Alberto Rivera
Posted on 07/19/2014 3:22:50 PM PDT by 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*
It’s not hard to round “99.99999999%” to “All”.
You're basing this on a human perspective. If you asked people how "good" to you have to be to get into Heaven and gave this this figure, the majority would say that individual "deserves" to go to Heaven because they've been good. From God's perspective it means ALL have sinned....including Mary. James tells us "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."
You can't be "good enough" to earn your way into Heaven. Only through faith in Christ do we enter Heaven.
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.
If you are saying the commandment allows for coveting for other than the neighbor's wife I disagree with that as I would think everyone else. This goes to the lust of the eyes and the flesh discussed in the NT.
Look at this commmandment in relation to how Jesus explained it in Matthew 5:21-22; 27-28. That should clear it up.
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.
Why?
The commandment only prohibits coveting the neighbor's wife, not their husband.
Is the Bible to be read literally or metaphorically?
Pick one.
You can't have it both ways.
And by “99.99999999%”, I meant 1 person out of the roughly 10 billion humans who have existed, not "almost perfectly good".
As I noted in the prior text...Jesus expounded on this type of understanding. The NT talks clearly about the lust of the flesh and the eyes so if you're coveting(lusting) after your neighbor's wife, husband, cousin, etc....it is a sin.
Again....context is your key to the Bible.
The only person to be sinless is Christ. So another way to look at this is that 100% of all people who are not Christ have sinned.
Which law was it ? None was mentioned in the text. It was certainly not Roman law; if you say to honor her as his mother, you concede she had no other children and the brothers were, in fact, cousins. If to honor a mother without other children, that honor could be spiritual as well as physical. Blessed John and Mary share another spiritual bond, and John seems to have been the only male apostle/disciple who was there at the execution.
That's the problem....you're reading something into the text that's not there.
Actually, that is what you did; you read something into the text about fulfilling a law. There is no mention of law, but there is a command of a spiritual relationship between Mary the mother of God with us and a disciple that Jesus loves.
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.
I find it odd to claim to be adopted into his family while claiming a spiritual relationship with his mother is heretical.
Are the 1.2 billion muslims wrong? What about the Hindu? Are they wrong?
Just because you have big numbers doesn't mean you are right.
I accuse you of nothing. I merely point out what the Word has to say.
It is my sincere hope that there are billions in Heaven. I hope you are one of them. My hope, which is in Jesus, is for all to be there. Sadly, not all will. Based on the Word of God, only those who have placed their faith in Christ will enter Heaven.
We know that John was the disciple Jesus loved. We also know that Jesus' brothers did not believe in Him at this point. What we don't know is where is Joseph. It is understood that he is dead at this time....hence the need for Jesus to provide for His mom. So who does He turn to? The brothers who don't believe in Him....or the disciple who loves Him and is there at the cross with Him?
Which law was it ? None was mentioned in the text.
Honor thy father and thy mother.
It was certainly not Roman law; if you say to honor her as his mother, you concede she had no other children and the brothers were, in fact, cousins.
Nope. The Bible records, in more than one passage, Jesus had half brothers and sisters. If we look at the Greek and how Jesus is referred to in John 3:16 and compare with the account in Luke we find the following:
John 3:16 only begotten is translated from monogene. It means only, unique, only begotten. Everwhere it is used in the NT (9x) is it used to refer to only one of a kind.
In Luke 2:7 the word for first born is τὸν πρωτότοκον. The root Greek word is protokos. It means first born, eldest.
If Luke had wanted to indicate Jesus was going to be Joseph and Mary's only child he would have used monogene. Instead he used protokon. Luke being a physician I think he would understand the difference. Plus we have his explaination in Luke 1-4 where he tells us he has investigated everything he was told about Christ, etc. In Luke 8:19-21 he records that His mother and brothers came to see Him. Brothers is not understood to be cousins in this passage. Again, context is key.
As far as the notion of the other children of Mary being "cousins" of Jesus, I suggest you read the passages in context and it will clearly distinguish between His half brothers/sisters and fellow believers. Again, context is your key to understanding the Word.
If to honor a mother without other children, that honor could be spiritual as well as physical. Blessed John and Mary share another spiritual bond, and John seems to have been the only male apostle/disciple who was there at the execution.
That's the problem....you're reading something into the text that's not there. Actually, that is what you did; you read something into the text about fulfilling a law. There is no mention of law, but there is a command of a spiritual relationship between Mary the mother of God with us and a disciple that Jesus loves.
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.
I find it odd to claim to be adopted into his family while claiming a spiritual relationship with his mother is heretical.
This is the problem when you ignore basic Biblical teaching like Romans 3:23, all have sinned.
Completely ignoring this you have the RCC teaching that Mary was sinless....she never lusted after a man in her whole life. Even though the Word tells us she was in need of a Savior. Even though she and Joseph offered the sin offering after the birth of Christ.
If she never lusted after a man...she never desired to have sex. So from this you have to get she was always a virgin. Even though the Word tells us Joseph kept her a virgin until Christ was born.
From this you have to get Jesus has no other family in spite of what the Word clearly teaches.
See how much you have to twist Scripture when you don't adhere to sound Biblical teaching in the beginning?
I don't think you know what you think you know. Yet from your argument, you are claiming that, in order to fulfill the law of Moses, Jesus had to take his mother from her own Jewish children you say she has, because they were not baptized. How twisted is that argument about the Law of Moses ?
They remainder of your doctrine is a relatively modern view.
See how much you have to twist Scripture when you don't adhere to sound Biblical teaching in the beginning?
I see your interpretation of Scripture and find it lacking. 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. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
There must be a reason this passage is in the Scriptures. I find it likely to be about more than John; not like he is going to heap praise on himself for taking in Mary, the blessed mother of God with us, to keep her from being homeless.
You declare it heresy for a disciple that Jesus loves to regard blessed Mary as a spiritual mother, and yet consider yourself to be a disciple her son loves and adopted into their family. I find that to be cognitive dissonance.
I don't think you know what you think you know. Yet from your argument, you are claiming that, in order to fulfill the law of Moses, Jesus had to take his mother from her own Jewish children you say she has, because they were not baptized. How twisted is that argument about the Law of Moses ?
Never said anything about being baptized. If you read the Scriptures you will find His brothers had issues with Christ and did not believe Him. I am saying Jesus being the Good Son that He was while on earth recognized His responsibility to take care of His mom. He charged John with this task.
He put His mom in the care of the disciple He loved and who loved Him.
And yes....those were Mary's other children. I don't say it...the Bible does. The reading of the texts while read in context are clear on this. I'm not relying on some account from the apocrypha to twist the NT.
Not sure which part of "my doctrine" you say is relatively new.
I assure you I am not the one twisting Scripture. It is the RCC.
There must be a reason this passage is in the Scriptures. I find it likely to be about more than John;...
Yep...there's a reason why every verse we have is in the Bible. I don't see this as being about John. I see it as his account of what he saw as he walked with Christ. And John is right, if we had an account of everything Christ did the whole world couldn't contain it all. But, this does not give us license to add things to the Bible that are not written. It doesn't give license to come up with doctrines not supported by the text...like the sinlessness of Mary.
I notice you have no comment on how the RCC has deviated from the Bible on the sinlessness of Mary. Because an honest reader of the text will see she can't be sinless. And with that being the case, the rest of the RCC doctrine on Mary falls apart rather quickly.
The RCC's path of deviating from the Bible regarding Mary is what has led us to this conversation.
This will be my last post on this thread.
I did comment and noted that it is the part of your doctrine that is modern.
a distinction which further erodes your argument; you write that our Lord removed his mother from the care of the other Jewish children you claim she had because those others had issues with him and did not believe him. Seriously ? With no textual support saying this was fulfilling the law of Moses ? I can see how this line of thought would lead to removing family members from their homes if their relatives do not agree with all the same doctrines as those doing the removal, and all this to "honor" them according to the law of Moses. No, I have considered your premises and personal interpretation and am not persuaded.
Reverent requests to anyone but God are a violation of Matthew 6:9. Please remember there are scriptures in both the old & new testament which command us not to add or subtract anything from the Bible. Mary IS NOT, IS NOT, IS NOT the mother of God. To think otherwise does not attribute a pre-beginning existence to God. There is no queen of heaven. God existed prior to the beginning, and prior to Jesus. Do you seriously not see the difference between asking a friend/family to keep so & so in their prayers, and praying to anyone else but God (thru Jesus)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.