Muslims, what do you think of Catholicism?

[MustafaMc]

Professor Bart D Ehrman being one of my chief sources,

Assalamu alaikum Brother Yusuf, I am presently reading his book 'Lost Christianities' and I am amazed at the level of his research and scholarship.

we can now learn that:
1) Paul claims to be a Prophet and teaches a NEW Gospel NT taught by Jesus, PBUH, in his "Earthly" ministry [see other of my posts]

2) EVEN Paul's corrupted teachings are further corrupted "35 to 85 years after Paul's death" to quote the site.

The book of Galatians was very revealing to me about Paul's claim to be a Messenger of God as in 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. This is a claim not to be taken lightly and accepted out of hand as it is the basis for all that Paul wrote. This very point was apparently a point that the unbelievers of Mecca challenged Prophet Muhammad (sal alahu alayhi wa salam) on because the Quran itself defends him and addresses it with statements establishing his Messengership such as Quran 68:2-6 You (O Muhammad), by the Grace of your Lord, are not mad. And verily, for you will be an endless reward. And verily, you are on an exalted (standard of) character. You will see, and they will see, which of you is afflicted with madness.

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. Your last point is also interesting in that not only did Paul not follow Jesus, other people took liberty with writing their own epistles or letters in Paul's name as one of authority. The key question for Christians is, "Where is proof for God's 'inspiration' in any of the writings of the Bible?"

 

[Hiroshi]

Alhumdulillah, how delightful that Allah led you to chose THAT PARTICULAR VERSE when describing the "one of the hardest things for Muslims to accept!"

As Muslims we DO reject THAT PARTICULAR VERSE along with it's teaching, but did you know when it comes to THAT PARTICULAR VERSE, MANY Christians ALSO reject it as authentic?

you see, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are called the Pastoral Letters and the majority of Biblical Scholars reject them as being written by Paul! only conservative Christians, Evangelicals and Fundies still cling to Pauline authorship. while it's not my source, Professor Bart D Ehrman being one of my chief sources, this website can elaborate on the dispute:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm

i think this quote from the site adequately portrays the issue:



i'm not saying this is a preferred website by any means, i'm just using it for simplicity's sake to show the current Scholarly view on "YOUR BEST EXAMPLE" of a rejected concept.

we can now learn that:
1) Paul claims to be a Prophet and teaches a NEW Gospel NT taught by Jesus, PBUH, in his "Earthly" ministry [see other of my posts]

2) EVEN Paul's corrupted teachings are further corrupted "35 to 85 years after Paul's death" to quote the site.

we invite you to accept a Teaching that remains True that There is nothing worthy of worship except the One Who is Worthy of ALL Worship, Allah and to accept the Teachings of His Final Messenger, Muhammad, PBUH, and to reject the teachings of the false prophet, Saul of Tarsus.

Peace

I chose to quote 1 Timothy 2:5 because it carries the thought that Jesus isn't God. I did not realize that you would find it so objectionable. I have never met a Christian who rejected 1 and 2 Timothy. But I think that any critics of the Bible would be more critical of the Qur'an.

I am in agreement with you that Almighty God is the one to be worshipped, not Jesus.

 

[MustafaMc]

I am in agreement with you that Almighty God is the one to be worshipped, not Jesus.

I am glad that we both believe in One God without son, father or equal. What is your concept of God? Do you have a mental image of Him?

 

[Hiroshi]

I am glad that we both believe in One God without son, father or equal. What is your concept of God? Do you have a mental image of Him?

Not really an image. God has a name: usually written as "Jehovah" in English. And Jehovah's principle attributes are love, justice, wisdom and power. And to me the power that created the awesome universe is so great as to be quite unimaginable.

Where the Bible refers to Jesus as God's "Son" my understanding is that Jesus is the first being that God created and gave life to. Being the first makes Jesus unique. Revelation 3:14 calls Jesus "the beginning ["arkhe"] of the creation of God".

 

[جوري]

The book of Galatians was very revealing to me about Paul's claim to be a Messenger of God as in 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. This is a claim not to be taken lightly and accepted out of hand as it is the basis for all that Paul wrote. This very point was apparently a point that the unbelievers of Mecca challenged Prophet Muhammad (sal alahu alayhi wa salam) on because the Quran itself defends him and addresses it with statements establishing his Messengership such as Quran 68:2-6 You (O Muhammad), by the Grace of your Lord, are not mad. And verily, for you will be an endless reward. And verily, you are on an exalted (standard of) character. You will see, and they will see, which of you is afflicted with madness.

I am subscribing because of this, I initially had no interest in this thread. .. It is interesting how often the Christians preach against 'false prophets' yet are completely oblivious to the most false prophet of all 'Saul'

 

[MustafaMc]

It is interesting how often the Christians preach against 'false prophets' yet are completely oblivious to the most false prophet of all 'Saul'

Assalamu alaikum, Ukhti. You are exactly correct that Christians miss this critical point of establishing the vailidty of Paul's calim of receiving a revelation. The actual revelation came to Prophet Jesus (alayhi salaam), but I have read from other Christians that what Jesus actually taught the disciples and his other followers is of secondary importance to what he supposedly did on the cross. As you noted, Christians should take heed to Matthew 7:15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

The disciples recognized the importance of Jesus' life and teachings which is demonstrated in their criteria for choosing a replacement for Judas in Acts 1:21-22 "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. ...” " Note how this contrasts with Galatians 1:12 "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Note also that Paul never met Jesus before his assenscion and he did not learn from his disciples what Jesus had actually taught Galatians 1:17-18 "I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. From the very beginning Christianity started going astray with Paul and reached a critical point with the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.

 

[MustafaMc]

I grew up in a Protestant environment and only recently learned much of anything about Catholicism from my co-workers and the internet. From what I know, Catholics don't rely strictly on Jesus' supposed sacrifice on the cross for their salvation for they also emphasize observing the Church sacraments. Emphasis on observing the sacraments (baptism, eucharist, reconcilliation, confirmation, marriage, holy orders and annointing of the sick) indicates there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. From my perspective the Catholic Church itself is critical for their salvation; whereas, in the various Protestant denominations accepting the free-gift of Jesus' ultimate sacrifice on the cross is critical.

Catholics often have statues of Mary (in hijab mind you) and of Jesus on the cross in their homes and in church. They refer to Mary as the Mother of God and pray to her, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death." We Muslims recognize that praying to the dead is ascribing partners to God. Along with believing that Jesus is the Son of God, believing that Mary is the Mother of God, denies the central tenet of Islamic faith, Tawheed.

 

[FollowerOfChrist]

You can communicate with people who are in Heaven(Saints). They're alive in Heaven. Also, when the OT is speaking on God not being a man, that's past tense. Meaning he wasn't. YET.

 

[Pygoscelis]

1. The materialism of the Vatican sharply contrasts Jesus as potrayed in the bible, as being about giving all your stuff away to the poor. The church is the opposite, taking tithes and building incredibly expensive cathedrals.

2. The Eucharist doctrine..... The official line is that the cracker you eat magically transforms into Jesus' body and the wine into his blood. I thought this was disturbing when I thought it was symbolic, but the doctrine is LITERAL. How is this not canibalism?

3. The major and most recurring feature of all three Abrahamic religions is authoritarianism and obedience to power. Unlike Islam (and kudos to Islam for this) and unlike some other Christian denominations (kudos to them too) the Catholic church exploits this to the fullest extent possible, claiming to be the authority of God and assigns a "Pope" who is claimed to be "infallible".

 

[IAmZamzam]

2. The Eucharist doctrine..... The official line is that the cracker you eat magically transforms into Jesus' body and the wine into his blood. I thought this was disturbing when I thought it was symbolic, but the doctrine is LITERAL. How is this not canibalism?

By the power of semantics, of course. Was there ever any doubt in your mind? The early church fathers pondered the nonsense, found some idiotic mess of words in Greek philosophy about "substance" and "accidents", gladly latched onto that so they could obscure the light of reason in their own minds with the power of words (the thing we human beings are best at out of all our many wondrous talents), and merrily continued on their way knowing that they were eating only the "host".

 

[gmcbroom]

Pygoscelis,
You do bring up valid points. First, I can understand why it would seem contradictory that the church with such a strong inclination towards the poor would seem to embrace materialism with construction of cathedrals and tithing. But truth be told we have to meet somewhere, and that's why the structures were built. As for tithing, that helps feed the priest, not to mention pay any taxes on the building and run programs.

As for the second, the Eucharist Doctrine. This comes down to faith. It's not easy, and Jesus knew it when he said it. When he spoke these words some left for they that as many here do that it's canniablism. Think of the Eucharist as a way to participate in the sacrifice Jesus made for us all upon the cross. That's why it's so important. To many it's either canniablism or symbolic act of remembrance. However, to those that believe this is way more important they even give it a name transubstanciation. It's a way to salvation. Think of it like this, Jesus described as a high priest. Now a highpriest has to offer something. The Eucharist is that something. For those with a Bible please review Hebrews 9 and 10.

Now for the Infallibility Doctrine. Matthew 16.16-19, Acts 15.28, Then there's John 14.16-17, and 26. It discusses the Trinity and to an extent Infallibilty. These may not be the best scriptural references but they'll do. For more information I suggest you speak to a Catholic priest.

Ultimately, it all comes down to faith. It's not just Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture that guides the Catholic Church, it's the Holy Spirit. If your Catholic you believe this if your not chances are you don't.

 

[MustafaMc]

Speaking of Hebrews, how do Catholics understand Hebrews 7:3?

 

[gmcbroom]

To be fair I don't know much about it. So i'll just quote what I found in the New American Bible, from World Catholic Press, 1987.

"7.3 Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life: this is perhaps a quotation from a hymn about Melchizedek, the rabbis maintained that anything not mentioned in the Torah does not exist. Consequently, since the Old Testament nowhere mentions Melchizedek's ancestry, birth or death, the conclusion can be drawn that he remains ....forever."

Opinions anyone?

 

[gmcbroom]

Actually I stand corrected. I read a little further down. Specifically Hebrews 7.22-28. It's a little long so I won't quote it here. Yet for those that read it you'll see because Jesus remains forever, he is always able to save those who approach God through him. He has no need to make a sacrificeday after day as he did that once for all when he offered himself.

Overall, it's pretty deep stuff. What do you think? opinions?

 

[MustafaMc]

The part that has puzzled me is the part underlined, because the only Being that I know of that fits that description is God alone.

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

Yet this verse is in reference to Melchizedek a king during the time of Abraham. Now Abraham is the patriarch for 3 major religions. Does Hebrews insinuate that Melchizedek is a priest for a religion different from what we know as the Abrahamic faith of monotheism? Verse 11 indicates that Jesus was "another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? " The book of Hebrews is almost as puzzling as the book of Revelations.

 

[gmcbroom]

I believe that Hebrews is showing how Jesus is both high priest and king. Something beyond the traditional vision of jewish highpriest as the Levites hold the priesthood, and the House of David is where kings come from. Jesus is both highpriest and king.

 

[Hiroshi]

The disciples recognized the importance of Jesus' life and teachings which is demonstrated in their criteria for choosing a replacement for Judas in Acts 1:21-22 "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. ...” " Note how this contrasts with Galatians 1:12 "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Note also that Paul never met Jesus before his assenscion and he did not learn from his disciples what Jesus had actually taught Galatians 1:17-18 "I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.

Jesus continued to give teaching and revelation after his death and resurrection. For example the book of Revelation was a vision from God given by Jesus to John (Revelation 1:1). In Galatians 1:12 Paul is contrasting the teachings that he received from human instruction under Judaism as a Pharisee with the revelation that he had when he beheld a miracle from God (as many of the disciples did) proving to him the truth about Jesus (Galatians 1:14-16).

From the very beginning Christianity started going astray with Paul and reached a critical point with the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.

Christianity was vindicated in 70AD because the Christians at that time escaped the destruction by the Romans having been forewarned about it by Jesus (Luke 19:43-44; Luke 21:20-22). Why do you say this was a critical point for them as if it was something bad?

 

[Hiroshi]

The part that has puzzled me is the part underlined, because the only Being that I know of that fits that description is God alone.

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

Jewish tradition holds, I believe, that Melchizedek may be Shem, one of the sons of Noah. Given Shem's long life span (Genesis 10:10-11) this seems at least possible. But the fact is that we just don't know his identity. He suddenly appears in the Bible narrative without genealogy or with any details of his past or the length of his life. This is all that the verse means although is it worded in this curious way.

Since there is no mention of there being any limit to Melchizedek's time as high priest of God, so likewise, Paul reasons, Jesus is also high priest for an unlimited time: forever.

 

[Hiroshi]

You can communicate with people who are in Heaven(Saints).

Hi FollowerOfChrist.

But doesn't Deuteronomy 18:11 forbid you from communicating with those who have died? See also 1 Chronicles 10:13.

 

[Hiroshi]

Actually I made a mistake in the the verse I quoted earlier was from chapter 32 not 22.

Now in 32:30-32 it says, So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon. Why would the 'Israelites' not eat the tendom of the hip if it was a man or even an angel that had touched his hip. It is clear to me that this passage insinuates that Jacod wrestled with god as also note as the header at this site http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 32&version=NIV

Hosea 12:4 confirms that it was an angel. I would not expect that any Jew or Israelite seriously believed that Jacob beat God in a wrestling match. Perhaps you could ask a Jew and find out their thoughts on this. Nevertheless, this angel, who would not give his name when asked, was a direct representative from God as is shown by the blessing that he gave resulting in a completely new name for Jacob and all his descendants. So all the things that the angel did and said, including evidently injuring Jacob's hip socket, were given great importance by Jacob's sons. Many times in the Bible an angel is spoken of, and is even addressed and speaks, as if that angellic representative was God himself as, for example, on the occasion with Moses and the burning bush (Exodus 3:2-6).