(Another example of) Why real (not fluffy hypothetical) Islam is incompatible with the Holy Apostolic Faith

[SyroMalankara]

Also known as why Muhammad was not a true prophet, nor given his message by the same Spirit that we recognize as from the Father.

Mainstream Islamic scholarship: youtu.be/2giA2B193g0

VS

The One True Apostolic Faith:

youtu.be/odo_vo2MHPo

youtu.be/_-g8uNn87IU

youtu.be/Dlr90NLDp-0

EP4: “Remember those who have died in the peace of your Christ and all the dead whose faith you alone have known.”

 

[GratefulFred]

A short, but good, read is: “Moslems, Their Beliefs, Practices, and Politics” by Gabriel Oussani and Hilaire Belloc, published in the 1930s.

 

[LoyalViews]

I’m not even sure why we need to keep making others aware of the true facts of Islam. It should be obvious, but the radical left and progressive movement is obsessed!

 

[SalamKhan]

There is such thing as praying for the dead, there is even such thing as passing one’s good deeds on to the dead (as charity).

Your wording ‘mainstream’ is misleading, for one can assert that Protestantism (which rejects praying for the dead) is Mainstream Christianity (most Muslims in the West assume this to be the case anyway).

 

[PluniaZ]

Mudslinging won’t win many converts from Islam or any other religion. Respectful, honest dialogue will.

 

[SalamKhan]

Mudslinging won’t win many converts from Islam or any other religion. Respectful, honest dialogue will.

SyroMalankara is often very aggressive in his posts/arguments against Islam for whatever reason. What he fails to realise is that his rage is clouding his mind, and that he fails to make an insightful, thought provoking, and intellectual argument. This is called being overzealous without knowledge, discipline, or intellect.

 

[SyroMalankara]

SyroMalankara is often very aggressive in his posts/arguments against Islam for whatever reason. What he fails to realise is that his rage is clouding his mind, and that he fails to make an insightful, thought provoking, and intellectual argument. This is called being overzealous without knowledge, discipline, or intellect.

Hhaha… not at all. Facts cannot be aggressive.

Why not counter my argument with a counter example, instead of using fallacious logic such as name calling??

The Islamic apologist claims the Bible was corrupted and that Muhammad was given the true faith from the angel Gabriel. Either this is true or it is false.

If Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and revealed this “truth”, then the Apostolic faith is false. If the Apostolic faith is true, Muhammad cannot be a prophet nor given words by the same angel.

Is that logical, disciplined and intellectual?

PS - proof that Salman did not bother even reviewing my references before responding so aggressively – my second link was broken and he didn’t bother to mention it:
youtube.com/watch?v=_-g8uNn87lU

What the Islamic apologists fail to address is an error due to protestantism, the fact that the Liturgical words sung in the above link carry AS MUCH weight in the Church as the Bible. The Bible was never corrupted, since it was always read within contexts such as those Liturgical prayers. It is an area that such apologists can never address.

 

[SalamKhan]

Hhaha… not at all. Facts cannot be aggressive.

Why not counter my argument with a counter example, instead of using fallacious logic such as name calling??

The Islamic apologist claims the Bible was corrupted and that Muhammad was given the true faith from the angel Gabriel. Either this is true or it is false.

If Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and revealed this “truth”, then the Apostolic faith is false. If the Apostolic faith is true, Muhammad cannot be a prophet nor given words by the same angel.

Is that logical, disciplined and intellectual?

No, it is not. What that is, is oversimplification. Again, overzealousness without any knowledge. “Hhaha” just gives it away. Are you here to have a grown up conversation, or to act like a fool?

Perhaps I should ask some questions of my own, which I will answer for you.

What is ‘apostolic’ about the church?

Is it the view that God is one ‘ousia’ and three ‘hypostases’? No, and all ‘mainstream’ Christians share this guilt.

Is it the view that in God, all things are absolutely one (identical i.e. Divine Simplicity)? No, you stole that from Ibn Sina (Avicenna).

Is it the view that in God, there exists a real distinction of essence and energies? No, not even the Eastern Orthodox are unanimously agreed on this doctrine.

Is it the view that the Roman See alone is indefectable, and that the Bishop of Rome is the sole successor of St. Peter? No, all ‘mainstream’ Christians besides Catholics will attest to this.

Is it the view that the monarchial episcopate was instituted by Christ Himself? No, Protestants rightly point out that this was a development of the 2nd century.

Is it the view that priests could administer the sacrament of confirmation? No, there were no priests in the early church but presbyters (elders), and as pope Nicholas I pointed out to the Greek church, bishops must re-administer confirmation, but who would re-confirm the bishops? Apostolic succession is thus wiped out from the Greek church.

Should I continue?

 

[SalamKhan]

PS - proof that Salman did not bother even reviewing my references before responding so aggressively – my second link was broken and he didn’t bother to mention it:
youtube.com/watch?v=_-g8uNn87lU

What the Islamic apologists fail to address is an error due to protestantism, the fact that the Liturgical words sung in the above link carry AS MUCH weight in the Church as the Bible. The Bible was never corrupted, since it was always read within contexts such as those Liturgical prayers. It is an area that such apologists can never address.

I assumed the second link probably didn’t work on mobile.

And the third link was Dies Irae, which was a favourite of mine when I wanted to become Catholic. I first heard it through Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal and fell in love with it (yes, I am aware that the flagellents were condemned). I’m not sure what you’re even trying to prove with Medieval liturgy.

‘SyroMalankara’, can I assume that you are Indian? If so, that possibly explains your disdain towards Islam, as generally those are the people I’ve come across online who are most hostile.

 

[SyroMalankara]

SalamKhan:

No, it is not. What that is, is oversimplification. Again, overzealousness without any knowledge. “Hhaha” just gives it away. Are you here to have a grown up conversation, or to act like a fool?

Tsk tsk, name calling will get you nowhere.

Perhaps I should ask some questions of my own, which I will answer for you.

Start your own thread. Thanks.

What is ‘apostolic’ about the church?

Founded on the Apostles’f preached, lived, and taught faith.

Is it the view that God is one ‘ousia’ and three ‘hypostases’? No, and all ‘mainstream’ Christians share this guilt.

You answering a different question entirely.

Is it the view that in God, all things are absolutely one (identical i.e. Divine Simplicity)? No, you stole that from Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

• who borrowed from Aristotle, and Greek philosophers, etc? And?.

Is it the view that in God, there exists a real distinction of essence and energies? No, not even the Eastern Orthodox are unanimously agreed on this doctrine.

Again, so what?

Is it the view that the Roman See alone is indefectable, and that the Bishop of Rome is the sole successor of St. Peter? No, all ‘mainstream’ Christians besides Catholics will attest to this.

Twisting in the wind.

Is it the view that the monarchial episcopate was instituted by Christ Himself? No, Protestants rightly point out that this was a development of the 2nd century.

And yet the Shi’a and Sunni rival such claims with Caliphs and Ayatollah, those “corrected”

Is it the view that priests could administer the sacrament of confirmation? No, there were no priests in the early church but presbyters (elders), and as pope Nicholas I pointed out to the Greek church, bishops must re-administer confirmation, but who would re-confirm the bishops? Apostolic succession is thus wiped out from the Greek church.

Never seen such flailing.

Should I continue?

please do. In your own thread.

And the third link was Dies Irae, which was a favourite of mine when I wanted to become Catholic. I first heard it through Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal and fell in love with it (yes, I am aware that the flagellents were condemned). I’m not sure what you’re even trying to prove with Medieval liturgy.

That Christian prayer is not limited to only those who are self-proclaimed, even dead heretics and non-Christians can be prayed for – according to Apostolic faith. Unlike the Sheikh in the video, who quoted Quran to prove otherwise.

‘SyroMalankara’, can I assume that you are Indian? If so, that possibly explains your disdain towards Islam, as generally those are the people I’ve come across online who are most hostile.

“those the the people”… You’ve already said too much. At least the Persian-Uzbek Avicenna learned math from those hostile Indians, otherwise he wouldn’t have been regarded

 

[SalamKhan]

You answering a different question entirely.

The view that God is one ‘ousia’ and three ‘hypostases’ is not ‘apostolic’. Origen of the school of Alexandria put this forward from pagan philosophy, and even earlier the gnostic teacher Valentinus supposedly put forward the idea of three ‘hypostases’. You are affirming for God what He did not affirm for Himself. In fact, arguably the first person to even propose the Trinity, was Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus.

• who borrowed from Aristotle, and Greek philosophers, etc? And?.

This worsens your case, as it was the Council of Florence which said: “In God all things are one and the same where there is no relation of opposition.” Ibn Sina did not consider himself a magisterium in the religion of Islam.

Again, so what?

It is not ‘apostolic’, but perhaps you aren’t Eastern Orthodox so you do not care.

Twisting in the wind.

A response in coherent English, please.

And yet the Shi’a and Sunni rival such claims with Caliphs and Ayatollah, those “corrected”

Sunnis and Shiahs differ on the succession to the Prophet (S), Sunnis believe it is only a temporal succession and the leader must be chosen based on seven criteria, whereas Shiahs believe that it is also a spiritual succession and the leader must be divinely appointed from the Family of the Prophet (S). ‘Caliph’ means successor and Ayatollahs do not factor into this at all, so your criticism is both incoherent and invalid. History refutes the Shiah view of succession, as their 'infallible' Imams gave their allegiance to those whom the Shiahs consider to be usurpers. And history refutes the Catholic/Orthodox view of an apostolic monarchial episcopate (if you even know what that means).

Never seen such flailing.

please do. In your own thread.

I’ll do you one better, watch this [video series.](Vicars of Christ: Papal Heretics: null - YouTube) The uploader BTW, is a Catholic.

That Christian prayer is not limited to only those who are self-proclaimed, even dead heretics and non-Christians can be prayed for – according to Apostolic faith.

If that is true, then it further evidence that the so called ‘indefectable’ church is in fact defectable.

See, for example, what Thomas Aquinas had to say.

“those the the people”… You’ve already said too much. At least the Persian-Uzbek Avicenna learned math from those hostile Indians, otherwise he wouldn’t have been regarded

I’m simply stating an observation, I stated that generally, Indians are usually really hostile to Islam, and I specifically said that it is from my experience online. I didn’t know that Ibn Sina learnt maths from Indians online.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The view that God is one ‘ousia’ and three ‘hypostases’ is not ‘apostolic’. Origen of the school of Alexandria put this forward from pagan philosophy, and even earlier the gnostic teacher Valentinus supposedly put forward the idea of three ‘hypostases’. You are affirming for God what He did not affirm for Himself. In fact, arguably the first person to even propose the Trinity, was Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus.

All irrelevant. What did the earliest Church believe about Jesus? If they believed it, then it was so. St. Paul’s admonishment is clear. Even if an angel tells you otherwise, let him be anathema.

This worsens your case, as it was the Council of Florence which said: “In God all things are one and the same where there is no relation of opposition.” Ibn Sina did not consider himself a magisterium in the religion of Islam.

And yet you attempted to make him one in Aquinas’ theology.

Sunnis and Shiahs differ on the succession to the Prophet (S), Sunnis believe it is only a temporal succession and the leader must be chosen based on seven criteria, whereas Shiahs believe that it is also a spiritual succession and the leader must be divinely appointed from the Family of the Prophet (S). ‘Caliph’ means successor and Ayatollahs do not factor into this at all, so your criticism is both incoherent and invalid. History refutes the Shiah view of succession, as their 'infallible' Imams gave their allegiance to those whom the Shiahs consider to be usurpers. And history refutes the Catholic/Orthodox view of an apostolic monarchial episcopate (if you even know what that means).

“history refutes”, your accepted version, yet Iran has one, Iraq has another, etc. and ISIL claims a caliphate.

I’ll do you one better, watch this [video series.](Vicars of Christ: Papal Heretics: null - YouTube) The uploader BTW, is a Catholic.

Dead link. But based on the title I googled “Peter de Rosa” – he’s “catholic” alright. As Catholic as martin luther, ex-priest turned hostile to Catholicism. Great source.

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly

De Rosa ( Prayers for Pagans and Hypocrites ) is an angry Catholic. In the worst proselytizing tradition, this devil’s advocate overstates familiar arguments, bludgeoning the reader with his dossier against the Church. Among De Rosa’s tamer charges: Jesus renounced possessions, but his vicars celebrate high mass garbed in cloth of gold; the Church has never lifted strictures against usury, yet the Vatican operates a bank. De Rosa sweeps through Church history to parade popes who begat children, popes who fornicated on a grand scale, popes who married. Then in the second half of this polemic, he addresses Church teaching, conjoining the “immaculate conception” doctrine to decrees governing birth control, abortion, celibacy. The doctrine of papal infallibility is dealt with, as is Church anti-Semitism through the ages leading to the Holocaust silence of Pius XII, the “one man in the world whose witness Hitler feared.” And in wrapping up his catalog of “The sins of the papacy,” De Rosa virtually dismisses internal reform: “It is not Catholics but other Christians who chiefly can make the papacy what it ought to be.”

From Library Journal
In his history of the papacy, former Jesuit De Rosa aims to undermine belief in papal infallibility. Although he claims to be a friend of the Catholic Church, and does at times express admiration for the holiness of many of the Popes, his book is so heavily weighted with information on the corruption of the Papacy that it would be hard for any reader to see any good in the office. The book cannot be faulted historically or stylistically, though most of the information including the most sordid can be found in the standard Roman Catholic sources. Patrick Grainfeld’s The Limits of the Papacy (Crossroad, 1987) offers a more balanced view of the expansion of papal power.
Augustine J. Curley, Newark Abbey, N.J.

If that is true, then it further evidence that the so called ‘indefectable’ church is in fact defectable.

See, for example, what Thomas Aquinas had to say.

Again, an apologist misunderstands – Aquinas objects to the “damned” we know not ultimately who is damned. And neither is Aquinas, as respected as he is, the sole magisterium of the Church.

I’m simply stating an observation, I stated that generally, Indians are usually really hostile to Islam, and I specifically said that it is from my experience online. I didn’t know that Ibn Sina learnt maths from Indians online.

“Simply stating” is the most misused phrase in this thread, considering your racial insinuation. Also, odd, considering there are 170Million+ Muslim Indians.

 

[SalamKhan]

All irrelevant. What did the earliest Church believe about Jesus? If they believed it, then it was so. St. Paul’s admonishment is clear. Even if an angel tells you otherwise, let him be anathema.

And yet you attempted to make him one in Aquinas’ theology.

“history refutes”, your accepted version, yet Iran has one, Iraq has another, etc. and ISIL claims a caliphate.

Dead link. But based on the title I googled “Peter de Rosa” – he’s “catholic” alright. As Catholic as martin luther, ex-priest turned hostile to Catholicism. Great source.

Again, an apologist misunderstands – Aquinas objects to the “damned” we know not ultimately who is damned. And neither is Aquinas, as respected as he is, the sole magisterium of the Church.

“Simply stating” is the most misused phrase in this thread, considering your racial insinuation. Also, odd, considering there are 170Million+ Muslim Indians.

I believe you’re purposely trying to misintepret what I wrote, if not, then there is no explanation for one of such feeble intellect. I will address a few minor things before I take my leave of this thread:

I said that the uploader of the video series on YouTube is Catholic, not Peter de Rosa (the original author).

By, Indians, I’m obviously referring to non Muslim Indians, why would I refer to Muslims Indians as hostile to Islam.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I believe you’re purposely trying to misintepret what I wrote, if not, then there is no explanation for one of such feeble intellect. I will address a few minor things before I take my leave of this thread:

Yes, you are of great intellect. That is why you sway in 40 directions and do not counter the original post, instead addressing no one but yourself.

I said that the uploader of the video series on YouTube is Catholic, not Peter de Rosa (the original author).

And? Martin Luther was one as well.

By, Indians, I’m obviously referring to non Muslim Indians, why would I refer to Muslims Indians as hostile to Islam.

I don’t know, maybe your sect considers all 172Million Indian muslims as infidels. Some of your brethren do.

 

[thephilosopher6]

The view that God is one ‘ousia’ and three ‘hypostases’ is not ‘apostolic’. Origen of the school of Alexandria put this forward from pagan philosophy, and even earlier the gnostic teacher Valentinus supposedly put forward the idea of three ‘hypostases’. You are affirming for God what He did not affirm for Himself. In fact, arguably the first person to even propose the Trinity, was Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus

The most formal semantics we have for the Trinity dates back to Tertullian, who was the primary influence of the use of “hypostases” and “ousia” by the Church.

The Trinity doctrine as it was formally defined by Nicaea may actually be beside the point when debating Muslims, because we do know from the earliest Christian sources that Christians did worship Jesus and identify him with God in some way.

For example:

“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.’ Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.” - Ignatius of Antioch (105 A.D), [Epistle to the Ephesians]

Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the Apostle just to clarify.

There are more examples. Much much much more.

 

[MartinJordan]

The most formal semantics we have for the Trinity dates back to Tertullian, who was the primary influence of the use of “hypostases” and “ousia” by the Church.

The Trinity doctrine as it was formally defined by Nicaea may actually be beside the point when debating Muslims, because we do know from the earliest Christian sources that Christians did worship Jesus and identify him with God in some way.

For example:

“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.’ Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.” - Ignatius of Antioch (105 A.D), [Epistle to the Ephesians]

Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the Apostle just to clarify.

There are more examples. Much much much more.

Yes. Not only this but no Islamic tracing to analyze Ignatius of Antioch epistle. Anyone can sound like an expert by availability of huge amounts of info from the internet. The Church has nothing to hide.

MJ

 

[Captain_America]

There is such thing as praying for the dead, there is even such thing as passing one’s good deeds on to the dead (as charity).

Your wording ‘mainstream’ is misleading, for one can assert that Protestantism (which rejects praying for the dead) is Mainstream Christianity (most Muslims in the West assume this to be the case anyway).

those muslims would be mistaken. With over a billion members, Catholic Christianity has far greater numbers.

of course, the average man on the street has only average knowledge of things. people in the US probably think there are more lutherans than Catholics!