Interview with Prof. Peter Von Sivers on the "Arabian Heresy."
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- What is the Arabian Heresy as mentioned by Origen and Eusebius? Why is the Qur'an against the Tritheists and not the Trinitarians. This and more...
Prof. Peter Von Siver's paper can be found here: www.academia.e...
Islamic Origins seeks to find out how Islam truly began.
Ways to support this channel:
Subscribe, comment on and like videos
Pray for the Channel. God bless you!
/ sneakerscorner
Support me at "Buy me a coffee" www.buymeacoff...
Visit the store probiotic.ie/s... Get 10% of nutrition products with discount code: Origins
glad you had the opportunity to interview this great man!
Yeah, remember that talk he gave years ago that we often referenced. It is incredible to get the chance to speak with him!
@@IslamicOrigins yes .. he is very knowledgeable indeed
I'm awaiting the publication of his book since many years, nice to see you talk to him Mel.
@@srebalanandasivam9563what is the book going to be about exactly?
The professor is well known and is a great historian and scholar and a man of great wisdom and researcher and we are lucky to have him ! A venerable figure and scholar!
Very instructive. "Devil is in the detail" where theology is concerned.
Vielen Dank an Prof.von Siver.
The paper is only about 9 pages and worth reading. Thanks Mel!
Yes, it is a manageable read.
Enlightened
Thank you for this scholary talk professor Sivers and Peter. So actually it IS true that in spite of everything, Christians and Muslims are close maybe closest to each other and of the same Second temple Judaic root.
Interested on the adjustment to the trade research, where would be the point of disembarking on the coast ... somewhere around jambu /Djeda as that is around half way through the red see - further north further south? As if this is true you will have people use this to try and argue for SIN ...
I think he misspoke when he said halfway. Clearly, it is about 90% of the way up. See maps in video. 👍It was only when I checked on the map where Leuke Kome was that I realised it was only a minor adjustment to Crone's thesis.
@@IslamicOrigins Thanks for the clarification Mel, will check 👍
@@IslamicOrigins I re-watched it and noticed the maps ... the reason for my comment was when he said from Medina to Petra that through me off ... if Leuke Kome is at the end of the Red See just before the 2 Gulfs, there would be no reason to go back down to Medina .... just go up to Petra ... or maybe through what is modern Tabuk
@@Ower8x he might have got this mixed up. I'm not sure what he meant.
Welcome Dr Peter to the Gang.
Have you addressed the lack of archeological evidence in Mecca during the 6th c. and before. And also the investigations of the 7th century Qiblah direction that seems to point to Petra as the original home of Muhammed and Islam. The evidence as I understand it supports a source for Islam in a northwestern Arabian/southeastern Byzantine area. (As Prof Von Sivers suggests)
I hope von Sievers gets to publish his book
Well. YET AGAIN, we find that the reality is in Jerusalem, and what is in Mecca is a pale counterfeit.
What a scoop to have Prof. Von Siver on your show. He kills so many birds with one stone: no Mecca, no Mohammad, no revelation, no Islam, …. Wow! Definitely a new Gold vein in the Islamic beginnings rabbit hole.
There is something I heard in this interview yesterday that I can't stop thinking about, despite this being the second day of my trip to the US 😂
The term "North-West" was used more than once by Sivers to refer to the place the Quran was likely composed in.
This refers mainly to Jordan and Syria, plus some small parts of what today would be Iraq, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
I'm not fully persuaded by this possibility, I'm not fully convinced of the alternative either.
The alternative I'm referring to, isn't the Hejaz of course, but Mesopotamia.
Now, Sivers didn't abstain mentioning Mesopotamia, and the Quran was composed over a larger geographic area than just Mesopotamia or Syria, that being said, there had to be an "epicenter".
I can think of a few reasons of Mesopotamia being the Epicenter of the Quranic composition rather than further west.
-The Quran contains many Persian loanwoards, some of the most essential theological concepts of the Quran are of Persian origin, such as "Din", "Barzakh", "Jannah", "Firdaws", and even "Jizyah".
-(pseudo)Sabeos and others mention that the Arabs are from Tachakstan, between the Tigris and the Euphrates, maching precisely Iraq. There are then the Tay of course. I read that the Tay took control of al-Hira, with Iyas ibn Qabisah al-Ta'i proclamed king in 613.
I also found out that sometimes between 604 and 611, after the Asassniation of Numan III there was a Battle between the Arabs and the Persians which resulted in an Arab victory.
The Arab camp was composed of a broad array of tribes and bands from Mesopotamia and a bit south of that. I am convinced this event must have carried an extraordinary importance for the power dynamics and alliances that were shifting, whatever happened precisely.
-The early Quran seems to have come from a Nestorian-dominated area. Sivers mentioned Islam may have come out of Nestorianism in a way, an idea also expressed by Thomas Alexader who described the Early Quranic Movement as a "Nestorian splinter-group".
The so called old Syrian theology of the Quran, similar to the theology of Paul of Samosata, seems to support a more eastern origin as well.
This is because by the 6th century the religious landacape of Syria had changed too much. In Iraq however, those ideas survived for a longer time making an impact on the Quran.
-I won't go into there, but the Jewish community of Mesopotamia may be another strong hint.
Well, anyways Islam isn't the Quran and actual Islam was formulated in a later time even further east.
Very, very intriguing interview.
I've been saying Nestorianism is the Christology of the Quran I do not know where people got the idea of Monophysitism (Divine only Christ) or Miaphysite (Both Divine and Human Christ with emphasis on his divinity). From the Nestorian arguement you can understand what the Quran is saying like how it makes a distinction between the human Christ where it always refers to him as Isa son of Mary and the divine nature as Messiah son of Mary like he has a bipolar nature. I did not know Thomas Alexander was also saying Nestorianism though I always thought he sed it pre-dates Nicene Creed. Is there a video where Thomas Alexander goes into the Nestorian Quran that you can recommend and I watch please
@eromonsele1521 I checked again, Thomas didn't say that, I apologize. He states in Islamic Origins 1.4, that it is safe to assume the Quran was written by an "eastern Christian splinter group" in opposition to the Nestorian church, which seems to have dominated the area the Quran was composed in, which would be the western parts of the Sassanian Empire.
I agree that the Quran was not composed by Monophysites and Miaphysites, which constitutes one of the best hints it was composed in the east, as the theology of the Quran doesn't fit the west. In the same video, Thomas states the Quran contains polemics against Ghassanid Monophysites, which I found striking as the Arabs of Mesopotamia were archrivals of those living in the west, so it makes sense.
As you point out, the original Christology of the Quran is closer to Nestorian Christology than to other doctrines, even though the Quranic movement is in opposition to the Nestorian Church.
In that same video, Thomas states the Quran was most likely composed in Central Asia, which I don't hold to be true for a moment. Personally convinced this was Thomas' worst take.
@youtubeuser1993 I agree with you. I don't know how or where Scholars are getting the conclusion that the Qur'an is of Miaphysite or Monophysitism it's a bizarre conclusion. I also like Joe from Red Judaism and of recent exploration of the Jewish origins of Islam. Again I disagree with the conclusion on what he thinks the Christology of the Qur'an is but agree the Jewish influence on the Qur'an is huge part of the so called early islamic movement. I reckon it was a Messianic Jewish movement who's were influenced by Nestorian teachings. If you look at it these Jews would have seen all this fighting over doctorine these 3 Catholic groups and therefore designed there own version of Christianity which became Islam today
Islam is Arianism
Islam is not a heresy that survived it is the original faith. The primary objective of Quran's message to address heretics that had hijacked the message of Jesus son Mary
Quran goes of the way to defend the honor of Christ and his mother Mary.
Does this mean that early Islam during the Arab conquests was a Christian heresy or was considered or seen as as a Christian heresy?
''Welcome to Islamic Origins! The purpose of this channel is to explore the different theories as to how Islam began, to question the Standard Islamic Narrative and to try to discover new evidence to make sense of what happened.''
YEP
Islam is Arianism
First I want to state that I am stimulated by your guest and your studies. It is a good service to all which you provide.
I also thank you for your guest who has done so much to increase our understanding of the issues you present.
But I think we should be more aware of our words, and assumptions we make about the words we use. For example, the Bible states that the spirit goes to God in death. But the soul is the spirit and body together.
The reason I state this in the discussion is because of the professor's use of the term.
Maybe I am an idiot, but to me I find people at times are sloppy in the use of words.
I realize that the term spirit and soul is considered the same in many Christians' understanding, but I think biblically they are not considered the same.
There are many concepts that Christians accept as being Christian but biblically are not presented in scripture.
For example, God being infinite in nature. If God is considered infinite then would we and all creation not be within Him?
I am just using the understanding of infinite and God and coming to this conclusion using the premises given for these words and reasoning.
So most Christians I think describe God as being all things, in other words they present Pantheism in their description of God.
These are just two words but there are many more which Christians use that confuse, or misrepresent the Biblical message.
Excellent stuff. Haven't seen a Von Sivers offering in a while, been waiting a few years for this paper
The idea of a trade route half through the Red Sea the other half on land through Medina to get merchandise to the Romans sounds interesting! But for almost the entire period of Muhammad’s mission there was a war between Persians and the Romans and the entire region was under the Persian control! So this trade route must have been affected somehow. Why there is no reflection of that in SIN or any other history?
Very fascinating to hear the scholars!
Anglican theologian , Professor N T Wright - formerly Bishop of Durham - has also defended the doctrine of soul sleep
I had heard of the Arabian Heresy, but never gave it much thought. Since Islam arose in a region saturated in Christianity, especially non-orthodox forms of Christianity, it makes sense to propose that Islam began as some sort of Arab Christian heresy. Interesting video.
Islam is Arianism
@@bourbon4707 , it is certainly very similar to Arianism. Not a coincidence, since Islam is the religion of plagiarism.
I think you should have live reported the Inarah conference :)
he had tape recorded but the recordings were lost. I doubt he had permission to do this live.
I was asked not to do this for security reasons.
@@IslamicOrigins the fact that scholars must consider security when presenting their research about Islam says everything about Islam!
Wow, what a fabulous interview with Prof. Peter Von Sivers, only one problem, more notes! Thank you so much Mel and for giving the link to his paper.
PS Mel, if you get the chance can you ask Prof. Sivers what his thoughts are on sura 48.24 and Mecca being in the Quran.
The Quran is not just arguing against tritheism but also against adoptionism, the deniers of the virgin birth.
Problem is that unitarians and trinitarians are close to each other when it comes to their opposition against adoptionism.
The Quran does not mention the Thaluth but does talk about the Samad God. Orientalist have translated the Samad God as the Absolute God. In eastern Syriac Samad refers to a Unifier like one who binds grapes, who compounds things in one unit. Here are two possible translations of sura 112:
”Proclaim: He is the one and only God. The Trinitarian God. Never did He adopt nor was he adopted. None equals Him.
The alternative:
”Proclaim: He is the One and Only God, the Unitarian God, never did he adopt not was he adopted. None equals him.”
"lam yalid walam yulad" doesn't talk about adoption
It has traditionally been translated as nicean generation or nicean begetting as ”he does not begett nor was he begotten” and has by orientalist been linked to the Nicean creed.
The thing is nicean begetting does not require a partner/consort/ wife. Nicean begetting means that the son proceeds from the father as a sort of cloning. However in adoptinism you need a human partner. In adoptionism it is Jesus human parents that make Jesus but then God adopts Jesus as His only son through the process of baptism.
”The Initiator of the heavens and the earth. How can He adopt a son, when He never had a mate? He created all things, and He is fully aware of all things.”6:101
@@economician Adoptionism doesn't necessitate rejecting the virgin birth. 6:101 in arabic says nothing of adoption, or the verb "take" would be in there.
I agree with your take on trinitarianism vs tritheism, and also begetting a son in the Qur’an. As an Arabic speaker, and having heard the definition of alsamad by C Luxenberg, S112 takes another aspect than most Islamic exegetes try to express. Alsamad expresses the trinity in Aramaic, the idea of a combined One; and so does the word Ahad in Hebrew always used in the OT to mean more than One, two becoming one flesh in marriage for example.
@helman41
The begetting you are thinking of is a Greco-roman pagan begetting where the gods come down as men to have sex with human women which results in the begetting of half gods. This is not what the Quran is arguing against. The adoptionism involves human parents that mate and produce a child which God later elevates to be his Son. This why the Quran is stressig the virgin birth because the virgin birth shows that no human intercourse is needed. God Said the Word to Mary and the Word was fullfilled through the virgin birth just like God Said the Word to Adam and the human race was created.
The term ”Jesus the son of Mary” is not directed towards trinitarianism but against those who ascribe a human father to Jesus.
I am looking forward to reading the paper. I need more time to fully comprehend what is being presented. However, do want to thank you for interviewing this scholar and all the research work you have done regarding the "origins of Islam."
Thanks, @MaryMa427
Wow! Mel! This was super interesting! Professor answered a question i've had for a long time
which question was that?
Outstanding
thanks for this interview... these ancient debates were ridiculous as people were second guessing god. they believed god created the world but not that god could reconstitiute the body and /or soul of dead humans... very strange
hi all!
@Islamic Origins Mel, thank you so much for unwavering dedication to educating the public and exposing the cult of so called religion “peace”
Bravo thank you!
This is fascinating God bless you both
Amazing!
Thank you for this but You need to have multiple conversation with him..I was hoping he would expound on the lakhmid / ghassanid arab kingdom that emerged between 602-622 and perhaps that might get us closer to the historical warner or mohamed
"I grew up playing in the ruins of the bombed out city."
"O ya, ya."
You could improve on your responses or at least hide your lack of interest (or empathy) better.
Otherwise very interesting, thank you!
How does he explain that one of the Gods referred to is called “Mary”?
I have already done a comprehensive video on this, please take a look at it.
Just a quick correction: A Tritheist cannot be a Christian. See: Athanasian Creed.
Yes, true. I should have pulled him up on that.
"Tritheists and not the Trinitarians"? Word quibble!
They are not the same thing, so more than a semantic quibble. One means a belief in three gods, the other three persons in one God.
Thanks Peter and Mel, nice to see our scholars still in the fight.