Jesus PBUH Was A Muslim

[Traditio]

One final point, Admin, which deals both with the headings "Islam" and "Apostolic Succession."

It is granted, I assume, that the OP is directed to a Christian audience. Alright. Well, here's a further hindrance from me entertaining the words of your prophet. I'm sure that you're aware that, in U.S. criminal law, before a case ever goes to the trial, a judge has to determine whether or not there's even a case to be made. Let us, therefore, step back for a moment and forget about the evidence which is to be presented at the "trial," so to speak, of your prophet.

Is there even a case to be made? What possible purpose could a new revelation, after Jesus, possibly serve, whether be to your prophet or to anyone else? In the Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 98, a. 6, corp., St. Thomas indicates the reason for the Old Law being given when it was given:

For man was proud of two things, viz. of knowledge and of power. He was proud of his knowledge, as though his natural reason could suffice him for salvation: and accordingly, in order that his pride might be overcome in this matter, man was left to the guidance of his reason without the help of a written law: and man was able to learn from experience that his reason was deficient, since about the time of Abraham man had fallen headlong into idolatry and the most shameful vices. Wherefore, after those times, it was necessary for a written law to be given as a remedy for human ignorance: because "by the Law is the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20). But, after man had been instructed by the Law, his pride was convinced of his weakness, through his being unable to fulfil what he knew. Hence, as the Apostle concludes (Romans 8:3-4), "what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sent [Vulgate: 'sending'] His own Son . . . that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us."

Again, consider St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments (ST I-II, q. 98, a. 3, corp.) for the Old Law fittingly being given through the ministry of the angels:

The Law was given by God through the angels. And besides the general reason given by Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iv), viz. that "the gifts of God should be brought to men by means of the angels," there is a special reason why the Old Law should have been given through them. For it has been stated (1,2) that the Old Law was imperfect, and yet disposed man to that perfect salvation of the human race, which was to come through Christ. Now it is to be observed that wherever there is an order of powers or arts, he that holds the highest place, himself exercises the principal and perfect acts; while those things which dispose to the ultimate perfection are effected by him through his subordinates: thus the ship-builder himself rivets the planks together, but prepares the material by means of the workmen who assist him under his direction. Consequently it was fitting that the perfect law of the New Testament should be given by the incarnate God immediately; but that the Old Law should be given to men by the ministers of God, i.e. by the angels. It is thus that the Apostle at the beginning of his epistle to the Hebrews (1:2) proves the excellence of the New Law over the Old; because in the New Testament "God . . . hath spoken to us by His Son," whereas in the Old Testament "the word was spoken by angels" (Hebrews 2:2).

In brief summation, consider the words of St. John's gospel: "For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:12).

The Jewish revelation met a need: to give us a knowledge of sin and to convict us of our need for a savior. Being proud of our natural knowledge and our natural capacity for virtue, human beings were permitted to rely on their own natural powers...and fail. When they recognized their need for divine help, God gave them the Law through Moses, that they might know sin. Nonetheless, they were still deluded in their own natural capacity for virtue and right living. They thought that they, by their own power, could fulfill the Law.

So God gave them the Law. They were permitted to try to uphold the Law. And they failed.

The grace to fulfill the Law (and to attain the end of Divine Law, which is a right ordering to God), which can be effected only by charity/divine love, comes to us through Jesus, the Incarnate Divine Word.

So believed Christians for over 600 years before your prophet ever even saw the light of day, and so preached Catholic bishops throughout the world, at Jesus' commission to "spread the gospel to all nations."

If you tell me that your prophet was needed to preach to a barbarous and faithless people, then I'll answer you that the Church already has commission to preach to all nations.

So before we even consider the evidence, why should I even entertain the possibility that your prophet might have spoken truly? What possible purpose could further revelation serve, given the coming of Jesus Christ? I believe that God has revealed Himself in the person of the Incarnate Word, who is the One High Priest, the One Mediator, the One Sacrifice for sins. What possible need could we have of further public revelation, when we have the Incarnate Word, in whom God the Father has uttered all that He has to say (as the Catholic Catechism puts it), who has promised to be with the Church "for all ages, even until the end of time"? [Note, for your prophet to tell me otherwise, I have to sit down and listen to him in the first place; on our hypothesis, I'm not even there yet. Your prophet presupposes that Jesus has come, in some fashion or other, and that the gospels were once books of uninterpolated revelation; he claims, I assume, that interpolations came later. Yet, when I already have the traditions handed down to me by the Church, what cause have I to listen to your prophet, who wasn't even around until about 600-700 years later? At this point, your claims about your prophet's manner of living and the literary qualities of the Quran simply ring hollow. He assumes that I am a Christian, before he even opens his mouth to speak, and then wishes to persuade me that the beliefs, which I already hold, are wrong. Then where are his proofs? If he brings forth misinterpretations of Christian doctrine and faulty arguments, then I can only treat him with the same contempt and disregard (no offense intended) as I would a Manichaeus, a Nestorius, a Sabellius or an Arius. Will he say that he has for his support the words of an angel? Then I will answer him with the words of St. Paul: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Galatians 1:8). And in explanation, I'll go on: "And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14).] And granted that I listen to your prophet, why on earth should I think that your prophet has the last word? Why shouldn't I look for some further revelation elsewhere? You assert that Christianity was obsolete less than 700 years into the game, but your prophet lived roughly 1300-1400 years ago.

Addendum: It's just been brought to my attention that the founder of Mormonism is Joseph Smith, not John Smith.

 

[Futuwwa]

It is ironic that you quote Bible verses from a Bible you believe to have been corrupted to "prove" that Jesus was not God. But I am glad you did. Christians do not claim that God is not one, in fact they claim that God IS one. More specifically, Christians claim that God is three parts that make up the one. How is this possible you may ask? You yourself have a physical body, a mind, and a spirit - you are three! That does not make you three separate entities, but three-in-one. Similarly, God can be viewed in this way also, he is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, all three are inseparable and work in perfect unity. So there are no grumbles with the verses in the Bible that say that God is one, because we fully believe that.

So essentially you've defined the Trinity in such a way that it's scripturally unfalsiflable. No matter what the Bible would say God and/or Jesus is or isn't, it would be consistent with your theology, since God is simultaneously everything. Bloody convenient that.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,


Trinity

The fact that a doctrine is formally expressed in a council, in and of itself, is not an indication that the doctrine wasn't held previously.

The fact that you need to express a fundamental teaching formally (which the entire faith is based upon) three hundred years after the teacher has come and gone clearly indicates that doctrine wasn’t held previously.

Nonetheless, the Council didn't define a new doctrine. It's something that was already part of the deposit of the Faith, vis-a-vis Sacred Tradition (i.e., the tenets of the Catholic Faith handed down to us through the succession of bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff). It only need to be defined by a Council because large numbers of protestant heretics were denying what Catholics already believed.

If Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then why all the conflicts? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It was not the established teaching, and when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict. What may be heretical today is because the other side won and wrote history.

It was a theological power grab by a faction of the church. A major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved and directed the outcome. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on who is in power. In 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea.

Trinitarian belief predates the Council of Nicea, as is evident from the fact that it was called in the first place. Generally, councils of the Church are only called when there are large disagreements or problems that need to be settled, generally because of new heresies that arise and need to be stamped out. Consider, e.g., the fact that transubstantiation was only formally defined (I think) in the Council of Trent (1500s AD, I think).

The Trinity is not some simple creed handed down by the apostles orally and written down only when heretics began causing problems. "Trinity" does not appear anywhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Even the phrase, "And these two are one" (First Epistle of John, Chapter 5, verse 7) is fabricated and based on the verse prior to it. [see: Revised Standard Version of the Bible, 1952 and History of Translations of Bible to the English Language, F. F. Bruce)

Seeing as even the wording concerning the trinity was formulated, it became evident that there was no ccriptural vocabulary which would correctly express the orthodox teaching.

The only reason, historically speaking, that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan-Chalcedonian Trinity won is that those who defended it throughout its development were more successful in politicking and excommunicating their opponents than the “heretics.” In the words of David Christie-Murray, “Heresy, a cynic might say, is an opinion held by a minority of men which the majority declares unacceptable and is powerful enough to punish.”

There is no explanation of how the clear statements of radical monotheism found in the Old Testament could be reread in light of this new understanding of plurality. If the Trinity were part of what the apostles taught, then we should find at least one community in either Palestine or the Diaspora that struggled to accept this new doctrine of God. To think that the early Church debated over accepting the Gentiles, keeping the Law, how to keep communion, the role of women in the Church, yet never once had any trouble at all accepting that God is now three instead of one is absurd.

Trinitarian belief clearly did not ‘predate’ Nicaea when we see how, together with other doctrines, it was further refined in later councils and writings. Below are a number of these councils and a summary of some key outcomes. Take note of the doctrinal changes as these will be relevant to the discussion on apostolic succession.

FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA (325) - defining against Arius the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios)
FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (381) - To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.
COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (431) - defined the true personal unity of Christ, declared Mary the Mother of God
COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451) - defined the two natures (Divine and human) in Christ
THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681) - It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation.
SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA (787) - regulated the veneration of holy images.
FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL (1215) - offered additional definitions on the absolute unity of God, and presented definition of the doctrine of the Church regarding sacraments, and in particular that the bread and wine, by transubstantiation, become the Body and Blood of Christ.
FIRST COUNCIL OF LYONS (1245) - defined that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. The discipline governing the election of the pope was formulated.
The Council of Ferrara-Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1439) This was convened to unite the Greeks and other oriental sects with the Latin Rite. It was defined that "the Holy Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over all the world; that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter, prince of the Apostles; that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church, the Father and teacher of all Christians."
FIFTH LATERAN COUNCIL (1512-1517)
It defined the Pope's authority over all Councils and condemned errors regarding the human soul, namely, that the soul with its intellectual power is mortal.
COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
The doctrine of original sin was defined; the decree on Justification was declared against the Lutheran errors that faith alone justifies and that the merits of Christ; the doctrine of the sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction was defined; decrees relating to the censorship of books were adopted; the doctrine of Christian marriage was defined and decrees on Purgatory and indulgences adopted.
FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL(1869-1870) - the council decreed the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra, i.e. when as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
​

A real distinction of relationships doesn't imply a real distinction of parts in the substance of the thing in question. Consider, e.g., that a given man both may be a father and a son. Nonetheless, the plurality of real relationships which hold true of that one man don't correspond to a real ontological plurality (of parts) in that man. The being of a relationship isn't in something, but towards something. Because the man is a father, he is related to something else, i.e., to his son.

The problem is that you assert all of the entities involved in the relationship are within one ‘divine being’ which is indivisible. Yet in your example of a man having numerous relationships to others, all of those entities exist separate and external to him, which is by default what many understand and what is implicated in the trinity. Hence the term "person" is used to describe each of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit because each displays attributes of personhood. Each has a will, speaks, loves, is self-aware, and is aware of others.

For one thing to be related to another, that other exists independently and separately from the first. A man can neither be his own father nor his own son. It doesn’t make sense to have a situation where one thing can have real relationships and still consider there is only one entity involved. The only way for one thing to be related to itself is to exist as parts, which you also reject as part of trinitarian belief.

What we are talking about is not three Gods, but a single God who knows and loves Himself, and for whom knowledge and love find expression in the persons (as subsistent relationships) of the Trinity.

Knowing and loving oneself is completely different to what you say earlier about there being three separate “persons” in one divine “substance.” Your notion of a triadic relationship fails here because the two relata are one and the same. That is not the concept of God you claim to believe in.

This is why the persons of the Trinity are irreducibly distinct, and yet are not distinct divine beings.

Refer to above about believing in a contradiction.

Yes and no. It's the same as when one thinks about a father. Yes, father and son are distinct (at least according to relation), and yet, fatherhood implies sonhood, and the other way around.

It’s not the same at all. When you think about your own father, you are not seeing your face but his, even though you know he has a son.

So, I'll begin by saying that Ahmed, Khalid and Ayman could be a single human being (i.e., one according both to essence and existence), presupposing that "Ahmed," "Khalid" and "Ayman" are names for numerically the same individual. Presumably, however, you intend to say that Ahmed, Khalid and Ayman are three numerically distinct individuals, who nonetheless equally participate in humanity.

Obviously the latter, in the same way that Christians preach the trinity as, ‘the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.’

When, however, I assert that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God, I intend to assert the following. 1. There is only a single divine being. 2. Each person of the Trinity wholly possesses that singular divine being and that singular divine essence. In other words, each is God and, in particular, that one, single, same God. I.e., Father, Son and Holy Ghost do not indicate numerically distinct divine beings in the same way that Ahmed, Khalid and Ayman indicate numerically distinct human beings. They differ, not according to essence, nor according to being, but according to relation.

As soon as you differentiate between a ‘singular divine essence’ and the divine being, you have divided your God into parts. A ‘relation’ does not occupy space in the way that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are persons present in different places.

I completely agree with what you are saying here. That would be a most grevious contradiction, and if Christians believed this, then I would have to side with you wholeheartedly in rejecting their doctrines as abhorrent to reason. [I must ask, at this point: where did you get this notion from? Does your prophet accuse Christians of believing this?]

It’s plain common sense.

We Catholics do not say that Jesus is divinity turned into humanity (as though he stopped being God and started being human). Jesus is God who has assumed, in the unity of His person, humanity. When we say that "the word became flesh," we mean that the Divine Word, remaining eternally as He is, took on a human nature and fully and really became a human being.

And that is exactly where the problem is. What you are saying is that Jesus is not just a man but was, in fact, both man and God (a God-Man). Yet the nature of God and the nature of man are wholly incompatible and therefore the two cannot coexist as one. Either the deity of Christ must be diminished by his humanity or his humanity must be elevated by his deity. Still, if he is diminished or elevated, he is no longer fully either. It’s like trying to fill a glass with milk up to the brim and then filling that same glass with an equal amount of water. This is impossible because both substances require the same full volume of the glass. The best one can do is to fill the glass with 50% of each milk and water, but that is not what the doctrine of God-Man requires.

There are other problems that arise from this God-Man hypothesis:

If Jesus had not really assumed human nature, he could not actually redeem humanity, since he seemed to be aloof from it. Yet if he had taken on human nature, did this not threaten his divinity from which salvation would necessarily come forth? But even if both ‘natures’ were maintained, how could they ever be joined to form one being? Would not a savior composed of two ‘natures’ almost resemble a monster, totally unlike a truly divine or truly human being? One can easily imagine that questions like these defied easy answers or simple solutions.
Hans Schwarz, Christology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 138.

​

All of this confusion can be avoided if we understand Jesus as a human—a noble Prophet sent by God, granted miracles and a revelation. There is nothing complicated about that. On the other hand, your entire faith depends on a man dying for your sins, yet, if the whole Jesus did not really die, then the whole of your sins are not really paid for. Thanks be to God who would not leave us in such a predicament.

Because there are some things that we simply cannot know by our own power. There are some things that we simply have to take on faith. Consider, e.g., the stories that your mother tells you about when you were a baby. You accept this purely on her authority. Again, consider what you believe about your prophet. Did an angel talk to him? You can't know that through rational inquiry. You believe it on the [errant, I believe] testimony of others.

In the case of the Trinity, what we are talking about is the inner life of God. You'll accuse me of a cop-out. But I'll ask you to consider the following. What reason do we have to believe in God in the first place?

If Jesus was the authority here, that would be one thing, but such authority cannot be claimed.

Jesus taught that the Word of God is truth. God specifically says in Scripture that He wants men to come to a knowledge of this truth. If Christians are going to do so, then there must be an appreciation of what is logical and what is not. Otherwise, nonsense masquerading as spiritual truth will go undetected and the quality of people's lives will suffer as a result of believing it.

Typically when the trinity cannot be explained, the Trinitarian brings forth the language of mystery in order to retreat from the imposing threat of logic. Often, it is said, “How can we possibly expect to know the deep mysteries of God, being that we are mere mortals?” The response is that such an inquiry is not into the deep mysteries of who God is and how He works; rather, we are simply trying to determine if the model of the Trinity is contradictory in and of itself. It is not God who insists we think of Him in the terms used in this Trinitarian creed. Besides, is it even possible to genuinely believe in a contradiction? For example, if I honestly believe that I am both fat and thin at the same time and in the same sense, then would I go on a diet or not? The result of believing a contradiction is paralyzing. If I truly believed both that I should diet and that I should not go on a diet, then what is the result? Confusion. Thus, to facilitate faith in God, we would be wise to avoid defining God as a contradiction.

In all of what you presented above, it’s very clear (and by your own admission) that we are not dealing with reason or logic. Why cling to this theological conundrum? Why hold so tight to something that is so hard to comprehend?

 

[Muhammad]

Apostolic succession

Protestants make similar arguments, i.e., that Catholics put "the tradition of men" over the "word of God." A simple overview of the vast plurality of protestant sects, and their vastly different interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures and their corresponding beliefs, however, ultimately shows that what you are suggesting isn't quite right.

If you are saying belief in the apostolic succession ensures no disagreement, we need to consider Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Both have valid holy orders and apostolic succession through the episcopacy. Both of them agree that ecumenical councils have the ability to infallibly define doctrines. And yet, they have differences in their theology and various other issues. Examples of this are the filioque clause (the famous cause of the Great Schism of 1054) and different beliefs about Mary.

It is precisely because my belief in the Sacred Scriptures is grounded in my belief in the authority of the Catholic Bishops, and the Sacred Tradition which they have handed on from the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles themselves, that I am quite sure that I have absolutely no leeway to "refuse to agree with their own scripture and interpret it according to their personal ideas." The sole authoritative interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures is the Church and Her magisterial (teaching) authority, and She cannot change it at whim, but simply hands on to us what She has always held for almost two thousand years.

The church fathers held to the view that scripture was the ultimate authority for the church and that every doctrine had to be verified from it. ‘Sacred Tradition’ is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does. Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible. A customary reading of the Bible does not lend itself to such beliefs and practices. Instead, the Catholic Church has used ‘Sacred Tradition’ to extract out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines. Moreover, Catholics believe in ‘doctrinal development’, so there is no such thing as simply handing down ‘what she has always held for almost two thousand years’.

For example, Catholics believe that Mary was conceived and born without sin and that she was ‘assumed’, body and soul, into heaven. This is truly a major dogma, yet there is no ccriptural proof for it, and even the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17).

For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

Patrologist Boniface Ramsey says that, ‘...we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.’ (Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6).

It gets worse. In the 9th century, a literary forgery occurred which completely revolutionized the ancient government of the Church in the West. It provided a legal foundation for the ascendancy of the papacy in Western Christendom. This forgery is known as the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals, written around 845 A.D. The Decretals are a complete fabrication of Church history. There are many eminent Roman Catholic historians who have testified to this fact. Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the last century, who taught Church history for 47 years as a Roman Catholic, makes these important comments:

In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.

That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians.

​

The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers...and with Gratia’s own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chokeful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional
(Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116).

​

You still claim that people have been ‘simply handing down’ the teachings of Jesus? Rather, what we can see is a blind submission to an institution which is unaccountable to either scripture or history. The presupposition of an infallible church is faulty. Historically, the Roman Church has clearly proven that it can and has erred and is therefore quite fallible.

It is the protestant, not the Catholic, who can be accused of playing fast and loose with scriptural interpretation and changing doctrine at whim. Should a bishop teach heresy, at odds with the received interpretation of the Scriptures, the Church Itself would say (as She has said in many councils): "That is not the tradition that you have received from me. Look and see, for this, and not what you say, is what I have always believed and handed on."

The groups that broke away from the Catholic Church did so because they believed errors had developed within the teaching of the Catholic Church, by comparing the scriptures with the teachings of the church and finding a difference between them. They chose to follow what they believed the scriptures were teaching as opposed to the church, thus saying they were clinging to that which was most surely original Christianity versus that which had evolved as the Catholic Church's expression of Christianity.

Can you point to any point in time, from the time of the apostles onwards, in which there have not been bishops who have claimed simply to be handing on a Sacred Tradition which they have received from others? If you wish to deny apostolic succession, then there is a simple way to do so: show me a breach in that succession...

It is, however, interesting that you want names and biographies. I have such a list just for the bishops of Rome.

The first thing to point out is that there was no such thing as a ‘pope’ in the early centuries. This is a simple historical fact recognized by historians. Joseph F. Kelly in his The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 2, notes, the word "pope" was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.

Secondly, the problem with such a list as the one you’ve provided is that different sources say different things. Catholic apologists will often point to the list of Roman bishops that Irenaeus wrote late in the second century, because it aligns with the latest list that the Roman Catholic Church uses, but lists from other early sources contradict the list of Irenaeus. All of these lists come from the second half of the second century or later, and most likely were composed as a means of opposing heresy. In other words, lists of a succession of bishops going back to the time of the apostles would be composed in order to make the current bishops appear to have authority as successors of the apostles.

It should also be pointed out the earliest concepts of apostolic succession weren't the same as the concept the Roman Catholic Church embraces today. They recognised that the apostles had unique authority but no alleged apostolic successor could have as much authority as the apostles had. Morevoer, the early Church did not believe itself to be the ultimate authority, incapable of erring.


The Protestant historian Philip Schaff explains:

The oldest links in the chain of Roman bishops are veiled in impenetrable darkness. Tertullian and most of the Latins (and the pseudo-Clementina), make Clement (Phil. 4:3), the first successor of Peter; but Irenaeus, Eusebius, and other Greeks, also Jerome and the Roman Catalogue, give him the third place, and put Linus (2 Tim. 4:21), and Anacletus (or Anincletus), between him and Peter. In some lists Cletus is substituted for Anacletus, in others the two are distinguished. Perhaps Linus and Anacletus acted during the life time of Paul and Peter as assistants or presided only over one part of the church, while Clement may have had charge of another branch; for at that early day, the government of the congregation composed of Jewish and Gentile Christian elements was not so centralized as it afterwards became. Furthermore, the earliest fathers, with a true sense of the distinction between the apostolic and episcopal offices, do not reckon Peter among the bishops of Rome at all; and the Roman Catalogue in placing Peter in the line of bishops, is strangely regardless of Paul, whose independent labors in Rome are attested not only by tradition, but by the clear witness of his own epistles and the book of Acts.
(The Master Christian Library [Albany, Oregon: AGES Software, 1998], History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, pp. 145-146)

​

Thirdly, when you ask for a breach in the succession, how is such a breach defined? Multiple factors could account for a breach:

1. Time: In the list you’ve provided, you can see that there is no pope at all during the years 259, 305-307, 639, 1242, 1268-1271 (Almost 3 year period without a valid pope elected, due to a deadlock among cardinals voting for the pope), 1292-1294 (2 year period without a valid pope elected, due to a deadlock among cardinals voting for the pope), 1314-1316 (2 year period without a valid pope elected, due to a deadlock among cardinals voting for the pope), and 1415-1417 Pope Gregory XII was deposed as an ‘antipope’ - Two-year period without a valid pope elected. · The status of Antipope John XXIII was uncertain for hundreds of years, and was finally settled in 1958
2. Simultaenous popes: Driven by politics, there was a split within the Roman Catholic Church from 1378 to 1417.Several men simultaneously claimed to be the true pope. Which pope was really the pope?
3. Antipopes: Rome accepts that they have had antipopes that were accepted to the office of pope and gave influential change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope
4. Mode of succession I: In the early Church the bishops were elected by faithful people and then consecrated by 2 or 3 bishops at least who were in the historic apostolic line of succession. If you read Cyprian, Didache, Clement of Rome, Tertulian, Gregory Nazianzen, Ignatius, Irenaeus you will see that bishops had to be chosen and approved by the popular consent first and then consecrated by other bishops. RCC and EOC have dispensed with such practice long time ago and only bishops choose other bishops without apostolic tradition and practice of the early church.
5. Mode of succession II: According to some church scholars / historians, a number of popes have obtained their positions 1) by buying their office [a form of simony], 2) through the working of influential prostitutes, or 3) by the use of force, even murdering the previous pope! These facts are validated by some eye-opening books (written by Catholics or former Catholics), which include Peter De Rosa’s “Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy”; “Lives of the Popes” by Richard P. McBrien; Former Catholic priest Joseph McCabe and his “A History of the Popes”; J. H. Ignaz von Dollinger’s “The Pope and the Council”; and “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church,” by Malachi Martin.
6. Needing an Ecumenical Council to Jump-Start it. Among the tasks of the Council of Constance (considered the 15th Ecumenical Council by the Roman church) was to, in effect, decide who got to be pope, thereby ending a three-way dispute that had been on-going (link to discussion of council from a Roman Catholic perspective).
7. Being deposed: Benedict IX was deposed twice and restored. His biography states: The nephew of his two immediate predecessors, Benedict IX was a man of very different character to either of them. He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter. Regarding it as a sort of heirloom, his father Alberic placed him upon it when a mere youth ... .

It goes on to relate: Taking advantage of the dissolute life he was leading, one of the factions in the city drove him from it (1044) amid the greatest disorder, and elected an antipope (Sylvester III) in the person of John, Bishop of Sabina (1045 -Ann. Romani, init. Victor, Dialogi, III, init.). Benedict, however, succeeded in expelling Sylvester the same year; but, as some say, that he might marry, he resigned his office into the hands of the Archpriest John Gratian for a large sum. John was then elected pope and became Gregory VI (May, 1045). Repenting of his bargain, Benedict endeavoured to depose Gregory. This resulted in the intervention of King Henry III. Benedict, Sylvester, and Gregory were deposed at the Council of Sutri (1046) and a German bishop (Suidger) became Pope Clement II. After his speedy demise, Benedict again seized Rome (November, 1047), but was driven from it to make way for a second German pope, Damasus II (November, 1048).(source for biography)
​

​

1. Being outrageously sinful? Alexander VI was another pope who allegedly obtained his position through simony, but that's not perhaps the worst of it. He not only openly acknowledged his children (yes, of course he was not married), but even used his political strength to try either to benefit or exploit them.

Do you wish to deny that the Catholic mass has been celebrated from the time of Jesus Christ all the way to the present day? Then show me a time in between in which the Catholic mass wasn't celebrated.

The meaning of such a ritual and the manner in which it is done has changed over the course of time, so this doesn’t prove anything. On this topic, how anyone can presume to say that their ‘god’ should place himself in the hands of a mortal man, as a victim in hands of a priest, and that by three or four words pronounced by the priest a real and sudden change occurs such that it becomes the real ‘body and blood’ of their ‘god’, which is then eaten, really is quite shocking.

Putting such a disturbing thought aside, the topic of the mass further goes to show that "church tradition" does not lead to unity because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches (both of whom claim their different practices are based upon traditions that date back to the apostles) are irrevocably and bitterly divided over the Eucharist. Transubstantiation only became official Catholic doctrine in 1215 AD, further illustrating the ever-changing doctrine of the church.

The key words are "by divine institution." It takes an act of faith to believe that the bishops have received the deposit of faith and are handing on that deposit of faith by divine commission. I'm not sure that it takes an act of faith, however, to believe the fact that there is such an unbroken line of bishops, i.e., that there have always been people who have claimed to hold such an office. I mean, you can simply deny that the bishops are conveyers of divinely revealed truth and have a special office instituted by Jesus Christ. That's not the same thing as denying that there have always been bishops since the time of Jesus' apostles.

The quote makes it clear that the unbroken line of bishops is not supported by history. Let me quote it for you again: ‘Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as “an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today...

You are conflating two distinct ideas:

1. The bishops have conveyed divinely revealed truth vis-a-vis Sacred Tradition.
2. The bishops were and are impeccable (sinless).

The affirmation of 1 and the denial of two aren't mutually exclusive. I can assert that St. Peter and the other apostles were sinners, and yet Jesus appointed him and them to positions of teaching authority and entrusted him and them with a deposit of divine revelation

Both of these points are directly related. Having a physical line of successors does not guarantee faithful transmission of proper doctrine. There may well have been people who were directly taught by apostles (or even Jesus, Himself) who fell away from the faith. But the simple fact that even an apostle (Judas) could abandon the faith demonstrates that someone at any point in this line could have abandoned the faith and believed in false doctrine / heresy, thus destroying the Catholic view of apostolic succession. At least one “legitimate” pope has been officially condemned (with anathema) as a heretic by an ecumenical council. See here: http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/pope.html

One has to ask, how valid is an “apostolic line” that contains heretics? If someone is a heretic, then BY DEFINITION, he is not believing apostolic doctrine. And if he is not believing apostolic doctrine, then he can’t be called apostolic. Such an “apostolic” succession without proper doctrine is meaningless.

Furthermore, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) admits: “But it must be frankly admitted that bias or deficiencies in the sources make it impossible to determine in certain cases whether the claimants were popes or antipopes.” (Volume I, page 632)

Furthermore, are we talking about prior or posterior to Pentecost and the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles?

Neither. An alleged ‘descent of the holy ghost’ means nothing here. We are talking about this from a historical perspective, not a faith-based one.

At any rate, even if St. Paul "didn't even meet Jesus" prior to Jesus' passion and death, so what? I don't ground my beliefs solely in the authority of St. Paul. There's also the matter of the eleven apostles (I'm not counting Judas) who did meet Jesus.

Christians gloss over the fact that Paul never even met Jesus while he was on earth and yet he claims to know the 'gospel' better than those disciples who did follow and listen to his Message while he walked among them. His 'gospel' was fundamentally different from the 'gospel' that Peter preached as the 'Apostle to the Jews' as illustrated by the first 2 chapters of Galatians. Paul's influence on Christian thinking arguably has been more significant than any other New Testament author (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church ed. F.L. Lucas (Oxford) entry on St. Paul). There is little doubt that most of Christianity relies heavily on his teachings to the extent that some even regard him as the ‘founder of Christianity’.

The question is who has more credibility to make claims about Jesus. You are telling me that St. Paul didn't meet Jesus. Even if true, however, note the following:

Your prophet definitely didn't meet Jesus.

So I claim, vis-a-vis the Succession of Bishops, to draw my beliefs back to the first hand accounts of at least some eye witnesses.
You draw your beliefs about Jesus back to the first hand accounts of no eye witnesses.

You are confusing different issues here to create an invalid argument. The use of witnesses by both Christians and Muslims are regarding different sources. Christians claim they have eyewitnesses dating back to Jesus. Muslims are saying they have witnesses directly linking back to the Prophet Muhammad :saws:. Nowhere have I said Muslims believe in the teachings of Jesus based on eyewitnesses dating back two thousand years.

Now, what granted Prophet Muhammad :saws: authority to make claims about Jesus was not a direct meeting between the two. As sister MuslimInshallah clarified earlier, it was the fact that he received revelation from God. The question of how we know this was revelation is dealt with under the subheading ‘Islam’.

I mean, just for a moment, let's forget about the fact that we're talking about Jesus and you think that your prophet received infallible truth from God through an angel.

Which one constitutes better evidence?

The Prophet Muhammad :saws: came with the final revelation from God. It still exists. We know what it is. On the other hand, there is not a single document from the time of Jesus that exists today. We only have "gospels" from one or two generations later, written by unknown authors. There are many contradictions in them and NONE of them are written in the language that Jesus spoke. NOT ONE!
You see, if you do not have one single, authentic document about the life of a Prophet of God, where can you get authentic information about that Prophet? The answer is from another Prophet of God. That is the only way you can guarantee its authenticity.

 

[Muhammad]

Islam

(since I am a Christian, I must maintain that it is impossible, since truth cannot contradict truth). I do not fault you, who are not a Christian, for believing in the possibility. Note, however, that "it's possible" is not a good reason to believe something. The Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot are possible. I don't believe in either.

We may as well abandon the ‘discussion’ if all you are planning to do is parrot Christian belief. By the way, the existence of a Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot are far, far easier to believe than your version of a god consisting of other gods who sacrificed himself to himself so he could change his own mind about what to do with man (!).

In order to make a sound transition from believing that something is possible to believing that something is actual, i.e., actually is the case, there has to be some kind of evidence. Abstractly considered, could an angel have spoken to your prophet? Sure. Is it particularly likely? No.

Assuming you reviewed the evidence already presented, based on what grounds do you say it’s unlikely? Because Thomas Aquinas said it?

What reason would a Jew have to believe? Tradition holds that God Himself wonderfully led them out of Egypt, worked wonders for them in the desert for 40 years, miraculously obtained victory for them over their enemies, and publically revealed the Law to them at Mt. Sinai. Evidence? The paschal feast and the (Aaronic and Levitical) priests are evidence, for starters. Have you read the books of the Law (the first five books of the Old Testament)?

What reason does a Christian have to believe? Eye witness accounts that somebody, who in turn had raised others from the dead, himself rose from the dead and appeared to them over the course of several weeks, after which He ascended into heaven. Evidence? The Bible, Sacred Tradition and the Catholic Mass.

All of this is based upon faith, no other evidence. Having a feast every year and priests telling you something happened is all very well if you’re a Jew. If you’re not a Jew, that’s a pretty shoddy way of presenting evidence. Moreover, if you’re willing to believe eyewitness accounts have survived two thousand years despite all of the political conflict and doctrinal changes, you have to accept with even more reason that the eyewitness accounts telling us about the Prophet Muhammad :saws: and his miracles are true. And that is because Muslims have something called the Isnad which I mentioned briefly earlier which is a lot more sophisticated than a Wikipedia list of supposed popes.

Well, for starters, the alleged "details regarding Paradise, Hell, the Day of Judgement, the angels and devils, and about the countless details of how we should worship God." Not to mention your prophet's views on marriage, divorce and truthfulness.

In other words, you only believe it’s false because your faith tells you to. That’s meaningless.

Averroes: 1. affirmed the eternity of the world and 2. denied the immortality of the human soul. What does your prophet say?

Even if, for the sake of argument, a medieval philosopher held unorthodox views about Islam, what does it prove? Nothing. It’s not like it was approved through a council of bishops and became official doctrine.

You cannot be a good Muslim and a good philosopher.

Even if true, so what? Greek philosophy corrupted the Christian concept of God. Islam is not in need of any philosopher to come and mould its theology because it is already pure and complete. Religion is the word of God, not the words of philosophers.

If you take your start from philosophical inquiry, there is absolutely nothing that would lead you to accept Islam. The only way that a Muslim philosopher arises is if he is already a Muslim and then decides to start doing philosophy. Invariably, he is led to deep embarrassments. Historically, this is just true.

This is coming from someone who believes Islam is false because their saint told them so. It's quite ironic in a discussion about philosophy and rational inquiry. Besides, I’m really not sure how this obsession with philosophy is relevant to the discussion...

Compare this to the fact that Neoplatonists flocked to Christianity. Why? Because they recognized a need of reason that reason itself couldn't solve.

What’s that supposed to even mean?

Here, a quote from a metaphysics lecture of mine is worth repeating (and, of course, I hope that you enjoy reading it; I'm rather fond of this bit of my writing):

Forgive me, but I fail to understand what point you are trying to make by quoting it.

Let's suppose for a moment that I can't prove that it's from Jesus. Nonetheless, it must be admitted that the tradition is 2000 years old and comes to us from an unbroken succession of bishops.

If you admit it isn’t from Jesus, then whose teachings have people been following for two thousand years?!

1. Why don't you believe in the words of John Smith of the Mormon sect?

I have no reason to. If you're looking for similarities, the Hindu trinity far predates the Christian one... does that mean you should adopt that instead?

2. I'm unaware of these miracle accounts. Would you go into more detail about them and the sources from which you are getting your information about them?

You can read all about them here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/70819778/The-Miracles-of-the-Prophet-Muhammad-Ibn-Kathi-r

I could make the same claim about the Catholic mass. "Catholics across the globe, on a daily basis, witness a priest recite the very words of the Incarnate God on the night before he died." This is certainly evidence of something, but do you really want to claim that it's a miracle?

The Bible isn’t the very words of God (it wasn’t even written in the lifetime of this incarnate god you speak of). Neither is the mass in the language that Jesus spoke, so we’re nowhere near evidence here, let alone a miracle.

1. I'm inclined to deny that your prophet was virtuous, as does St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Contra Gentiles, book I, chapter 6, paragraph 4).

Unfortunately, Thomas Aquinas demonstrates an extremely poor knowledge of Islam. If he is your window into Islam, you are doing yourself a great disservice. For instance, Islam does not give ‘free rein to carnal pleasure’, rather it closes all doors to immorality [Qur’an 23:5, 17:32, 16:90]. The clear and pristine message of Islam is evidence that it was not a doctrine based on superstitions, prevalent philosophy or the ramblings of men. The truth of the Prophet’s :saws: words was testified to even by Jews and Christians. He brought forth many supernatural signs. Many wise men believed in him from the beginning, including those who were well-respected and knowledgeable.

On this point, for example, your prophet's alleged marriages have always been criticized by Christian opponents, and I feel no need to go into more detail, especially since I'm not nearly educated enough on the matter to make conclusive arguments about it.

If one carefully examines the circumstances that surrounded each marriage, they will realise that the Prophet :saws: contracted marriages either to protect and support a widowed woman, or bring comfort to the families whose hearts were broken by the death of their beloved father, or to cement the bonds of love with the clan of his wives, or to honor a free woman who fulfilled Allah’s Command and went against the traditions of her society by marrying a slave rather than a master seeking the Good Pleasure of Allah. These wives went on to become female teachers who would convey to the nation what they had learned from the Messenger of Allah :saws: and what they knew of his private life.

Had the Prophet :saws: been lustful, he would have opted to marry when he was in his prime youth, yet he married several wives only after he had grown into old age. It should also be noted that all the women whom he (peace be upon him) married had been married previously, except ‘Aishah, may Allah be pleased with them all.

[Though, even at first glance, the Zaynab affair (I mean "affair" in the general, non pejorative/moral sense), even considered by itself, alone would be sufficient, even were I not a Christian, to preclude me from ever entertaining the legitimacy of your prophet.]

Let’s do ourselves a favour and go beyond a first glance. The story of Zaynab is actually a good piece of evidence for the genuineness of the Prophet :saws:, not for his insincerity like Orientalists and some Christian missionaries like to claim.

Zaynab bint Jahsh married Zayd ibn Hârith, a former slave of Khadîjah who the Prophet :saws: had freed and adopted as a son. This marriage had been arranged by the Prophet :saws: himself, but it ended in divorce.

The custom among the pagan Arabs was that an adopted son was like a person’s real son. He carried his adopted father’s name and inherited from him. Islam overturned that custom. Islam, we must understand, came to safeguard lineage. A man may adopt a child and take care of him, but that child cannot assume the lineage of his adopted father. He must retain his own family name.

By marrying Zaynab, the Prophet (peace be upon him) demonstrated in the clearest possible way that in Islam an adopted son is not the same as a natural son and that the guardian of an adopted son is permitted to marry a woman who was once married to that adopted son.

As for the verse revealed about this, Allah says (interpretation of meaning): “And (remember) when you said to him on whom Allah has bestowed grace and you have done a favor: ‘Keep your wife to yourself, and have fear of Allah.’ But you did hide in yourself that which Allah will make manifest, you did fear the people whereas Allah had a better right that you should fear Him. So, when Zayd had completed his aim with her, We gave her to you in marriage, so that there may be no difficulty to the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons when the latter have no desire to keep them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled.” [Sûrah al-Ahzâb: 37]

Ibn Jarîr narrated that `A’ishah said: “If Muhammad were to have concealed anything that was revealed to him of the Book of Allah, he would have concealed the verse: ‘But you did hide in yourself that which Allah will make manifest, you did fear the people whereas Allah had a better right that you should fear Him’.”

Allah had already revealed to him that Zaynab bint Jahsh was going to be one of his wives. The Prophet :saws: did not speak about this matter, fearing what people would say. Then Allah revealed this verse.

This verse is clearly not the statement of a false Prophet making up verses trying to justify his desires. If the Prophet :saws: had ulterior motives, he could have gone about the matter in a much more subtle way and gotten what he wanted. Instead, he was put on the spot to do something he otherwise would not have wanted to do.

This, however, was from Allah’s wisdom. If the Prophet :saws: had only said to the people that since adopted sons are not true sons, therefore men may marry the ex-wives of their adopted sons, it would not have had the same effect. Cultural practices and taboos are quite strong.
Edited from: http://en.islamtoday.net/quesshow-14-943.htm

2. Even if he was perfectly virtuous (even by my more strenuous Christian standards; Islamic morality has always been considered lax by Christians),

That’s strange. Christians neglect to follow their own teachings (e.g. women wearing head coverings) yet Muslim women are the ones covering themselves.

this is no proof that he was divinely inspired. Here, I want you to consider the matter from my Christian perspective, and I'll be more "to the point": what evidence can you give me that cannot be explained either by natural explanations,

If you read the paragraph responding to your accusation of delusion, there’s a lot there to get you started.

or else, by the intervention of Satan and the devils/fallen angels (consider, e.g., Corinthians 1:20)? Granted that Satan and the fallen angels are not causes of virtue and good works, even naturally good and wise men can be deceived by the fallen angels, who are pure intelligences of much greater power and intellectual prowess than mere human beings. So let us suppose that natural explanations cannot explain what you are ascribing to your prophet (of which I am not convinced). What about Satanic influence? (Note, I am not asserting this positively; I simply am asking what evidence you have to believe otherwise.)

Earlier you were casting aspersions regarding the concept of an angel bringing revelation. Now, somehow, the default position has become satanic intervention. Again, the same paragraph I mentioned previously is enough to show it cannot be the work of a devil. All you are doing is making blind accusations which can just as easily be turned around and applied to your faith.

Your prophet doesn't hold the monopoly on "well respected and apparently virtuous people who claimed to be divinely inspired and produced written texts."

I know. Many were the Prophets who were before him. But he is the last in succession and his scripture is the only one which has been preserved completely.

I checked out the other threads on this point, and I think I more fully understand what you are saying. The Quran apparently has a special "style" of composition which is neither poetic nor prose, and yet still conveys meaning, and apparently, nobody has been able to mimic the Quran's style.

That's very interesting, but as an outsider, I feel compelled to ask: "So what?" That's not proof of divine intervention.

Obviously if you pick out a few statements without considering the whole picture you are not going to appreciate much.

The fact that no human being has succeeded or can succeed (let us suppose) does not prove that a fallen angel couldn't do it.

There’s no such thing as a ‘fallen angel’.

Why shouldn't I think that the Quran was produced by Satan?

If you tell me that the Quran says many true things, then I'll answer you that Satan quoted the Hebrew scriptures to Jesus when He fasted in the desert.

The Quran makes it clear that Satan is our enemy and commands believers to perform righteous deeds. If you think Satan is disguising himself and pretending to attack himself only to deviate people from the true path, look at what the Bible says about Jesus when he refuted the Pharisees who accused him of casting out Satan with the power of Satan:

And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub[SUP][c][/SUP]! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."
So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. [Mark 3: 22-26]

In the case of Jesus, I answer: I believe on the authority of the testimony of the Catholic bishops. Resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven cannot be explained by natural or human causes.

The people of Makkah asked the Prophet :saws: for a miracle and the moon was split into two parts. This also cannot be explained by natural or human causes. I believe this as it has been authentically passed on by his Companions and also mentioned in the Qur’an which has been fully preserved.

I am in need of divine grace, both because of the natural limits of human nature, and also because of my woundedness, my fallenness, because of my sins. This is evident from natural reason.

Everything you say here is not ‘evident from natural reason’ at all. These issues are being discussed in a separate thread so let’s not repeat the discussion here.

Is there even a case to be made? What possible purpose could a new revelation, after Jesus, possibly serve, whether be to your prophet or to anyone else?

If you appeal to revelations coming before others as being proof of legitimacy, then Judaism can use this same excuse to throw away Christianity. Jews did not view Jesus as the Messiah and do not accept their Torah as no longer being applicable. The Torah states that all mitzvot will remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4). So based on your reasoning here, you should give up Christianity and follow the law of Moses who came centuries before Jesus.

If you then assert that Christianity is valid because it abrogates the laws of the Old Testament, then Muslims equally hold that the law of Prophet Muhammad :saws: abrogates all those that precede it. So we learn that it isn’t about which revelation preceded which, rather it is the later revelations which are to be followed as these are chosen by God for specific peoples.

Now you can ramble on about failing to uphold the law and what your church fathers have said. But let’s talk about facts for a moment. Christians do not have the actual teachings of Jesus with them today. By your own admission, you place your faith in your church fathers and from the previous post, it’s pretty clear they haven’t done a good job of conveying the true teachings of Jesus. No two Christians can even agree on who God is, the nature of Jesus, which Bible to use, how to worship God, and the list continues. Considering the facts, there is a very obvious need for a Prophet from God to bring people back to the true religion.

The Bible and the Torah were not preserved, as they were entrusted to the care of their respective peoples who failed to uphold their complete teachings. The Qur’an criticises the Jews and Christians for changing the words from their right places and behaving treacherously with God’s verses, altering His Book from its apparent meanings which He sent down, and distorting its indications. They attributed to God what He did not say and abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. Thus a new revelation, which was actually prophecised in former scriptures, was needed.

O People of the Scripture! Now has come to you Our Messenger explaining to you much of that which you used to hide from the Scripture and passing over much. Indeed, there has come to you from Allah a light and a plain Book.) (16. Wherewith Allah guides all those who seek His Pleasure to ways of peace, and He brings them out of darkness by His permission unto light and guides them to a straight path. [Qur’an 5: 15-16)

Jesus was not sent for the whole of mankind. As with previous Prophets, he was sent to his respective people. Even in the Bible, we find him being quoted as saying, ‘But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matthew 15:24). This is also very apparent when one considers how his original words were not preserved and the fact that his miracles were primarily for his own people – bringing people back to life by God’s permission, healing the blind and the lepers by God’s permission etc. In the case of the Prophet Muhammad :saws:, he was to be the final Messenger and as such, his message was for the whole of humanity. This is evident in the fact that the revelation sent to him was promised to be preserved by God Himself, hence why we have the exact Qur’an (as revealed then) with us today. Not only this, but the major miracle granted to the Prophet Muhammad :saws: , which is also the Qur’an, is available to the whole of humanity to realise and appreciate today.

Will he say that he has for his support the words of an angel? Then I will answer him with the words of St. Paul: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Galatians 1:8). And in explanation, I'll go on: "And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14).]

You should direct that to the popes preaching a totally different gospel to that of Jesus. You quote Thomas Aquinas as saying, ‘The Law was given by God through the angels’, so let’s not be hypocritical and disregard the whole of Islam simply because we also believe in angels.

And granted that I listen to your prophet, why on earth should I think that your prophet has the last word? Why shouldn't I look for some further revelation elsewhere?

God chose to make the Prophet Muhammad :saws: His last Messenger. God honoured his nation and completed Islam on his hands. He made His last revelation trustworthy over every Divine Book that preceded it. It is the most encompassing, glorious and perfect Book of all times. The Qur'an includes all the good aspects of previous Scriptures and even more, which no previous Scripture ever contained.