Muslims Enter Catholic Church, See A Statue Of The Virgin Mary, Call It An Idol And Destroy It

Shoebat ^ | 7/19/2014 | Theodore Shoebat

[markomalley]

Muslims in Iraq entered a Catholic church in Iraq, and when they saw a statue of the Virgin Mary they destroyed it because they deemed it an idol. As we read from one report:

The militants also removed the cross from St. Ephrem’s Cathedral, the seat of the Syriac Orthodox archdiocese in Mosul, and put up the black ISIS flag in its place. They also destroyed a statue of the Virgin Mary, according to Ghazwan Ilyas, the head of the Chaldean Culture Society in Mosul, who spoke by telephone on Thursday from Mosul but seemed to have left on Friday.

The Muslims also tore out the crosses and replaced them with the antichrist black flags of Islam. Muslims are iconoclasts, that is, they hate any sort of Christian images, or any image pertaining to Christianity. They see any cross or statue as an idol. This story refutes the idea that Islam came from Catholicism, since it hates everything about the Catholic Church.

I wrote an article completely refuting this idea that the Catholic Church invented Islam and I will repost it here…

The Catholic Church did not invent Islam. I have heard this countless times, and have received innumerable messages from people, that Islam was founded by the Catholic Church. I don’t have the time to respond to every individual who tells me this assertion, so I have decided to write this essay to deal with it.

The idea that Islam was conceived by the Catholic Church is traced back to a conspiracy theorist named Alberto Rivera, a con-artist who claimed to be a Jesuit (I know how many messages I will receive about how I slandered “brother Alberto”).

Alberto Rivera

Alberto said that the “the Pope” commissioned Muhammad to do three missions:

1. Eliminate the Jews and Christians (true believers, which they called infidels).

2. Protect the Augustinian Monks and Roman Catholics.

3. Conquer Jerusalem for “His Holiness” in the Vatican.

These commands, for one thing, cannot be found in any primary account whatsoever. What is a primary account? We need to know this if we are going to understand the nature of our inquiry. When trying to reach an historical conclusion, or make historical observations, one must focus first on one type of evidence: first hand accounts, or primary sources.

An old letter, an example of primary source

A primary source is a document written in, or around the time, of the particular historical event in question, being based on eye-witness accounts and first hand materials. To use an example that we are all familiar with, I will ask a simple question: The Exodus of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt, how do we know that it happened? Because Moses, who was the leader of Israel’s liberation, wrote about it. We would never know about the Exodus, if Moses never wrote a book about it. Exodus, then, is a primary source account. Would you, then, rather read the Book of Exodus, or a modern book on the Exodus? The only way to fully comprehend the Exodus, is to read Exodus.

So then, how would we learn about the invention of Islam? We would need to read ancient documents, both Islamic and non-Islamic. We would have to read the primary source accounts. And when reading on the origins of Islam, based on the primary source accounts, we have absolutely zero substantiation for any of Rivera’s claims.

Now, Rivera says that he learned of Islam’s Catholic inventors from one Cardinal Bea. But when we research the statement that Rivera attributes to Bea, all we find are books and articles, written by anti-Catholic polemics, and not one statement from anything ever written by Bea. Therefore, to simply conclude Rivera’s quoting of Bea as factual, is both empty of scholarship and absent of any cognitive reasoning expected of the historian.

When my father exposes Obama’s family, or reveals an unknown plan of the jihadists, he does not simply claim that it is true, nor does he say that he met so and so, and so and so said such and such, and thats it. He goes to the primary sources, searching and finding documents in Arab, Israeli, American, and other records. He spends countless hours sifting through innumerable sources, trying to find reliable information on the particular subject he is writing on.

Truth is found through both will and reasoning, not sensation or exciting novelties. That the Catholic Church invented Islam, is just that, a sensational novelty. And in regards to the rest of the rubbish Alberto said in regards to Islam’s creation, there is not one piece of primary evidence (I dare anyone to show me just one).

If we are going to analyze the origins of Islam, what must be first comprehended is the innate focal point of Islamic theology: Islam is a religion of a book; it is primarily revolved around the Koran, and secondarily fixated on what interpretation Muslim authorities deduce on the Koran.

/p>

Without the Koran, there is no Islam. Therefore, in order to understand the origins of Islamic theology, one must read the Koran. And when we do, what we find is not evidence of a Catholic creation, but actually statements that are openly anti-Catholic.

One of the most quoted Koranic verses by exposers of Islam, is Surah 9:29, which states:

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture and believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

But when one reads the verse in conjunction with the subsequent verses, one finds that the Christians it is commanding to war with, are in fact Catholics. Here is the full verse:

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture and believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no god save Him. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)! (Surah 9:29-31)

The existence of the word monks, in the verse, signifies that it is referring to Catholics, both Eastern and Western. How do we know this? Let us look to the interpretation of this verse by Abu Bakr, the successor to Muhammad, and one who was amongst the most elite of Muhammad’s companions. Before invading Syria, he declared:

You will meet people who have set themselves apart in hermitages; leave them to accomplish the purpose for which they have done this. …You will meet people who have shaved the crowns of their heads, leaving a band of hair around it. Strike them with the sword.

Those who have their hair shaven to the shape of a crown, can only be referring to Catholic monks; for the tradition behind this hairstyle, symbolizing the crown of glory given to the martyrs, and the crown of thorns placed on Christ’s head, is purely one of Catholic origin.

The first people that Abu Bakr mentions, the ones who “set themselves apart in hermitages”, were the heretical Christians, or the Arians, Nestorians, and other subscribers to false doctrines.

So, when Rivera claims that “the Pope” commissioned Muhammad to kill the Jews and the “true Christians,” the only Christians that the Koran initially commanded to kill are the Catholics. Why would the Catholics create a system that is innately adverse toward the Catholic Church? It makes no sense, and anyone who upholds such an ahistorical statement, is not committed to historical truth and reasoning, but a mere opinion that is both groundless and ignominious.

Those who believe this slanderous lie will argue that the Muslims broke off from Rome and began to fight Catholics; and to those who say this, I will ask you to bring me one primary source account that proves this claim.

Furthermore, the idea that Islam was invented by the Catholic Church is void of any evidence in the writings of the Church Fathers. In order to understand Islam’s history, we read the Koran and the Hadith; in order to understand Catholic history, we read the Church Fathers. We find absolutely nothing close to what Rivera claims in any book written by any of the Church Fathers or ancient Catholic theologians who lived closest to the early days of Islam.

In fact, in looking to the earliest Christian opinion on Islam, what we find are Catholics writing against Muhammad as a damnable heretic and enemy to Rome. One of the best examples of this are the writings of Theodore Abu Qurrah, the bishop of Harran who lived in the 9th century, when Islam was still quite a young cult.

Theodore affirmed the primacy of the Roman Church, and viewed Islam as an enemy toward the Church. On the primacy of the Church of Rome, Theodore writes:

Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, “I prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them,” [Luke 22:32-33] we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself [and the apostles themselves]. Rather, he meant nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome, [and the holders of the seats of the apostles]. (1)

Theodore goes on to write how when the heresy of Arianism (the denial of Christ’s divinity) arose, the Church commenced the Council of Nicaea to combat it; when Nestorianism (the denial that God became flesh in Mary’s womb) arose, the Church of Rome commanded the Council of Ephesus. (2) Islam intrinsically coincides with both of these heresies, in that it rejects Christ’s divinity, and the Incarnation of God in Mary’s womb.

Since the Church of Rome was the one that first commenced the two councils that went against these two false doctrines and their followers, it is therefore impossible that the Catholic Church would then turn around and create a heresy that upholds them and desires to kill the very people (Catholics) who were adverse to these heresies.

Council of Ephesus

John the Deacon, an ancient Catholic theologian who had direct access to the material of Theodore Abu Qurrah, declares the primacy of St. Peter’s See, deems Muslims as enemies to the Church, and then describes how the bishop Theodore wrote against the heresies of Islam:

And because the Lord had promised Peter, the chief of the apostolic choir, that he would lay the church’s foundation on the unshaken rock of his confession, and because he had assured the church that she would overcome the gates of hell, so the opponents of God, up to the present, struggles against the church. …I am speaking of the most blessed and most philosophical bishop of Haran in Coele Syria, Theodore. In his writings, which were truly inspired by God, he worthily held up to public scorn the impious religion of the Agarenes [Muslims] and showed to all that it was worthy of complete derision. (3)

The Catholic Church preserved and protected the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and in so doing it condemned and fought against Islam more than any other institution in history (if you don’t believe me, read any detailed history book on the Crusades). The first Church leader to lead and organize a crusade against Islam was St. Pope Leo IV who, in the year 849, led a battle against Muslims who were trying to sack the Vatican.

Muslims and Catholics fighting

As soon as Arianism came about, the Church combated it; and when Islam arose, with its very Arian doctrine, the Church combated it. Catholicism’s war against Islam is a continuation of its war against Arianism. There is therefore no evidence or documentation to prove that the Catholic Church suddenly decided to invent an extension of the very doctrine it was bent on crushing and suppressing.

Council of Nicaea

Islam has its roots in Arian doctrines, not Catholicism; and yet many today wish to turn it round, and reverse this very historical fact. Constantine Porphyrogentinitus, the fourth emperor of the Byzantine Empire, wrote in the 10th century, in his Administrando Imperio, that

he [Muhammad] was believed because a certain Arain, who pretended to be a monk, testified falsely in his support for love of gain. (4)

John the Deacon also recounts an Arian origin to Islam:

The Saracens [Muslims] are intent and zealous to deny the divinity of the Word of God. On all sides, they array themselves against him, eager to show that he is neither God nor the Son of God. Indeed, it was only because their false prophet [Muhammad] was the disciple of an Arian that he gave them this godless and impious teaching. (5)

For the Catholic Church inventing Islam, we have no evidence. What we do have, however, are an abundance of ancient records of Catholics fighting Muslims, and Muslims striving to destroy Christendom and the Catholic Church, a goal which, to this day, they have not given up.

---

(1) Theodore Abu Qurrah, Discerning the True Church, B164, trans. John C. Lamoreaux*

(2) *Ibid, B165-B166*

(3) *Refutations of the Saracens by Theodore Abu Qurrah, the Bishop of Haran, as Reported by John the Deacon, GK86-88, trans. John C. Lamoreaux*

(4) *Constantine Porphyrogentinitus, De Administrando Imperio, 14, trans. R.J.H. Jenkins, brackets mine*

(5) *Refutations of the Saracens by Theodore Abu Qurrah, the Bishop of Haran, as Reported by John the Deacon, GKh118, trans. John C. Lamoreaux*

[ealgeone]

You're addressing two issues here.

Mary needed a Saviour.

But beyond that:

This is another made-up title to separate people by the RCC.

You're reading too much into the issue, this one at least between Catholics and non-Catholics should be a nonstarter. The word "saint" is merely the English rendition of the word Santa which means Holy. Holy Cross, St. (aka Holy) Saviour, Holy Father, Holy Ghost, The Holy People of God (that's supposed to be us btw)... The saints in Heaven are merely the holy ones in Heaven, it's a matter of convenience to refer to those in Heaven as saints, it's not a Catholic conspiracy.

Not really. The RCC has "elevated" certain people to "sainthood" have they not? Saint Paul, St Peter, St Teresa, etc.

There is nothing in the Bible where Paul or Peter gave direction to call certain people, outside of followers of Christ, as saints.

Again, it is an attempt by the RCC to set up a false hierarchy differentiating people into groups that doesn't exist in the Bible.

[Legatus]

From the Mass:

And now, O Lord, we, Thy servants, and with us all Thy holy people, calling to mind the blessed Passion of this same Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, likewise His Resurrection from the grave, and also His glorious Ascension into heaven, do offer unto Thy most sovereign Majesty out of the gifts Thou hast bestowed upon us...

In Latin that passage reads:

Unde et mémores, Dómine, nos servi tui, sed et plebs tua sancta, ejústdem Christi Fílii tui Dómini nostri tam beátæ passiónis necnon et ab ínferis resurrectiónis, sed et in cælos gloriósæ ascensiónis: offérimus præcláræ majestáti tuæ de tuis donis, ac datis...

The word "sancta" means holy, it is applied to us on earth as well as those in Heaven, this is not a hill worth dying on, it's not "an attempt by the RCC to set up a false hierarchy differentiating people into groups that doesn't exist in the Bible"

[ealgeone]

The word "sancta" means holy, it is applied to us on earth as well as those in Heaven, this is not a hill worth dying on, it's not "an attempt by the RCC to set up a false hierarchy differentiating people into groups that doesn't exist in the Bible"

Sorry...not buying it.

Why does the RCC do this?? Canonization (in American English and Oxford spelling) or canonisation (in majority British English) is the act by which the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church declares a deceased person to be a saint, upon which declaration the person is included in the canon, or list, of recognized saints. Originally, individuals were recognized as saints without any formal process. Later, different processes, such as those used by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church were developed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization

[ealgeone]

Where the rot began...

>But already a fragment of a homily, attributed to Origen, contains this comment on the words Elizabeth spoke at the Visitation "It is I who should have come to visit you, because you are blessed above all women, you are the Mother of my Lord, you are my Lady" (Fragment, PG 13, 1902 D). The text passes spontaneously from the expression "the Mother of my Lord" to the title, "my Lady", anticipating what St John Damascene was later to say, attributing to Mary the title of "Sovereign": "When she became Mother of the Creator, she truly became queen of all creatures" (De fide orthodoxa, 4, 14, PG 94, 1157).<

It is like allowing rotted wood to be in your house and not repairing it. It starts small and continues to grow.

This is a prime example of eisogesis...reading something into the text that isn't there. In this case it goes beyond that really into heresy by adding to the Scripture words that aren't there.

I have bolded the texts for comparison. Translation is NASB. The actual text reads as follows:

Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah,

40and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth.

41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

42And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!

43“And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?

44“For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.

45“And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”

[af_vet_1981]

Again, there is nothing in the Bible showing Mary to be our personal mother. This sounds nice and thoughtful, but is not Biblical and could be considered heretical. A personal Savior ...

1. still thinking about the term "personal" in the KJV; is it there ?
2. regarding blessed Mary, the mother of God wih us, I find this When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
3. I suppose the relevant question is "Are you a Disciple that Jesus loves?"

[ealgeone]

>Again, there is nothing in the Bible showing Mary to be our personal mother. This sounds nice and thoughtful, but is not Biblical and could be considered heretical.<

A personal Savior ...1.still thinking about the term "personal" in the KJV; is it there ? 2.regarding blessed Mary, the mother of God wih us, I find this When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. 3.I suppose the relevant question is "Are you a Disciple that Jesus loves?"

Dude, you torturing the Scripture to get something out of it that's not in there.

Keeping things in context is key in understanding the Bible. The text you are citing has nothing to do with Mary being our personal mother. Jesus is giving John legal responsibility to take care of Mary at this point. That is clear from the text as it says John took her into his own home.

This was a responsibility He only gave to John.

Does Jesus love me? Yes. Do I love Him? Yes. He died for me and literally nailed my sins to the cross and wiped clean the certificate of debt against me.

[ealgeone]

1.still thinking about the term "personal" in the KJV; is it there

If we don't have a personal relationship, that is a one on one relationship with Christ, what do we have?

[af_vet_1981]

If we don't have a personal relationship, that is a one on one relationship with Christ, what do we have?

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

[af_vet_1981]

Keeping things in context is key in understanding the Bible. The text you are citing has nothing to do with Mary being our personal mother. Jesus is giving John legal responsibility to take care of Mary at this point. That is clear from the text as it says John took her into his own home.

Legal responsibility, really ? I see nothing that restricts this legal responsibility from a spiritual application. You keep using that word "personal" and the only word I find that comes close is "private" which is used in a negative context. Do you truly consider it heresy for a disciple whom Jesus loves to regard blessed Mary as a spiritual mother ? Is that what your law says ?

[defconw]

That made me LOL!

[defconw]

They will never accept it. I don't care how you put it. I see it as their loss. 2.1 Billion of can't be wrong on this.

We know what we do, they don't. It makes about as much sense as the heathens breaking her statute. Even if they break them all, I will recognize her in my heart. It is sad that some will never know her comfort.

[defconw]

You just made me spit my coffee! Well Done!

[defconw]

Mary preserved from sin, not for Mary but because of her being the first tabernacle of the Lord. Womb=Jesus’s tabernacle.

[defconw]

We would never use Sola Scriptura as we do not recognize that as a concept.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Praying "for" someone and praying "to" someone are, indeed, two distinct things.

Praying to someone and worshiping them are also two distinct things.

But if I ask you (or any other saint) for something, I am praying TO you. I am asking FOR your intercessionary prayer.

So, pray for me...I pray you.

I could pray you for a cup of coffee, if you had one to spare :o)

The point is, there are different senses of the word "pray." When I pray you for a cup of coffee, I am not worshipping you.

It seems aggravating when people refuse to discern different meanings of the word prayer. Don't you see that? You keep insisting that I mean it YOUR way, which is as a synonym for worship. But it is not. To insist that it is, seems obstinacy.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Nope. I worship and pray only to God. I acknowledge Mary was the mother of Christ and she is blessed among women for this. I also acknowledge that Paul was the writer of the bulk of the NT. However, I do not worship or pray to Mary or Paul or any other Christian. Nor did Mary, Peter, Paul, etc. Do I respect what Paul, Peter, James and the other apostles did? Yes. Do I respect what Mary did? Yes."

Well, we're in perfect agreement on this. Good morning to you!

Oops, it's past noon! Guess I'll cancel breakfast and go straight into lunch.

[ealgeone]

We would never use Sola Scriptura as we do not recognize that as a concept.

And without a Scriptural basis for beliefs you're subject to false teachings like praying to Mary, having to work for your salvation, etc.

[ealgeone]

Legal responsibility, really ?

Why else is He doing this?

I see nothing that restricts this legal responsibility from a spiritual application.

That's the problem....you're reading something into the text that's not there.

You keep using that word "personal" and the only word I find that comes close is "private" which is used in a negative context.

I know Him and He knows me. We've been adopted into His family. Sounds personal to me. If we don't have a personal relationship with Christ, then what do we have??

Do you truly consider it heresy for a disciple whom Jesus loves to regard blessed Mary as a spiritual mother ?

Yes...because there is nothing in the Bible that instructs us to view Mary in this manner. Paul never referred to Mary in this manner, nor did Peter or James, nor did Christ.

Is that what your law says ?

My Bible doesn't say anything about Mary being a "spiritural mother." She is noted as being the mother of Christ in the Bible. She is blessed among women. Nothing more...nothing less.

[defconw]

Ping me when you have something original to accuse us of. I get tired of the same old parroted lines. What do you care anyway? More room for you and your Bible in heaven, right?

[DuncanWaring]

OK, Romans 3:23 says we are “all” sinners.

It’s not hard to round “99.99999999%” to “All”.

But, if you want to argue “All means all - no exceptions, because it’s Scripture”, then you must also agree that the Ninth Commandment proscription against coveting your neighbor’s wife allows for the coveting of the neighbor’s husband by male homosexuals and female heterosexuals.

I haven’t explicitly raised this issue with a member of the RCC clergy, but I’m fairly the Church does not agree that the Ninth Commandment allows coveting by male homosexuals and female heterosexuals.

I’m saying the RCC is correct on this one.