Muhammad: A Mercy to the Worlds?

Started by Vetus Ordo, June 17, 2019, 01:45:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Pon de Replay on July 29, 2019, 04:44:46 AMBut Dr. Ataie is surely wrong about the Qa'abah, even if he is only re-stating a pious Islamic belief.  It was not originally an altar built by Abraham and Ishmael. Is there any evidence the Arabians believed it to be that, prior to the Prophet?

Well, there is an Arabic tradition that tells of the existence of the hunafa or hanifs. According to that tradition, these were pre-Islamic Arabs that had rejected idolatry and maintained some of the tenets of the religion of Abraham. It does not seem entirely implausible, or completely outside the realm of possibility, that there remained distant memory among some of them that related the Ka'bah to Abraham and Ishmael. Certainly, by the time of Muhammad, it seems that the Ka'bah was venerated chiefly as the shrine of Allah, the highest god of their pantheon.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

Kreuzritter

#151
Quote from: Pon de Replay on July 27, 2019, 06:17:46 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on July 26, 2019, 01:30:42 PMThere's no reason to believe it is an interpolation.

The editors of the NABRE beg to differ.  There are two competing claims: theirs and yours.

I already addressed the argument and proved that it is invalid, that is, the conclusion does not follow from the premises by logical inference. You don't need "learning" to understand this; it's a fact of logic.

QuoteI haven't the learning to determine which is correct.  And either one could be wrong. 

Irrelevant. It's nevertheless evidence, and it can't be thrown out based in a fallacious argument for interpolation while still demaning scriptural evidence.

Quote
But if you think the rabbinical class edited the OT to their own favor, I don't know why you refuse to admit any tampering by Christian scribes to the NT.  You can't have it both ways.  Mark, at any rate, the gospel in question, does seem to contain obvious interpolations and additions.  At the very least it contains observable early variations.

This is more nonsense from you. I reject the proposition because those who make it base it upon a fallacious argument. They have not proved their assertion. This makes the claim that this is not actual scripture as significant as the same claim being made of any other verse. In which case, if you're going to take seriously that possibiltiy, you have to take seriously the possibiltiy that any part of scripture is interpolated, rendering all of it useless for your intended purposes (it might be authentic or it might not be authentic, hur, hur, so let's ignore it QED) . Therefore it is you who wants to have it both ways:

You demand "scriptural" evidence of me, but at the same time you reject the scriptural evidence because of possible "interpolation". This behaviour ought to be beneath you.

Kreuzritter

#152
Quote from: Pon de Replay on July 27, 2019, 05:46:43 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on July 26, 2019, 01:30:42 PMThe Talmudic sources are contemporaneous with Christ and early Christianity, and the Zohar gives us further insight into what your Semitic "Hebraists" actually believe. Now you're going to claim that "Hebraists" par-excellence watered down "Hebraism"? I see how it is: Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and even Jews are incorrect: the Protestant idea of Judaism and early Christianity are correct.

It's not the dichotomy you see it as.  It could be that Protestantism is simply correct on this particular point. 

Again: what is left of your point if the "Hebraists" par-excellence watered down "Hebraism", and we have to look to Western, non-Hebrew, non-Semitic Protestants to understand what "Semitists" or  "Hebraists" once believed? This is becoming ridiculous.

QuoteIf the Talmud is contemporaneous with early Christianity, and it contains references to praying to the dead for intercession, then why doesn't the Christian corpus contain them also?  And it's not sola scriptura.  You are not restricted to the NT. 

It does contain them. But you will simply reject them as pagan-influenced and not early enough.

QuoteAny of the orthodox writings would suffice.  Does Clement of Rome mention praying to the dead for intercession?  Tertullian?  St. Justin?  Origen?

Now supplication and plea and thanksgiving may be offered to people without impropriety. Two of them, namely pleading and thanksgiving, might be offered not only to saints but to people alone in general, whereas supplication should be offered to saints alone, should there be found a Paul or a Peter, who may benefit us and make us worthy to attain authority for the forgiveness of sins. - Origen

Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father's mercy. - St. Cyrpian


QuoteHere is your problem: you can't trot out something from the Talmud and say, "this is the Judaism from which Christianity sprung." That's a mere assertion.

I didn't say this is the Judaism from which Christianity sprung; I said this is the culture from which Christianity comes, and that is a fact.

QuoteTo prove it, you would have to show concurrences in Christianity.

Those concurrences exist, and you write them off as post-Christian pagan influence. You specifically focus on prayers to the dead for intercession because it lets you do this, while ignoring prayers to angels, which alreayd exist in Genesis and 1st-2nd century Christian texts, and the veneration aspect of angels and saints, which are demonstrably 1st-2nd century.

Quote
The only "Judaism" which Christianity formally admits a continuance with is the Judaism in the OT. 

This tells me nothing. The Church never "admitted" continuance with any "Judaism". The Church claims continuity with the faith of the Patriarchs and Prophets as revealed in the scriptures according to how the Church understands them - which includes licitly venerating and asking for intercession from the dead.

Quote
If your rebuttal is that an evil, hook-nosed rabbinical caste redacted and edited the OT in their own favor (and not yours), then that only raises the question of why a tampered collection is enshrined by the Church as the word of God. 

This isn't a claim. It's a fact. I already pointed you to absolutely factual and undeniable instances of changing the texts by the Temple scribes as recorded by them.

Quote
You would also be in the same boat as the Mohammedans, who maintain that the ancient Jews actually had the Qur'anic understanding of the patriarchal stories.  Their proof: none.  Their claim: "the scriptures were tampered with."  This is suspiciously convenient.

No, it doesn't. The Mohammedan claim is not based in any textual analysis or supported by it. All ancient "correcting" by the scribes and blatant tampering by anti-Christians in the Masoretic points in the exact opposite direction of the Islamic anti-Christian, unitarian, iconoclastic claims: it points to pre-Christian Christianity.

Mono no aware

Quote from: Gardener on July 29, 2019, 05:42:02 AMThe argument that "were there proofs, the Protestants would have been clubbed to death with them" is a bit cheeky, considering there are ample proofs not only of intercessory prayer but of many other Catholic doctrines which they repeatedly ignore despite overwhelming evidence in Scripture and history.

But what are the proofs?  Gracias for the link you provided, but I think you may've mistaken the point of dispute: it is not the honoring or the veneration of the saints, but specifically the practice of praying to the dead for their intercession.  The passages you cited from before St. Cyril (in the fourth century) all seem to pertain to veneration, except for one, culled from Hippolytus.

Yet even the reference in Hippolytus is taken out of context.  It is a recurring rhetorical flourish in a commentary wherein he speaks to, and questions, the characters in Daniel—including Nebuchadnezzar himself, and the damned.  Here is a Protestant blogger who makes the case plainly:

QuoteOtt is correct in saying that Hippolytus writes as if he's speaking to the companions of Daniel. But consider who else Hippolytus addressed in a similar manner (all references that follow are to Tom Schmidt's translation):

"For they who believe have carried up all authority and glory to God, because he is able to deliver us, but if not we would rather gladly die than to do what is prescribed by you, Nebuchadnezzar!" (2.24.8 on p. 66)

"Tell me, Nebuchadnezzar, on what account do you order these boys to be bound and cast into the fire?" (2.27.2 on p. 68)

Notice, first, that Hippolytus is addressing Nebuchadnezzar in contexts in which he's acting sinfully, an unlikely context for addressing prayer to somebody. Secondly, notice that Hippolytus addresses Nebuchadnezzar as if he's currently in the process of doing what's described in the book of Daniel. Clearly, Hippolytus is addressing Nebuchadnezzar as a rhetorical device. He's not praying to Nebuchadnezzar. So, why should we think that he's praying to Daniel's companions when he addresses them?

Here's an example of Hippolytus addressing dead unbelievers in the context of sins they committed centuries earlier:

"O lawless rulers and leaders who are filled with diabolical activity! Did Moses hand down these things to you?" (1.20.2-3 on p. 32)

Elsewhere, Hippolytus approvingly refers to believers who speak to "all creation" (2.29.3-9 on pp. 71-72). Should we conclude, then, that Hippolytus believed in praying to trees, planets, etc.?

Another problem with Ott's use of Hippolytus is that he ignores the immediate context of the passage he cites. Here's the passage as Ott cites it, followed by the full passage in Schmidt's translation:

"Think of me, I beseech you, so that I may achieve with you the same fate of martyrdom."

"Tell me, you three boys, remember me, I entreat you, that I also may obtain the same lot of martyrdom with you, who was the fourth person with you who was walking in the midst of the furnace and who was hymning to God with you as from one mouth? Describe to us his form and beauty so that we also, seeing him in the flesh, may recognize him. Who was he who in this way orderly described all creation through your mouth, so that you omitted nothing of which is and has been?" (2.30.1-2 on p. 73)

Notice that Ott leaves out the portions of Hippolytus' comments in which he asks Daniel's companions to answer questions and provide him (Hippolytus) with information. When Catholics pray to the dead, do they expect the dead to answer questions for them and provide them with the sort of information Hippolytus is requesting? Catholics often tell us that they don't pray in that manner. We're often told, by Catholics, that all they do in prayer to the dead is ask the dead to pray for them. Despite what they claim, they often do more than that. For instance, they'll offer thanksgiving, praise, and requests for protection to Mary when they pray to her. But when Hippolytus asks Daniel's companions questions and asks them to provide him with information, is that how Catholics typically pray to the deceased?

If Hippolytus is the sole attestation for the practice of praying to saints by early Christians, then it is a controversial proof, and probably shouldn't be described as "overwhelming evidence."

Mono no aware

#154
Kreuzritter, we are just going needlessly around and around on this bit about Elijah in Mark, and it's not even that big of a deal.  For the sake of discussion, I'm more than happy to concede your claim.  Assuming that there were Jews at Jesus' crucifixion who believed Elijah could be called upon for his help, then that tells us the following: that there were such Jews.  But how do we establish that the early Christians prayed, and not only to Elijah, but to the dead for their intercession?  We would need evidence from the Christians.

Quote from: Kreuzritter on July 29, 2019, 07:50:21 AM
QuoteIf the Talmud is contemporaneous with early Christianity, and it contains references to praying to the dead for intercession, then why doesn't the Christian corpus contain them also?  And it's not sola scriptura.  You are not restricted to the NT. 

It does contain them. But you will simply reject them as pagan-influenced and not early enough.

No, I don't think they were necessarily pagan-influenced.  That's possible, though, and in my view likely, but there's a chance it could also have been a development independent of (or perhaps unconscious of) paganism.  But yes, I do think such an instance would have to be earlier than the fourth century if you're going to claim that the practice was one of a more or less seamless transition from Judaism to Christianity.

Even if you want to say that the Jews practiced this (conveniently edited out of the OT, and then on display in Talmudic Judaism), you would still have to see it on display in Christianity.  After all, the transition from the synagogue to the Church had been effected.  The rabbinical editors on the seat of Moses were not redacting the early Church writings.

Your citation of St. Cyprian (350) is indeed too late to make the case, but your citation from Origen is intriguing.  Gardener's list did not mention it.  I think I can see why:

QuoteNow supplication and plea and thanksgiving may be offered to people without impropriety. Two of them, namely pleading and thanksgiving, might be offered not only to saints but to people alone in general, whereas supplication should be offered to saints alone, should there be found a Paul or a Peter, who may benefit us and make us worthy to attain authority for the forgiveness of sins.

It looks as if the word "saint" here indicates a living saintly person, as in a "holy one"—a renowned prophet, ascetic, or preacher.  Otherwise why would Origen say "should there be found a Paul or a Peter"?  If he is talking about saints in heaven, then there already is a Paul and a Peter.  The way it is worded, he seems to be talking about coming across someone holy, and asking them to pray for you (which does make sense).



Miriam_M

#155
Quote from: Pon de Replay on July 29, 2019, 10:39:48 AM
We would need evidence from the Christians.

No.  Because faith, while harmonious with reason and springing from it, does not insist on evidentiary "proofs."

What a professing Catholic "needs" is trust in the continuous deposit of faith by believing and professing men and women who preceded his own lifetime.  What the Church passes on to us as essential Tradition from her earliest times is what I am bound to believe.  No Catholic is bound to have data, in the modern way we think of that, in order to honestly and sincerely profess the traditional faith.  There are various accounts of how the early Christians worshipped and practiced.  Similarly, there are various accounts of the Passion and Crucifixion, not just verbatim, in Scripture, but within the canon of traditional Catholic spirituality. 

While Faith is a gift, it can be difficult to acquire it without the humility of deference to authority.  My graduate studies in biblical theology do not grant me any position to edit, question, and reject portions of the deposit of faith or the canon of approved spirituality (veneration of the saints being only one example).  If I'm going to question the veneration of saints, I might as well question everything else as well, and in so doing, I will have fun exercising my Pride while engaging in a never-ending battle with my superiors. 

Veneration of saints is an aspect of the Catholic theological principle which we profess in the Creed-- "the Communion of Saints" -- which in turn is integral to the broader principle of the continuous reality of the Christian life:  For each one of us, our eternity begins now -- or more exactly -- began with our birth.  The Poor Souls for whom we pray to become sanctified will definitively join that Communion of Saints (including non-canonized saints enjoying the Beatific Vision) as a source of prayer for others/ourselves.  This is de fide dogma, not to be questioned or objected to, based on "lack of evidence."

Mono no aware

#156
Quote from: Miriam_M on July 29, 2019, 11:34:51 AM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on July 29, 2019, 10:39:48 AM
We would need evidence from the Christians.

No.  Because faith, while harmonious with reason and springing from it, does not insist on evidentiary "proofs."

What a professing Catholic "needs" is trust in the continuous deposit of faith by believing and professing men and women who preceded his own lifetime.  What the Church passes on to us as essential Tradition from her earliest times is what I am bound to believe.  No Catholic is bound to have data, in the modern way we think of that, in order to honestly and sincerely profess the traditional faith.

All this is true.  And if this is nothing more than a matter of "roma locuta, causa finita est," then we can leave it there.  End of discussion.  But I think this an area where the Church at least does endeavor to offer some proofs.  Otherwise I don't think Xavier and Kreuzritter would be citing Scripture or the Fathers to buttress this doctrine, nor Gardener with the scripturecatholic.com website.  For believing Catholics, indeed, it can be taken on faith, but in terms of apologetics aimed at Protestants, skeptics, and unbelievers, proofs for these practices are typically offered.  Cardinal Newman once said something like, "to read the Church Fathers is to cease to be a Protestant."  I think he was right on that one, for the most part.  But perhaps not specifically on the matter of praying to the dead.



Vetus Ordo

Another interesting reflection by Dr. Ataie on the fundamental value of fasting in Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions and how they relate to one another:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNN8IdwYcjM[/yt]
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

Kreuzritter

Quote from: Pon de Replay on July 29, 2019, 10:39:48 AMYour citation of St. Cyprian (350) is indeed too late to make the case,

It's not 350. It's ~250, contemporaneous with Origen.

Kreuzritter

#159
Quote from: Pon de Replay on July 29, 2019, 05:01:24 PM
All this is true.  And if this is nothing more than a matter of "roma locuta, causa finita est," then we can leave it there. 

That's not my argument. The irony here is that most of the Biblical manuscripts and the Patristic writings and mansucripts are contemporaneous, and  contemporaneous with the age in which Protestants claim the Church had been paganised in its practices. Yet they, and you, place so much emphasis upon the "early" textual evidence while discounting the oral, ritual and institutional traditions or later writings as valid evidence. At least the Da Vinci Code crowd are more consistent in claiming that the canonical texts themselves are edits and fabrications. Heck, Edwin Johnson claimed the entire classical tradition was an invention of Medieval monks. You are right though: from the period in question, the practise will never be satisfactorily demonstrated to the Protestant from the extant Christian writings.

"In The Pauline Epistles and The Rise of English Culture Johnson made the radical claim that the whole of the so-called Dark Ages between 700 and 1400 A. D. had never occurred, but had been invented by Christian writers who created imaginary characters and events. The Church Fathers, the Gospels, St. Paul, the early Christian texts as well as Christianity in general are identified as mere literary creations and attributed to monks (chiefly Benedictines) who drew up the entire Christian mythos in the early 16th century. As one reviewer said, Johnson "undertakes to abolish all English history before the end of the fifteenth century."[3] Johnson contends that before the "age of publication" and the "revival of letters" there are no reliable registers and logs, and there is a lack of records and documents with verifiable dates. "

Funny how these pagan practices were ubiquitous and universal across all the ancient Apostolic churches, from Europe to North Africa to the Levant to the Caucasus to Iraq and on to India. Funny how the bishops of X never came along to the bishops of Y to complain about their praying to the dead. Funnier still how no Fathers object to and debate this novel practice! If you will argue from the relative silence of the first and second centuries, I will argue from that silence.

Mono no aware

#160
Quote from: Kreuzritter on July 29, 2019, 05:36:09 PMIt's not 350. It's ~250, contemporaneous with Origen.

You're right.  My mistake: I confused it with the citation from St. Cyril in Gardner's post.  Reading it now, it has the same problem as Xavier's citations: it indicates that the saints in heaven can pray, but it does not indicate that the faithful on earth are praying to the saints.  He exhorts Christians to pray for each other (presumably to God), and that those who die should continue praying.  It could qualify as an implicit mention, of course, if one wants to read the doctrine into it.  But it doesn't contain it on its own.

Quote from: Kreuzritter on July 29, 2019, 05:47:50 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on July 29, 2019, 05:01:24 PM
And if this is nothing more than a matter of "roma locuta, causa finita est," then we can leave it there. 

That's not my argument.

I know.  I was responding to Miriam, whose argument it is.  I just don't see how you can argue from an oral tradition to establish this, since the contents of such a tradition are unknown to us, centuries later, unless they've been written down.  A person could argue an oral tradition for anything.  A person could just as well argue the Gnostic gospels are early, but were circulated orally and not committed to paper until the common dating.  It seems like such a non-starter.  I guess it's convincing to those who already believe it.

Quote from: Kreuzritter on July 29, 2019, 05:47:50 PMFunny how the bishops of X never came along to the bishops of Y to complain about their praying to the dead. Funnier still how no Fathers object to and debate this novel practice! If you will argue from the relative silence of the first and second centuries, I will argue from that silence.

I don't know what you mean here.  The Church obviously did accept the practice of praying for the dead, whether it was a continuation of a practice from Judaism, or a later borrowing from paganism.  You can't argue from non-condemnation.  Nothing is a novelty in the pejorative sense until it's condemned as such, but there are plenty of accepted novelties that never raised any hackles.  Some things develop naturally and organically, and a slow, gradual evolution is usually the least objectionable.

Permit me a question.  Do you think kourbania was a practice carried over from Judaism, or a borrowing from paganism?



mikemac

Tobias 12:"[11] I discover then the truth unto you, and I will not hide the secret from you. [12] When thou didst pray with tears, and didst bury the dead, and didst leave thy dinner, and hide the dead by day in thy house, and bury them by night, I offered thy prayer to the Lord. [13] And because thou wast acceptable to God, it was necessary that temptation should prove thee. [14] And now the Lord hath sent me to heal thee, and to deliver Sara thy son's wife from the devil. [15] For I am the angel Raphael, one of the seven, who stand before the Lord."
Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

"Tell people that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her." Saint Jacinta Marto

The real nature of hope is "despair, overcome."
Source

Tales

Quote from: Miriam_M on July 29, 2019, 11:34:51 AM
Because faith, while harmonious with reason and springing from it"

Apologies for the tangent, but as I was discussing this with a friend the other day, I wanted more insight into this - does reason come from faith or faith from reason?

Miriam_M

I will respond some time on Tuesday, Davis.
:)

Kreuzritter

Quote from: Pon de Replay on July 29, 2019, 06:22:45 PM
Permit me a question.  Do you think kourbania was a practice carried over from Judaism, or a borrowing from paganism?

This is a practice peculiar to one particular region, never universal among Christians like praying for intercession from saints, so it makes little sense to see it as a product of diffusion from the Hebrew source. I also know of no evidence of Hebrews or Jews sacrificing animals to holy men, so it has no direct precedent.