Pope Benedict XVI praying to a statue of Mary. Even though Roman Catholics say, "we are not worshipping Mary, we are not giving her Latria, we are only asking her to pray for us and giving her "hyper-dulia" (extra veneration and honor). Well, it looks like worship to me. It is wrong; and it has been a bad witness to Muslims for centuries.
I saw this today at a Muslim blog, so the bad witness to Muslims continues to this day. (no longer there, as Paul Williams deleted his blogs several times.) Shame on the Roman Catholic Church!
The Muslim quotes Surah 5:116-118.
I left a comment:
Indeed, this is exactly why Muhammad thought the Trinity was “Father, Son, and Mother”, as Surah 5:116 and 6:101 and 5:72-75 makes clear.
Because of the churches at that time had “left their first love” (Rev. 2:4-5) and they later exalted Mary too much and prayed to her and had icons and statues.
Those practices which included heretical churches and nominal Christians and also later developed into full blown Roman Catholicism and the iconography emphasis in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and other Oriental Orthodox Churches were a terrible witness to the Muslims.
Even to this day, most Muslims don’t even know what the Trinity is.
Since Muhammad and whoever compiled the Qur’an did not accurately know the doctrine of the Trinity, this proves that the Qur’an is not God’s word.
Posts
25 comments:
'Even to this day, most Muslims don’t even know what the Trinity is.'
Actually to this day most Christians don't even know what the Trinity is...
Then you have the RC NAB: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/nab.htm
How many Christians can properly state the doctrine of the trinity is beside the point; which is that the author of the Quran could not do it. Whoever authored the Quran was woefully ignorant of both the Bible's contents and the beliefs of Christians.
>> Actually to this day most Christians don't even know what the Trinity is...>>
Indeed. I think it is an incontrovertible fact that very few Christians can delineate the doctrine of the Trinity in a form which logically avoids either Sabellianism or Tritheism.
Grace and peace,
David
Do you worship Jesus Christ, both His Divine and His human nature (His body and His soul), or not?
Is Mary a member of the body of Jesus Christ or not (1 Corinthians 12)?
Is any saint in Heaven an eternal member of the body of Jesus Christ or not (1 Corinthians 12)?
How do you worship Jesus Christ if you despise all His members except the head?
Yes, Catholics worship The Blessed Virgin Mary as the most glorious member of the body of Jesus Christ after its own head which is Jesus Christ Himself.
Catholics worship Jesus Christ Himself in The Blessed Virgin Mary and in all saints.
You despise Jesus Christ by despising His own members, Mary and the saints, and so worship the father of lies (John 8:44). Eternal shame on you, disbelievers of 1 Corinthians 12 and so of The Bible.
Cman, your conclusions are not warranted by the evidence.
Rejecting praying the departed saints (PTDS) does not translate into "despising the members of the body, and worshiping the father of lies, which leaping logic is so absurd that it hardly warrants a response.
Paul admonished the Corinthians against thinking "of men above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:6) which does not mean he despised them as a devil worshiper, but that Scripture defines the level of veneration given to man.
Thus we do not look to Luther as pope, nor divide the body of Christ into two classes, one now in purgatory and the other in glory. Nor as those being the object of incessant prayers addressed to them, and like God, are able to hear and responds to them.
However, if you can show us just one prayer by a believer addressed to anyone else in Heaven besides the Lord, out of the hundred or so the Holy Spirit records, then we can believe.
Perhaps you can also show where the Lord instructed us to pray after this manner: "our mother, who art in Heaven," or where the Holy Spirit cries "mama, mama, rather than "Abba, Father," (Gal. 4:6)
Extrapolating proof based upon believers asking each other to pray to God for them will not do, as this is not only bowing down and mentally beseeching them (unless you affirm ESP,) nor is there a complete correlation btwn earthly relations and relations btwn the two realms, but no where is it shown that departed saints can hear and respond to virtually infinite amounts of prayer addressed to them.
And instead, what i see is that, unlike God who heard mental prayer from earth, even single instances of communication btwn created beings from the two realms required one or the other to personally be in either realm, by vision or otherwise.
Patrick Madrid in response to one question in a debate on this topic said that it doesnt matter if the image/statue is not an accurate representation of Mary/Jesus/God etc.
He did not elaborate why not.
Can anyone give me an answer why such imagery/statue misrepresentation does not matter?
"How do you worship Jesus Christ if you despise all His members except the head?"
I dont think Protestants despise Mary just because they dont pray to her. I think many Protestants do venerate Mary in that they praise her holiness, as they venerate the other saints such as St Paul.
If I was a Catholic and I venerate St Paul heavily, but never have any intentions of venerating St Leo or 200 other saints, I dont think its fair to call me "despising" St Leo or the other saints.
If I was a Catholic and never mind about about St John of Shanghai, I dont think its fair if the Orthodox call me "despising" St John of Shanghai.
"Yes, Catholics worship The Blessed Virgin Mary as the most glorious member of the body of Jesus Christ after its own head which is Jesus Christ Himself."
I really do not think RC apologists would agree with the word "worship" in that sentence.
If we worship person X as part of the body of Christ, then it means we worship person Y and person Z and others as part of the body of Christ.
"Eternal shame on you, disbelievers of 1 Corinthians 12 and so of The Bible."
I think we would all prefer nicer friendlier language. Obviously the post Vatican II popes would never use such language at a discussion forum.
David Waltz,
It is interesting to me that you seem to want to side more with Muslims and their arguments; but both of you avoided the issue that even today, most Muslims still think the Trinity is "the Father, the Son, and the Mother". (because of the mistake the Qur'an makes, and that proves it is not the word of God.) (along with denying history - the historical fact of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. - 4:157)
A true Christian is one who is truly regenerated, therefore if and when they are taught on the Trinity, their spirits will quickly agree, even if they had a faulty idea of the Trinity that was close to Sabellianism (Modalism).
Many cultural and nominal "Christians", church goers cannot explain the Trinity, true. But even they would be able to say "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" - even my unsaved relatives who went to church as children can say that. But because of Roman Catholic centuries of giving the appearance of worshiping Mary, the bad witness continues to this day among Muslims.
But someone who is taught well probably would get the basic idea correct, and they would never put Mary in the Trinity, as most Muslims do today, because of the Qur'an in 5:116, 5:72-75; 6:101; and 112 and 19:88-92.
It is interesting to me that you seem to want to side more with Muslims and their arguments;
First James is accused of despising Mary by not worshiping her, and now that he is siding with Muslims, but he is not, except as they agree only God is to be bowed down to and worshiped by believers.
However, they have a false deity, and it is Rome that states “The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God.” — Lumen Gentium
but both of you avoided the issue that even today, most Muslims still think the Trinity is "the Father, the Son, and the Mother". (because of the mistake the Qur'an makes, and that proves it is not the word of God.) (along with denying history - the historical fact of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. - 4:157). ..
But because of Roman Catholic centuries of giving the appearance of worshiping Mary, the bad witness continues to this day among Muslims .
They disagree with Scripture on more than that, but Mary as part of the Trinity and centuries of RCs giving the appearance of worshiping Mary are related.
Likely this is what illiterate Muhammad saw, and got other info from illiterate RC travelers, thus the skewed accounts of the Qur'an.
Later, he and or Islam contrived the nonsense that the Bible was altered to say Jesus was the Son of God and who died for us and rose again - requiring an almost complete rewritten of the NT in reality, and substantial changes to the Old.
Even if Rome could have, it was very delinquent in doing so, for it would not have been hard to to make the Bible even more clearly support the Trinity, as well as insert support for things it does not support. Thus the efficacy of later forgeries use by Rome.
Hi Ken,
Thanks for responding; you wrote:
==It is interesting to me that you seem to want to side more with Muslims and their arguments; but both of you avoided the issue that even today, most Muslims still think the Trinity is "the Father, the Son, and the Mother". (because of the mistake the Qur'an makes, and that proves it is not the word of God.) (along with denying history - the historical fact of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. - 4:157)==
First, who is the other of the "both" you mentioned ?
Second, if you had remembered at all our previous discussions on Islam, you would know that I usually side against the majority opinion of Muslims on a number of important issues—e.g. the death and resurrection of Jesus, the corruption of the Bible, the position of Ali.
Third, it is an incontrovertible fact that not all Muslims deny the death and resurrection of Jesus. (See these THREADS.)
==A true Christian is one who is truly regenerated, therefore if and when they are taught on the Trinity, their spirits will quickly agree, even if they had a faulty idea of the Trinity that was close to Sabellianism (Modalism).==
I would argue that "the Trinity" is misleading, because of the fact that there are numerous understandings of "the Trinity" is/means.
==Many cultural and nominal "Christians", church goers cannot explain the Trinity, true. But even they would be able to say "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" - even my unsaved relatives who went to church as children can say that. But because of Roman Catholic centuries of giving the appearance of worshiping Mary, the bad witness continues to this day among Muslims.==
I would say it goes beyond merely "cultural and nominal 'Christians'", extending even to most educated, committed, conservative Christians.
==But someone who is taught well probably would get the basic idea correct, and they would never put Mary in the Trinity, as most Muslims do today, because of the Qur'an in 5:116, 5:72-75; 6:101; and 112 and 19:88-92.==
Well the folk of A COMMON WORD, and a good number of Muslims I know, and have dialogued with, are not as ignorant of "the Trinity" as you have suggested.
Grace and peace,
David
"both" meant you and Paul Bilal Williams - he avoided the issue (which you still are also) - you guys are changing the subject from the bad witness that Roman Catholics have given for centuries and still do; and that the Qur'an obviously thought that - changing the subject to talk about the Trinity within Christiandom as a whole and that people are uneducated and think in either Modalistic ideas or lean toward a tri-theism idea.
both of you avoided the subject of the post - that MOST Muslims still have wrong impression of the Trinity and that wrong idea is still perpetuated by Roman Catholicism - I am not talking about Muslims like the Common Word folks that actually study what Christianity is; but the millions in the Muslim world who have no clue.
Those guys that you found who don't deny the Crucifixion are a very small minority who have adopted an esoteric reading of Surah 4:157 - a very modern adoption of Jesus' words in John 11:25 forced back onto Surah 4:157, seeking to use Surah 3:169 as somehow the same meaning as 4:157.
It never made sense to me, and is clearly an attempt to try and do damage control on an obvious error in the Qur'an, since all of history proves the Qur'an is wrong, and therefore not the word of God.
Hello again Ken,
In your last response, you wrote:
=="both" meant you and Paul Bilal Williams - he avoided the issue (which you still are also) - you guys are changing the subject from the bad witness that Roman Catholics have given for centuries and still do; and that the Qur'an obviously thought that - changing the subject to talk about the Trinity within Christiandom as a whole and that people are uneducated and think in either Modalistic ideas or lean toward a tri-theism idea.==
Me: The issue/s you have raised directly involve "the Trinity"; I have chosen to discuss "the Trinity" itself, rather than popular Catholic practices, which I am convinced is vastly more productive.
As for what the Qur'an teaches (as opposed to popular Muslim assessment/s), I think you are ignoring a good deal of pertinent historical data of the period that the Qur'an was addressing, and this leads me (and a number of Islamic scholars) to disagree with you.
==both of you avoided the subject of the post - that MOST Muslims still have wrong impression of the Trinity and that wrong idea is still perpetuated by Roman Catholicism - I am not talking about Muslims like the Common Word folks that actually study what Christianity is; but the millions in the Muslim world who have no clue.==
Me: Once again, I prefer to reflect on "the Trinity", rather than some popular practices.
==Those guys that you found who don't deny the Crucifixion are a very small minority who have adopted an esoteric reading of Surah 4:157 - a very modern adoption of Jesus' words in John 11:25 forced back onto Surah 4:157, seeking to use Surah 3:169 as somehow the same meaning as 4:157.==
Me: "[A]n esoteric reading" ??? I strongly disagree. The Qur'an itself states quite clearly states in other Surahs that Jesus died. The interpretation offered by the scholars I have referenced is a harmonious reconciliation of all pertinent Surahs.
==It never made sense to me, and is clearly an attempt to try and do damage control on an obvious error in the Qur'an, since all of history proves the Qur'an is wrong, and therefore not the word of God.==
Me: If you spent half the time attempting to "do damage control" with the difficult passages in Qur'an that you do with the good deal more difficult passages found in the Bible, I think your take would soften...
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
Thanks for your comments -
I agree that -
Surah 3:54-55 and 19:33 do seem to say that Jesus will die or died, and that is a glaring contradiction to Surah 4:157, so that is even stronger against it as God's word. There is no harmony between the verses; they are utterly contradictory.
You wrote:
Me: If you spent half the time attempting to "do damage control" with the difficult passages in Qur'an that you do with the good deal more difficult passages found in the Bible, I think your take would soften...
I don't understand this.
"Roman Catholics continue to give bad witness to Muslims"
I don't see how any christian can get around the issue of "give bad witness" to a muslim. After all in their eyes, All Christians worship a man or worship 3 Gods.
To them, it looks like YOU James Swan, are worshipping a man :) Or 3 Gods :)
Sorry, not James Swan. Just realized this article is written by Ken.
PeaceByJesus: "if you can show us just one prayer by a believer addressed to anyone else in Heaven besides the Lord, out of the hundred or so the Holy Spirit records, then we can believe.".
The Bible: "Brethren, pray for us." (1 Thessalonians 5:25).
St. Paul doesn't pray to The Lord in 1 Thessalonians 5:25 but prays to the brethren still living on the Earth(!).
For when Catholics pray: "... Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death." you Protestants accuse them of Mariolatry and despise, refuse and reject praying to Her (and to the saints) for that reason.
You Protestants never pray to St. Paul because you refuse and reject praying to him. Not that you can't, you won't.
That's how you "venerate" the very members of the very body of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), that is, how you "worship" Jesus Christ: as if He had no body but was only the head.
From your doctrine of necessity follows that St. Paul and The Holy Spirit are much worse Mariolaters than Catholics by saying: "Brethren, pray for us" to sinners.
You PeaceByJesus, explorer and all Protestants would be ridiculous if you weren't tragic. Your doctrine is evidently of the devil (1 Timothy 4:1).
By the way, Vatican 2 contradicts the whole Catholic doctrine so that you err when using it against The Catholic Church.
Hapax Paradidomi wrote:
I don't see how any christian can get around the issue of "give bad witness" to a muslim. After all in their eyes, All Christians worship a man or worship 3 Gods.
To them, it looks like YOU James Swan [Ken] are worshipping a man :) Or 3 Gods :)
Sorry for the delay in responding.
We don't have any gaudy statues (idols) like you and we don't stand in front of the gaudy statue and pray to the statue.
So, we don't give that impression in that respect.
But, obviously, by proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, His Sonship, His Incarnation, His pre-existence, His Deity, etc. and the Trinity, then the average Muslim does accuse us of shirk (ascribing partnership to God, or polythesim).
But that is a proper witness because it is the truth. Yours is a false witness and a stumbling block.
You should remove the stumbling blocks.
When we proclaim the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, and the gospel, we are a stench of death to those who are perishing, but a sweet aroma to those who are being saved. (2 Corinthians 2:15-16; 1 Cor. 1:18-25) God works in some hearts from all nations (Rev. 5:9; 7:9) as we proclaim the truth.
2 Corinthians 2:14-17
14 But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. 15 For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; 16 to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things? 17 For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.
1 Corinthians 1:18-25
18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Shia muslims pray to their saints. This is not foreign to Islam.
Shi'ite Islam is more like Roman Catholicism in that sense - visiting graves of dead Imams and saints, etc. and asking for help and helping.
It is unclear to me how much of that is just pious behavior vs. official doctrine, etc.
and how much is mixing aspects of Sufism with Shi'ism. ( ? )
David Waltz wrote:
Me: If you spent half the time attempting to "do damage control" with the difficult passages in Qur'an that you do with the good deal more difficult passages found in the Bible, I think your take would soften...
I don't understand this.
After I posted this and read it again; I see what you are saying now; even though I disagree that my take would "soften".
David -
you seem to want to "soften" things in order to hold open the possibility that Islam may be true and a middle development in historical theology between the NT and Baha'ism, which is really amazing that an intelligent person like you would even keeep that possibility open.
I just listened to your interview with Drake Shelton on how you came to leave the Roman Catholic Church - some how, in trying to read some of your stuff at your blog, that url came up - interesting stuff, if one has the time to investigate all the ramificatons of what you guys are claiming.
There is not enough time to get a handle on this issue - seems it would requrie getting a Phd or Thd in historical theology to really grasp it.
and asking for help and helping.
should have been:
and asking for help and healing.
Post a Comment