SDG here.
For years we’ve known that The Press Doesn’t Get Religion. And, usually, when the press doesn’t get religion, Get Religion gets the press. Get Religion is a group blog of religious religion journalists covering religion journalism, and in general they do an excellent job.
I was disappointed, therefore, by a recent blog post from Get Religionista Mollie Zielger Hemingway — who says she “loves analyzing media coverage of the liturgical calendar” — offering kudos to the “reporters” who “found the story” on what she describes as “rebranding Lent as Ramadan” in the Netherlands. She even praises “most reporters” covering this alleged “rebranding” for having “put the story in context.” She also adds that this “rebranding” is “a symptom of a larger condition” that “could use some sensible reporting.”
That’s one thing Mollie and I agree on: Sensible reporting is definitely needed. That’s why God created Get Religion. So where is their “sensible reporting” when it comes to a “story” almost totally devoid of facts — a story that even by usual media standards for religion reporting seems (at least to this non-religion journalist) breathtakingly irresponsible in the disconnect between the claims of the headline and lede and whatever facts appear to lie at the bottom of the stories?
Here’s the DutchNews piece that got Mollie’s kudos for breaking the story. (Actually, this may not be the piece that broke the story, since the first sentence credits another publication; my Dutch is a little rusty, but I think Volkskrant means something like People’s News or Popular News. However, perhaps it’s all the same outfit.) Here’s the headline and lede:
Lent must be as ‘cool’ as Ramadan
The Catholic tradition of fasting at Lent needs to become as ‘cool’ as the Muslim fasting peiod of Ramadan, say Dutch Catholics in today’s Volkskrant.
This year, the church is even promoting the 40-day fast as ‘the Christian Ramadan’. ‘We use the word Ramadan because it is a term young people are more likely to understand than Lent, the organisation Vastenaktie tells the paper.
Mollie also positively cites this follow-up piece in The Telegraph that goes further. Here’s the lede:
Lent fast re-branded as ‘Christian Ramadan’
Dutch Catholics have re-branded the Lent fast as the “Christian Ramadan” in an attempt to appeal to young people who are more likely to know about Islam than Christianity.
The Catholic charity Vastenaktie, which collects for the Third World across the Netherlands during the Lent period, is concerned that the Christian festival has become less important for the Dutch over the last generation.
“The image of the Catholic Lent must be polished. The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent,” said Vastenaktie Director, Martin Van der Kuil.
For what it’s worth, the DutchNews piece doesn’t mention “rebranding,” although it does claim that “the church” is “promoting” the Lenten fast as “the Christian Ramadan.” What, exactly, does this mean?
In a Catholic context, when you say “the church” is doing X — at least if you know what you’re talking about — you mean that bishops are doing X, or at least sanctioning it. That is who speaks for the Church: the bishops. If, say, individual Catholics are doing X, you don’t say that “the church” is doing it, you say some Catholics are doing it.
In the case of the Dutch episcopacy, the prospect of someone proposing some sort of boneheaded Lent/Ramadan equivalency might not be entirely out of the question. A ways back Bishop “Tiny” Muskins made headlines by suggesting that Christians use the name Allah to refer to God, which makes a lot of sense — for Arabic-speaking Christians. It makes no sense at all for Christians whose primary language is Dutch or English. Whether this new flap represents similar episcopal thinking, though, remains to be seen.
The Telegraph piece offers the more startling headline — “Lent fast re-branded as ‘Christian Ramadan’” — written in the passive voice with no active subject, leaving it unclear who or what is responsible for this “re-branding.” To be fair, headlines are usually written by editors, not the reporters who are at least meant to be researching facts, but still it presents the alleged “rebranding” as a fait accompli.
At the very least, it suggests that someone with some sort of significant controlling stake in the Lenten “brand” — again, presumably the Dutch bishops, or at least a diocesan PR office or something — has embarked on a concerted campaign to get “Christian Ramadan” into the vernacular while consigning “Lent” to the scrap heap. (That’s what “rebranding” implies: deprecating an old, obsolete brand in favor of the new normative one.)
Then in the opening graf we learn that “Dutch Catholics” are responsible for this “rebranding.” Does this mean the Dutch Catholic bishops? Dutch Catholics in general? Is it a popular grassroots movement? Whatever the facts, these early cues strongly suggest a broad-based Ramadanizing or Islamification of a Christian penitential season.
But wait. After telling us that “the church” was promoting Lent as “the Christian Ramadan,” DutchNews goes on to cite “the organisation Vastenaktie” as saying “We use the word Ramadan because it is a term young people are more likely to understand than Lent.”
Who or what is “the organization Vastenaktie”? DutchNews doesn’t say, possibly expecting Dutch readers to be in the know. It thus falls to the Telegraph to fill in readers outside the Netherlands that Vastenaktie is a Catholic charity. (Possibly with a special Lenten emphasis; “Vastenaktie” looks to mean something like “fasting and action.”)
So, okay, a Catholic charitable organization is concerned that the Lenten fast has lost cultural significance, and is trying to burnish its image among young people. That may be a significant story, particularly the cultural implication about young people being more familiar with Muslim cultural touchstones than Christian ones.
But it’s a far cry from the picture that you might get from the opening sentences of these stories of Lent being “rebranded” by “the church.” Even if Vastenaktie is an official arm of the Dutch church (and I have no idea whether it is or not), you still don’t say that “the church” is “rebranding” the Lenten fast because a Catholic charity has done…
Hm. Come to think of it, what exactly have they done? Exactly what form has this “rebranding” taken? What, specifically, has Vastenaktie done by way of “rebranding” the Lenten fast? Are there to be bulletins and other materials announcing the “Fourth Sunday in Christian Ramadan”? Will Catholics soon be asking each other what they’ve given up for Christian Ramadan?
Let’s see. Put together, both news stories give us a combined total of, um, zero facts in this regard. Zilch. Nada. Not a clue what “rebranding the Lenten fast” is supposed to entail. Just a quote from the organization’s director, talking about the need to “polish” the “image” of Lent and the observation that the Muslim penitential season is better known among young people. Later the Telegraph reporter vaguely mentions “linking” the Lenten fast to Ramadan, but again not a single specific as to what this means.
Perhaps at this point you’re wondering what Mollie was talking about when she praised reporters for putting “the story in context.” That was in reference to the relaxation of Lenten disciplines in the wake of Vatican II and the decline of Lenten observances among Mass-attending Catholics. I guess you could say that’s context. They just forgot to include the story. (Actually, according to comments at Get Religion, it looks like they got the context wrong too: Both stories erroneously claim that prior to Vatican II alcohol was prohibited during Lent.)
FWIW, I Googled Vastenaktie, went to their website, glanced over the homepage in Google translation, clicked on the first thing that mentioned fasting, and found a paragraph on “Christian Ramadan”. Below is an eclectic rendering in English based on a couple of online translation engines and my own ignorant judgment (my family is Dutch, but I learned almost nothing; I would welcome a more informed translation):
Christian Ramadan
A typical wordplay. In the Dutch media there is much attention for non-Christian religions and their practices. Each year Ramadan invariably pulls the front pages of newspapers in our country. By contrast, the Catholic fasting tradition is forgotten in oblivion. Young people especially know the Islamic fast, but not the Christian. The carnival obtains the news… The Catholic fasting tradition is valuable. And the interest grows.
Putting together this paragraph with every single fact from both news stories, as far as I can tell, it looks like a Catholic charity in the Netherlands may or may not be saying something like, “You know how Muslims have Ramadan? Well, Catholics have something like that too! Lent: It’s like Ramadan… except the press talks a lot about Ramadan and ignores Lent, so maybe if we point out the connection, we can get Lent some coverage as well.”
I’m not saying that is all that Vastenaktie has done. Nor am I saying that this much, as far as it goes, is necessarily a good idea in itself. I’m not arguing any of that. I’m not defending Vastenaktie in any way. I’m saying that (1) I have no idea what Vastenaktie has actually done; (2) neither, as far as I can tell, does anyone else; and (3) the way the story is being reported and perpetuated seems wildly incommensurate with the facts that have emerged to date.
Certainly if the paragraph above, and the “wordplay” it suggests, represents the extent of the “Christian Ramadan” business, I’d say we have an instance here, not merely of journalistic incompetence in religion reporting, but of sensational Islamo-controversy-mongering.
That’s the kind of thing I expect Get Religion to be all over, instead of perpetuating.
It isn’t only Get Religion. A number of Catholic and non-Catholic bloggers have blogged on the story, either not noticing the problems in reporting, or possibly figuring it sounded crazy enough to be true. And who knows, it could be. But “could be” is not a story. Maybe someday if someone does some sensible reporting, we might find out.
Mollie commented in her piece that “It’s easy to write the first story.” She might have underestimated the difficulty. Perhaps we’ll know when (or rather if) the first story emerges.
Steve,
Did you send this on to the GetReligionistas??? Curious to know their response…
“Christian Ramadan?” How about referring to Ramadan as “Muslim Lent?”
I find use of the term offensive, though at the moment I can’t put into words exactly why…
Sheesh
Sounds like compelling evidence (if any more was needed) of the truly, thoroughly post-Christian state of European culture. Almost total cultural amnesia has taken place within the span of a couple of generations. So much so that the old festivals and holy days can’t be understood except by re-framing them in non-Christian terms.
It is therefore not very alarming information to me, but a profoundly sad fact, laid on a pile of other sad facts.
To paraphrase Mark Shea, we are watching Europe exhale the last vapors of the gospel, just before it inhales something really nasty.
Rebranding Lent? Why not??
With the “Spirit of Vatican II” you can do pretty much whatever you want, as long as it’s charitable.
TAnd this is VERY charitable to the Muslims. It makes them love us!
Oh, how I love modern religion! It just feels soooooo good! Everybody can just get along, just like John Lennon so aptly sung about! (Just think! No Heaven! No Hell too! Hey.. we’re all ONE) Isn’t it soooo fun??!
Oh the ‘Spirit of Vatican II” is sooo soothing.
…kinda makes me want to liturgical dance!!!
Right, it’s all caused by Vatican II.
Keep feeding your bias, it’s easier than thinking.
Tim,
Part of the problem is immigration. If Europe stopped allowing Muhammadans in (and didn’t do outrageous things, such as creating Muhammadan states in Kosovo and Bosnia & encouraging Turkish membership in the EU) it wouldn’t be in such bad shape. As Doesteyevsky said, “Europe’s heart always bleeds for the Turk.”
Immigration isn’t the cause of Europe’s decline, but it isn’t helping.
As I recall, Mark Shea even defended the pope kissing the Koran and the Assisi events.
Tim,
Part of the problem is immigration. If Europe stopped allowing Muhammadans in (and didn’t do outrageous things, such as creating Muhammadan states in Kosovo and Bosnia & encouraging Turkish membership in the EU) it wouldn’t be in such bad shape. As Doesteyevsky said, “Europe’s heart always bleeds for the Turk.”
Immigration isn’t the cause of Europe’s decline, but it isn’t helping.
As I recall, Mark Shea even defended the pope kissing the Koran and the Assisi events.
Tim, I think A. Williams was deriding those who use Vatican II as an excuse for their dissent and watering down of the faith, not the council itself.
Well, I certainly hope so, bill. If so, sorry for missing the parody or whatever.
Jimmy, great post.
Whatever A. William’s intend, you certainly can’t blame this on Vatican II itself unless possibly as a matter of prudence. The root of this is the secularization of Europe, which Vatican II had little if anything to do with and certainly did not intend.
The situation is tragic, but given that the situation is there maybe it’s not such a bad idea to make certain comparisons, to tell young people who have no understanding of their own ancestral culture to realize that, hey, Christianity has interesting customs and spirituality too and it might be something worth looking into.
Wow, that was very poorly typed. Sorry, I should clearly proofread.
Based on the few facts that have emerged, that’s my take too.
Look at it this way: If a Catholic minority in a historically Muslim culture wanted to communicate the idea of Lent to the larger culture, I don’t think anyone need take umbrage at the idea of starting with Ramadan as a point of comparison.
Now, obviously the Netherlands isn’t a historically Muslim culture, but if it’s really true that young people are more familiar with Ramadan than Lent, the net effect may be the same. Regardless whose fault that is, or what should have been done about it decades ago, I’m not sure that using Ramadan as a point of comparison isn’t a potentially useful strategy today.
I think immigration is a symptom, not a cause. If native European populations were replacing themselves, immigration wouldn’t be an issue. The more salient point is that post-Christian Europe is dying; that it is being replaced by incipient Muslim Europe is merely a corollary.
But even that may be overstating things. According to Philip Jenkins, Muslim immigrants are rapidly acclimating to European norms:
FWIW. However, Islamo-controversy-mongering fears about Muslims taking over the world sells better than the idea that immigrants in Europe are largely going to be European in outlook, so the former meme isn’t likely to go anywhere soon.
A. Williams: Did you even read the post?
“To paraphrase Mark Shea, we are watching Europe exhale the last vapors of the gospel, just before it inhales something really nasty.”
Well, in the Netherlands they’re definitely inhaling a whole lote of marijuana. I’m not sure if that’s what your were talking about.
Well isn’t that lovely?
I think Steve ought to borrow Glamdring and axe that comment.
The comment stands, FWIW, but I deleted the unnecessarily provocative handle. Please follow the spirit of rule guidelines in choosing a handle.
Steve,
But the fact is that European nations are not reproducing themselves, so the large scale immigration of Muhammadans is increasing their percentage in the population. And leftist political parties (ad others) are using their presence to preach multicuturalism (take the recent statement of the hippy-apostate who calls himself the Archbishop of Canterbury about Sharia).
Take Italy, which has to a certain extent has avoided the secularism of other countries. Would flooding Italy with Muhammadans have no negative effect on its culture? Even if they reject their religion and become secularists (a distinct possibility) it doesn’t help the situation.
Fair questions, Jeb. I actually wonder whether the influence of the influx of immigrants has necessarily been entirely negative. For one thing, for all the multicultural political correctness and such, the confrontation with the Muslim East seems actually to have roused some vestiges of historically European and even Christian identity in some quarters. For another, frankly, in contrast to post-everything secular despair, Islamic influence in Europe might in part have some salutary effects in itself. We’ve already seen a few instances of strategic alliances of Christians and Muslims against secularism. It may be that a Muslim presence in Europe could help weaken the dictatorship of relativism and open the door to moral and spiritual absolutes, which in itself would be a good thing. It might even ultimately become a new opportunity for the gospel.
I don’t live there, so it’s hard to say. However:
First, I do get the impression that Moslems tend to vote for the leftist parties because they find their multiculturalism more agreeable.
Second, many Moslems are single young men, and I doubt that preserving Europe from secularism is high on their agenda.
Third, who in Europe is using the influx of Moslems as an opportunity to either reach them with the Gospel or take a stand against relativism? I recall a few years ago an Italian Cardinal warned Catholics against marrying Moslems. The Pope backed off on his statement about Islam. That’s about it.
That would seem to go along with Jenkins’ comments about Muslims in Europe becoming Europeans, all right. Multiculturalism is not a big value in the Arab world.
…what?
What I’m saying is that, in the first place, Christians and Muslims have worked together to take a stand against relativism, for example, at the Beijing women’s conference where the Vatican and Muslim participants succeeded in blocking resolutions on sexual orientation and abortion. To whatever extent Muslims in Europe retain their Muslim identity, it seems likely that they will exert a similar influence in European society.
In the second place, if you’re referring to the Regensberg incident, it looks like you weren’t paying attention. B16 didn’t back down on anything. He is a methodical man and is still in the process of shaping his relationship to the Muslim world. However, under his short reign to date the CDF has issued two key documents affirming the unique soteriological significance of Christianity and the Catholic Church and the indispensability of evangelization. Evangelization to Muslims is a sensitive proposition but I have no doubt that it will take place.
Steve,
I meant that many Moslem immigrants to Europe are young, single men searching for jobs. As I said, I doubt that protecting Europe from secularism is important to them.
The CDF may issue good documents (I haven’t read them), but when a Catholic sees his bishop attend the opening of a mosque or hears him refer to God as “Allah,” which has a greater influence?
I don’t see what is so sensitive about evangelizing Moslems. It is a Gospel command. I imagine Moslems hope they can get a “no evangelization” promise from Kasper just as the Jews have done.
SDG,
the muslims in Europe support leftist parties not because they agree with them, but because they have a deal. The deal is the secular left does not seek to impose it’s lack of values on the muslims and their communities. Thus they establish zones of Sharia law were police may not enter, they are permitted to refuse any sort of activity which violates their religion such as handling pork, or alcohol, etc. The same is happening here in the US where muslims support the Democrat Party of Death even though in the fundamentals they are much more conservative than even the most ardent members of the religious right. If only the Democrat Party of Death would extend the same courtesy to Christians and Catholics.
God Bless,
Matt
I dunno, when I was a young, single man looking for a job, I cared about opposing secularism. But beyond that, whatever traditional values they bring with them will ipso facto be in opposition to secularism.
Certainly there are boneheaded (and worse) bishops who do harm. There are also good bishops who do good. That’s the way it’s always been (“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops,” according to St. Augustine, himself a bishop with a healthy fear of the responsibility of his office). Wheat and tares stand side by side; it’s Christ’s arrangement, not mine.
Of course. I’m just saying any time you have a a subset of a population decapitating people and blowing themselves up, it tends to make things sensitive.
Of course Kasper has no authority to issue such “promises,” and his views on Judaism have been strongly and cogently refuted by others, such as Cardinal Dulles. But I doubt if even Kasper is confused enough to deny the necessity of evangelizing Muslims.
BTW, Jeb, I expect you noticed the recent consternation among Jewish observers — and liberal/dissenting Catholics — over Pope Benedict’s new version of the Good Friday prayer accompanying the Motu Proprio traditional Latin Mass (here in unofficial translation):
Kasper can spin all he wants. He’s not in charge of what the Church teaches or believes or how she prays.
Thanks Bill 912,
Of course my comment was sarcastic.
But I was trying to make a serious point: that the root of so many problems in the Church, such as ignorance of what the season of Lent signifies, and profound ingnorance in most other liturgical areas, lie NOT with Vatican II, but rather in the ‘liberal interpretation’ of Vatican II which is commonly referred to by the term “Spirit of Vatican II”.
And SDG, yes I did read the artical. And you can re- read your own post and realize that there are very numerous points and questions posed, of which I tried to get to the root. And the root is as stated above: Because of the neglect of proper or substantial catechesis, which results from a ‘liberal’ or ‘progessive’ attitude that such catechesis indeed doesn’t even need to be taught(except maybe in its most basic form), the most fundemental and essential Catholic traditions have been all but forgotten by the general population.
Isn’t this the general concept? Isn’t this the debate and purpose for focusing so much attention on this artical?
And so who is responsible for such a disgraceful state of the Church? Do you think Pope John Paul II…or Pope Benedict XVI?
Of course not…. rather they were, and are, THE SOLUTION.
Maybe the blame can be laid on the progressives and liberals? Maybe on those who Archbishop Marini writes about in his new book “A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal, 1963-1975”?
Maybe the blame can be laid on the famed “Spirit of Vatican II”, of which Sandro Magister so aptly relates has been used to try to create a new ecclesiology wherein the Church of the past is of little significance, and the era of the present post Vatican II Church, an era of a “new Pentecost”?
Yes, blame laid on the progessive idea that there indeed was a ‘rupture’ in the ‘continuity’ of Catholic teaching and tradition, where, in this context LENT indeed might not even be significant anymore, since it is a custom from pre-Vatican II times?
So who is to blame? Isn’t it those who have tried to bury the past…these same progressives that promote the “Spirit of Vatican II”?
Or, has the Church fallen so far that all of this doesnt even matter, and no one is to blame??
Heck….now I don’t feel like liturgically dancing anymore! : (
A. Williams: Thanks for clarifying. To clarify my own terse question, what I meant was that, as far as I can tell, reports of the “re-branding” of Lent may have been greatly exaggerated, so in this particular case perhaps the alleged fruit of the “Spirit of Vatican II” is more hype than fact.
Tim, I think A. Williams was deriding those who use Vatican II as an excuse for their dissent and watering down of the faith, not the council itself.
That’s exactly what I took away from A. Williams’ post, and I concur 100% with this sentiment. Too many people have abused their wayward concept of “the spirit of Vatican II” to fit their agendas. And no one can ignore the simple cause and effect of the “fruits” of this “spirit”; rampant sexual predators among the clergy, massive exodus from clergy and Catholic laity, secularization, deemphasis of the sacred etc. This is the void the church has been left with.
JEB:Part of the problem is immigration. If Europe stopped allowing Muhammadans in (and didn’t do outrageous things, such as creating Muhammadan states in Kosovo and Bosnia & encouraging Turkish membership in the EU) it wouldn’t be in such bad shape.
I agree with you half-way. Mohammedan immigrations should cease immediately. But that’s not gonna happen (especially in the UK and France who have a colonial debt to their former subjects). Kosova and Bosnia were special cases. There was no win-win there. You could either a) allow them to be independent de-facto Muslim states or b) allow communist Serbs to continue commiting genocide and crimes against humantiy among unarmed populations.
Regardless, I too find the term “Christian Ramadan” appalling as it fails to acknowledge the reasoning behind our 40-days of Lent. We do not do it for the sake of fasting, reflection or to be “cool”. This really is bothersom to me.
I think the claims of “genocide” were more or less manufactured.
In my 20’s I was a nominal Catholic living in Europe and my recollection of the Lenten season is filled with flamboyance and gluttony… Karnival (i.e. Mardi Gras). On a related note I believe that folks are very ignorant of their own Christian culture and history so that many of the younger generation honestly don’t know that fasting is a contemporary spiritual exercise. It does not surprise me to read about ‘Christian Ramadan.’
I’d also point out how immigration plays into the multi-cultral agenda. Look at the US: many (most?) of the immigrants come from Catholic backgrounds but has that done anything to lessen the pluralistic and multicultural drumbeat? If you look at California, it seems to have accelerated the pace.
JEB I think the claims of “genocide” were more or less manufactured.
No, they weren’t. The object of the Serbians (and later the Bosnians) was to empty all inhabitants of a region through murder, intimidation or starvation. This term “ethnic cleansing” is just a hair splitting exercise for politicians. FYI, this is precisely why the Serbs lost the region. They had no moral high ground. Ever. It was never about Christianity vs Islam. It was about Serbian hegemony. Serbs never bothered to reach out to Orthodox Albanians (roughly 25% of the population) to administer or protect their holy sites, which would have solved the problem. For them it was all about nationalism.
Joe K – I agree with you about Carnival. I used to look forward to it for a whole year (like American kids look forward to Halloween). And little by little, the meaning wore off. It was just a time for parties and dress up…NOT followed by fasting or penance.
Jimmy,
I’m late to this, but I wanted to offer my knowledge when it comes to translation. I live in the Netherlands and am fluent in both Dutch and English.
I’m going to refrain from commenting on either the story about the “rebranding” or the blog coverage of it. Suffice it to say that I find it mostly unhelpful and yet another example of- arrrgh. I said I wouldn’t.
But if you need something checked, I’d be happy to do so for you (if it’s not too long).
Thanks for the offer, Puella. FWIW, as I mentioned in the post, my family is from the Netherlands, from Friesland; my family name is Greydanus. (This is the post author, SDG, not Jimmy.)
I see from your blog you’re a little miffed at American Catholic bloggers painting the Dutch Church with a broad brush based on a couple of unfortunate incidents like Muskins and the “Christian Ramadan” business.
FWIW, the whole point of my original post was precisely to question this very rush to judgment, to point out that the coverage seemed wildly exaggerated and based on very little information. I was trying to point out that there was no reason to assume the worst, as many were doing. It seems to me I was writing against the very thing you complain about; I would have thought you’d be basically pleased.
Even my comment about Bishop Muskins was, I thought, fairly measured; all I said was that it “might not be entirely out of the question” that “someone” in the Dutch episcopacy might say something about Christian Ramadan. I was hardly tarring and feathering the Dutch Church or Dutch bishops generally.
In any case, I appreciate your offer of expertise as a translator; what would actually be more helpful would be any insight you could offer regarding the situation on the ground. Exactly what does this “Christian Ramadan” business actually amount to over there? Are a lot of people talking about it? Are people aware of it? What is being done?
What can you tell us about Vastenaktie? Is it part of the Church structure, or is it a lay effort? Any idea how big it is? Has there been any commentary by anyone in the hierarchy? Let us know whatever you can.
I suspect my translation above probably isn’t too far off, but here’s the actual text from the Vastenaktie site.
Thanks again and God bless.
Puella,
The Dutch Church has a long history of dissent and disobedience, these are not new or isolated incidents.
– communion on the hand
– altar girls
– anybody heard of the “Dutch Catechism”?
– Dutch Dominicans trying to have lay people celebrate Mass
– liturgical abuses galore
I’m sure that all Dutch Catholics do not dissent from the Church, but it seems that the hierarchy is deeply involved with such behaviour. Perhaps you could help correct any of these items which may be unfair stereotypes.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt,
These types of things, and in some cases these particular practices, are common throughout the Catholic Church at least in Western countries. Is there any reason anyone knows of that the Dutch Catholics should be singled out as any worse than the general trend in the West, or is this just based on some recent news stories and American perception of Dutch politics?
“- communion on the hand
– altar girls
– anybody heard of the “Dutch Catechism”?
– Dutch Dominicans trying to have lay people celebrate Mass
– liturgical abuses galore”
Ummm, communion in the hand is not a liturgical abuse. Ditto for altar girls.
As for the other items, you ARE aware that these kinds of things happen in America, as well? Pot, meet kettle.
To be fair, Matt did not directly call receiving in the hand and alter girls an abuse. Both, if I have not been deceived by Traditionalists, started out as abuses and rather than fight it the Vatican decided it wasn’t worth it and gave certain areas permission, via a couple indults I believe rather than a change in general Church law.
I think it is fair to mention such things as signs of an unhealthy Church. Reception on the tongue is more condusive to the kind of respect owed to Christ in the Eucharist, it prevents the fragments that very commonly may be found on your hands after receiving that way, and it makes it harder for people to steal a host for unsavory purposes.
Alter servers are, or were, supposed to be basically apprentices for the priests, and that is how a lot of boys used to and even today continue to become aware of an attraction for the priesthood. They have no real practical purpose besides that effect on the child.
While some former alter girls do still support male-only priesthood and say the experience brought them closer to God, in general it seems to me that it fosters a sense of entitlement to the priesthood, that boys and girls are equal (of course they are), starting out having identical roles in the Church, and therefore as they grow up should have just as much right to become priests if they want to. People see alter girls, somewhat rightly, as a first victory in the quest to allow female clergy.
These things, of course, are very much present in the United States, so unless Matt is from somewhere else I don’t see why he is presenting it as a particularly Dutch problem.
JR, Tim,
JR’s analysis of the genesis of communion on the tongue and altar girls is correct, Church documents specifically identify that this is not normative, and it is a concession to longstanding but illicit practices. Terrible errors committed by the Holy Father Paul VI and allowed to continue and extend under John Paul II and thus far under Benedict XVI. All three Holy Father’s have spoken out against the practices to be sure.
Why do I bring them up to criticize the Dutch Church (and not Dutch Catholics necessarily)? Because these illicit practices sprang up primarily in the Netherlands.
http://www.unavoce.org/cith.htm
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53594
God Bless,
Matt
“- communion on the hand
– altar girls
– anybody heard of the “Dutch Catechism”?
– Dutch Dominicans trying to have lay people celebrate Mass
– liturgical abuses galore”
Ummm, communion in the hand is not a liturgical abuse. Ditto for altar girls.
As for the other items, you ARE aware that these kinds of things happen in America, as well? Pot, meet kettle.
Cute : ) And I’ll meet you both in the middle here. It IS indeed a liturgical abuse to widely promulgate communion in the hand, as it was never intended to be the standard, but rather an “indult”. Regarding altar girls, they are allowed (except in Rome) so there is no abuse there.
But yes, everything that was mentioned in Matt’s list can be found right here in the USA as well as most Western nations I would guess.
Back to the topic at hand, does anyone here remember how Belgium (Holland’s little sister) was dealing with the Catholic church there allowing Muslim assylum seakers to “squat” in a number of Catholic churches, chapels and even Cathedrals? This amazes me.
My take on it is the Catholic hierarchy must be really p***ed off with Catholics at large in Belgium to allow this to happen. I’m guessing the unspoken pretext is, “Hey, if you guys aren’t going to come anymore, then we might as well put this space to good use.” The irony here is if these immigrants were Catholics from Africa, Asia or Eastern Europe this would be a non-issue. But in this case the Belgian church is playing with fire. Literally.
deusdonat,
I did not suggest that altar girls or communion on the hand are currently liturgical abuses as such, I suggest that there are liturgical abuses galore in Holland. My point about altar girls and communion on the hand is that they originated as liturgical abuses in Holland. These and the other things mentioned are indications of the lack of orthodoxy there.
Yes, we’re all aware there are serious problems here, but most of those heresies started in Europe and often in Holland.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt interesting point. Holland is a predominantly Protestant country. And usually in such situations, the church tends to be more militant (i.e. strict and orthodox) than in “Catholic” countries.
Oh…those zany Dutch
Yes, my Dutch family is solidly Calvinist going back four centuries. As the first Catholic convert, I’m definitely the black sheep.
Really? Hm. It may not be the same thing, but in the USA ,in my very limited experience at least, it seems to me that dioceses/parishes in predominantly Protestant areas (e.g., the South) can often be very Protestantized themselves, whereas in Catholic-dominant areas (e.g., the Northeast) it can be easier to find a “good” parish. But of course as I said my experience is limited primarily to the handful of states I’ve lived in.
SDG, Interesting observation. I think I was thinking more about examples such as Ireland (which was a colony of the UK for hundreds of years), the Nordics, Germany etc. The US is kind of a 1-off. There is nothing like it that you can contrast it with for this discussion, save possibly Canada. And I can say that in Canada, there are still communion rails and kneeling for communion.
deusdonat,
Canada? Where? Not in Manitoba, or a lot of other places, perhaps in Quebec?
God Bless,
Matt
Matt, I guess I can’t give you much more of a sampling other than where I have been, which would be Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, Quebec City and Halifax. In all areas I remember there being communion rails and kneeling during communion during the standard Novus Ordo masses. But outside of that, I can’t speak to other locations, so I’ll have to bow to your experience/knowledge on the subject.
deusdonat,
I guess we just ended up in different places. I don’t think I ever saw an altar rail until I moved to Houston. The cathedral in Winnipeg doesn’t even have kneelers.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt,
Kneelers-shmeelers : ) Nice if you have them, if not, the ground is just as good. I’ve been to several churches where people kneel on the ground. So, don’t take the kneelers as a sign of orthodoxy. It just means that church invested in some good pews at one point (whether they use them or not).
And yes, I can’t say I’ve ever made it to Winnipeg. And it sounds like I’m all the poorer for it…
I hope no one else pointed this out:
The followers of the false prophet Mohammed have Ramadan because Mohammed learned of the practice from us!!! We were the ones who fasted from all food until 3 pm for around 40 days (The Black Fast.) They copied the idea, fasted until sundown, and shortened the duration to a lunar month.
Mohammedism is nothing but a permutation of the old Arian Heresy! Had it been sufficiently quashed in the East, Mohammed would have had no reason to bring it back up. Unless… the “angel” that he thought was a devil really was one.
I indeed found this post (I’ve lost track of who it’s really by) a more balanced treatment of the latest episode, which is why it wasn’t the one I linked to in my open letter (by the way, I think you may have forgotten to place a target in your anchor tag).
I’m not willing to enter into this conversation here, primarily because I’ve tried to talk with USAns about this before and it usually just ends up the same way. Having said that, I’m somewhat mellower now than a while back.
Matt, I’m aware, as you seem to be (although I doubt through personal experience but I’m willing to be corrected on that), of the not so great things happening here. However, I’m also aware of the absolutely brilliant things happening here. It seems that you are not, which I find a shame and (on the broader level – I don’t know you and so wouldn’t know whether it’s also something you appear to do) one of the key reasons behind this cultural ignorance that is so (unhappily) prevalent.
deusdonat, there are altar rails in both of the churches in my parish. We have a Latin NO offered every week where they are used as the norm, and I receive Communion kneeling regardless of whether there’s a rail or not. I know several here who do the same. Not that this is really any of your business, but for illustration purposes that you are cruelly generalising.
On a more finnicky note, Holland != the Netherlands.
My general point is this: until you know much more about the Church here, I find it very difficult to sit and read some USAns “analysis” of the situation in this country which simply focuses on the negative. As a commenter on my post implied, try lighting a candle.
Dr. eric said: “I hope no one else pointed this out: The followers of the false prophet Mohammed have Ramadan because Mohammed learned of the practice from us!!! We were the ones who fasted from all food until 3 pm for around 40 days (The Black Fast.) They copied the idea, fasted until sundown, and shortened the duration to a lunar month.”
Dr. eric,
Thanks for pointing this out!
However, Martin Luther would beg to differ in his preface to the Tract on the Religions and Customs of the Turks published in 1530 (courtesy of Zippy):
“From this book, accordingly, we see that the religion of the Turks or Muhammad is far more splendid in ceremonies — and, I might almost say, in customs — than ours, even including that of the religious or all the clerics. The modesty and simplicity of their food, clothing, dwellings, and everything else, as well as the fasts, prayers, and common gatherings of the people that this book reveals are nowhere seen among us — or rather it is impossible for our people to be persuaded to them. Furthermore, which of our monks, be it a Carthusian (they who wish to appear the best) or a Benedictine, is not put to shame by the miraculous and wondrous abstinence and discipline among their religious? Our religious are mere shadows when compared to them, and our people clearly profane when compared to theirs. Not even true Christians, not Christ himself, not the apostles or prophets ever exhibited so great a display. This is the reason why many persons so easily depart from faith in Christ for Muhammadanism and adhere to it so tenaciously. I sincerely believe that no papist, monk, or cleric or their equal in faith would be able to remain in their faith if they should spend three days among the Turks. Here I mean those who seriously desire the faith of the pope and who are the best among them.”
DR Eric VERY wise and accurate post! Some accredit Mohammedanism to Aryanism, but others with the Nestorians of Syria (hence the praying 5 times a day, the gnostic stories within the Qur’an and other “popular” fables of those people). I mentioned this sometime before; I was with two Orthodox friends of mine, one Greek Orthodox and the other Syriac (Oriental) and were talking about the persecutions of the Byzantines visited on the Orientals (Greek Orthodox tend to always view themselves as the perpetual recipients of persecution, never the perpetrators). When the Greek Orthodox friend finally consented, “Yes, I guess our church did persecute you guys. I’m sorry.” My Oriental Orthodox friend said, “no reason to say sorry. We invented Islam to get back at you. So, we’re even.”
Now…we all know about the Judeo-Christian influence/plagiarism in Mohammedanism. But, how about the Pagans? Islam is FULL of pagan symbolism, thought and tradition. The moon symbol comes straight from the pagan symbol used from Al-Lat, one of the principal godesses of Mecca. And I don’t know if anyone knows about the rituals of the Hajj (pilgrimage). But those come straight out of tantric Buddhism! The shavng of the head, wearing of one white robe, not harming a living thing or eating meat for the duration, circling a meteorite (the Kaaba stone) etc. All of these rituals have NOTHING to do with Islam and everything to do with the pagan roots of the culture that preceded it, but have been absorbed into Mohammedanism and simply explained away as “that’s just the way we do it”.
I think I may be sick now.
ille morbus tibi est ut qui te opus sit.
2 things I can’t stand; bad Latin and Protestant (Lutheran) propaganda. I guess today is my lucky day.
Bad Latin?
Again, you’ve demonstrated that clearly you have no competency in this language.
Also, my Lutheran quote was meant to show just how wrong Luther was in this regard and not to promote him.
However, I can see just how a Protestant disguised as a Catholic would actually detest such an act.
Vesa/Zenophobe/Harpie/Troll,
You really need to get a clue and learn to leave the rest of us alone. Seriously. Maybe get a hobbie?
Please translate the above Latin.
Luther is right up there with Mohammed in my book.
Why do you continue with your personal attacks on me?
Must be indicative of your protestant disposition.
Perhaps you should cease your trojan horse and perhaps then your conscience will then become clear, and all my posts that initially have nothing to do with you whatsoever will then take not toll on you.
Of course, I see I speak to one whose idea of Christianity is to attack people without cause and claim himself superior to all else.
Dr. eric,
Luther is right up there with Mohammed in my book.
That’s the whole point of my quote from him.
Deusdonat,
Nestorian and Oriental Orthodox are completely different. Virtually opposite heresies. Nestorians (supposedly…their spiritual descendents now deny it and say it was all a big misunderstanding) said Christ was two people, a human person and a divine person somehow coexisting. The Monophysites (Oriental Orthodox) say Christ had only one nature, a divine nature (or more accurately that Christ’s human and divine natures were united into one divine nature). The Chalcedonian Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants) stay in between these two heresies, saying Christ has two dinstinct natures, human and divine, but is a single Divine Person.
Please translate the above Latin.
Dr. eric,
Have the hypocrite who calls himself “deusdonat” do it since he claims such talent in Latin.
Provided he actually can — although I highly doubt it given his past misinterpretations of other things Latin.
All right now. Do I need to call Smoky Mountain in here for another agnostic charity/courtesy/deportment smackdown of the Catholics?
Vesa/Zeno/Harpie/Troll, I never attacked you or claimed to be superior. However, it that is how your behavior manifests itself, then I’ll let the rest here be the judge (as well as your bad Latin syntax). And with that may God give me the strength to ignore you as I should have the minute you started your incessant prodding. As they say, the only power the devil has is that which we give him.
DR Eric,
there is indeed a lot of similarity between Mohammed and Luther. Both were megalomaniacs intent on founding their own religions. While Luther took the guise of a “reformer” and tried to rally against the hierarchy of the church, he later began dissecting and dismantling core beliefs of Christianity, which ultimately created his own religon. Mohammed on the other hand was just an all around bastard. If I were to wager a bet, I would say Mohammed and Joseph Smith both have special places in hell.
I don’t know for sure…just a guess.
BTW, those spiritual decendents of the Nestorians is the Assyrian Church of the East, which is often but very innaccurately labled Oriental Orthodox. They no longer hold to any Christological heresies, and have made a statement saying the Council of Ephesis (which they originally split with the Catholic Church over) is not heretical when interpreted in light of Chalcedon.
Islam is essentially a form of Arianism mixed with Judaism, and secondarily with elements from other Christian heresies and the old Arabic paganism. Perhaps the best description of it would be an Arab form of Ebionitism.
SDG:
Is there a reason why deusdonat is given such license to attack me without censure whatsoever but that it is only when I defend myself that such reprimand takes place?
Unlike deusdonat, I am more accomdating of Truth and, therefore, would not be offended if such prejudice has been targeted solely at me.
Vesa/Zeno/Harpie/Troll, I never attacked you or claimed to be superior.
Is that the reason you call me a vesa, a harpie, a troll?
Is that also why you implicitly accused me of spreading Lutheran propaganda?
As for your feigned superiority, who are you to declare who can post and who cannot on these here threads?
You often rely on ad hominems when it comes to my comments, but never really attack the substance of the comments themselves.
Interesting.
As they say, the only power the devil has is that which we give him.
And, last but not least, I would never serve your Master.
puella,
I’ve heard that “the Netherlands” was a better term for your country than “Holland” so I try to stick with it but have never understood why. Holland is a much more natural sounding name for a country at least to American ears which I suppose is why we often use it. Why exactly is it that “the Netherlands” is preferred?
JR Stoodly,
I am VERY aware of Nestorianism and Oriental Orthodoxy, which is NOT monophysite as you say, but rather miaphysite; they do not, nor have they ever, believed Jesus had only one divine nature, bur rather that he had ONE nature which was both truly human and truly divine (as opposed to the Chalcedonian formula of Two natures: one truly human and one truly divine). The reason for this Chalcedonian split had more to do with a distrust of the Greeks and dualism than any sober theology. Either way, I am at a sincere loss to distinguish between one nature = human/divine or two natures = human + divine. It’s all symantics to me, and hopefully the true churches of the councils will once again be restored to their rightful place as equals in my lifetime if God wills it.
And yes, the Assyrian church of the East is the “descendant” of the Nestorian church. Oddly enough, they are now in communion with Rome. So, what does that tell you about the power of the holy spirit?
Still no translation…
Still no translation…
Dr. eric,
And not allow deusdonat the opportunity to prove he actually knows Latin?
How about this, I’ll provide a translation after he does.
This would be fair given his accusation that it was “bad Latin”.
I’m sure not only would he be able to provide a translation, but if there was anything actually wrong with it grammatically, he can point out whatever errors there might be.
Who said I was only talking to one person? Did you not notice that “Catholics” was plural?
However, since you press the point, you are a lot further over the line than deusdonat:
Last warning, brutha. If the New Testament isn’t enough reason, at least honor house rules.
J.R.,
“Holland” collectively refers to the two provinces of Noord- and Zuid-Holland (North and South, respectively). They’re the two bits which make up most of the Western coast. There are ten other provinces: Friesland, Groningen, Drenthe, Gelderland, Overijssel, Limburg, Utrecht, Noord-Brabant (South Brabant’s in Belgium), Flevoland and Zeeland.
SDG,
And, last but not least, I would never serve your Master.
I was merely responding to another of deusdonat’s uncharitable attacks, which it seems is not permissible; so out of respect for you, I’ll back off.
PUELLA,
thanks for the explanation. I wondered the same thing actually. Is it maybe “Holland” was historically a country? Maybe the rest of the provinces were taken through wars and/or treaties? In this case, I would think Holland is a historical name (very much like Iberia, which is now both Spain and Portugal).
Interesting. Thanks!
NO. YOU WEREN’T. (Yes, I’m raising my voice.)
You cannot imply that a fellow Catholic “serves” a “Master” other than Christ, and then claim that you were “merely responding to uncharitable attacks.”
Catholics treat one another uncharitably, alas. To their Master they stand or fall. It is not for us to cast one another out of the service of Christ because we feel we have been uncharitably treated.
Strictly as fraternal advice, with no moderatorly weight whatsoever: Stop complaining about double standards and do as you would be done by, rather than as you feel you’ve been done to.
Incidentally, as a Southern European, I never quite understood why the country was called “The Netherlands”, since most European countries lie BELOW/UNDER it, geographicallly speaking…
Anyone hear any good tuba solos lately???
Still no translation… >:-(
SDG,
You cannot imply that a fellow Catholic “serves” a “Master” other than Christ, and then claim that you were “merely responding to uncharitable attacks.”
I take it you missed this bit from your friend: “And with that may God give me the strength to ignore you as I should have the minute you started your incessant prodding. As they say, the only power the devil has is that which we give him.”
Not only did the miscreant deliberately misrepresent the circumstances, but he implied the very thing you say here.
Catholics treat one another uncharitably, alas. To their Master they stand or fall. It is not for us to cast one another out of the service of Christ because we feel we have been uncharitably treated.
Strictly as fraternal advice, with no moderatorly weight whatsoever: Stop complaining about double standards and do as you would be done by, rather than as you feel you’ve been done to.
This is without question a beautiful Christian message, SDG, I grant you; yet do you really believe it is something actually practiced in the real world by either Protestant or Catholic?
The only thing you have here in all actuality is an ideal; one that is certainly lovely to hear and aspire to but, all in all, neglected by even those who claim to be Christian.
deusdonat and others of his ilk is certainly proof of that.
deusdonat may express such hatred towards the Protestants as he has in the past in other threads; yet, many of them are more “Christ-like” in their demeanor and, therefore, more Christian than he’ll ever be.
The Gates of Heaven will most likely be more welcoming toward those brand of Christians than ever permit a so-called Catholic such a one like deusdonat!
With that said, you can now return to your regular programming!
Perhaps Matthew, chapter 7, should be read by all those who profess to know how others will be welcomed at the Gates of Heaven.
Zeno,
Still with the wounded air. Deusdonat is no more my “friend” than you are — less in fact, since I don’t know that I’ve traded five posts with him and I’ve had a whole lot more interaction with you, both friendly and otherwise.
Not to speak for deusdonat, but when I read “As they say, the only power the devil has is that which we give him,” I took that as similar to the proverbial use of “Speak of the devil” or “He who sups with the devil,” etc. He wasn’t, I think, literally comparing you to the devil, much less accusing you of being in league with him — only regarding you as an “adversary” or “satan.” Maybe it was overly provocative, but it doesn’t justify your response.
Yes, I really believe that “Do as you would be done by” is practiced by both Catholics and Protestants — not by all, of course, and not perfectly by any, and not all the time even by some. But we can try, and we can have more success than has been evident in this combox. Do your part.
I haven’t seen deusdonat evince “hatred” toward Protestants, but I wouldn’t tolerate that either.
Finally, since you had to throw out the “so-called Catholic” bit after two prior warnings, I’m afraid I have to disinvite to participate in the blog, at least for the time being. Feel free to contact me via Decent Films if you want to discuss further.
deusdonat,
Miaphysitism has generally been considered a version of Monophysitism by the Chalcedonian Churches. Both Eutychianism and Miaphysitism hold that Christ has one nature, but differ in exactly what that nature is, so it would seem logical to call them two schools of Monophysitism. Also, I once debated a Coptic Oriental Orthodox who was certainly Eutychian in belief. Still, the Oriental Orthodox Church likes to consider Miaphysitism distinct from Monophysitism so probably we might as well go along with it to avoid fighting over mere semantics. Whether Miaphysitism is at all reconcilable with Chalcedonian Christianity I’ll leave to the theologians.
As for what are pretty much Eutychians in the Oriental Orthodox Church, well perhaps they are roughly the equivalent of Semi-Pelagians in the Catholic Church. The Church, despite being wrongly accused of Semi-Pelagianism by Protestants, has constantly condemned that heresy, yet it remains true that many if not most Catholics (unfortunately) could be considered roughly Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. Also our of ignorance they tend to deny any form of predestination in the name of Catholicism despite it in fact being a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Also, deusdonat, the Netherlands is so called because it is a low-lying area, right next to the North Sea. In fact a lot of it is below sea level. It’s kind of like Upper Egypt being south of Lower Egypt. North being “up” is a fairly modern convention from mapping. Back in the day people were much more conscious of elevation when calling something geographically high or low.
Concerning Holland, it was my guess that either it refered to a larger or smaller geographical area or that it was the name of some old state in the same general region.
Still, puella, realize that in the English speaking world it is widely consdered the name of the entire nation. Kind of like we call Deutchland Germany despite that not being its name in German (Deutch) and perhaps being more historically accurate to refer to the non-Scandinavian Germanic countries collectively (Deutchland, Oesterreich, Leichtenstein, and Nederland. Maybe parts of some other countries too). This is a little worse because the word Holland apparently retains its old meaning in the region, but still that meaning has changed in English to be a synonym for the Netherlands.
Oh, and I meant to say above, the Assyrian Church of the East is not in communion with the Catholic Church. I suspect deusdonat was either confusing it with the Chaldean Catholic Church, which is those of the same tradition that did reunite, or is confusing the mutual declaration in the 90s by their Patriarch and the Pope that neither Church considers the other to hold Christological heresies with an actual entering into communion. That has been the goal for some time but it has not been reached yet and unfortunately the Assyrians have taken some steps back recently. The main sticking point left, not surprisingly, seems to be the authority of the Pope.
deusdonat,
don’t take the kneelers as a sign of orthodoxy
it’s a sign of orthodoxy in the design of the Church not necessarily of the faithful who may offer the additional discomfort as a sacrifice. Somewhere however, was a heterodox priest who felt man should not kneel and submit.
puella,
However, I’m also aware of the absolutely brilliant things happening here. It seems that you are not, which I find a shame and (on the broader level – I don’t know you and so wouldn’t know whether it’s also something you appear to do) one of the key reasons behind this cultural ignorance that is so (unhappily) prevalent.
Of course I was careful to criticize the actions of the hierarchy, and not the faith of individuals, and particular parishes. Sadly positive things rarely make news when it comes to the Church. Perhaps you could share some of them with us?
Holland != the Netherlands.
Well I won’t argue the point with a native, but, I’m sure you are aware in common English usage Holland refers to the entire of the Netherlands. You might not like it, and that’s fine, it’s really a waste of time to try and correct it in this place. If I had a nickel for every time a native of the USA referred to his countrymen as “Americans” to the exclusion of Mexicans and Canadians, and all the nice South Americans, I’d be a rich man.
According to Wikipedia
“Holland” is also informally used in English and other languages, including sometimes the Dutch language itself, to mean the whole of the modern country of the Netherlands.
As to analysing the situation, I don’t think you have to be a native to do that, I’m sure and your countrymen don’t refrain from commenting on the situation in the US, and why should you?
God Bless,
Matt
J.R.,
I grew up in the “English-speaking world” so I’m aware of the convention; it doesn’t prevent the use of the word “Holland” being inaccurate. I did say it was finnicky.
Matt,
other than saying “the hierachy is deeply involved with such things” (possibly paraphrasing) I could interpret your initial remark to me as referring to Catholics-in-the-pew just as much as the Bishops.
It is very sad that the good things don’t make the press. Why do people get into such a song-and-dance when the bad things do, instead of actively looking for the good?
Actually (and this bit is really important in my discussion), I and all (yes, all) the Catholics here I talk with on a regular basis hardly ever talk about the American Church. Hardly. Ever. If (if!) we read American Catholic news sources – and there are Dutch-language sources so it’s not often – and if there’s something “wrong” going on we’re much more likely to just keep stum about it unless it directly affects one of us personally, or if someone has a good knowledge of what things are really like in the US.
But believe me, all the good stuff that we do see coming from the US is great to talk about. Vocations to solid religious orders (OLAM, desert nuns, Nashville, SMME, Summit, to name just a few.), material like Fishers of Men and news from our friends who have entered, married, discerned Holy Orders, organise pro-life vigils, Theology on Tap sessions via YouTube, a blogging Cardinal, USAns like (I’m 90% sure he’s from the US) Fr.Z and Pontificator…I could go on! What’s more, some of us take part in English-language forums where we get to know people and so these things cease to be news items at which people can throw stones.
NB: I’m speaking for myself and a group of friends. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were Dutch Catholics who do the same to the US as many US bloggers do to the Netherlands…but that would be just as objectionable as those USAns who do it anyway. Besides that, I myself have mellowed in my reaction to USAns who do this – I’ve flipped out a couple of times in the past due to not being able to handle the frustration properly.
It’s simply so patronising when people are so short-sighted. The good stuff about the Dutch Church (as well as the German, Belgian, Austrian…) is out there, but USAns hardly ever seem to read it. Surely people haven’t forgotten ALL their French or German or $language? The blogs are out there – some are in English – and then there are online translators. Further, a polite well-placed request along the lines of “Hi, I’m interested in this issue in Holland (ugh! ;)) but am not sure if I got the jist of it right, would you mind giving me a summary in English?” would normally be met with an positive answer (depending om time constraints and Real Life and stuff).
The focus is far too much on reports from impersonal news sources and nowhere near enough upon people who live in the thick of it all. I’m not asking people to overlook the bad – just to make extra effort to see the good.
(and I think that’s a good place to cease my contributions to this thread as it’s already taken up too much of my time away from work!)
Why do you make fun of Islam. Your Popes have said that Catholics and Muslims are brothers. If we are brothers than we must serve the same God!
Rusta: What exactly do you think brothers DO? Do you HAVE any brothers?
Yes, I have brothers. Sometimes brothers fight, however most of the time they love each other. We are brothers because your Popes say we are brothers. Are you telling me that you don’t believe in teaching of your Popes. Does this not make you an infidel, if you don’t believe teaching of Popes?
Rusta,
I was being funny, responding more to your comment about “making fun” than anything else, which is certainly something brothers do whether they are fighting or loving. (FWIW, I wasn’t “making fun” of Muslims… and even if I did, I might equally make fun of Christians. Certainly I make fun of my own brother, whom I love very much.)
What exactly did I say to raise doubts in your mind whether I believe the teaching of the popes? It seems to me you’re leaping to conclusions. I am a devout son of the Church and follow the teaching of the popes in all things.
As to Muslim and Christian brotherhood: I absolutely affirm that Christians and Muslims, as well as Jews, all worship and serve one God, the omnipotent creator of the universe who revealed Himself to Abraham. In that respect, we are all brothers.
I also affirm that, given this fraternity, Christians, Jews and Muslims owe one another a special debt of love, in addition to the general obligation that all men have to love one another. When and where those who claim to fear God hate and murder one another, especially in the name of our beliefs, this is a grave offense before God and a scandal to the world.
This is not to deny that there are real and important differences between us. As a Christian, I believe that God the Father calls all men, including Muslims and Jews, to the fullness of divine truth revealed in His Only Son Jesus Christ.
I understand that this belief is offensive to Muslims, and I have no wish to offend anyone. The fear of God, though, is greater than respect for men, even the considerable respect Christians owe to Muslims.
I am not offended. As a Muslim I believe that you mean well but are deceived in thinking that Jesus is the ‘fullness of divine truth’. Clearly this is not a very important point otherwise your Popes would not say we are brothers. Therefore it is only important to believe in ONE God – Allah or Jehovah. Muslims believe that Christians faked history, which has been recently proven. For example the Donation of Constantine is the source of Catholic tradition of Peter being the first Pope. This faked document, from the 3rd century, is what lead to the legend of Peter being first Pope. All Turkish scholars and even Greek Orthodox know about this faked document as the source of Papal Power. Therefore we accept you as brothers even if you teach faked history, and other corruptions.
Rusta, that’s the silliest nonsense I’ve read in quite a while.
Yes, that is our key disagreement: One of us is greatly wrong about Jesus.
In this you are very profoundly mistaken about the meaning of Christian faith. Your misunderstanding is based on an exaggerated interpretation of the fraternity that can be said to exist between Christians and Muslims.
No pope would agree with your conclusion that to know Jesus Christ as the fullness of divine revelation and the savior of the world is not important — indeed, it is the absolute center of Christian faith, and all men are called to this faith. Such fraternity as exists between Christians and Muslims must be reconciled with this central truth; it cannot be used to diminish or sideline the centrality of this truth. I can easily produce innumerable papal quotes to support the point.
My faith is not threatened by the fact that some Christians have forged documents and committed other frauds. It is a clear historical fact that belief in the Petrine office of the Bishop of Rome long predates the spurious Donation of Constantine; the forgery was created to support an existing belief, not to create a new one.)
Is your faith threatened by the fact that, for instance, the Hadith contains many sayings attributed to Muhammad that actually date centuries later? Muslim scholarship is just beginning to come to grips with some of these issues, just as Christian scholarship did centuries ago.
Dishonesty is a part of human life. Just because evidence has sometimes been faked doesn’t tell us whether the basic point is valid or invalid. The police might have planted evidence, but O.J. was still guilty.
Mary Kay, Before you hurl insults you should do some research. Insults do not refute the fact that Donation of Constantine is the greatest forgery in Christendom. Only fools hurl insults. The educated do research.
SDG, Your faith should be threatened if you believe a lie. Evangelicals, Greek Orthodox, and Muslim all agree that Papacy is a forgery from 3rd century. Even your history books prove this. However certain Christians think that God will excuse the belief in lies. In your Bible it expressly states in Revelation 21:8 that, ” … all LIARS shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Thus those who willfully believe in a lie are liars. The truth will set free. So those who continue to promote this lie will all end up in Hell.
Mary Kay said that what you wrote was “silly.” Your response was apparently meant to suggest that she was a “fool” (and uneducated) — although the insult was yours, not hers.
Nobody here disputes that the Donation of Constantine is a forgery. It is a fact well known to Catholics. That is not what Mary Kay was talking about when she said your comments were silly. Please try to understand what people are talking about before firing back.
Since you talk about doing research, are you aware of the history of belief in the Petrine office of the bishop of Rome prior to the Donation of Constantine? How much research have you done in this respect? Also, what do you think of hadiths attributed to Muhammad but dating centuries later?
Everyone here is welcome to try to teach others. Everyone must also be willing to learn.
The Donation of Constantine is indeed a forgery, as I believe all Catholics who know about the document at all know. Fortunately, our belief that Peter was the first Pope (not that the word Pope was used yet) is not based on that document.
Sounds like you have been listening to some very, very inaccurate propaganda about our religion. I don’t particularly blame that on Islam, since there is similar, or even worse, anti-Islamic propaganda being taught in some corners of Chrstianity, such as that the Allah of the Muslims is a pagan moon god and Mohammed was a pedophile. I think one of the best things Christians and Muslims can do to improve relations is to disregard these spurious, unfounded accusations and seek true understanding of each other’s religions.
Curious, I thought the Donation of Constantine dated to the 8th century, but then that’s because I’ve done research.
Your confusion comes from thinking that the Donation of Constantine is important to Catholic faith. It isn’t. All educated Catholics know that the Donation of Constantine is spurious. We don’t care, because our faith in the Bishop of Rome has nothing to do with the Donation of Constantine and everything to do with the New Testament and the faith of the early church for centuries before the Donation of Constantine existed.
The perogatives of the Bishop of Rome predate that. The first-century letter of Pope St. Clement to the Corinthians has been called the first act of papal aggression. I guess Pope St. Clement hadn’t heard that the Donation of Constantine hadn’t been forged yet, so he wasn’t supposed to know that he was the Pope.
You are just flat wrong in thinking that all Evangelicals and Orthodox share your exaggerated view of the importance of the Donation of Constantine. If you were at my house I could hand you book after book by Orthodox and Protestant scholars with historical views quite different from the ones you are espousing.
I have a very good friend, in Istanbul, that is a scholar of ancient documents. The Donation of Constantine is one of many faked documents. It has been shown that much of the Christian church fathers were refaked by subsequent generations. This has been demonstrated by X-Ray analysis of these documents. Even your Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that these forgeries where used to promote the Papacy. Thus the same men who forged Donation of Constantine, reforged the supporting documents. The best examples of such fakes are the letters of Ignatius. Interestingly there is no evidence of Peter being the first Pope before 3rd century. Tertullian lists Linus as father of Roman church. Even Bible says James was first leader of Jerusalem, where first church founded. Peter as first Pope is a legend that has been spread for thousands of years, however Catholics have too much to lose if this falsehood is exposed. This is no different than Mormons admitting Joseph Smith was a liar( which he was!)
Evangelicals and Orthodox are much more honest in representing Christian history. I always ask myself why Catholics must deceive masses and manipulate church history. Maybe God will judge them for such treachery.
You are correct about the Donation of Constantine, SDG.
“The Donation of Constantine, whose oldest manuscript cannot be surely dated before 800…”–Warren Carroll, “History of Christendom, Vol. II”, page 294.
Also, Constantine became emperor in the 4th century, not the 3rd.
*Someone* certainly “should do some research”.
Rusta,
It’s unclear if your aim is merely to flare tempers or to have a sincere dialogue in which you attempt to convince others of your case.
If, as I hope, the latter is the case, you would do well to assume that most every Catholic here is well-meaning and sincerely believes their Faith; thus, avoiding sweeping condemnations such as “Maybe God will judge them for such treachery” might help a bit in promoting sincere dialogue.
If you’re not interested in promoting sincere dialogue, then why should anyone bother reading any further that you have to say?
Corrigendum:
If you’re not interested in promoting sincere dialogue, then why should anyone bother reading anything further that you have to say?
P.S. I would have just written “typo” rather than the more learned “corrigendum”, but I just miss Esau so badly!
Perhaps I should write typoze more often so that I can write more corrigendi (corrigendums? corrigendumses?).
“Peter…for the church built upon him…”
“What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally upon Peter? On *you*, He says, I will build my Church; and I will give to *you* the keys, not to the Church; and whatever *you* shall have bound or *you* have loosed, not what *they* shall have bound or *they* shall have loosed.”
Tertullian, writing a century before Constntine.
“Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…”
“Look at the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church.”
Origen, writing 80 years before Constantine.
Rusta, if you came here with hopes of challenging Christian preconceptions about Muslims and challenging us to show more respect for our Muslim brothers, you’re doing an awfully good job of shooting yourself in the foot.
You are teaching us something about Muslims after all, but not the lesson you claimed to wish to teach. Or rather, you are teaching us that some of our Muslim brothers can be just like some of our Christian brothers, with preconceptions about others which they take for granted and are unwilling to question, and which prevent them from entering into real dialogue with others.
J. R. Stoodley raises an excellent point above about propaganda. I learned a long time ago that if I want to learn what a Muslim believes and why, I don’t ask a Christian, I ask a Muslim. Likewise, although I was raised as an Evangelical Protestant, I learned that if I want to know what Catholics believe and why, I don’t ask a Protestant (or a Muslim), I ask a Catholic. (That in part is how I eventually came to become Catholic.)
You, Rusta, seem not yet to have learned this wisdom. I am open to learning from you, particularly about Islam, but you aren’t open to learning from us because you are convinced that you already know all about Catholics and Orthodox as well as Muslims, and you don’t.
You have been misinformed about what both Protestants and Catholics believe and why, and I know that for a stone cold fact, because I have spent my whole life in those two faiths (sequentially, not concurrently!). But you aren’t open to learning.
You think that Orthodox and Evangelicals share your distorted views because you haven’t read widely, possibly at all, in either tradition. You don’t know what Orthodox believe (or what range of beliefs are held by different Orthodox) about Peter and the papacy, or you would not say such things. I have read and I do know.
You have heard that there are pseudo-Ignatian expansions to St. Ignatius’s letters, but seem not to know that we also have authentic, non-expanded texts of what Ignatius really wrote. You think that there is no evidence of Peter in Rome before the third century because you don’t know that Irenaeus writing in the second century recorded that Peter with Paul established the church in Rome and died there. And you keep going on about Christian forgeries without addressing issues of, shall we say textual fluidity in the Islamic tradition.
St. Augustine once said something very profound, about why it is so important to be honest in the service of God, and not to distort arguments and evidence even in the service of truth:
“God does not need my lie.”
God does not need my lie. I don’t need to distort the evidence in the name of truth. Truth is its own champion.
That’s a lesson the forgers of the Donation of Constantine should have taken to heart. It’s also a lesson that many Christians and many Muslims need to learn.
And here are two applications of that principle: If Christianity is true, God does not need Christian lies about Islam. And if Islam is true, God does not need Muslim lies about Catholics.
Even if Islam is the true religion, it does not mean that all arguments advanced by all Muslims are always true. Like I said about O.J., just because he was guilty doesn’t mean evidence wasn’t planted.
Even if Islam is true, it doesn’t mean everything you have been taught about Christians is true. And it isn’t. Even if you are right about Jesus and Muhammad, you are still clearly and unambiguously wrong about several things, e.g., what Orthodox and Protestants believe about the papacy, just to give one example.
Even if Islam is true, it would do you no harm to learn that the facts may be more complicated than you had previously been led to believe. You don’t have to question Islam to learn that there might be more to Catholic faith than some forged documents.
Are you willing to learn that?
SDG, thank you. You saw where I was headed and said it much better than I would.
Rusta, it’s interesting to note that you did not ask why I thought your comments were “silly nonsense.” One reason is that my faith is not based on the so-called Constantine Donation. A second reason is that your comments don’t hold up to logic. What you said is that person B makes up a fake story about person A and person C says, “See, A is fraudulent. B’s fake story about A proves it.” That just doesn’t hold water.
Are you here for dialog? I think you’d find an openness to dialog here.
PS to Smoky, I’ll see your corrigenda and raise you a corrigendedum. :^)
“…a primacy was given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair….If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
“Our Lord…says in the Gospel, by way of assigning the episcopal dignity and settling the plan of His Church: ‘I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it..And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth will be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they will be loosed also in heaven’.”
“There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not with to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ.”
St. Cyprian of Carthage, writing 60 years before Constantine.
All the above quotations are from “The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. I”, William Jurgens, editor.
SDG, thank you. You saw where I was headed and said it much better.
Rusta, it’s interesting to note that you did not ask why I thought your comments were “silly nonsense.” One reason is that my faith has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called Constantine Donation. The second reason is that your comments don’t hold up to logic. What you said is that person B made up a fake story about person A then person C comes along and says, “A’s a fraud. See, B’s fake story proves that A is fraudulent.” It just doesn’t hold water.
If you’re interested in dialog, you’ll find it here, but only if you engage in sincere discussion, not simply repeating your allegation.
PS to Smoky, I’ll see your corrigenda and raise you a corrigendedumdela. :^)
I’ve heard that old anti-Catholic line of “logic” before…
Somehow, every piece of historical evidence that supports Catholicism is taken to be an invention or a forgery (why, it *must* have been!), while anything that supports the anti-Catholic view is – naturally – accepted as solid, reliable fact.
This is comically, transparently biased… it’s not research, it’s question-begging propaganda.
Sorry about the double post. I thought the computer lost the first one.
I think y’all have just been tested and found Christian; nice charitable responses.
Let me share how much a forgery is in the Early Church Fathers. I spent much time with an Orthodox Monk who proved that the vast majority of Early Church Fathers. Even you SDG is quoting forgeries
CLEMENT OF ROME (about 30-96 A.D.). He is alleged to be the
first, second, third, or fourth, Bishop, or Pope, of Rome (CE. iv,
13); and to be the author of two Epistles to the Corinthians,
besides other bulky and important forgeries, thus confessed and
catalogued by CE:
“Many writings have been faslely attributed to Pope St.
Clement: (1) The ‘Second Clementine Epistle to the Corinthians.’
Many critics have believed them genuine [they having been read in
the Churches]. … But it is now admitted on all hands that they
cannot be by the same author as the genuine [?] Epistle to the
Corinthians. … (2) Two Epistles to Virgins.’ (3) At the head of
the Pscudo-Isidorian Decretals stand five letters attributed to St.
Clement. (4) Ascribed to Clement are the ‘Apostolic Constitutions,’
‘Apostolic Canons,’ and the “Testament of our lord.’ (5) The
‘Clementines’ or ‘Pseudo-Clementines,’ including the Recognitions
and Homilies,” hereafter to be noticed. (CE. iv, 14-15; cf. 17,
39.)
Rusta, there’s a lot of thoughtful commentary above. You need to do better than more boilerplate accusations.
Now you’re cutting and pasting from other fora, typos and all, apparently not noticing that your own source refutes itself. The first paragraph claims that both of the letters attributed to Clement are spurious, but then, quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia), introduces a bracketed question mark presumably not in the original, precisely where it attests the authenticity of the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
Critical scholarship accepts the Epistle to the Corinthians as authentic. Your own quotation tacitly indicates that. It is this authentic letter I was speaking of. Yet you accuse me of “quoting forgeries.”
God is truth. Remember what I said about God not needing our lie? Are you honoring the truth in the way you accused me falsely?
Rusta,
So I did some research, and it looks like the paragraph you quoted above comes from a 1930 book called Forgery in Christianity by a Joseph Wheless.
How reliable do you think your source is? Here is one assessment — with what appears to be compelling analysis to back it up:
It looks to me like your source may not have fully appreciated the truth that God does not need his lie.
Do you think God needs your source’s lie?
Do you think it might better to base your opinions and arguments on more reliable sources?
Especially as the basis for accusing other people of quoting forgeries? (What did you say about an educated man doing research?)
Catholics readily admit that they have forged history to advance Papacy,( see Catholic encyclopedia). The Orthodox Monk made it abundantly clear that the authenticity of most of the church fathers is questionable. It is only a matter of more scholarship to prove that the Catholic churches Papacy rests on a forgery and that 1 billion people are submitting to Papacy based on lies. Is this the church that your God built? No, Satan is the one who built a church based on lies. Reading Schaff and Mosheim prove that Catholic history is not even consistent with history. Islam is the superior religion and the Dutch recognize this by calling Lent the Christian Ramadan. The Catholic church is tiger without teeth.
So, rather than answering any objections, rusta finds it easier to just re-state what he’s already said, only louder and more obnoxiously.
Good luck with that.
It’s what all the enemies of the Church are reduced to, sooner or later.
Note, too, how the impassioned pleas for love and brotherhood, sunshine and sweetness have evaporated into the ether.
That brotherhood thing is meant to work in only one direction, apparently.
Rusta, I think many intelligent and educated Muslims would be embarrassed to read this thread, and would hasten to explain to us that not all Muslims act the way you do.
Are you yourself, reading over this thread, proud of what you’ve accomplished here? Would you consider this thread edifying reading for other Muslims, or for people wondering whether Catholicism and Islam is more pleasing to God?
In any case, you should know that while no points of view are censored here, uncivil dialogue is not welcome. For the record, what you are doing is not civil dialogue. If you can’t do better, you will not be welcome on this blog.
Why Clementine Epistles is forgery.
The authenticity question is ambiguous. The letter itself is anonymous. Church history around 170 started to date the epistle in the times of Domitian, but only a generation later it is rumorously assigned to Flavius Clemens, the martyr bishop and third pope, also known as a relative of the emperor, an assistant of Paul in Philippans, an evangelic messenger in the shepherd of Hermas, and so on. So we must distinguish two levels of authenticity.
An imagined scenario: Your Daily News publishes an anonymous article. the readers ask about the author. Many suspect a certain person. Now someone comes and doubts that general suspicion. Does he doubt the authenticity of the article itself? Certainly that’s not the same issue. We should rather speak about trustworthiness of a tradition vs. the lack thereof. The letter pretends to be from the church of Rome to its sister church in Corinth, written in a certain situation, and we have to examine this claim independently from the name of the author which is not part of the writing’s claim.
So SDG, your faith rests on forged Epistles. No different than a Mormon trusting in the forged Book of Mormon.
Rusta’s inability to engage in discussion speaks volumes. If only he know just how much he’s making the case for Catholicism.
He is not listening. His mind is made up. Any facts which are inconvenient to what he wishes to be true will be repulsed by the deflector screens he has erected around his mind.
(A little Star Trek lingo in Jimmy’s honor)
FWIW, I think Rusta’s latest is at least a step in the right direction. A small step, but still, better than I had expected.
Rusta, let’s clear up a few things. The first step toward meaningful communication is achieving understanding. As long as you keep saying things like “So SDG, your faith rests on forged Epistles” you are not yet understanding and therefore not yet communicating. Instead of telling me what my faith rests on, why don’t you ask me first and try to understand?
My faith rests first on Jesus Christ, on the teaching and authority He entrusted to the Apostles, and on the word handed down in scripture and tradition. Clement is one notable early witness (among several adduced above by Bill912) to that faith, but my faith doesn’t “rest on” Clement.
As I’m sure you know, the authenticity of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians is not a fringe view perpetrated by dishonest Catholic apologists — critical scholarship, including non-Christian scholars and scholars of all Christian persuasions, overwhelmingly accepts its authenticity.
Although the epistle doesn’t name its author, it does address itself from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth — and, in principle, for my purposes, that’s really all I need. I said earlier that the epistle has been called the first instance of “papal aggression.” In principle, whether the author’s name was Clement, Linus, Cletus, etc. doesn’t affect the principle that the Roman See has inserted itself into affairs in Corinth in a way that presupposed some special status for the Roman See. Bishops just didn’t go telling other churches how to conduct their business. So the idea that prior to the third century nobody dreamed of imagining that the bishop of Rome had special status and authority, or that this idea was perpetrated by later forgeries, is just wrong.
As long as we’re talking about “forgeries,” how about the haddiths attributed to Muhammad that he didn’t really write?
Hm, ignoring you own quotation much? Even if a given epistle was not written by the person it was later attributed to, that does not mean it is not ancient and a valid representation of the faith of the early Church. Such is likely the case with the “Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.” The “First” Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians on the other hand is almost universally accepted as authentic.
According to one book I read, it is likely that Pope Clement wrote the first, then several decades later this other Pope, I forget which one, wrote a letter to the same Church in Corinth, as was recorded in other sources though we don’t have a surviving copy of it unless the letter was in fact “2 Clement.” Likely enough the two letters were placed together since they were both from a Pope to the Church in Corinth. Gradually the Corinthians forgot that only one of them had come from St. Clement himself.
Whether or not this specific theory is true there is no reason to call 2 Clement a forgery, much less a lie. It is simply an early Christian document that was later mistakenly attributed to the wrong author. And there is still less reason to consider 1 Clement anything than what it is usually considered to be, a letter from the fourth Pope interviening in a controversy in Corinth over the authority of the elders (priests) versus a younger generation of charismatics.
So far in your posts I must say you have shown complete disregard for intellectual honesty and no interest in diologue. You seem content to spew your preconcieved, misinformed ideas about Catholicism without listening to or careing about what Catholics have to say on the matter. Like SDG I encourage you to think about whether you are accomplishing anything positive in this way, or if rather you are simply discrediting the religion you are trying to represent.
n the middle of 19th century, it was ok to doubt the authenticity of patristic writings, or their dating, as done e.g. by the Tuebingen school around Baur. But since late 19th century, this critical attitude toward church tradition is outlawed. According to Harnack, one has to take all of church history at face value as it doesn’t violate common sense. This lead to a major regress in the study of early christian history.
The writing claims to be a letter by the christian community of Rome to that of Corinth, and dealing with critical events on the side of the recipient. But looking closer, it’s recognisable that the form of the letter is deceptive, and actually we have a tractate on communal peace and unity. Most likely it is of Gnostic origin.
Notice that it is only legend that attributes this letter to Clement. Legends and more Legends are the basis of what most Catholic define as truth. Read Schaff and Mosheim and see how the Papacies lies crumble in the crucible of truth.
Sure didn’t take him long to prove Mary Kay and me right, did it?
Rusta, you’ve shot your wad. If you can’t rise above the level of discussion displayed so far, you are not welcome to participate on this blog.
Your latest comments abandon all remaining contact with meaningful reality. Harnack? “Outlawed”? What are you raving about?
Where in the nominally Christian world are historians subject to any sanction whatsoever for expressing any amount of revisionistic or skeptical opinion about the early church? You can’t really think that Muslim scholars in Islamic societies have a twentieth of the academic and intellectual freedom in the post-Christian West?
My objective is to inform Catholics that they should re-examine the truths of their religion and ask if they are believing a lie. If there is a lie then they should seek truth. Islam is truth. Everyone is offended when they realize that they are believing a lie. So don’t be upset with me, but with your Church leaders for brainwashing you with Papal forgeries and lies. These are your enemies. Evangelical and Orthodox are aware of this forged history and have repented are making amends.
“Sure didn’t take him long to prove Mary Kay and me right, did it?”
Indeed.
rusta,
In the 19th century the secular, atheistic acedemic establishment had fun trying to disprove anything and everything about Chrstianity in an attempt to bring down the Church they so hated. Future generations of historians have mellowed down, recongizing the extreme bias of these earlier historians and decideing that while a historical document is not any more credible due to the mere fact that it is Christian, it is also not any less credible by that mere fact either.
Now you are showing your true colors. You pretend to offer unbiased modern scholarship that early Christian documents are pretty much all forged, and when you are called out on it you say well the 19th century anti-Catholics century but modern scholarship is all wrong.
That’s funny. Rusta is (supposedly) relying on the thoughts of Evangelical and Orthodox Christians, whose opinions on Islam – or anything else – he would not give the time of day in any other context.
Any port in a storm.
He proves the depths of his bias by being simply unable to even consider information that does not fit his pre-formed opinions.
Is this what Islamic Scholarship is like?
rusta,
Another thing you seem to not understand is that many of us here are converts from other forms of Christianity, so we know from experience that what you say about non-Catholic Christians is not true. I was raised Protestant, and I can say from experience that the vast majority of Protestants don’t believe in the vast majority of the bologna you are quoting. From both my reading and Orthodox I have spoken with the same is true for them. I’ve also had some good conversations with Muslims who would be horrified to see you misrepresenting their religion.
Rusta is no longer welcome to participate on the blog.
For the record: Our problem was never with your message, it was with the messenger — your behavior, not your ideas. Not because you are a Muslim, but because you are a troll.
You came in here with half-baked quotes from fourth-rate scholarship, misunderstandings upon ignorance upon prejudice, a total refusal to learn anything, and an attitude like a bull in a china shop. And that, AFAICT, is how you leave (though in the providence of God anything is possible).
The most I can say is that you haven’t too badly damaged my opinion of Islam. I’ve met too many Christians just like you.
Salam aleikum.
I’ve often thought that the Islamic belief that Jesus was ‘just a good man’ or ‘just a prophet’ logically ran aground against C.S. Lewis’ brilliant “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord,” argument.
It seems that a museum in France is explaining Christianity in terms of Islam
Link
Sorry link to that should be
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020111.php
David B: The Muslim answer would have to run along the lines of claiming that the Gospels misrepresent Jesus in attributing to Him claims He never made. Doubtless Rusta could tell us all about historical-critical debunking of the historical reliability of the Gospels.
What he would forget to mention is that the same scholarship would rightly accord the Qu’ran, written centuries after the fact, absolutely zero historical weight with respect to events in the life of Jesus, whereas the Gospels, written written within living memory of the events they portray, are recognized by even the most skeptical scholars as preserving real historical memories of what Jesus did and said.
Yes, I’d say that “liar, lunitic, or Lord” arguement would be covered under the “God doesn’t need my lie” concept. There is a very logical fourth possibility: that Jesus didn’t say and do all of what the Gospels say he said and did, that the Gospels include much fictional material.
Also, if I’m not mistaken I think the general Muslim belief about Jesus was not that he was simply a human prophet but a great preexisting spirit (but created and less than God) that became incarnate in the womb of of the Virgin Mary, very much like the ancient Arians believed and like the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe.
Whoa whoa whoa.
Let’s cut some distinctions here.
First of all, FWIW, a bit of background. The formula “Lord, liar or lunatic,” which some have found a bit glib or otherwise partially problematic, is not Lewis’s, but Josh McDowell’s. Lewis popularized a form of the argument that McDowell used as the basis for his “trilemma,” but the argument itself, sometimes known by the Latin formula Aut deus aut homo malus (“either God or a bad man”), is older than that, being (I believe) medieval in origin.
FWIW, here is an excerpt from Lewis’s version of the argument, as formulated in Mere Christianity:
Now, it is true that one way to try to evade the force of the argument is to deny that Jesus made the claims in question. Another way to put the same point is to say that the argument presupposes a certain level of historical credibility in the New Testament record, at least sufficient to establish Jesus’ essential claims. Establishing that level of historical credibility is a necessary corollary. Very true.
But for goodness’ sake let’s don’t start confusing partial arguments with lies. It would be far better to say that Aut deus aut homo malus is a strong argument — given the premise, the historical credibility of the New Testament record regarding Jesus’ essential claims. Thus we at least exclude the nonsense of those who think that they can read the Gospels as edifying moral teaching while overlooking (rather than historically prescinding from) the logical implications of the claims recorded therein.
Having established that much, it then remains to argue for the historical credibility of the claims in question. I’ll save that for another comment.
Also, Stoodley, my impression is that Islamic belief about Jesus is that he was indeed just a man and a prophet, not a great preexisting spirit as per Arian and Watchtower belief. (They do, however, believe in the Virgin Birth.)
I did some online research that seemed to corroborate this; other input welcome.
SDG’s understanding is the mainstream/orthodox Islamic one on the humanity of Jesus. Muslim ‘Christology’ is not Arian. But many Muslim apologists selectively recycle Watchtower fictions regarding Constantine and Nicaea.
“Now, it is true that one way to try to evade the force of the argument is to deny that Jesus made the claims in question.”
True, but then if the Gospels are that historically unreliable, what real evidence do we have that Jesus was a “great human teacher”? His moral teaching and his claims about himself are *inextricably* bound together and come from exactly the same historical sources. Any attempt to separate them ends in absurdity (ala Crossan, et al).
You can certainly claim that the Gospels are all moonshine if you want, but in that case, please be consistent and just admit that we can’t really know anything about Jesus at all, including what kind of moral teacher he was.
In other words, as Lewis said, leave off the patronizing nonsense.
Incidentally, that’s not directed at you, SDG.
Spot on, Tim J (no worries).
According to critical scholarship, the earliest recorded expressions of Christian belief, predating the whole New Testament, include the Christological hymn recorded in Philippians 2 and the paschal confessional formula recorded in 1 Corinthian 15. These compositions are regarded as antedating the texts in which they appear, being cited by St. Paul as preexisting expressions of Christian faith. They date to within two decades of Christ’s life.
No earlier evidence exists of any form of Christian tradition independent of this conviction of Jesus’ divine nature, crucifixion and resurrection. (Note also that this earliest paschal confession already indicates Peter’s special place among the twelve, singling out the fact that Jesus appeared first “to Cephas, then to the twelve” — not merely in a historical aside, but in a confessional formula, a fixed credal maxim by which the early faith was transmitted, one that was [in rabbinic parlance] “received” by St. Paul and then “delivered” to others.)
These same core beliefs (Jesus’ divine nature, passion and resurrection, as well as St. Peter’s special place among the Twelve) are attested in every major strand of NT tradition, Synoptic, Johannine and Pauline. The same Christological beliefs are also attested in the non-Pauline epistles. This distribution in both chronological (the earliest strands of evidence as well as the latest) and literary extension is a strong indication of the identity of these beliefs with the earliest forms of Christian practice.
Even turning to skeptical varieties of form and source criticism and attempting, for example, to weed through the Gospels with a jaundiced eye for anything that smacks of “high” Christology, efforts to reconstruct a “historical Jesus” are likely to include elements very difficult to reconcile with an interpretation of Jesus as an ordinary rabbi or prophet. Jesus’ unique authority is present in the “Q” sayings as well as the Johannine discourses, in the epigrammatic paradoxes beloved of higher critics as well as the long speeches of Matthew.
Even the wild and woolly (emphasis on woolly, as in headed) hyper-skeptical scholarship of the Jesus Seminar, which took a great stab at reductionistically carving down the sayings of Jesus to their most inoffensively ethical, still acknowledges traces of remarkable authority surpassing the prophets. For example, numerous sayings considered most certainly authentic by the Jesus Seminar as well as by more level-headed scholarship include Jesus’ characteristic and unique appeal to his own authority: “Amen, amen, I say to you.” AFAIK, this idiomatic usage is completely unknown outside Jesus’ own usage; it appears to be his own coinage, contrasting strikingly with the characteristic prophetic phrase, “Thus says the Lord.”
Open the gate wider to more sober scholarship, and the case gets stronger. Some worthwhile arguments that various “strands” of teaching in the Synoptics as well as John attest Jesus’ unique authority were recently offered in Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth. Even a generally negative scholarly review of the book acknowledged that Benedict makes some serious arguments that various Gospel passages (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount) not usually thought of as a “high-Christology” passages nevertheless imply a sovereign authority beyond the claims of any prophet.
Certainly from a Muslim point of view, if Jesus was a prophet, he was the most spectacularly, even cursedly inept prophet in all of salvation history, to have all his disciples worshiping him as God within a few short years of his death and all living memory of his true teaching completely expunged and forgotten for centuries. Even the failure of the OT prophets (whose messages Muslims likewise regard as corrupted) doesn’t begin to compare with that. A greater shame and grief for a prophet could hardly be imagined. What is the point of Allah even sending such a prophet in the world, when the result is such “blasphemous” doctrines as the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity — and these the central tenets of the world’s largest (and still fastest-spreading) religion, Christianity?
Prime apologetic bloggage, there, SDG.
See, I am aware of the broad outlines of these kinds of arguments, but I have to leave it to others to provide the red meat.
I just paint pictures, man.
to have all his disciples worshiping him as God within a few short years of his death
How do you figure that? Do you have a list of all his disciples?
“No earlier evidence exists of any form of Christian tradition independent of this conviction of Jesus’ divine nature, crucificxion, and resurrection.”
Good point, SDG. You would think that, if there were any such tradition, St. Paul would have written about it, atleast to condemn it.
SDG,
What he would forget to mention is that the same scholarship would rightly accord the Qu’ran, written centuries after the fact, absolutely zero historical weight with respect to events in the life of Jesus, whereas the Gospels, written written within living memory of the events they portray, are recognized by even the most skeptical scholars as preserving real historical memories of what Jesus did and said.
Precisely (supposing I needed to say that). I wrote a thesis on the Historical reliability of the Gospels, so I can’t stand it when people claim that Mohammed (who even couldn’t believably claim association with a follower of a disciple of Christ) came along 100s of year late and suddenly got God’s belated message about how Jesus isn’t actually God and that all those who claimed to know Him (and were never contradicted) were liars. It’s the first tima a ‘prophet’ ‘needed’ another prophet to clean up after him.
It’s a historical assessment predicated on the evidence of the sort cited in my post, which I invite you to review for the background and context of my statement. Look for comments like “No earlier evidence exists of any form of Christian tradition independent of this conviction of Jesus’ divine nature, crucifixion and resurrection” and “This distribution in both chronological (the earliest strands of evidence as well as the latest) and literary extension is a strong indication of the identity of these beliefs with the earliest forms of Christian practice.”
Of course anyone is free to posit the existence of a historically invisible phenomenon that left no footprint of any kind in the record. Many sects do. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Watchtower theology existed in the early centuries of Christianity in hidden communities that left no written record or whose records were destroyed, and whose theology, strangely, not a single Father wrote to condemn, although they went out of their way to condemn everything else they regarded as theologically abberant in long works with names like “Against Heresies” and “Panacea Against All Heresies.” Many sects make similar claims. Mormons claim that Mormonism survived through the centuries in the person of John the Baptist living forever… somewhere on earth.
This invisibility of an alternate Christianity is even more of a problem for those who (like the JWs) take the Gospels seriously. Jesus called his followers “a city on a hill” that “cannot be hid” (Mt 5:14). It would therefore seem that any hypothetical hidden movement that may or may not have existed in the early centuries which is both invisible to us historically, and even invisible to their contemporaries such that not a single Father bothers to include them in their long lists of all the ideas they disagree with, does not seem to be the sort of “city on a hill” Jesus was speaking of, and thus not are the followers he was speaking of.
“How do you figure that? Do you have a list of all his disciples?”
Funny. The overwhelming weight of historical evidence supports the position that the disciples worshiped Jesus as God the Son, but rather than admit that, some people just demand more evidence of a kind that exists only in their imagination.
Convenient, that.
Well, we don’t have Jesus fingerprints, so obviously we can’t be certain he really existed, blah, blah…
Funny. The overwhelming weight of historical evidence supports the position that the disciples worshiped Jesus as God the Son, but rather than admit that, some people just demand more evidence of a kind that exists only in their imagination.
My question wasn’t in regard to “overwhelming weight”, i.e. most, but to the claim of totality as in “all”. That’s a high standard and neither your response nor SDG’s has met it.
“Claims” are not “standards.” “Claims” do not directly imply or presuppose “standards.” You cannot argue directly from a given proposition without epistemic interpolation to a given standard of evidence. Standards of evidence are imposed by epistomological presuppositions and reasoning, not by claims in and of themselves.
Perhaps you have misread my statement to imply more than is supported the standard of evidence that is available.
Jesus called his followers “a city on a hill” that “cannot be hid” (Mt 5:14). It would therefore seem that any hypothetical hidden movement… does not seem to be the sort of “city on a hill” Jesus was speaking of, and thus not are the followers he was speaking of.
Yet obviously such “hidden” movements were or are not hidden to everyone, just like Christianity today is not hidden to everyone though many might not have been or aware of aware of them. For that reason I don’t view the ignorance of one group of people or even the vast majority as itself convincing evidence for or against any group.
Your other points are notable.
“Claims” are not “standards.” “Claims” do not directly imply or presuppose “standards.”
You made a claim ot totality. I asked for your standards by which you made such a claim. You failed to identify “all” the disciples and simply backed your claim with vague reasonings. If that is sufficient for you, then that is your standard.
I suggest starvation, gentlemen.
Well… I suppose we might call it “obvious” that — if we first suppose the existence of such “hidden” movements in the first place, in the absence of any corroborating evidence whatsoever — we are free also to go on to suppose that they may not have been “hidden” from everyone (just from everyone that directly or indirectly might have left any sort of indication of their existence in the record). In that sense, we can speculate that such a group as we are supposing might be supposed to meet an extremely rarefied (and at least arguably useless) interpretation of Jesus’ words (which seem to suggest general visibility to those nearby, not the general invisibility implied by the term “hidden”).
However, even then I don’t think we can quite say that “obviously such ‘hidden’ movements were or are not hidden to everyone” — only that “obviously” they might be. Why or how we are to exclude the supposition that the group we are supposing might have been invisible to everybody is not clear to me — unless we are merely arguing in a circle by first assuming that the group in question must fit the description of Matthew 5:14, etc.
I did — within the context of six paragraphs of historical analysis. Although it was a “claim of totality,” it was neither absolute nor dogmatic, though perhaps you misinterpreted it as such. The comment stands within the context of those claims as an interpretation of the available historical evidence, with such allowances as I have made regarding the freedom of others to hypothesize historically “invisible” groups contrary to my interpretation. I’m satisfied that my interpretation will be found reasonable by many intellectually honest observers, and if the prosecution rests, the defense also rests.
Aside to Bill912: not ruling it out. Thanks.
P.S.
Thanks!
My point was simply that, regardless of any actual evidence that the Gospels are a true account of Jesus’s words, the fact remains that the “liar, lunatic, or Lord” idea doesn’t cover the objection of a great many of the people sceptical about Jesus. Maybe it could have some effectiveness against those who consider him a good teacher, as the longer quote from C.S. Lewis focuses on, but not those who, even without logical backing, completely disbelieve the accuracy of the Gospel accounts.
I didn’t intend to call those who use the liar, lunitic, or Lord arguements liars, but I do think that those who use it hapazardly, like it somehow proves Christianity, are neglecting, whether willfully or by mistake, the matter of the accuracy of the Gospels. That accuracy has to be agreed on first with whoever you are argueing against before you can go on to that sort of arguement.
Regarding the Muslim concept of Jesus, I also did some research and wasn’t able to find a Muslim reference to Jesus’s preexistence and did find some things saying Muslims denied it. It would appear I’ve either been misinformed or the idea is not universal among Muslims.
SDG,
Not meaning to keep argueing the other side here, but do we have good reason to believe the majority of Jewish Christians in the 1st century believed Jesus was God? That the Apostles and the majority of Gentile Christians did is one thing, but if I remember right there are references in the NT to Jews who believed but imperfectly. Also certainly the vast majority of the Chrstians in Jerusalem seemed to be still more or less practicing Judaism at the time of Paul’s arrest in the Temple.
My general impression is that despite the faith of the Church leadership and the gentiles, the majority of Jewish converts at least after the very begining refused to embrace the entirety of the faith. They seem to have been tolerated at first for pastoral reasons, but by the 2nd century, after much preaching of the Apostles and their successors against this partial acceptance of Christianity, they became a distinct heresy, the Ebionites (actually at least three distinct groups, separated on whether they believed only they or all Christians needed to observe the Mosaic law and whether or not they incorporated some elements from gnosticism). These Ebionites are frequently pointed out by Muslims at the “true” believers following Christ, and I’ve encountered some suggestions that there may be some direct historical connection between Ebionitism and Islam.
What we have is zero evidence that any first century Christians disbelieved in the divinity of Christ.
even then I don’t think we can quite say that “obviously such ‘hidden’ movements were or are not hidden to everyone” — only that “obviously” they might be.
Or, “obviously” there are. Like I said, even Christianity can be said to be / have been “hidden” to the extent that not everyone sees it as fully true. In that sense, there are “hidden” movements, not just might be. The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again.
I did — within the context of six paragraphs of historical analysis. Although it was a “claim of totality,” it was neither absolute nor dogmatic, though perhaps you misinterpreted it as such.
I only asked you for your standards. You’ve laid them on the table and shown them to be vague. If that’s the best there is, then that’s the best there is. I didn’t ask you for absolute proof and I don’t expect you to have it.
What we have is zero evidence that any first century Christians disbelieved in the divinity of Christ.
John 6 for one. Many of his disciples didn’t believe what he said. How can anyone actually believe he’s God and not believe what he says?
Disbelieving disciples who walk away only reinforce the fact that he said what he said. Those who walk away obviously do not remain disciples. What we would be looking for is evidence of anyone claiming to follow Jesus’ teaching who represents Jesus as something recognizable as an ordinary rabbi or prophet, as NOT having made the kind of claims that would cause people to walk away if they were unable to accept him as more than a rabbi or prophet.
The evidence isn’t “vague” at all. “Vague” evidence is indefinite and imprecise, e.g., “Most authorities agree that…” My evidence is not vague but specific and concrete, predicated on the earliest recorded forms of Christian devotion as well as the converging testimony of all major strands of NT tradition, and the absence of any contrary evidence.
We may not have hard evidence of any 1st century Christians disbelieving the divinity of Christ, but we do know some 1st Century Jewish Christians had an imperfect faith and rejected the departure of Christianity from Jewish practice. Is it so hard to believe that, especially given the less than totally explicit ways the divinity of Christ tended to be presented in the 1st Century, that not all would fully accept it or at least understand it the way we do? It may not have been as extreme yet as the Ebionites of a century later, but why the hostility against the possibility of some early Christians out of ignorance or heresy not believing in the full identification of Jesus as God? I see no reason why some confusion and heresy during the earliest, vaguest phase of the preaching of the Gospel should threaten our faith.
I keep looking on the internet for evidence of Muslim belief in Jesus’ preexistence. The most I’ve encountered are things like this:
2. The Pre-existence of Christ
Another verse commonly used to support the divinity of Jesus is John 8:58: “Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.’ ” This verse is taken to imply that Jesus existed prior to his appearance on earth. The conclusion drawn from it is that Jesus must be God, since his existence predates his birth on earth. However, the concept of the pre-existence of the prophets, and of man in general, exists in both the Old Testament, as well as in the Qur‘aan. Jeremiah described himself in The Book of Jeremiah 1:4-5 as follows: “ 5Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, 5 ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.’ ”
Prophet Solomon is reported in Proverbs 8:23-27, to have said, “23Ages ago I was set up at the first, before the beginning of the earth. 24When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water, 25Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; 26before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world 27When he established the heavens, I was there.”
According to Job 38:4 and 21, God addresses Prophet Job as follows: “4Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding… 21You Know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great!”
In the Qur‘aan, Chapter al-A‘raaf, (7):172, God informed that man existed in the spiritual form before the creation of the physical world.
} وَإِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَى أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُوا بَلَى شَهِدْنَا أَنْ تَقُولُواْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هَذَا غَافِلِينَ {
“When your Lord gathered all of Aadam’s descendants [before creation] and made them bear witness for themselves, saying: ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They all replied: Yes indeed, we bear witness. [That was] so you could not say on the Day of Judgement: ‘We were unaware of this.’ ”
Consequently, Prophet Jesus’ statement, “Before Abraham was, I am,” cannot be used as evidence of his divinity. Within the context of John 8:54-58, Jesus is purported to have spoken about God’s knowledge of His prophets, which predates the creation of this world.
http://www.al-sunnah.com/true_message_of_jesus.htm
Those who walk away obviously do not remain disciples
The Bible calls them disciples before they left, and before they left they apparently didn’t believe he was God. So there were “disciples” of a kind who didn’t believe Jesus was God. In John 6, even those who remained ‘only’ said they believed Jesus was the “Holy One of God.”
“Vague” evidence is indefinite and imprecise
And you’ve offered no evidence that definitively and precisely identifies -all- disciples as believing that Jesus is God. You can at best show only that some disciples believed that at some point. “Some” is indefinite and imprecise, i.e. vague.
the absence of any contrary evidence
Not so. John 6 indicates there were disciples who did not believe Jesus was God and there were disciples who believed he was the Holy One of God, whatever that means. To the extent that those who did not believe Jesus was God were nonetheless called disciples, and to the extent that discipleship permitted believing Jesus to be the “Holy One of God” as somehow different than believing Jesus to be God, that is evidence.
What we would be looking for is evidence of anyone claiming to follow Jesus’ teaching who represents Jesus as something recognizable as an ordinary rabbi or prophet
As I’ve showen, we have evidence that there were people called followers of Jesus who did not see Jesus as God. And just as there are people today who claim to be followers of Jesus who do not see Jesus as God, it is entirely reasonable to believe there were such people in Jesus day as well. Lack of specific historical evidence of such people in Jesus day is not sufficient to surmount the reasonable belief that such people may likely have existed.
“Reasonable”? He must be using a definition of the word with which Mr. Webster and I are not familiar.
And I never said it would. Were there in fact some minority report in the early record, followers of Jesus claiming that he was a great prophet or rabbi whom the majority tradition was (rather improbably) elevating to divine authority, I’m not saying that would cause some huge crisis in Christian faith, though it would be a point for Christian apologetics to contend with, a mitigation in the evidence that Jesus actually claimed what he actually claimed.
All I’m saying is, granted that no such evidence exists of any such controversy or dissension, or of (as has been posited by “historical Jesus” efforts) a “development” from some earlier matrix of purely ethical and religious teaching to the emergence of a Christ-centered religion attributing authority to Jesus not found in the original pure tradition, it is all the more likely that the best explanation for this ubiquitous facet of Christian tradition is that it began with the one who inspired the whole movement.
Fascinating stuff about human preexistence in Islamic tradition — never heard of that before (wonder whether this is a point of Sunni-Shia contention?). If true, it looks like even if Jesus were preexistent in the sense given, he would still be “only human,” no different from any other prophet.
However, the argument incorrectly asserts that “Jesus’ statement, “Before Abraham was, I am,” cannot be used as evidence of his divinity.” What it misses is precisely the use of the divine name I AM (ego eimi). He didn’t just say, as per the New World Translation, “Before Abraham was, I have been” (preexistence). He “made himself equal with God.”
He “made himself equal with God.”
He made himself nothing / emptied himself and God exalted him.
People can believe themselves to be followers. They can be called followers by others. That does not mean that their understanding of they leader is accurate. You point out that the disciples disagreed about who Jesus is. A thing (or, in this case, a Person) cannot both be something and not be something. Jesus is God, or he isn’t.
When the high priest and elders told Pilate that Jesus claimed Divinity, he didn’t say “hey, wait a minute, I’ve never said that I’m God. I’m not God.” He already confirmed His Divinity by saying “I AM” (which in Hebrew is the name of God) when asked whether he was the Son of the living God. If calling oneself “the Son of God” wasn’t claiming Divinity, the Sanhedrin wouldn’t have said that he blasphemed.
Time for someone’s beauty sleep. :-] peace out.
You’re bandying words instead of attending to the point. As I’ve already clarified, the root issue is not who accepted or rejected Jesus’ teaching, but what he taught. Those who understood Jesus as teaching X and rejected that teaching while others accepted the same teaching equally attest the fact that Jesus taught X. None of that in any way mitigates the reasoning in question, which is aimed at establishing the historical credibility of the claim that Jesus taught X.
I don’t think there’s anything in this reformulation of your objections that requires me to reclarify my previous responses. I believe my clarifications to date are sufficient to withstand this cross-examination, and I’m content to allow them to date to speak for themselves and let the reader judge for himself.
People today “who claim to be followers of Jesus who do not see Jesus as God” either (a) have not noticed that Jesus’ claims are incompatible with their interpretation of Jesus, or (b) do not accept the historical evidence that Jesus made such claims in the first place. In either case, if Jesus actually made the claims in question, irrespective of the truth of those claims, both groups of people are to that extent wrong. What you’ve pointed out is the existence of people who acknowledged Jesus’ claims and rejected them.
What there are not today, and what there is no evidence of ever being, is people with some sort of actual historical connection to Jesus, who were in a position to know what he taught, who regarded him as a rabbi and/or prophet who never claimed to be anything more. That is the only sort of disciple that would constitute a speed bump for my case, and there’s no evidence of any such animal ever existing. Even if we posit that such people could have existed without leaving any record, and I’ve already acknowledged that I can’t disprove that such invisible believers existed, such a hypothetical is of no historical value in our main and original question, which is attempting to establish the credibility of the historical claims that Jesus actually said these things.
And your point would be?
Yes, he made himself nothing and emptied himself, meaning that he wasn’t nothing and empty before. Didja happen to notice the first line?
Dwight,
It might help if you made clear if you actually think Jesus is not God or if you are mearly argueing, as I am, that it is far from certain that all 1st century Christians shared this belief.
In any case there is no evidence whatsoever, as far as I know, that all the original Christians, i.e. those present at Pentacost, did not believe in Christ’s divinity. The issue is simply how early belief in Jesus as something less than God began. While I know of no definitive evidence of such belief before the late 2nd century, it does not seem unreasonable that it would have in fact originated with those imperfect Jewish Christians of the 1st century.
Regarding Islam and Jesus, if it is true that belief in the preexistance of the soul is mainstream (even if not greatly emphasized) and if prophets are chosen before their birth, and if Jesus was miraculous from his infancy in their belief (they believe he spoke as a baby) then it seems logical that they would consider Him on the one hand a man like others but on the other hand a special spirit in some way from before His virginal conception. Thus perhaps what I was told is ultimately correct, even if not at all emphasized by modern Muslims. Just a guess of course; I’ve yet to find an explicit explanation.
I do wonder though what reason Muslims give for Jesus uniquely being born of a virgin.
(Comment deleted; see reposted comments below)
JR Stoodley’s comments have reminded me of the value of comparing Jesus with Muhammad. There is a huge (mainly Evangelical) resource at Answering Islam
Main points of comparison.
1. Historical: Muhammad was more than a religious teacher like say Jesus or Buddha. Muhammad was a king/warlord, who did things which holy men don’t but many rulers do eg executed over 600 Jewish POWs AFTER they surrendered at Banu Qurayza, took the women as sex-slaves. Kept slaves & had sex with them ie rape. Tortured someone (Kinana) to find their treasure, had sex with a 9 year old girl. Gave people the choice of submission to Islam, death or exile from Arabia Brief sources here (Find “Bukhari” on page). because Muhammad was an earthly ruler, it makes a mosque-state separation more difficult as an idea, because there is no precedent.
2. The Qur’an says Muhammad is the perfect exemplary human. Must Muslims in the West only known of his good deeds and deny his Muhammad’s war crimes and rapes with shock and anger. Are right and wrong determined by Muhammad’s example or something more cf B16’s comments at Regensberg on voluntarism.
3. Qur’an & Hadith: Only Jesus, Mary and perhaps John the Baptist were not touched by Satan at birth. Jesus born of a Virgin. Jesus is called the Messiah/Christ, at the end time, there will be an Anti-Christ not an Anti-Muhammad. Who is superior Jesus or Muhammad?
4. Why would God send Muhammad (less than perfect – even criminal) to give a message which “perfects” the one given by the admittedly perfect Jesus?
5. Historical method. The Hadith (life and sayings of Muhammad were collected 150-250 years after Muhammad’s death, and the “Sahi” ones are regarded as historically accurate by Muslims. Compared with: Jesus crucified 30AD, NT written between 50-100AD. NT quoted or referred to by Church Fathers from about 110AD. If a 150 year Hadith gap is acceptable as sources for the Historical Muhammad, surely a 20-70 year gap (ie within living memory of eyewitnesses) is even more acceptable for the Historical Jesus – eg was Jesus crucified? In 2008, which is the better oral-only tradition: American War of Independence or Second World War?
(Reposted from above with expansions and added material)
But in the first place, even the belief I suppose you’re talking about, i.e., the Adoptionist heresy, was still an attempt to articulate what it meant for Jesus to be the Son of God (a title BTW vigorously rejected by Islam). The Adoptionists no less than everyone else still understood Jesus as much more than an ordinary rabbi or prophet, as a divine being who came not just to deliver a message but to be the message. Their efforts to articulate this went awry because they concluded that Jesus became divine at some point in his life (such as the baptism in the Jordan) rather than being from his conception the Word Incarnate. Lacking a clear understanding of the Trinity, they tried to reconcile the early Church’s worship of Jesus with its heritage of Jewish monotheism. There was still no question that the whole Christian thing was based on Jesus being something absolutely unique and definitive in human history, the pinnacle of God’s saving work, rather than just another prophet with another message.
Secondly and crucially, as soon as we have evidence of such inadequate belief clearly articulated in the late second century, at almost the same moment we also have orthodox belief vigorously responding to and condemning this opinion.
This is consistently the pattern with heretical formulae: They arise at some point out of an effort to clarify Christian teaching around some mysterious concept that has not yet been sufficiently defined, but are immediately found to be deficient in spite of the lack of adequate existing language on the point at issue, prompting Christian thinkers to further clarify the teaching in question by developing more precise language that better expresses the essence what the Church has always believed all along. This is what the development of doctrine is.
Just to clarify my own position (and thus illustrate the very principle I’m talking about!), I’m not saying that in the apostolic church, if you walked into any given Christian assembly and buttonholed any given believer, or even took a survey of believers on their way out the door, a majority or even a few would be able to articulate that from the moment of his conception Jesus was both fully God and fully man. I’m not sure even the apostles would have been able to put their faith in quite those words, although given their guidance by the Holy Spirit if you asked them whether this was true, I think they would have realized that it was.
I don’t doubt that Adoptionist-tending formulas were used by early Christians prior to the late second century. As with many heresies, you can even find instances of language in the Bible that, taken in isolation, seem more suited to the heretical formulas than to the defined formulas of orthodox Christology. This was a symptom of the lack of doctrinal development at a point where the question had not yet clearly and explicitly been raised: “Was Jesus’ divine Sonship something that he possessed from all eternity by virtue of being God, or something that he received at some point during his earthly life, thus becoming a divine being who was less than God?”
As long as the question was not clearly raised, the language would continue to be vague, the belief undefined. But as soon as the question was raised, and the wrong answer proposed, it was immediately clear that this answer was a deficient expression of what had been the belief all along, and the wrong answer was condemned and the right answer affirmed.
It seems to me that the essential question before us is: “How credible is it that Jesus never claimed any of the extraordinary things attributed to him, that his message was not predicated on his own unique identity and authority — and that something like the message he taught, without the high Christology associated with orthodox Christianity (as well as virtually all its heresies) survived in any appreciable strand of early Christian discipleship that did not worship him as God but regarded him as just a rabbi and prophet? How credible is it that the gospel of Jesus was not a gospel about Jesus, and that the Christocentrism of the earliest and various strands of New Testament tradition does not reflect the true teaching he passed on — teaching that obviously became at best a minority view, but was still honored in some fragment of Christian tradition?”
My answer is that while of course I can’t (as I’ve said all along) absolutely disprove such speculation, I don’t find it a credible hypothesis, given what we can credibly reconstruct historically about the faith of the early church. Any such divergence of views would have led to sharp and lasting controversy. Anyway, even if we grant such speculation, in view of the invisibility of whatever remnant of Jesus’ true teaching and following we might posit (a remnant that not only vanished without leaving any trace or mark on history, but evidently was never even visible enough to the Christocentric tradition to create controversy or warrant criticism), it still seems to me that on this view Jesus was still a supremely inept teacher and a failed prophet. A teacher whose true teaching vanishes soundlessly from the record and whose name becomes solely and almost immediately associated with a hijacked movement that replaces the message with devotion to the messenger — a hijacked movement that goes on to parley its misaappropriation of the teacher’s name into the most successful religious movement in history — a prophet who is universally* acclaimed as so much more than a prophet that any true prophet would rend his garments in grief and horror at the thought of it — such a man, it seems to me, is at least a very nearly complete failure, and at least arguably a debacle for his cause rather than a champion of it.
*Just to clarify yet again, “universal” does not here connote “unanimous without admitting any exception, however vanishing.” Follow the context and it is clear I’m not claiming “every single individual disciple without exception.”
He already confirmed His Divinity by saying “I AM” (which in Hebrew is the name of God) when asked whether he was the Son of the living God.
That’s an interesting idea. Some say he did, some say he didn’t. The NAB interpretation of the response recorded in Luke is, “YOU say that I am.” The comment is, “This is a half-affirmative. Emphasis is laid on the pronoun and the answer implies that the statement would not have been made if the question had not been asked.”
By that, if you were to say to me, “You are the moon,” and I replied, “YOU say that I am,” would I be confirming that I’m the moon?
By another interpretation, he said, “You are right in saying I am.” So you may be right in saying, “I am”, and you might walk around all day chattering, “I am I am I am I am,” to your heart’s content, but are you right in saying “You are the moon”?
In Matthew, his response was “You have said so,” (NAB) again with the same caveat. Another interpretation shows it, “Yes, it is as you say.” But what did Jesus hear him say? As written, many people do not read Jesus’ response of “so”, “it” and “as you say” to be any more definitive than an echo.
the argument incorrectly asserts that “Jesus’ statement, “Before Abraham was, I am,” cannot be used as evidence of his divinity.” What it misses is precisely the use of the divine name I AM (ego eimi).
Even if “I AM” as a name for God is not missed, it may then be argued that he was saying, “Before Abraham was, God” rather than “Before Abraham, Jesus.”
Some people just knocked on my door and identified themselves as my neighbor. But if I don’t recall seeing these people in my neighborhood before and no one has bought or sold a house around here recently that I know of, are they really my neighbor? They then handed me an invitation to a JW meeting. Did that answer the question?
God bless.
“Even if ‘I AM’ as a name for God is not missed, it may then be argued that he was saying, ‘Before Abraham was, God’ rather than ‘Before Abraham, Jesus.’ ”
No, not really. Do you know of one linguistic scholar who allows for that interpretation? Just one?
I’ll wait.
Incidentally, you might notice that it is after Jesus says this that “…they picked up stones to stone him”.
Were they stoning him because of this highly controversial statement that you posit… that God existed before Abraham? That would be somewhat odd, given that they already knew this.
As to the question of who Jesus’ disciples really are (or were), we have this clue;
“To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, ‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples…’ ”
Do you know of one linguistic scholar who allows for that interpretation?
Do you know of one linguistic scholar who says Jesus was advising people to follow linguistic scholars? If so, you might have something in common with that linguistic scholar.
Were they stoning him because of this highly controversial statement that you posit.
You posit that people wanted to stone him because they understood him. I could posit they wanted to stone him because they didn’t understand.
If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples
Other than he taught an ordinary definition of “disciple” like one finds in an everyday dictionary, does that clue help you to know his teaching?
(Sigh) Another one to starve.
My neighbor needs to grow up.
In the parallel Marcan text, regarded by the substantial majority of scholars as the oldest, Jesus’ response is simply “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Both Matthew and Luke render this same response “You say that I am,” indicating a nuance of reservation not present in the presumably older Marcan text without contradicting its affirmative character. (I am not aware of any credible scholarship that suggests that “You say that I am” is not affirmative. “Half-affirmative” is, I think, imprecise; rather, the “You say” qualifier implies that Jesus has reservations about answering and qualifies his answer for fear of being misunderstood. The same with “You say that I am a king”: This is generally understood to mean something like, “It is as you say; I am a king, though what you and I understand by that term may not be the same thing.”)
Jesus: “Abraham rejoiced to see my day.”
Jews: “You are not yet fifty, and you have seen Abraham?”
Jesus: “Before Abraham was, I AM.”
A child of eight can follow it.
St. John’s gospel tells us that the reason the people sought to kill him was that “he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.” Not that they thought he broke the sabbath; not that they thought he called God his Father; not that they thought he made himself equal to God. This is what he did; this was their reaction. Let me know if the grammar requires further explication.
Jesus’ response is simply “I am;
Notably, he doesn’t say “I am XYZ,” but simply “I am”, which is itself is a complete statement.
Both Matthew and Luke render this same response “You say that I am,” indicating a nuance of reservation not present in the presumably older Marcan text without contradicting its affirmative character.
“The moon is made of cheese” doesn’t contradict it either. As you pointed out, the Marcan text simply says “I am.”
A child of eight can follow it
A child of eight wouldn’t follow it as a claim to be God.
St. John’s gospel tells us that the reason the people sought to kill him was that “he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.” This is what he did
As you say, it was their reasoning, thus their thought, that inspired the people to kill him. “Making himself equal with God” is an inference, a comparison, a thought, a belief in the minds of the angry people, shared with you in the Gospel of John. What you cite doesn’t say Jesus himself said he was God.
“What you cite doesn’t say Jesus himself said he was God.”
That is a bald-faced lie. Thanks for revealing yourself, Wormwood.
Bill, I was referring to “he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God,” in that the words in that quote are not, “The man Jesus said, ‘I, the man you call Jesus, am God.'”
Perhaps you had a different interpretation of what I was saying.
God Bless.
Can we have some chapter and verse references, please? I just want to be on the same page. So far, the closest I’ve come is either John 5:18 or John 8:58.
High priest: “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed [i.e., God]?”
Jesus: “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
A child of eight, etc.
Okay, you’re right, I over-moderated that statement. “You say that I am” essentially preserves the affirmative character of the Marcan response, while adding an element of reservation.
A child of eight who was familiar with the story of the burning bush could. I’ve seen it happen.
Even the JWs can (and there are lots of things an eight-year-old can follow that they apparently can’t). Why else would they falsify the tense to read “Before Abraham was, I have been”?
No, that’s John’s own interpretation: “he called God his Father, making himself equal with God.” Not that he called God his Father, which the people interpreted as him making himself equal with God. That John gives this as the people’s motive doesn’t change the fact that he’s also saying Jesus actually did it.
Aside to Mary Kay: John 8:58.
We know who Christ is: not just from self identification but directly from God the Father in Christs Baptism and Transfiguration.
What really matters now, Neighbor, is who do you say Christ is?
Your Neighbor,
SDG answered your post much better than I could’ve. That said, I think that a few more verses would help.
Remember when Andrew asked Jesus to “shew us the Father”? Jesus responded “How can you say ‘shew us the Father?’ …He who sees me sees the Father”
Further: “I and the Father are ONE ” [emphasis mine]
and “No one comes to the Father but by me”
High priest: “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed [i.e., God]?”
Jesus: “I am.”
One interpretation is that Jesus was affirming the high priest’s thought. Another is that Jesus was affirming his existence with the words “I am”, leaving it to the high priest to decide for himself what it means.
“You say that I am” essentially preserves the affirmative character of the Marcan response
It affirms that you say I am.
Man 1: “You are a block of cheese.”
Man 2: “You say that I am.”
Is Man 2 affirming that Man 2 is a block of cheese?
A child of eight who was familiar with the story of the burning bush could. I’ve seen it happen.
“Could” and “happen” relate to possibility. That’s why you didn’t say “must”.
Why else would they falsify the tense to read “Before Abraham was, I have been”?
Is it not true to you that Jesus has been before Abraham?
No, that’s John’s own interpretation
That’s your interpretation of it. Steve did the electrical wiring on his house. If I were to say to you, “People were upset. Steve was doing the wiring on his house, making himself equal to an electrician,” am I saying Steve considers himself to be an electrician? The upset people ask Steve. He responds, “You say that I am.” Does that convince you that Steve considers himself to be an electrician?
What really matters now, Neighbor, is who do you say Christ is?
I am.
He who sees me sees the Father… No one comes to the Father but by me
Great, now who is “me”? Ask yourself, am I?
I and the Father are ONE
And Alabama and the United States are ONE. People in agreement are ONE.
Does that convince you that Steve considers himself to be an electrician?
If Steve gives his bride the authority to speak for him and she confirms not only what he said but what he meant; yes.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
If Steve gives his bride the authority to speak for him and she confirms not only what he said but what he meant; yes.
At the time, Steve was unmarried, and hadn’t yet finished building his house.
Don’t feed the troll.
Second the motion.
But the authority was promised and given.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
bill912 and Tim J.,
motion carried…
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I’m just gonna make one more post to this person who refuses to engage in the conversation (not saying that angrily or arrogantly. It’s just the sad truth).
“Great, now who is “me”?”
For the fuctionally literate, I was obviously referring to Christ. I,of course, know you are being purposely obtuse. I can see why you’d want to ignore that quote, because it shows that Christ claimed Divinity.
“And Alabama and the United States are ONE. People in agreement are ONE.”
Alabama Never said that “He who sees me sees the United States.”
Too bad you don’t want to talk, as revealed by this exchange with Memphis Aggie :
What really matters now, Neighbor, is who do you say Christ is?
To which you said: I am.
You refused to answer. That’s not only rude, it makes it plain to all that you really don’t have answers. Just questions. And that truly is sad.
SDG, I am just returning after my travels and went through the posts above. I appreciate your clarifications to Zeno, but the reality is when I said “the only power the devil has is that which we give him” I was actually referring to my OWN struggle with Satan in letting my temper go and continuing to participate in a conversation that I knew was not an exercise in Christian charity or virtue. I was not likening the devil to ANY individual, but rather trying to say that MY demeanor and comments were ME succumbing to the power of evil. Mea culpa for not making that more clear.
As for the other comments:
Rusta – if you truly are Muslim and not simply yet another incarnation of a certain member, then your answers have been given: the Donation of Constantine does NOT negate any previous tradition or documents stating the legitimacy of St Peter and his succession. It may be the “greatest forgery in Christendom”, but it is really meaningless in the grand scheme, since it means nothing and is acknowledged as such.
As for the biggest forgery in Islam, well, that would be without question the Qur’an. This has gone through so many posthumous editions and changes since the death of Mohammed. Uthman “the editor” is the father of what you now read (once again, assuming you really are Muslim). There are many other Muslim forgeries, namely the ahadith. In fact, MOST ahadith are forgeries, and Muslim scholars accept this.
I do not deny that many of the hadith are forgeries. However Islam is not the topic on a Catholic website. You can debate that topic on another website. However the Donation of Constantine was used to promote the power of the Papacy. Furthermore Evangelicals and Orthodox do not recognize the authority of the Papacy – this also can not be denied. My Evangelical friends say that the Papacy has no authority in declaring what is a mortal or venial sin. They claim these are constructs of man and not God. This is evidence by there being no precedence in the Old Testament, Gospels, or New Testament for this arbitary distinction of mortal/venial sins. It seems apparent that Catholics are more interested in being Catholic than becoming Christian.
Search the scriptures diligently, from Old Testament to New, and you will find no mention of Jews or Christians observing an annual period of 40 days of fasting and abstinence preceding the festival of the Passover, yet today much of the “Christian” world observes a 40 day period called Lent, which precedes the festival of Easter Sunday.
In the fifth century, some Fathers claimed that Lent was of apostolic institution, but the claim is doubtful. From the earliest Christian times everyone agreed that a penitential season should precede the solemnities of Easter, but for at least three centuries there was no agreement over how long that should be. Saint Irenaeus, writing around the year 190, clued to the diversity of opinion, saying: “some think they ought to fast for one day, others for two days, and others even for several, while other reckon forty hours both of day and night to their fast.” Apparently he knew nothing about any Lent or pre-Easter fast of forty days, else he would have mentioned it.
Um, no. In the first place, this is not a blog about Catholicism, this is a blog about everything, from a Catholic point of view. Islam is an entirely legitimate subject on this blog. Secondly, Tu quoque (loosely “You’re no different”) is an entirely legitimate form of rejoinder; if a Protestant or Muslim comes in here throwing charges around, he can well expect to be cross-examined, and that cross-examination may well include finding out how well his own position stands up to his own objections.
Yes, a true power was promoted by false means. It has happened once or twice. Your point?
Not denied perhaps, but nuanced and clarified most certainly. There is no one Evangelical and/or Orthodox line on exactly what if anything makes the Roman Church special. Most or all Evangelical and Orthodox biblical scholarship today acknowledges that when Jesus said “Upon this rock” he was speaking of Peter personally. Many Orthodox acknowledge some sort of primacy for the Roman Church, although its nature and origin is subject to differing points of view. Some Orthodox believe that primacy is a matter of human tradition; others believe it pertains to the nature of the Church itself.
Here, friend, educate yourself.
How clever of you to be able to see men’s hearts. I can only speak for myself: As God is my judge, I left Evangelicalism and became Catholic precisely to follow Jesus Christ.
“This is evidence by there being no precedence in the Old Testament, Gospels, or New Testament for this arbitrary distinction of mortal/venial sins.”
“There is a sin which is mortal…All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”–1 John 5:16-17. And the distinction is not “arbitrary”.
1. If the vast majority of Evangelicals and Orthodox acknowledged Peter as being the Rock, then they would be joining themselves with the Catholic church. However, the evidence is that Evangelicals and Orthodox are growing faster than the Catholics. So I doubt your claim that MOST Evangelicals acknowledge Peter as the foundation for Pope. History would prove otherwise.
2. Two kinds of sin are identified in the verse: (1) sin that does not lead to death, and (2) sin leading to death.
First, consider sin that does not lead to death. Sin that does not lead to death is sin we repent of! John has already written, back in chapter one: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness,” (1 John. 1:9). So sin that does not lead to death is sin we confess; sin we forsake and ask God to forgive. When we see a brother commit a sin not unto death (the guilty one repents), our response should be, ask God to give that brother life. God will give life to the repentant.
“Sin unto death” would obviously be sin we see that the guilty brother continues in; does not repent of!
I didn’t say the vast majority of Evangelicals and Orthodox acknowledge Peter as being the Rock, nor that they acknowledge Peter as the foundation for the papacy. I said the vast majority of Evangelical and Orthodox Bible scholarship acknowledges the “rock” Jesus was speaking of was Peter himself (not his confession, or the truth of Jesus’ deity, etc.). This is a simple fact which you can verify yourself at any good theological library, including Protestant and Orthodox libraries.
Those who do acknowledge that Peter is the Rock attempt explain its implications in different ways. There who acknowledge some sort of connection between Peter the rock and the Roman primacy are obviously not the majority, though there are some. The point is that the matter is complicated, not just a simple matter of “All the Evangelicals and Orthodox are over here and only the Catholics are over there.” Drawing the line between “here” and “there” can be trickier than it seems.
It is not enough to say “Sin unto death is sin we do not repent of.” Any Evangelical would tell you he falls into some sin or other every day; some would tell you that they sin every hour or every moment. Yet they are very confident that this does not interfere with their “saved” status, even if they happen to die before repenting of some particular sin they committed in the last minute or two.
At the same time, St. Paul writes: “Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:19-21).
Again, I commend you to the links referenced above.
Why would Catholic give Peter some preeminent position when the other Apostles, Peter, nor Paul acknowledge such? I think this is an example of overclocking the text. If anything Paul had a much more preeminent position than Peter. This is evidenced both by history and amount of New Testament writing. Why can’t Catholic prove Peter’s preeminence using the Bible? They constantly rehash the same old shibboleth from Matthew 16.
It is probably because the Catholic Oligarchy wants to inculcate their sheep into blind submission.
Why do people think they can wade full speed into a discussion they know very little about and start throwing around sweeping statements that only display their own ignorance? A little intellectual humility goes a long way. It’s attractive, too.
As it happens, Peter’s special status is acknowledged in all the major strands of NT tradition, synoptic, Johannine and Pauline. It is found from the very earliest strata of tradition, in the paschal confessional formula recorded in 1 Corinthians 15, to some of the latest NT material, such as John 21. There is lots and lots of Catholic discussion of the NT evidence. Educate yourself.
Guess my earlier comment was too subtle. First, as a fellow man and fellow lover of God, in Christian charity, I beg you: Be sparing of judging your fellow man, for the measure you measure with will be measured back to you. Second, as a moderator on this blog, I have to tell you that your theological opinions and arguments are welcome here, but your moral judgmentalism isn’t. Please knock it off, if not for the good of your soul, then at least as a guest deferring to your host’s house rules.
Rashid, you have already been proven wrong on so many points, I really have nothing to add except a recap:
1. Many ahadith as you acknowledge are forgeries (although you stop short of acknowledging the Qur’an is a forgery). Thus, Islam is mostly based on lies/forgeries. You cannot deny this.
2. I can debate Islam here, since the topic of this particular thread is Islam. You can’t tell me what to do. Got that?
3. The Donation of Constantine was used to promote the power of the Papacy, but this means nothing since it was forged centuries after the practice was already in existence.
4. You say Evangelicals and Orthodox do not recognize the authority of the Papacy, but as mentioned, Orthodox DO recognize the papace (their wording is 1st among equals). So, yet again, you are wrong. Whatever Evangelicals do or do not believe is irrelevant.
4. Mortal vs venial sins are biblical, as Bill has pointed out. So, you AND your Evangelical “friend” are wrong (again).
5. While you say, “It seems apparent that Catholics are more interested in being Catholic than becoming Christian” what you really mean is you have no clue about half the things you are saying.
The major point here is you need to listen more and talk less. Rather than making stupid comments which are false, why not simply ask questions to get the answers, THEN decide. However, and I say this with all sincerity, it has been my experience that Muslims in general are not very intelligent or willing to try to understand anything at all. They prefer to be told by someone they trust then take the statement as fact, regardless of the proof to the contrary. This is why there is so much violence and ignorance in the Muslim world; people take a small rumor as fact, then go around blowing up buildings and killing people based on a baseless rumor.
I believe it was Sir Lawrence who said, “you will always be a simple, silly people”.
Heh. From the current occupant of the Chair of Peter:
Educate yourself.
Start reading at the sentence “It would be misguided to pounce immediately on the classic proof text for the primacy, Matthew 16:13-20.” :‑)
(Catholic readers, check it out also! An expository treat from then-Cardinal Ratzinger.)
I don’t see any problem in passing moral judgments. The Vatican has create a new round of moral judgments by adding 7 new mortal sins. I find it strange that they would not include alcoholism, cigarette smoking, and pederasty as mortal sins. Making moral judgments is the mark of a higher intellect and solid understanding of faith. Most people exhibit a false humility by virtue of their ignorance of their faith. Even Paul boasted about his faith. All the Prophets in the Old Testament made numerous moral judgments against the leaders and priests of their day. So what makes you so high and mighty to condemn a person for making moral judgments. Is this not also a moral judgment?
SDG,
You allow personal attack from your Catholics against me. But you will not let me reciprocate. Is this not a double standard. Is not your anger causing you to sin and create a mortal sin. This mortal sin will send you to Hell, will it not?
I have educated myself regarding the Chair of Peter. You presume that Evangelicals and Orthodox are ignorant of these arguments. There rebuttals would require a 1000 page thesis. Your readers would not be interested in the rebuttal because they have already made up their mind. Hence who is the person who needs to be educated? I have seen all sides to the debate. This is what the truly open minded do. They don’t use ignorance as an excuse to believe the tired lies from the Vatican.
Ignorance, ignorance, all is ignorance. Sigh.
Let me ‘splain it to you, at least as regards blog courtesy rules. Assertions like “Action X is objectively wrong” are fair game. Assertions like “The motive of person/people X in doing Y is Z” (where Z is morally opprobrious) are not fair game. Comprende?
I find it strange that they would not include alcoholism, cigarette smoking, and pederasty as mortal sins.
Once again, you are making STUPID comments. Alcohol and cigaret abuse ARE ALREADY SINS. This falls under the sin of gluttony (which also applies to food). ANY excessive use of food, alcohol, tobacco or drugs is a sin as it defiles the body. As for pederasty, this is the stupidest comment from you yet. ANY sex outside the sanctity of marriage is a sin, this of course includes Pederasty. Our Lord said specifically “if any one should cause the least of my little ones to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” I understand this must be disturbing for you to hear since you follow a Paedophile who had sex with a 9-year-old girl. But this is reality.
Even Paul boasted about his faith.
Prove it. Quote please.
So what makes you so high and mighty to condemn a person for making moral judgments. Is this not also a moral judgment?
The fact is your “moral judgements” have so far been useless stupid comments without any weight to them.
No, I presume people who say “Why can’t Catholic prove Peter’s preeminence using the Bible? They constantly rehash the same old shibboleth from Matthew 16” are ignorant of the fact that Catholics do in fact have recourse to the whole Bible and do not “constantly rehash the same old shibboleth from Matthew 16.”
You’ve shot your wad. Since you can’t dialogue without being abusive, you are not welcome to participate on the blog.
Deusdonat: Since you’ve generally confined your harsher rhetoric to other people’s comments rather than their motives or morality, I think you’re generally within the pale.
That said, I think a couple of your comments are overly provocative:
This is way too strong a statement based on way too little evidence/argumentation, and overly provocative.
Again, way over the top. Whatever experiences and impressions you are basing this on, it strikes me as enormously unfair and prejudicial. I seriously doubt anyone could maintain an “intelligence gap” between Muslims and Christians generally, certainly controlling for socioeconomic and other factors. While violence is obviously an ongoing problem in the Muslim world, historically speaking we Christians certainly have our share of problems on that front as well.
Many ahadith as you acknowledge are forgeries (although you stop short of acknowledging the Qur’an is a forgery). Thus, Islam is mostly based on lies/forgeries. You cannot deny this.
This is way too strong a statement based on way too little evidence/argumentation, and overly provocative.
No, actually Rashid admitted this about the ahadith. It is an accepted fact that most ahadith are forgeries. Yet these same forged booka were used to create many of the practices of Islam (such as the amount of times per day to pray, how to do it, how to beat your wife, how to circumcize your daughters etc). Therefore, from this evidence which Muslims agree upon (i.e. that they are forgeries) logic dictates that such practices and beliefs within their religion are based upon forgeries and lies. Nothing over the top in that statement. However, I do maintain (as do most legitimate orientalists) that the Qur’an is also a forgery. Here you will find very few Muslims who will admit this.
Whatever experiences and impressions you are basing this on, it strikes me as enormously unfair and prejudicial.
I am basing this on scientific method: how many riots and cases of mass unstructured violence around the world in a given year.
I seriously doubt anyone could maintain an “intelligence gap” between Muslims and Christians generally
Really. Count the number of Nobel prizes in science awarded to Christians, Jews and Muslims. If you can’t see a disparity, then…
While violence is obviously an ongoing problem in the Muslim world, historically speaking we Christians certainly have our share of problems on that front as well.
Historically speaking, yes. But why is it not existant now? Is it possibly because we have EDUCATED ourselves with the media at our current disposal? Is it because we acknowledge the virtue and value of human life? Is it because our Christian leaders call us AWAY from violence? Is it because we have a culture of intellect, education, charity and good works even among those not of our faith?
All of these comprise the value system which is lacking in the Muslim world, and contributes to their general deficiency in education and thus intellect. If you are told to simply obey and not question in all aspects, thus believing the world is flat and mountains are pegs holding it down, then this will damage your propensity for reason and thus erode any possibilities of intellectual achievment.
I’m not simply talking out of my hat here.
The Vatican has create a new round of moral judgments by adding 7 new mortal sins.
THey didn’t ‘add’ mortal sins. They just pointed out that some things celebrated by the culture are and always have been evil.
I find it strange that they would not include alcoholism, cigarette smoking, and pederasty as mortal sins.
Those are already acknowledged as mortal sins. Sheesh. Does everyone think that if the pope doesn’t plainly say such-and-so is a sin, then such-and-so isn’t a sin?
However, as important as the Hadith are, the Qu’ran, not the Hadith, is the basis of Islam. It is quite possible to maintain, and AFAIK many Muslims do maintain, that the practices you mention are not fundamental to Islam, and indeed are neither accepted nor practiced by all Muslims. You cannot leap straight from “Many/Most hadith are forgeries” to “Islam is largely based on forgeries/lies.” Many Muslim practices, perhaps, but not Islam itself. That is epistomologically bogus.
Then make that case. That’s why I said “way too little evidence/argumentation.”
To attempt to generalize about intelligence levels of particular population groups based on the outcome of an awards process in Oslo is an enormously trivial argument. Nor do specific incidents of riots and mass unstructured violence offer a meaningful window into “Muslims in general.”
Yes, historically Christian societies have in some ways advanced culturally (while declining in other ways), and yes again, many historically Islamic societies culturally lag far behind in many respects. Jimmy has pointed this out in the past (e.g., here). I have no problem with a culture critique of trends in Muslim societies.
However, to extrapolate from such cultural deficiencies to “Muslims in general are not very intelligent” is frankly ridiculous. For one thing, it confuses education with intelligence; for another, you don’t know enough Muslims, and don’t have enough sociological data, to make broad statements about “Muslims in general.”
I find it strange that they would not include alcoholism, cigarette smoking, and pederasty as mortal sins.
Those are already acknowledged as mortal sins. Sheesh. Does everyone think that if the pope doesn’t plainly say such-and-so is a sin, then such-and-so isn’t a sin?
No, David! On that point I agree with our Mohammedan. Why didn’t the Pope add puppy-curling and cat-juggling to the “new” deadly sins!? Why didn’t he add tax evasion and flashing one’s crotch while exiting a limousine? Oh! And downloading music illegaly on the internet! Boy, the Pope really forgot about a lot of them!
: P
However, as important as the Hadith are, the Qu’ran, not the Hadith, is the basis of Islam.
No, I’m sorry but this is mistaken. The Qur’an is indeed important to Islam (arguably the most important), but the 5 pillars of Islam are
1) Shahadah (profession of faith) – Comes straight from the Quran.
2) Salah (ritual prayer five times each day) comes from ahadith
3) Sawm (fasting during Ramadan) comes from ahadith
4) Zakat (charity given to the needy) Quran and ahadith
5) Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) comes from ahadith
It is quite possible to maintain, and AFAIK many Muslims do maintain, that the practices you mention are not fundamental to Islam
No, it is not. See above.
You cannot leap straight from “Many/Most hadith are forgeries” to “Islam is largely based on forgeries/lies.” Many Muslim practices, perhaps, but not Islam itself. That is epistomologically bogus.
I have made my case.
Then make that case. That’s why I said “way too little evidence/argumentation.”
The case has been made by none other than Saint John the Damascene (pray for us!) among many other saints and church scholars. I couldn’t possibly make the case more eloquently. But I would recomend you read St John Damascene’s “Critique of Islam” which mirrors my sentiments exactly.
To attempt to generalize about intelligence levels of particular population groups based on the outcome of an awards process in Oslo is an enormously trivial argument.
I disagree.
Nor do specific incidents of riots and mass unstructured violence offer a meaningful window into “Muslims in general.”
Once again, I disagree with your opinions here.
However, to extrapolate from such cultural deficiencies to “Muslims in general are not very intelligent” is frankly ridiculous.
No, it isn’t. Remember: Muslims are not a race. They are people who follow a belief system.
For one thing, it confuses education with intelligence;
True education fosters intelligence. “Education from a madrassah stifles it.
for another, you don’t know enough Muslims, and don’t have enough sociological data, to make broad statements about “Muslims in general.”
You don’t know me, so you can’t make this statement. In any case, you are wrong. I was raised with/around Muslims and deal with them every day at work and when traveling. My interaction is extensive, not trivial. My knowledge of the subject is both accademic and personal. You are of course free to disagree, but so am I.
My suspicion meter is telling me that rashid and rusta are the same person.
ya think? And MY spidey sense is saying we can throw Zeno/Vesa into that group as well…
Too much conceptual slipping and sliding.
The practices you mentioned that I said could be maintained as not essential to Islam included wife beating and female circumcision. To my knowledge, these are not universally accepted institutions in Islam.
Salah or ritual prayer is clearly in a different category, whether in the “Five Pillars” framework of Sunni Islam or the somewhat different framework of Shi’a Islam. However, there is a fallacy or three in the following argument:
1. Many hadith are forgeries.
2. Important Islamic tenets are partly dependent upon some hadith.
3. Therefore, Islam is mostly based on forgeries.
Can you spot the fallacies?
That’s all well and good; my objection was to your original line of reasoning, which began with “Many ahadith as you acknowledge are forgeries” and then drew the (so far) unwarranted conclusion “Thus, Islam is mostly based on lies/forgeries. You cannot deny this.”
Unfortunately for both of us I don’t have the time to go over the logic here. I bet there are others who can.
When did race come into anything? In any case, the majority of people, intelligent and otherwise, follow the belief system they were raised with.
AFAIK, “madrassah” means “school.”
You’re right, I don’t know. I’m guessing. My impression is that your views are prejudicial and brittle, and that you are harsh to people you disagree with. Also, what I’ve seen of your arguments doesn’t inspire me with a lot of confidence. I could be off base.
Absolutely not. I’m pretty sure I know who Zeno/Vesa is/was (in a certain sense). He is many things, but he is not a troll, and I’m confident that he’s as Catholic as the pope (if nowhere near as temperate and self-critical). If I ever met him in person, he would get both a big hug and a slap upside the head, and I think he would know that he deserves them both.
Also, FWIW, rashid and rusta appear to be different people.
Too much conceptual slipping and sliding.
Too much nebulous euphemistic terminology : P
The practices you mentioned that I said could be maintained as not essential to Islam included wife beating and female circumcision. To my knowledge, these are not universally accepted institutions in Islam.
I mentioned them as refereced by the hadith as examples. While the examples you chose are not universal, the others I mentioned are.
However, there is a fallacy or three in the following argument:
1. Many hadith are forgeries.
2. Important Islamic tenets are partly dependent upon some hadith.
3. Therefore, Islam is mostly based on forgeries.
Can you spot the fallacies?
I cannot. It seems perfectly sound reasoning to me. Maybe you should run this past someone else and get their opinion. Incidentally, hadith = one book. Ahadith = two books in Arabic. Ahadith is plural, (one hadith, many ahadith FYI).
“Many ahadith as you acknowledge are forgeries” and then drew the (so far) unwarranted conclusion “Thus, Islam is mostly based on lies/forgeries. You cannot deny this.”
Once again, I think the logic in this statement is clear here to most.
Unfortunately for both of us I don’t have the time to go over the logic here. I bet there are others who can.
I would welcome that at this point : )
When did race come into anything? In any case, the majority of people, intelligent and otherwise, follow the belief system they were raised with.
I mention this because following a belief system is a CHOICE. Regardless of pressure from family, society etc, belief is a choice. Those who CHOOSE to beleive the nonsense in the Qur’an (and Islam in general) do so at the detriment to their intellect. As for people following the beleif system they were raised with, well…that certainly isn’t true in the US according to the latest study. If you have another world-wide study that contradicts this, please present it.
AFAIK, “madrassah” means “school.”
Yes it does, in Arabic. But in the Muslim world it has come to symbolize religious school (“Madrassah deen”) and is a “loan word” to mean as such. And often times, the madrassah is the only game in town.
I’ll bow to your expertise regarding the whole Rusta/Rashid/Vesa/Zeno connundrum. However I believe your ad hominem comments to me were uncharicteristically uncharitable as I have said nothing against you personally or your attitudes, demeanor or opinions here.
Thanks for the Arabic lesson — I didn’t know that. Let’s see if I can return the favor.
The fallacies are as follows:
Primarily, the argument suffers from the fallacy of the undistributed middle. We know that “many” ahadith are spurious, and “some” ahadith are essential for establishing (some) important Islamic tenets. We do not yet know that any of the ahadith that are essential for establishing important Islamic tenets are the same as any of the spurious ahadith.
In principle, it could be that those ahadith that are spurious either provide non-essential corroboration for essential Islamic tenets that can be validly derived without recourse to that particular hadith, based on the Qu’ran and other, non-spurious ahadith, or else are concerned with non-essential aspects of Muslim practice and culture.
Even if it were to turn out that at least some essential Islamic practices are at least partly dependent upon some spurious ahadith (meaning that they cannot be derived without recourse to them), it would still not follow that these compromised, spurious-ahadith-dependent practices constitute “most” of Islam, or for that matter that “most” of Islam is even based on the Hadith at all.
In principle, the two premises of the argument are logically consistent with any of the following scenarios:
1. that more than 50 percent of important Islamic tenets, or even a much higher portion, could be derived solely from the Qu’ran, without any reference to the Hadith; or
2. that more than 50 percent of important Islamic tenets could be derived from the Qu’ran and from non-spurious ahadith together, without any reliance upon spurious ahadith; or
3. that the extent to which important Islamic tenets are dependent upon spurious ahadith is less than the extent to which they are dependent upon the Qu’ran and non-spurious ahadith.
Because these scenarios are logically compatible with the premises of the argument, it does not follow from the premises that “Islam is mostly based on forgeries.” This would follow only if it were first established either that (a) most important Islamic tenets were largely dependent upon spurious ahadith, or that (b) the Qu’ran is a forgery, which was not part of the original argument.
From which the fallacy of arguing from the premise “Many ahadith as you acknowledge are forgeries” to the conclusion “Thus, Islam is mostly based on lies/forgeries” should be evident.
Regarding the Nobel Prize and riots, two quick comments:
First, at best, the Nobel Prize might tell us something about the handful of people at the very forefront of scientific inquiry. Its value for assessing overall sociological characteristics is nil because, among other things, there is no reason to think that those at the very forefront of scientific inquiry are representative of the groups they represent. At best, it tells us about one end of a bell curve; we still know zip about the overall shape of the curve.
To give a ridiculous example, suppose you had two population groups A and B, such that A is almost exclusively made up of very bright and well-educated individuals, while B is very largely made up of individuals of substandard intelligence, but with a tiny minority of brilliant revolutionaries.
At the end of the year, when awards are given out, the top awards will almost always go to the super-geniuses at the top of group B. Yet the average individual of group B is far less intelligent than the average individual of group A.
Similarly, by comparing incidents of violence in Muslim cultural milieus with those in traditionally Christian milieus, you might be able to make comparative statements about the ratios of violent elements within each culture. But this gives us no basis for generalizing about Muslims in general, because we still don’t know the extent to which those violent elements are or are not representative of their culture in general.
Again, suppose two societies A and B, with respective rates of violent troublemakers .05 percent and 6 percent. Clearly, B has a much bigger problem with violent troublemakers than A. But we can’t draw any conclusions about what individuals generally in society B are like. (To say nothing of what other factors might instigate potential troublemakers in either society, but which for extrinsic reasons are more of an issue in one context than another.)
I appreciate the restraint of your response to my criticism. As I see it, Rashid was trolling and belligerent, but the harshness of your rhetoric in dealing with him was unhelpful, and I felt obliged to say so.
Unfortunately, you simply don’t understand the concept of the Muslim holy books. The closest analogy I can draw is that regarding the Qur’an, it is a concept quite similar to the Evangelical perception of the bible. Meaning, if the Qur’an says an ant, which has no vocal chords and communicates by smell spoke to King Solomon, then that’s what happened. The ahadith on the other hand would be conceptually similar to the Catholic understanding of the Gospels; sayings and actions of Mohammed which are attributed to his earliest family and followers. Ahadith is not taken as individual works, nor are some rejected and left out like apocrypha in the Christian world. It is accepted as an ENTIRE body; some valid, some not. While the Qur’an is off-limits for any kind of debate in orthodox Islam, the ahadith are wide open for it, and you will rarely find ANY two Mohammedan scholars from different schools who agree on which ahadith are valid and which are not. There is simply no cohesion or unanimity (or even magesterium to decide it).
Now, as I have shown above, Islam is based on 5 pillars; 3 of which come solely from ahadith, and one which is mentioned in the Qur’an but “codified” by hadith. Therefore, if it can be shown that this body of work accepted by the Mohammedan community contains forgery (say 60%, which is accepted as accurate), then it can be assumed that this can be extrapolated and infered throughout. This is what is known as the law of adverse inference. Thus, if 4/5ths of Islam (i.e. from the 5 pillars) is based upon a body of work which is at best 60% a forgery, then logic dictates that the majority of Islam is based on forgery.
I appreciate your offer of the “favor”, which is obviously irrelevant at this point. However I may call it in sometime in the future. But I would definitely like to take you up on your previous suggestion to have other people speak on the subject at this point.
the above post was of course from me.
I’m sorry, but this graf is riddled with bogus reasoning. Even if we overlook all else and focus solely on the bogus math, and accept your bogus assumptions that 4/5ths of Islam is based on texts that are 60 percent forged, without even making any further adjustments we still only have a 48 percent forgery basis for Islam, which is unambiguously less than “mostly.”
And that’s not even accounting for other obvious problems with this reasoning: that Islam as a system of belief is not in fact “based on” the Five Pillars, but on the Qu’ran; nor is it reducible to them, not entirely unlike Christianity not being reducible to the Ten Commandments; that precisely because Muslim scholars differ on which ahadith are spurious and which authentic, any Muslim is free to argue that no essential precept of Islam is dependent upon any spurious hadith; etc. (On that last point, you seem not to have noticed that your comments about the lack of cohesion or unity on which ahadith are valid or not reinforce rather than undermine my point.)
If anything, you understate the significance of the Qu’ran in Islam (as well as overstating what can be said for the “Evangelical” attitude toward Scripture (you might have done better with Fundamentalism). In some ways the role of the Qu’ran is more like the role of Jesus himself in Christianity than the Bible: It is the definitive soteriological self-disclosure of God in history.
It looks as if you assume Sunni Islam as normative. FWIW, don’t know if you’ve seen this story, but you might find it interesting.
SDG,
As a single guy with ample time on my hands (probably shouldn’t be so), I commend you, a husband and father, for finding the time to post here so frequently and so ‘intelligently'(Okay. It’s best word my tired brain could think of). When does your ‘Time Management’ book come out? 🙂
Heh. I really only have one secret. It’s amazing how little sleep you can get by on once you get used to it.
I’m sorry, but this graf is riddled with bogus reasoning.
It looks as if you assume Sunni Islam as normative.
No, it isn’t. I was trying to “dumb it down” to a mathmatical caluculation for someone who has no background in the subject so as to meet you at a common ground.
Even if we overlook all else and focus solely on the bogus math, and accept your bogus assumptions that 4/5ths of Islam is based on texts that are 60 percent forged, without even making any further adjustments we still only have a 48 percent forgery basis for Islam, which is unambiguously less than “mostly.”
Uh…no. Check your math. 4/5ths = 8/10ths, 60% = 6/10ths; to find the average you add both then divide by 2 which equals 7/10ths or 70%. Since this is more than half, my “mostly” comment stands. Whether you consider the premise “bogus”, the math isn’t. Your calculation skills were.
And that’s not even accounting for other obvious problems with this reasoning: that Islam as a system of belief is not in fact “based on” the Five Pillars, but on the Qu’ran;
It is based on both; the Qur’an and the five pillars which come from the Qur’an and ahadith. If you only believe in the Qur’an and do not follow the five pillars (especially the first) then you are not a Muslim in the eyes of the Mohammedans. Don’t take this the wrong way, but it is really becoming difficult to argue with someone on this subject who does not know about the subject matter here.
On that last point, you seem not to have noticed that your comments about the lack of cohesion or unity on which ahadith are valid or not reinforce rather than undermine my point.
LOL. if you say so.
If anything, you understate the significance of the Qu’ran in Islam
Nope. I didn’t. I gave the analogy previously and stand by it.
Sunni Islam is about 90% normative. There have always been sects, cults, splinter groups etc throughout history. Not as many as in Christianity, but the have a lot more than even Muslims will admit to.
FWIW, don’t know if you’ve seen this story, but you might find it interesting.
I haven’t read this story, but I knew about the topic. There is a growing “Qur’an only” sentiment in many Industrialized/ing Mohammedan nations. They realize, as I have said, that the majority of their religion is built on forgery. They are attempting to scale it back to the basics, which they see is the Qur’an only. That is the real theme behind what is going on in Turkey; to eventually discount the entire hadith as man-made, well-meaning lore.
“I remind Catholics that St. Aquinas obtained most of his initial theology from Muslim philosophers,”
Oh… coffee out my nose on that one! That’s hilarious! I see Tokyo Rashid is back and has abandoned all pretense at reasoned argument. He’s now just throwing garbage and hoping some of it will stick.
You know, considering that most Islamic doctrinal distinctives were lifted from Judaism and Christianity, that’s pretty ballsy.
Ban the troll.
Sorry… looks like Rashid’s drivel was deleted before my post went up.
Well, two comments: I stand by my calculation – we are trying to ascertain a “whole” which is the combination or average of two sums. Either way, I doubt either of us will garnor a Nobel prize for discovering the “formulaic theorem of Mohammedan forgery.” So, whilst it is a convenient way to blow a morning at the office, it really isn’t worth arguing about at this point. We’ve had our fun : )
Second, I realize you might not have approved of the manner of interaction with our Mohammedan visitor. But if you check the tone and spirit of his posts from the begining, he really was not coming here to debate or discuss anything. My responses were actually directed to any Catholic on this board with a mild interest in a Catholic response to Mohammedan charges against our religion. As far as seeing me interact with Muslims, you could certainly stop by my office on any given day (or even home during the holidays…not including Eid).
Things aren’t always what they seem on the internet. So often we are merely left with the facts at hand, rather than any background info on a particular poster. I hope I have provided enough facts and talking points on this subject such that anyone willing can research or verify what I have stated. And I cannot stress this enough; the best place to start would be St John Damascene’s “Critique of Islam”. It’s not a difficult read at all.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx
Oh… coffee out my nose on that one! That’s hilarious! I see Tokyo Rashid is back and has abandoned all pretense at reasoned argument. He’s now just throwing garbage and hoping some of it will stick.
LOL! I REALLY wish I could have seen the coffee out Tim’s nose. THAT would have made my morning : )
You know, considering that most Islamic doctrinal distinctives were lifted from Judaism and Christianity, that’s pretty ballsy.
Precisely. I could go into volumes of how the Qur’an was plagerized and forged from various sources. But as I said previously, St John Damascene (pray for us!) did it far better than I ever could.
Ban the troll.
Awe! Come on! Every team needs a mascott…
Okay, do-over….
Argh. For a moment you confused me and I thought my ORIGINAL math was wrong. But I just rechecked it twice, and nope, I was right the first time.
The correct operation is multiplication, not averaging; you’re trying to divvy up 4/5ths (i.e., 80 percent) 60/40. 80 percent divided 60/40 = 48/32. Thus, the 48 percent majority component of the 80 percent is bogus, while the 32 percent that is authentic, plus the original authentic 1/5 or 20 percent, makes 52 percent authentic.
Let’s do it again in fractions! 60 percent is the same as 3/5. 3/5ths of 4/5ths is, um, 12/25ths. Multiply both numbers by 4, and you’ve got 48/100, i.e., 48 percent.
Which is less than half. So “mostly” is STILL wrong.
Wanna do it again?
Don’t take this the wrong way, but you’re making it hard on yourself, since, e.g., I more or less explicitly stated that the five pillars were necessary, so you’re rebutting a straw man.
As for your purported expertise, I’m certainly willing to grant you might know more than I, certainly not about math but at least about Islam — but I’ll credit your expertise when I see you interact with a Muslim in a more creditable manner than you have in this thread.
Dude, just think about it commonsensically for a moment. How could 60 percent of any fraction be a larger percentage than 60 percent of the whole, i.e., 60 percent?
Even if 100 percent of Islam (rather than only 4/5) were based on 60 percent spurious sources, that would still only be 60 percent spurious — not 70. But (in our silly scenario) it isn’t 60 percent of the whole that’s spurious, it’s only 60 percent of 4/5ths. Without even thinking any further, that’s got to be less than 60 percent… not more. Right?
That’s what’s wrong with your “averaging” approach. If the correct way to calculate 60 percent of 4/5ths were to average 60 percent and 4/5ths, then by the same token the correct way to calculate 60 percent of 100 percent would be to find the average of 60 and 100, i.e., 80 percent. So in that case, 60 percent of 100 percent would be 80 percent!
But of course that’s silly — 60 percent of 100 percent is 60 percent. And by the same token, 60 percent of any fraction, e.g., 4/5ths, is going to be less than 60 percent, not more.
Hmmm. I see my subtle attempt to redirect the conversation from an off-topic tangent to the topic at hand was unsuccessful. Let me try again:
St John Damascene (pray for us!) wrote his “Critique of Islam” claiming Islam is false because it’s holy books (including the Qur’an) were plagerized and forgeries from the Old Testament, a heretic Nestorian Monk and Mohammed’s own creative design.
As per my previous comments, I happen to agree with our beloved saint. Which parts of St John Damascene’s comments to you refute specifically?
But the off-topic tangent has the advantage of being objective and verifiable! 🙂 That’s what’s so great about math.
When did I suggest I disagreed with St. John? What I disagreed with was arguing directly from the premise “Many ahadith are forgeries” to the conclusion “Thus, Islam is mostly based on lies/forgeries.” The conclusion may or may not be true, but in any case it does not follow from the premise, and it is false to say that Rashid “cannot deny” what hasn’t yet been established by the argument to date.
If you want to argue to that conclusion, you need to go after the Qu’ran itself — a course of action to which I have not the slightest objection. My objection was only that you skipped this rather crucial step in your interaction with Rashid. I’m not interested in refuting your conclusion (much less St. John’s), only your logical (and mathematical) demonstrations.
I could have easily gone after the Qur’an. But the “low-hanging fruit” was the hadith, since even Muslims acknowledge many are forgeries. This was a quick retort to the Mohammedan’s ascertions that Catholicism is somewhat inferior because we have forgeries in our past. My point was that Mohammedanism not only has forgeries, but that their religion is BASED on said forgeries. Whether you want to believe this is a percentage corresponding to “some”, “little”, “most” or “all” the reality of the situation is the same.
If you feel comfortable taking the “most” out, then why that’s just fine. The point has been made.
I really only have one secret. It’s amazing how little sleep you can get by on once you get used to it.
Ouch. Unfortunately, I know something about sleep deprivation myself: a weakened immune system follows fast on the heels of an all-nighter. Therefore, I’m planning on disconnecting myself from the cult of sleeplessness. 🙂
Nothing wrong with going after low-hanging fruit. I do think it’s a mistake to overstate or overplay how much hay we can make of it. We just shoot ourselves in the foot by giving the other side a target to shoot back at.
In any case, I’m aware that the spurious nature of many ahadith is known and acknowledged by many Muslims — that’s why I brought it up with Rusta in the first place. And I’m aware that the Hadith as a whole is crucial to historic Islam.
That said, I still have a hard time — feel free to attribute it to ignorance if you wish — imagining many Muslims, having first acknowledged those two points, going on to admit “You are right, our religious is somewhat based on forgeries.”
To me it seems the rejoinder might be something not entirely unlike: “Yes, many historic practices have been based on spurious ahadith. And yes, some crucial tenets of Islam do depend on some ahadith. But no crucial tenet of Islam originated with a spurious hadith. All crucial tenets of Islam, including the Five Pillars, rest on the Qu’ran and on authentic ahadith.”
But what do I know, maybe Muslims don’t really think like that. Even so, I find it unlikely that they admit that their religion was based on lies.
Perhaps you can clarify the point: Do they admit that? Or, if not, what do they say instead? If you feel my proposed Muslim apologetic is off the mark, perhaps you can clarify what a real Muslim apologist would say.
That said, I still have a hard time…imagining many Muslims, having first acknowledged those two points, going on to admit “You are right, our religious is somewhat based on forgeries.”
No, you would be correct here. First of all, Muslims are very insulated, in that they are almost cult-like in their responses. They either give standard answers (even if they don’t at times understand them) or they will say they don’t know. They seldom “wing it” or try to use logic with regards to religious questions. I could go into the history and tradition as to why, but let’s just leave it at that.
To me it seems the rejoinder might be something not entirely unlike: “Yes, many historic practices have been based on spurious ahadith. And yes, some crucial tenets of Islam do depend on some ahadith. But no crucial tenet of Islam originated with a spurious hadith. All crucial tenets of Islam, including the Five Pillars, rest on the Qu’ran and on authentic ahadith.”
Wow. I realize you are playing devil’s advocate, but that would be a spot on response, and is indeed one that is right on the money. But it is of course circular in logic; “how do we know the five pillars are based on authentic hadith? Because they have been accepted as such.” The idea that any of the most basic tenets of Islam could come from anything but authentic hadith is beyond reason, save to the new generatin of Mohammedan “Quran only” iconoclasts I mentioned before.
But what do I know, maybe Muslims don’t really think like that. Even so, I find it unlikely that they admit that their religion was based on lies.
LOL. Yes, one would be hard pressed to find a believing Muslim state his or her religion was based on lies. I think you would be hard pressed to find the same among Catholics. Oh, Protestants too. Oh, and Zoroastrians. Ah, and let’s not forget volcano worshipers…
Perhaps you can clarify the point: Do they admit that? Or, if not, what do they say instead? If you feel my proposed Muslim apologetic is off the mark, perhaps you can clarify what a real Muslim apologist would say.
Nope, you were again right on the money. As I stated, Mohammedans will admit freely that some ahadith are forged/fake/iligitimate. They will NEVER admit this about the Qur’an, or by definition they are not Muslim (although I know many “questioning” or skeptical Muslims who do admit this, but they are Muslim in name and outward appearance only).
The fact is, Rashid/Rusta (already admitedly using multiple IP’s, so we can assume they are the same person) is typical of a Mohammedan “apologist”. They actually have a “Playbook” or strategy which has been in use for centuries, begining from the times of St John Damascene (pray for us!) I kid you not. If you want to read about it, go HERE. It really is quite amuzing, since you will encounter these tactics and responses INCESSANTLY (it has been ingrained in them since childhood). The purpose is not necessarily to win an argument, but rather to change the argument and/or exasperate the other person to the point where all logical argument fails.
There’s a website called ‘sons of apes and pigs”? Somebody, sometime, somewhere, practiced uncharity (toward other or toward himself) by bringing that ‘moniker’ into existence.
And that’s all I have to add to this discussion. Now I’ll sit back down and listen once more.
David, FYI, “sons of Apes and Pigs” is what many Mohammedans refer to Christians and Jews when speaking amongst themselves and in their own tongues. This comes from the Qur’an in that one story states that god turned a group of Jews into Apes and others into Pigs. And we Christians, being the theological “descendants” of the Jews are considered their sons. It’s tongue-in-cheek.
Duesdonat,
Gotcha. Just wondered who thought up the moniker.
Meant “Deusdonat.” I do know Latin. 🙂
‘SOK. Another poster called me “dues” too. I kinda like it : )
Weird. The very stuff you say I’m getting right here is the exact same stuff I was trying to say before. Guess we had a communication problem.
Certainly there can be a circular aspect, or something like a circle, to claims that nothing essential rests on anything spurious. Another way to put it, in keeping with your comments, is that this thesis is implicit in the claim “I am a Muslim” (or Catholic, or Christian, etc.).
Thus, simply to say “I am a Bible-believing Christian” is implicitly to assert, e.g., that there are no real contradictions or errors in the scriptures, and seeming contradictions or errors must be apparent, not real (even if we cannot immediately explain every such apparent contradiction or error).
Likewise, to say “I am a non-dissenting Catholic” is implicitly to assert, e.g., that no solemnly defined magisterial teaching is in error or contradicts any other, or the scriptures, and so again any apparent errors or contradictions must either be apparent or not involve solemnly defined magisterial teaching.
The question then becomes how plausible your case is, and how honestly you treat with the evidence.
FWIW, I have significant doubts whether Rusta and/or Rashid is/are even Muslim at all. Subsequent emails I’ve gotten have made me wonder if they’re not trolling Fundamentalists pretending to be Muslims. I could be wrong, though.
P.S. The discussion about your handle and Latin makes me wonder whether your real name is Matthew.
“FWIW, I have significant doubts whether Rusta and/or Rashid is/are even Muslim at all. Subsequent emails I’ve gotten have made me wonder if they’re not trolling Fundamentalists…”
I wondered about the same thing. A real Muslim would, I think, try a little harder not to shoot themselves in the foot with such regularity.
And, if he/they are in fact trolling fundies, this gives them the opportunity to trash Catholics and give Muslims a bad name at the same time.
Very nice.
P.S. The discussion about your handle and Latin makes me wonder whether your real name is Matthew.
The following is an out-of-the-loop comment. 🙂
You lost me. How do you figure that?
I just looked over some of Rusta’s and Rashid’s (assuming they aren’t the same person) remarks. They do seem more conversant with the Bible than they are with the Koran, as well as more concerned about the origin of the papacy that I imagine a Muslim would be. If they are anti-Catholic Protestants pretending to be Muslims, I wonder if they remember who the Father of Lies is?
hmmm. That would explain the unusual (I would think) positive view of Protestants and Orthodox from Rusta too. Maybe.
and from Rashid too.
and from Rashid too.
huh. Weird double post. Also note that he/they refer to Evangelicals not Protestants. Odd, unless the it’s coming from an Evangelical.
Just a passing thought. “Matthew” means “gift of God.”
Just a passing thought. “Matthew” means “gift of God.”
D’oh! Must. remember. the. meaning. of. names. henceforth.
SDG Tim and JR,
I agree with you all on the whole Rashid/Rusta thing. Like I said, I had suspicions he/they were actually Zeno/Vesa. I would say it is either a “Christian” posing as a Muslim or a recent Muslim convert who knows little about Islam. Either way, as I stated, my comments were mostly directed towards the Catholics on this site rather than the poster at large.
SDG, apparently the only disagreement appears to be the fact that you found it distasteful for me to say to a Mohammedan (so called) that his religion was mostly based on forgery and lies. You later concede this may be the case, since you did not wish to refute St John Damascene (pray for us!) who held the same opinion. But I believe your point of contention was that it there may be better ways to bring this up, since a Mohammedan will most likely never admit this. Is that fair to say? If this is the case, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time I have been accused of lacking in tact on an internet discussion.
As for my handle, VERY nice deductions. But no, my name isn’t Matthew or even Donatus/Donato/Deosdato or any variation thereof. I chose it because it is a vulgate phrase orignating from the biblical passage, “Dominus dedit, Dominus abstulit” (Deus donat, deus tollit). It is a harsh reality I have experienced at several points in my life, which allows me the luxury of experiencing immense gratitude for everything good in my life. It’s also one of the main reasons I continue to practice the “old” fast during Lent and advent. It reminds me of how good I have it now, and that it can all be taken away at any moment. And I should be happy either way. (although I definitely have a preference on the matter at this stage in my life).
Sorry for the long rabling explanation. And thanks and kudos for the Trolline Excorcism (be it Mohammedan, Fundie or all of the above).
Just to be clear, I have no wish to prolong our quarrel, but since you ask I’ll try to clarify again.
I wouldn’t say that my issue was that I found your claim “distasteful.” “Lacking in tact” might be at least a partial step closer to the mark, although on that score I willingly cop to a rap sheet of my own from here to Poughkeepsie, so I don’t want to be self-righteous about it. (FWIW, I have tried to learn from my mistakes, and I think I’ve been at least somewhat successful.)
It would be fair to say that I objected to your tone, which made it easier for Rashid to claim, not quite accurately, that he was getting as good as he gave. You’ve obviously got a point that the same proposition can be stood on its head, but if possible I prefer it when things are neat, and trolls are dealt with as courteously and charitably as possible until their behavior gets them banned, so that the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior is as clear as possible.
At the same time, my objection was as much to what I have argued was the overreaching of your argument. If you go back to my original post, I wrote, “This is way too strong a statement based on way too little evidence/argumentation, and overly provocative.”
Suppose you had gone on from saying “Many ahadith as you acknowledge are forgeries” to adding something like this:
Okay, so it would have taken a lot longer to write all that. Maybe a shorter version of the above. In any case, it seems to me a stronger argument, it doesn’t overreach the facts established to date, and is both more pointed (in its allusion to hypocrisy) yet also more moderate in tone.
Incidentally, it is also incorrect to say that I “later conceded” anything, or that I did so on the grounds that I “did not wish to refute St John Damascene.” (Some other Catholics around here have reason to know that I’m not shy about disagreeing with saints, even in very sharp and occasionally even scandalous terms. In any case, if you thought I was backtracking, you misread me, probably as regards my earlier/original comments.)
Oh, and of course I wouldn’t use “Mohammadan,” unless I was trying to be obnoxious.
Hope that’s helpful.
FWIW, once again, I’m convinced that Zeno/Vesa is 100 percent, even fiercely Catholic, as much as you. Let’s try to give one another the benefit of the doubt where possible.
Thanks for the clarifications about your handle.
SDG Just to be clear, I have no wish to prolong our quarrel, but since you ask I’ll try to clarify again.
I sincerely did not feel in any way that we were quarreling. There was only one comment that I felt was at risk of our conversation escallating into something it shouldn’t. But other than that I truly enjoy talking with you as well as 99% of the people on this site. There has only been one member with whom I have had a real issue. But on the whole, regardless of the heatedness of the conversations I really don’t hold anything against anyone here and take each conversation at face value (save one previously alluded to case). But I appreciate your sentiment. Just know I never took it as a quarrel. If you did, then I apologyze, and it’s just another testament to the fact that I need to further my writing skills on the internet.
Three more quick points:
1. I understand your strategy in dealing with the trolls charitably. Something struck me from the tone of this one that immediately he was a lost cause, which is why, as I stated, I really didn’t put much effort there, but rather used it as a forum to educate those Catholics around us on Islam, rather than than worry too much about the poster in question. But I will try to adhere to your strategy in the future.
2. Saints are not 100% infallible, so there is definitely room for questioning, even total disagreement in their writings (the church does this all the time). St Augustine is probably one of the biggest examples of “fair game”. But St John Damascene (pray for us!) is in my opinion, right on the money on so many different issues, specifically on Islam.
3. I use the word “Mohammedan” because it is 100% accurate. Yes, Muslims don’t like it, because it is a direct challenge to their belief system. And that’s OK, given this is a debate forum. If I said, “Followers of the pedophile false-prophet” then that would be over-the-top nasty and of course stifle all opportunity for constructive conversation or debate there. But Mohammedan is to me, just fine. In fact, in 2 other languages I speak that is still the commonly used word for Muslims/Islam. And on a personal note, I have always favored words which expressed their accuracy rather than those simply en vogue with popular culture (i.e. islamofascism) misguided sense of political correctness (i.e. “separated bretheren”).
This will be my last post as tomorrow is Palm Sunday and Holy Week begins (thank GOD for small mercies!) So to you and everyone, please enjoy a safe, pious and productive holy week and a blessed Easter!
Just a postscript to say: In ongoing offline discussion with Rusta, I’ve been persuaded that my suspicion that he is not a Muslim, but a Fundamentalist anti-Catholic posing as a Muslim, was unfounded.
So, Rusta, I apologize for wrongly suspecting you of dissembling about your religious beliefs.
(Also, FWIW, I believe those who thought Rusta and Rashid were the one and the same were mistaken. Rusta is in the US, though I believe him when he says he is from Turkey. I believe Rashid is not in the US. Of course I don’t know any of this for a fact, but at this point I think it is reasonable to take Rusta at his word on these points.)
Nothing else changes. Whether Fundamentalist or Muslim, Rusta, your behavior was what it was, and the decision to disinvite you from blog participation stands, at least for the present. I have no reason as yet to think you are interested in dialoguing in good faith, and until I do, I can’t welcome you back to the blog combox.
But tell him if he hands back Hagia Sophia to its rightful owners you will take it as a gesture of good faith here.
Zeno:
Not you too, brutha. And after all the nice things I said defending you in the last few weeks.
I expect trolls like our Muslim friend “Rusta” to follow me home to Decent Films and post anonymously to my contact form without providing an email address. But by this point, I really thought better of you.
You have always known who I am. I make no secret of my identity online. By contrast, I know you only by the handle(s) you have used on Jimmy’s blog, starting with the, ah, non-Jacobite handle, if you follow me. (I’m making an effort to keep your secret, here.)
I think we have enough history that if you have something to say to me, you can say it in a way that allows me to respond. If you can’t extend that courtesy to me, I’ve been wrong about you and you aren’t worth my time.
In ongoing offline discussion with Rusta,
WHA!?! Please tell me you ain’t given out your phone number to these interesting folks!!!
P.S. I might e-mail you myself, but that would be about the movies. I certainly wouldn’t engage someone like you in one-on-one debate about religion (if we weren’t both Catholic), ’cause you’re indefatigable 😀
No no no. 🙂 Rusta sent a few emails to my contact form at Decent Films, that’s all.
Heh. One of Rusta’s Evangelical/Fundamentalist friends has been emailing me… watch this space for excerpts from my replies in the near future. :‑)
One of Rusta’s Evangelical/Fundamentalist friends has been emailing me
Um…ever read the book “Sybil”?
One of Rusta’s Evangelical/Fundamentalist friends has been emailing me… watch this space for excerpts from my replies in the near future. :‑)
Rocky’s theme plays
BTW Jimmy should re-name his blog SDG.Org ;-P
You have No Idea. Strangely, though, whatever the locus of the dysfunctionality I’ve been dealing with here, I actually think I am dealing with different individuals here. I admit I could be wrong.
Aside to Non-Jacobite: Why don’t you just give me your damn email? Trust me. Love, SDG
SDG,
Why don’t you just give me your damn email? Trust me. Love, SDG
LOL. Going a little ‘commando’ on the fellow, huh?
Where can I get a shirt with that on it?