When was the last time the CC condemned Islam and Muhammad?

[dronald]

Okay let us start with the so called Apostolic tradition. Outside the Gospels that the Church chose which were divinely inspired, what did the 11 apostles who KNEW Jesus pass on. Did they teach Jesus was the Creator of the Universe who sits at the right hand of the Father? Offer me some solid evidences that will confirm what the Church teaches.

The Didache was originally called “The teaching of the twelve”. This is an early tradition outside of the Bible from the first century that also makes many claims found in the Bible:

7And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Here we see the tradition of the Trinitarian baptism found in a source that predates the Gospel of John. Obviously baptizing and including the name of Jesus with the Father puts Him in the same category as God.

Chapter 8 on communion says:

Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

“Yours is the power and glory through Jesus Christ” sounds like a pretty bold statement. Also this text also consistently quotes the Bible. I would say give it a read sometime if you haven’t already.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

The Didache was originally called “The teaching of the twelve”. This is an early tradition outside of the Bible from the first century that also makes many claims found in the Bible:

7And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Here we see the tradition of the Trinitarian baptism found in a source that predates the Gospel of John. Obviously baptizing and including the name of Jesus with the Father puts Him in the same category as God.

Chapter 8 on communion says:

Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

“Yours is the power and glory through Jesus Christ” sounds like a pretty bold statement. Also this text also consistently quotes the Bible. I would say give it a read sometime if you haven’t already.

The Didache is a document outside the bible yes, but it has bot been written by the original twelve disciples.

 

[dronald]

The Didache is a document outside the bible yes, but it has bot been written by the original twelve disciples.

True. Given that if it were it would’ve been included in the Bible.

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m sorry man, I meant to say the Bible.

Acts and 2 Peter, from which he quoted, are books in the Bible, which is a compilation of many books.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

if Christians are going to use their Bible to prove the traditions of Christ, then I ask, did Jesus teach the most fundamental teaching of the Christian faith, the concept of the Trinity?

 

[dmar198]

I’m sorry man, I meant to say the Bible.

Asking us to prove that X was said by the Apostles without quoting any books of the Bible is like asking us to prove that that X was said on a radio network without quoting any station on that network. The Bible includes every surviving document written by the Apostles. There is absolutely no good reason to exclude the Bible as a source of historical evidence regarding the beliefs of the people who wrote it.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Asking us to prove that X was said by the Apostles without quoting any books of the Bible is like asking us to prove that that X was said on a radio network without quoting any station on that network. The Bible includes every surviving document written by the Apostles. There is absolutely no good reason to exclude the Bible as a source of historical evidence regarding the beliefs of the people who wrote it.

Fair enough, you admit there is no historical proof that exists outside the Bible that the Catholic Church compiled, confirming the traditions of the church. Also, if I understood correctly, there is no other way to know if X was said on a radio network without quoting that specific network? Like, literally no other possible way to find out if what X has said can be put to test? Is that what you really are admitting. You do understand we can easily trace back to the spectators who bore witness to the sayings of the radio network if they were present at that time and place. So if X said anything to the listeners, the listeners can testify to what has been said in AND out of the network. Once their testimony is verified and there is admissible proof they knew the host of that radio network, they can pass it on to others to keep this chain going. Similar to the tradition of the Hadiths from the Islamic Prophet Mohammad. There is no dispute about the companions of Mohammad that are consistent with the majority of his teachings. Unfortunately Christianity has nothing compared to this method of tracing back its beliefs to its original founder.

Catholics would only argue that Jesus passed down his traditions to his disciples, but when asked to offer proof they can only point to the Bible. If Peter was really the First Catholic Pope then why didn’t any of his teachings regarding Jesus and the Church survive? How can we base our faith on an institution to believe in its scripture without any type of evidence outside its scripture to confirm it?

 

[DarkLight]

Fair enough, you admit there is no historical proof that exists outside the Bible that the Catholic Church compiled, confirming the traditions of the church. Also, if I understood correctly, there is no other way to know if X was said on a radio network without quoting that specific network? Like, literally no other possible way to find out if what X has said can be put to test? Is that what you really are admitting. You do understand we can easily trace back to the spectators who bore witness to the sayings of the radio network if they were present at that time and place. So if X said anything to the listeners, the listeners can testify to what has been said in AND out of the network. Once their testimony is verified and there is admissible proof they knew the host of that radio network, they can pass it on to others to keep this chain going. Similar to the tradition of the Hadiths from the Islamic Prophet Mohammad. There is no dispute about the companions of Mohammad that are consistent with the majority of his teachings. Unfortunately Christianity has nothing compared to this method of tracing back its beliefs to its original founder.

Catholics would only argue that Jesus passed down his traditions to his disciples, but when asked to offer proof they can only point to the Bible. If Peter was really the First Catholic Pope then why didn’t any of his teachings regarding Jesus and the Church survive? How can we base our faith on an institution to believe in its scripture without any type of evidence outside its scripture to confirm it?

You’re jumping from “we don’t have any writings by the Apostles outside of the Bible” to “we don’t have any historical proof outside the Bible.” That’s a pretty big jump.

We have what’s in the Bible. We have evidence that contemporaries believed that the Bible was in fact written by the Apostles. We have writings by non-Apostles that support the writing.

Keep in mind also that ancient middle eastern society was not like our own. Writing things down did not have the same central place it does now, and it took great care to preserve and copy writings.

 

[dmar198]

Fair enough, you admit there is no historical proof that exists outside the Bible that the Catholic Church compiled

First, I don’t think I admitted that. I was just saying that “you can’t use the Bible” is a terrible starting point. Imagine that I published a book where I compiled every document from George Washington’s time that quoted him or contained his own words. Then, I asked you to prove that George Washington said something, but I said you can’t use anything in that book. How could you possibly do it?

Also, if I understood correctly, there is no other way to know if X was said on a radio network without quoting that specific network?

No, you are right that you could ask people who heard what was on the radio, if they were still alive, or you could read what they said if they wrote down what they heard. If all those documents were collected into one book, that would be similar to what happened with the New Testament. Although…there were some people who spoke with Jesus and the Apostles who talked about what they heard, and whose writings did not make it into the New Testament. We call these people the Apostolic Fathers, and their writings can still be accessed today. They confirm what the New Testament says. Are you familiar with the Apostolic Fathers?

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

You’re jumping from “we don’t have any writings by the Apostles outside of the Bible” to “we don’t have any historical proof outside the Bible.” That’s a pretty big jump.

I am pretty sure I required historical proof outside the Bible from the jump (meaning from the beginning). If you scroll up I brought up the Apostolic Tradition and asked weather or not, if any writings outside the Bible exists to establish affirmation of those Apostles and what they passed down for us to determine that the teachings in the Bible really were indeed the original teachings from their leader. Besides I don’t understand how that’s a jump in any case because if any writings do exist that would immediately be considered as proof or solid evidence. So to me its the same exact thing.

We have what’s in the Bible. We have evidence that contemporaries believed that the Bible was in fact written by the Apostles. We have writings by non-Apostles that support the writing.

Yes, obviously we have whats in the Bible that lead Christians now and back then to divert and stray from each others fundamental beliefs. There are multiple interpretations on the verses on the Bible due to the sheer fact no exegesis from contemporary followers of Christ to critically explain what he meant by his parables, sayings, along other teachings. Why is this important? Because you must concede that if nothing does exist outside the Bible, this leaves for open interpretation of the Bible. I am not talking about clear cut verses, I am referring to the New Testament where both sides of trinitarian and non-trinitarian make solid cases to back up their position.

The only way Catholics argue their point is by citing the Bible such as Mathew 16:18 to make a case that Jesus gave his Authority to only the Catholic Church through his alleged first pope. But when I am asking from any documents from the first pope himself or anybody else that knew Peter to back up this claim, they are left with only the Bible. I am very aware the Church compiled the books of the Bible and that’s all, but if it boldly proclaims it is the Apostolic Church, I demand proof from the Apostles and the unbroken chain of their companions to demonstrate consistently throughout the ages what Jesus initially has thought.

As far as the non-Apostles goes, we also have so many Early Christians who also claimed to understand the teachings of Jesus accurately who had opposite doctrines. Some had very similar Gospels as the early Catholics did, but yet they denied that Jesus was divine. You are only going to claim them heresies because they differ from your Church’s point of view. But let me make it clear that if you are going to refute another set of beliefs, you should display great reinforcement of affirmation on your Churches interpretation of scripture, other then just agreeing the way they interpret scripture. The only thing we do have is non-apostolic writings that support the beliefs from all sides not just yours.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

First, I don’t think I admitted that. I was just saying that “you can’t use the Bible” is a terrible starting point.

Few years ago I was very ambitious to study Christian history, and my approach is not to exclude the Bible of determining what Jesus has said or not my only problem is it can not be the only source we possibly have.

Imagine that I published a book where I compiled every document from George Washington’s time that quoted him or contained his own words. Then, I asked you to prove that George Washington said something, but I said you can’t use anything in that book. How could you possibly do it?

Well said, only problematic about that is you will be compiling real quotes from a legitimate book NOT only because its particular in that book, though. The Book itself that you are using is a source, has outside documentation and evidence to confirm whatever has inside it. My challenge was, show me proof outside the Bible to argue that whatever is inside the Bible is actually reliable.

No, you are right that you could ask people who heard what was on the radio, if they were still alive, or you could read what they said if they wrote down what they heard. If all those documents were collected into one book, that would be similar to what happened with the New Testament. Although…there were some people who spoke with Jesus and the Apostles who talked about what they heard, and whose writings did not make it into the New Testament. We call these people the Apostolic Fathers, and their writings can still be accessed today. They confirm what the New Testament says. Are you familiar with the Apostolic Fathers?

Listen, are you familiar with the Hadith collection of the Islamic Prophet Mohammad? This is something that has been done with the Quran. After Mohammad passed away, his followers collected his sayings from the Quran and eventually Abu Bakr compiled the verses into one book. But that is not all that Islam has to offer. It like I just stated, the Hadith collection is a unbroken chain of real companions from Mohammad who were 90 percent consistent with preserving what they know Mohammad has taught and and how he behaved. There are many sound sayings that Scholars from all fields can agree that the weight of the evidence based on the consistent study of Islamic history can be backed up by proper proof.

Christians didn’t follow a method like this. You mentioned the Apostolic Fathers, but be aware that the only reason you said Apostolic is because your Catholic Church acknowledges them as such. There were ancient Christian writers who came to different conclusions about the teachings of Jesus . Even though they had major differences, one thing was for sure, they all shared the same fact NONE of them met Jesus personally or were in contact with the disciples. Not the Ebionites/Nazarenes, the Gnostics, and not even the Catholic Christian Church fathers. this is indisputable.

 

[Reuben_J]

It like I just stated, the Hadith collection is a unbroken chain of real companions from Mohammad who were 90 percent consistent with preserving what they know Mohammad has taught and and how he behaved.

.

So I have heard of this.

The Hadith were only written about two hundred years after Muhammad’s death.

Can you give an example of the chain of narrative of a Sahih Hadith (authentic Hadith), who they were, name by name, that can be traced to Muhammad’s companions?

I am interested in this.

 

[dronald]

Christians didn’t follow a method like this.

That’s true. Rather, Christians got it done in the first century while under intense persecution. We didn’t have one authority like Uthman who could take all the contradictory stuff and simply burn it like he did. Our Tradition is the new testament that was written within the same century Jesus lived. The hadiths came way late after Muhammad and are far less trustworthy.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

I watched a debate between a Christian and a Muslim about the authenticity of the Quran. Now as far as the names of the companions who narrated the Hadiths go I personally am unfamiliar with it. However I can assure you if I even put the slightest of effort to the study of science behind it, I can pull out many names that can be traced back to Mohammad. In the debate itself the Muslim quoted a very interesting book that most definitely proves the real companions who knew Mohammad. In Christianity we don’t even know who personally the gospels were.

Now, why did Uthman burn all the other Quran s ?
Why did it take 200 hundred years when they started to collect the sayings of Mohammad on paper?

It seems to me you are just ignorant of the real reasons or you are turning the tables on purpose to avoid answering my questions about any proof outside the bible to prove the bible is true. But hey, if you really want to know the answer to the questions you two posted, I recommend do some unbiased research and you will find out its not because of what you think .

 

[dmar198]

Few years ago I was very ambitious to study Christian history, and my approach is not to exclude the Bible of determining what Jesus has said or not my only problem is it can not be the only source we possibly have.

First, the New Testament is 27 different sources. Second, there is Some first-century information about Jesus outside the New Testament—more, I believe, than there is about Mohammed from his century.

Well said, only problematic about that is you will be compiling real quotes from a legitimate book NOT only because its particular in that book, though. The Book itself that you are using is a source, has outside documentation and evidence to confirm whatever has inside it. My challenge was, show me proof outside the Bible to argue that whatever is inside the Bible is actually reliable.

The reliability of the New Testament has many confirmations using external sources. Some of these external sources are summarized at these articles: [1] and [2] And here’s a video where Catholic apologist Trent Horn discusses evidence for the historical reliability of the gospels. See his books for more details, along with the works cited in the two articles I linked.

Listen, are you familiar with the Hadith collection of the Islamic Prophet Mohammad?

I’ve heard of them, though I’ve never read them. I’ve read Mohammed’s own writings in the Quran, but I’ve never read the Hadiths.

This is something that has been done with the Quran. After Mohammad passed away, his followers collected his sayings from the Quran and eventually Abu Bakr compiled the verses into one book. But that is not all that Islam has to offer. It like I just stated, the Hadith collection is a unbroken chain of real companions from Mohammad who were 90 percent consistent with preserving what they know Mohammad has taught and and how he behaved.

I believe there is more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament than there is of the Quran.

There are many sound sayings that Scholars from all fields can agree that the weight of the evidence based on the consistent study of Islamic history can be backed up by proper proof.

This is also true of the New Testament. As just one example, I am not aware of any significant scholars who doubts the reliability or provenance of the Book of Romans.

Christians didn’t follow a method like this. You mentioned the Apostolic Fathers, but be aware that the only reason you said Apostolic is because your Catholic Church acknowledges them as such.

No, that’s not the only reason I mentioned them. As just one example, Hermas of Rome knew the Apostles, but is not acknowledged as an Apostolic Father by the Catholic Church. And even if he was, that would not make him “not count” somehow. Are there any anti-Mohammed writers among the Hadiths? (I ask because I do not know, not because I want to trap you.) If they are all pro-Mohammed authors, does that make them unreliable? Why would it make the early Christians unreliable if they were all people of whom the Church later said, “Yeah, those were all good people”?

There were ancient Christian writers who came to different conclusions about the teachings of Jesus . Even though they had major differences, one thing was for sure, they all shared the same fact NONE of them met Jesus personally or were in contact with the disciples. Not the Ebionites/Nazarenes, the Gnostics, and not even the Catholic Christian Church fathers. this is indisputable.

It is very disputable. The following early Christian writers knew the disciples, and several of them are mentioned in the New Testament: St. Barnabas, Hermas of Rome, Pope St. Clement I, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Papias of Hierapolis. And they all independently confirm the reliability of the New Testament. (Josephus, a non-Christian, also confirms the reliability of the New Testament, and he too lived in the first century, like the others on this list.)

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

First, the New Testament is 27 different sources. Second, there is Some first-century information about Jesus outside the New Testament—more, I believe, than there is about Mohammed from his century.

Depends on what you mean by more. If you mean in general than yes because so many sects and different people all had their own ideas of Jesus. Whether you were a Catholic Christian, a Gnostic Christian, or a Ebionite/Nazarene Christian, all collected writings in their so called scripture to portray the image of Jesus that they believed he represented. More groups existed and all of them shared their own message of Jesus.

In Mohammad’s century, I can imagine his name was not widespread as Jesus’s, however there were definitely more followers of Mohammad who had a much more legitimate source of information on who the founder of Islam was. Hence why the Hadiths were first written 200 hundred years AFTER him. Its not because that’s when they decided to begin teach about him, its because eventually different groups started to differ from the original message, then they were forced to keep record based on the consistency of the sound hadiths to finally be documented in written format. Before that, it was taught through oral tradition similar with Christianities method of spreading the Gospels before they were written down as well.

The reliability of the New Testament has many confirmations using external sources. Some of these external sources are summarized at these articles: [1] and [2] And here’s a video where Catholic apologist Trent Horn discusses evidence for the historical reliability of the gospels. See his books for more details, along with the works cited in the two articles I linked.

Thank you for this, I will definitely check this out to gain more information.

I’ve heard of them, though I’ve never read them. I’ve read Mohammed’s own writings in the Quran, but I’ve never read the Hadiths. I believe there is more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament than there is of the Quran.

This is irrelevant because the Quran and the New Testament are holy books that contain unique and similar stories. If we are to read the verse in the Quran that supposedly denies the crucifixion, then I would argue this verse indeed is lacking evidence to support its case. However, Christians tend to rely on the New Testament to trust who Jesus was. This is a situation where I would challenge them to prove to me outside the New Testament that Jesus is what the Catholic Church makes him out to be.

This is also true of the New Testament. As just one example, I am not aware of any significant scholars who doubts the reliability or provenance of the Book of Romans.

Did you know there are writings that are ascribed to Saint Paul inside the New Testament that are not even from the author. I am not talking about the Book of Romans but just considering this tells me the New Testament is highly unreliable even you chose to believe in somebody who never even met Jesus during his ministry.

No, that’s not the only reason I mentioned them. As just one example, Hermas of Rome knew the Apostles, but is not acknowledged as an Apostolic Father by the Catholic Church. And even if he was, that would not make him “not count” somehow.

Very interesting! I have to look him up!

It is very disputable. The following early Christian writers knew the disciples, and several of them are mentioned in the New Testament: St. Barnabas, Hermas of Rome, Pope St. Clement I, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Papias of Hierapolis. And they all independently confirm the reliability of the New Testament. (Josephus, a non-Christian, also confirms the reliability of the New Testament, and he too lived in the first century, like the others on this list.)

No you are wrong as far as I know. Not one Christian writer that we can check can be proved to be known somebody who either knew Jesus personally or the disciples themselves. You mentioned Hermas of Rome, like I said I am very intrigued to know more about him.

 

[Reuben_J]

"OneBlanketBoss:

It like I just stated, the Hadith collection is a unbroken chain of real companions from Mohammad who were 90 percent consistent with preserving what they know Mohammad has taught and and how he behaved.

So I have heard of this.

The Hadith were only written about two hundred years after Muhammad’s death.

Can you give an example of the chain of narrative of a Sahih Hadith (authentic Hadith), who they were, name by name, that can be traced to Muhammad’s companions?

I am interested in this.

Hi, any information yet on the quiery above?

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Hi, any information yet on the quiery above?

I already said Reuben J, I am unfamiliar with the actual names. Just like I cant right now bring out any specific Quranic miracles from top of my life. But if I actually took the time to study this in details I can definitely provide you with both. Only problem is I don’t really feel like studying the companions themselves and how reliable their narratives of the hadiths are to show that it goes back to Mohammad.

But why are you asking? Did you come to a different conclusion? Are the hadiths not a reliable source?

 

[johnnyc176]

I’m curious when the last time was that a Pope or some type of official catechism or document condemned Islam as a false Religion and Muhammad as a false prophet?

Well maybe not a condemnation per se but more of a warning for Catholics…

catholicworldreport.com/2014/10/23/pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi-dialogue-cannot-substitute-for-mission/

The risen Lord instructed his apostles, and through them his disciples in all ages, to take his word to the ends of the earth and to make disciples of all people. But does that still apply?’ many inside and outside the church ask themselves today. ‘Is mission still something for today? Would it not be more appropriate to meet in dialogue among religions and serve together the cause of world peace?’ The counter-question is: ‘Can dialogue substitute for mission?’

In fact, many today think religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace. According to this way of thinking, it is usually taken for granted that different religions are variants of one and the same reality. The question of truth, that which originally motivated Christians more than any other, is here put inside parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable and that at best one can represent the ineffable with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems realistic and useful for peace among religions in the world.

It is nevertheless lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, everything is reduced to interchangeable symbols, capable of referring only distantly to the inaccessible mystery of the divine.

Of course this applies to all outside of the One True Faith…protestants, etc.

 

[Reuben_J]

I already said Reuben J, I am unfamiliar with the actual names. Just like I cant right now bring out any specific Quranic miracles from top of my life. But if I actually took the time to study this in details I can definitely provide you with both. Only problem is I don’t really feel like studying the companions themselves and how reliable their narratives of the hadiths are to show that it goes back to Mohammad.

But why are you asking? Did you come to a different conclusion? Are the hadiths not a reliable source?

It is alright then if you do not have the information with you.

Just curious. Like you said, I was told that Hadiths follow a specific science to verify their accuracy traceable up to Muhammad’s companions. I therefore thought that for every Sahih Hadith, it must have its references of the names, who they were, how they were related or met each other, what was their professional relationship, etc, up to bona fide Muhammad’s companions, that made the Hadith acceptable as genuine and not hearsay.

Since they were compiled very much later, about two hundred years later, it must be an amazing feat to authentically trace the uninterruption line of sources of the Hadith to Muhammad. More so, as there are thousands of purportedly genunine Hadiths.

Anyway, I hope to see those details information of the names of the sources of the Hadith whenever one is found.