition would always be high.

Nestorius was sent from Antioch to Petra in the Arabian desert and then to Egypt. I know "Petra" is by no means deep in AP but regardless nestorian christianity went there rooted in the post-exiled nestorius, wherever he found himself.

I agree the AP was "outside the fold" as you put it and this includes any christian movement in there. Nestorian Christians were estranged from orthodox christianity and had no body to be accountable to. Unlike most heresies this wasn't by choice it was by designed because the church left it alone and they didn't have access to orthodox christianity.

Had the church taken time to partner with nestorius rather than push him aside the church in the AP could have been in communion with the church and under its authority. This doesn't have to be about nestorius himself but more about how the church rejected the genuine christian movements he started, labeled as heretical, which reached to the ends of the AP.

After chalcedon they could have brought nestorius back in communion with the church recognizing him as an early father of the Christ's dual nature even if posthumously. This would act to reconcile his followers "into the fold" and perhaps would have prevented the greatest human opposition to Christianity today. The greater heresy wasn't nestorius or even nestorianism, all reconcilable doctrines, it was a rejection of a genuine christian community completely estranged and disillusioned to the orthodox church.

 

[FenderTL5]

I'm not making an argument, just passing on an article that I believe to be on point that I discovered (and kept linked) from a couple years ago.

The Christian Origins of Islam
One of Luxenbergs central arguments is that the Quran is an Arabic translation of an original Syriac/Aramaic text..
..Luxenberg argues that the Quran derives from a Syriac Christian lectionary. Again, the evidence is hiding in plain sight. It has become commonplace among scholars of Islam to recognize that the word Quran means lectionarium..

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm not making an argument, just passing on an article that I believe to be on point that I discovered (and kept linked) from a couple years ago.

The Christian Origins of Islam
One of Luxenbergs central arguments is that the Quran is an Arabic translation of an original Syriac/Aramaic text..
..Luxenberg argues that the Quran derives from a Syriac Christian lectionary. Again, the evidence is hiding in plain sight. It has become commonplace among scholars of Islam to recognize that the word Quran means lectionarium..

I've heard this theory before. As far as I know though, there is little support for it, as there is no original extent Syriac lectionary which supports the derivation. This means it should be a wholely novel one to us, but this would be supported by the tradition of the early caliphs destroying Korans that differed from the official one, so we don't expect to have such really.

It is difficult, as this is highly revisionist. It is also dangerous to investigate these questions lest you anger Islamic countries, which Arabic scholars obviously have ties to. It is an interesting thought, but is a minority view for a reason, as there is insufficient evidence in favour and one must tread carefully before rewriting whole chapters of history.

 

[FenderTL5]

I've heard this theory before. As far as I know though, there is little support for it, as there is no original extent Syriac lectionary which supports the derivation. This means it should be a wholely novel one to us, but this would be supported by the tradition of the early caliphs destroying Korans that differed from the official one, so we don't expect to have such really.

It is difficult, as this is highly revisionist. It is also dangerous to investigate these questions lest you anger Islamic countries, which Arabic scholars obviously have ties to. It is an interesting thought, but is a minority view for a reason, as there is insufficient evidence in favour and one must tread carefully before rewriting whole chapters of history.

The linked article does point out it is both a minority and controversial notion. However, I do find it an interesting facet and would love to see some follow-up research. However, the obstacles are certainly real.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Arabia was mostly pagan in the 6th and early 7th centuries, worshipping gods like Hubal or al-Lat. There were also Jews and Manichaeists present.

What Christians there were, were a minority and seemed to mostly be Miaphysites that had rejected Chalcedon, from what I now read on the subject. Nestorianism was only the dominant form of Christianity in the eastern gulf areas, although still a minority everywhere. There must have been some Docetism present, as Mohammed seemed to have incorporated it into his system as well.

There are also the enigmatic Sabians mentioned by the Koran. These could be Mandaeans or Elcesaite Baptisers, or I have even seen argued they are Hypsistarians or one of the more pantheistic forms of Shiva worship. The association with Harran is obviously a much later one, of course.

Then Mohammed mentions other Arab prophets that we do not recognise, like Hud or Salih. There may be others that I am not aware of. These perhaps refer to other religious traditions that we are completely unaware of in Arabia, that did not have the luck of surviving in someone else's pen. There are those that argue for an earlier Arabian monotheism of sorts - Mohammed's father was Abdullah after all, "Slave of the God", which seems to suggest it perhaps, and with Mohammed's references to earlier Arabian prophets, gives one pause. We after all, have a dearth of pre-islamic sources on Arabia.

Arabia was a religiously complex place, and from this maelstrom Islam emerged. I don't think we can lay much blame on the Church's, admittedly tad harsh, treatment of Nestorianism. Non-Nestorian positions appear just as common there, and completely different religious traditions were far more common.

No, to kill Islam in its crib, or prevent an equivalent, would have required the conquest or wholesale conversion of Arabia to Christianity, I would think.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Nestorius was the bishop of Constantinople in the 5th century. I will let you read up on his controversy but to sum it up he rejected the term (not the meaning) theotokos in favour for what he thought was more theologically correct christotokos

And all by itself that was probably enough to put Nestorius into conflict with Cyril. And I can kind of understand why. Theotokos (God-bearer) is a statement of Our Lord's divinity. The fact that His mother was fully human and nothing else is self-evident. Therefore calling Our Lady theotokos speaks to both Our Lord's divine nature and His human nature simultaneously.

On that basis, the title Christokos for Our Lady muddies the waters.

Not for nothing was Nestorius accused of holding to a form of adoptionism. The council labeled Nestorius a heretic and I see no reason to disagree with them.

As to this business regarding Muhammad, it looks like he took far more inspiration from judaism than he ever did from Nestorius as per Muhammad's Inspiration by Judaism | Muhammad | Revelation

 

[Hieronymus]

And all by itself that was probably enough to put Nestorius into conflict with Cyril. And I can kind of understand why. Theotokos (God-bearer) is a statement of Our Lord's divinity. The fact that His mother was fully human and nothing else is self-evident. Therefore calling Our Lady theotokos speaks to both Our Lord's divine nature and His human nature simultaneously.

On that basis, the title Christokos for Our Lady muddies the waters.

Not really i.m.o.
A woman who bears God must be more than just a human woman, because 'kind begets kind'.
The blessed woman Mary did bear Christ though. Through her womb the Word became flesh = Jesus of Nazareth, King of Juda.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Not really i.m.o.
A woman who bears God must be more than just a human woman, because 'kind begets kind'.
The blessed woman Mary did bear Christ though. Through her womb the Word became flesh = Jesus of Nazareth, King of Juda.

I'm not saying that there's nothing special about Our Lady. Obviously there is. I am Catholic after all.

But whatever special graces she was given, she's only human. She isn't divine. We can never forget that.

 

[DamianWarS]

And all by itself that was probably enough to put Nestorius into conflict with Cyril. And I can kind of understand why. Theotokos (God-bearer) is a statement of Our Lord's divinity. The fact that His mother was fully human and nothing else is self-evident. Therefore calling Our Lady theotokos speaks to both Our Lord's divine nature and His human nature simultaneously.

On that basis, the title Christokos for Our Lady muddies the waters.

Not for nothing was Nestorius accused of holding to a form of adoptionism. The council labeled Nestorius a heretic and I see no reason to disagree with them.

As to this business regarding Muhammad, it looks like he took far more inspiration from judaism than he ever did from Nestorius as per Muhammad's Inspiration by Judaism | Muhammad | Revelation

Nestorius was accused by Cyril, Cyril then called the council and in the council Cyril represented the Pope and he was also the judge in the council that condemned Nestorius. Nestorius didn't even show up because the verdict was clear. He had some issues with his thoughts on a dual natures of Christ (Cyril believed strictly that Christ had 1 nature) but he should be considered an early father of the doctrine that was eventually established Chalcedon. One problem with the culture among the bishops is they were arrogant and neither Cyril nor Nestorius would back down from their position regardless if they felt a hint of the other side correct. It's this arrogance that got Nestorius kicked out and arrogance that judged Nestorius a heretic.

He eventually found himself on the edge of the Arabian Desert where years later it seem nestorianism further penetrated the AP. My contention is not that Islam is more Nestorian but that had Nestorius been in communion with the church his influence would also had been in communion with the church as well and then it's subsequent growth within the AP also within communion. Instead he was called a heretic, his influence written off as heretical and any further growth in the AP was discarded as heresies and left without any accountability. This is the wrongdoings of the church and had the Church been in partnership with Nestorius there might have been a thriving church in the AP at the time of Muhammad which ultimately may have influenced Muhammad toward Christ.

 

[Lagoona]

. My

 

[lismore]

The Lord said we were to take the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Arabia still stood unevangelized six hundred years after the commandment was given.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Nestorius was accused by Cyril, Cyril then called the council and in the council Cyril represented the Pope and he was also the judge in the council that condemned Nestorius. Nestorius didn't even show up because the verdict was clear. He had some issues with his thoughts on a dual natures of Christ (Cyril believed strictly that Christ had 1 nature) but he should be considered an early father of the doctrine that was eventually established Chalcedon. One problem with the culture among the bishops is they were arrogant and neither Cyril nor Nestorius would back down from their position regardless if they felt a hint of the other side correct. It's this arrogance that got Nestorius kicked out and arrogance that judged Nestorius a heretic.

He eventually found himself on the edge of the Arabian Desert where years later it seem nestorianism further penetrated the AP. My contention is not that Islam is more Nestorian but that had Nestorius been in communion with the church his influence would also had been in communion with the church as well and then it's subsequent growth within the AP also within communion. Instead he was called a heretic, his influence written off as heretical and any further growth in the AP was discarded as heresies and left without any accountability. This is the wrongdoings of the church and had the Church been in partnership with Nestorius there might have been a thriving church in the AP at the time of Muhammad which ultimately may have influenced Muhammad toward Christ.

I don't believe Bishops have the authority to call a Church Council, not an Ecumenical one, anyway. They can call synods.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm not making an argument, just passing on an article that I believe to be on point that I discovered (and kept linked) from a couple years ago.

The Christian Origins of Islam
One of Luxenbergs central arguments is that the Quran is an Arabic translation of an original Syriac/Aramaic text..
..Luxenberg argues that the Quran derives from a Syriac Christian lectionary. Again, the evidence is hiding in plain sight. It has become commonplace among scholars of Islam to recognize that the word Quran means lectionarium..

The article is truly on point....