Allah's two right hands

I watched a video by Anthony Roger's on Allah's hands being literal hands. He posted a source from Sahih Muslim 1827 but I couldn't find it on the old USC page, I did however find it in another place:

The Prophet [SAW] said: "Those who are just and fair will be with Allah, Most High, on thrones of light, at the right hand of the Most Merciful, those who are just in their rulings and in their dealings with their families and those of whom they are in charge." Muhammad (one of the narrators) said in his Hadith: "And both of His hands are right hands."--Sunan an-Nasa'i 5379, Book 49, Hadith 1

أَخْبَرَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ عَمْرٍو، ح وَأَنْبَأَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ آدَمَ بْنِ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنِ ابْنِ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ دِينَارٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَوْسٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ إِنَّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى عَلَى مَنَابِرَ مِنْ نُورٍ عَلَى يَمِينِ الرَّحْمَنِ الَّذِينَ يَعْدِلُونَ فِي حُكْمِهِمْ وَأَهْلِيهِمْ وَمَا وَلُوا ‏"‏‏.‏ قَالَ مُحَمَّدٌ فِي حَدِيثِهِ ‏"‏ وَكِلْتَا يَدَيْهِ يَمِينٌ ‏"‏‏.‏

 وَكِلْتَا يَدَيْهِ يَمِينٌ being the Arabic for "and both of his hands are right hands." This passage is graded "sahih" authentic.

Later, I found out that the same website contains it as listed under Sahih Muslim 1827 as mentioned by Anthony!

Behold! the Dispensers of justice will be seated on the pulpits of light beside God, on the right side of the Merciful, Exalted and GlorioUS. Either side of the Being is the right side both being equally mrneritorious. (The Dispensers of justice are) those who do justice in their rules, in matters relating to their families and in all that they undertake to do.--Sahih Muslim 1827

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، وَزُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، وَابْنُ، نُمَيْرٍ قَالُوا حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ عَنْ عَمْرٍو، - يَعْنِي ابْنَ دِينَارٍ - عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَوْسٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، قَالَ ابْنُ نُمَيْرٍ وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ يَبْلُغُ بِهِ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَفِي حَدِيثِ زُهَيْرٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ إِنَّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ عَلَى مَنَابِرَ مِنْ نُورٍ عَنْ يَمِينِ الرَّحْمَنِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَكِلْتَا يَدَيْهِ يَمِينٌ الَّذِينَ يَعْدِلُونَ فِي حُكْمِهِمْ وَأَهْلِيهِمْ وَمَا وَلُوا ‏"‏ ‏.‏

 Despite the translation with the typos and omitting the mention of a hand, we see the same phrase being used وَكِلْتَا يَدَيْهِ يَمِينٌ

Turns out Christian prince has a video that discusses this. 

Islam's Muslim Travel ban

Liberals say having a ban on letting Muslim immigrate to the USA is bigoted against a religion. It is.

Yet, at least Shia Islamic sources and scholars say its forbidden for a Muslim to move to or even travel to a non Islamic country unless its for the purposes of preaching Islam or medical necessity.

Both of these Islamic website are against Muslim migration to non Muslim countries:

https://islamqa.info/…/can-muslims-settle-in-kaafir-countri…

https://www.al-islam.org/a-c…/migration-non-muslim-countries

I am still looking to see if Sunni Islam has a similar ban.

Muslim argument from Isaiah 29:12

Muhammed was illiterate, so Muslims look to the Bible for evidence that they will be an illiterate prophet. A verse some Muslims use is Isaiah 29:12.

Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I don’t know how to read"--Isaiah 29:12

Some Muslims try to link this to Muhammed, since according to Islamic sources when Muhammed met Gabriel he was told to read, Muhammed said he can't. Therefore, since Muhammed can't read and some one mentioned in Isaiah 29:12 cannot read therefore, obviously the illiterate man is the prophet of Islam. That is, until we actually read the text of Isaiah 29 where its about Israel's inability to understand a vision without the help of prophet:

Be stunned and amazed, blind yourselves and be sightless; be drunk, but not from wine, stagger, but not from beer. The Lord has brought over you a deep sleep: He has sealed your eyes (the prophets); he has covered your heads (the seers). For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I can’t; it is sealed.” Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I don’t know how to read.”--Isaiah 29:9-12

We see God is depriving the people of a prophet/seer to be the people's eyes/head, without them understanding God's vision is like giving a document to a man that cannot open a scroll, or a man with a scroll that cannot read. That is to say, its a waste of time, futile. The illiterate man here is contrasted with the prophets, meaning the illiterate man is not a prophet.

Strange that there are Muslims would argue from this verse. 

Was Origen only condemned after death

Some presume that Origen of Alexandria was only named a heretic by ecclesial authorities posthumously, especially in the 6th Century and onward as I noted in another article.  However, according to Catholic Encyclopedia, his own bishop, the Patriarch/Pope of Alexandria--St Demetrius of Alexandria condemned him in a council that the Pope of Rome accepted:

In 230 Demetrius gave Origen a recommendation to take with him on his journey to Athens. But Origen was ordained priest at Caesarea without leave, and Demetrius with a synod of some bishops and a few priests condemned him to banishment, then from another synod sent a formal condemnation of him to all the churches. It is impossible to doubt that heresy, and not merely unauthorized ordination, must have been alleged by Demetrius for such a course. Rome accepted the decision, but Palestine, Phoenicia, Arabia, Achaia rejected it, and Origen retired to Caesarea, whence he sent forth letters in his own defence, and attacked Demetrius. The latter placed at the head of the Catechetical School the first pupil of Origen, Heraclas, who had long been his assistant. But the bishop died very soon, and Heraclas succeeding him, Origen returned to Alexandria. --Catholic Encyclopedia, St Demetrius

Someone reading the end might say "the bishop died and the next one accepted him! He died within the church!" However, the article on Bishop Heraclas says:

When in 231 the latter condemned Origen, who remained at Cæsarea, Heraclas became head of the school. Soon afterwards he succeeded Demetrius as bishop. According to Theophilus of Alexandria (in Gennadius, "De vir. ill.", xxxiv), when Origen returned to the city, Heraclas deposed him from the priesthood and banished him (cf. the life of St. Pachomius in Acta SS., 14 May, §21, and the probably spurious "Mystagogia" of St. Alexander of Alexandria, in Routh's "Reliquiæ Sacræ", IV, 81). This statement is supported by an interesting fragment of Photius (Synag. kaiapod.; 9), who probably had good authority. It runs as follows (Döllinger, "Hippol. und Kallist.", 264, Engl. transl. 245): "in the days of the most holy Heraclas, Origen, called Adamantius, was plainly expounding his own heresy on Wednesdays and Fridays; the said holy Heraclas therefore separated him from the Church and drove him from Alexandria, as a distorter of the wholesome doctrine and a perverter of the orthodox faith. Origen, thus excommunicated, on his way to Syria reached a city called Thmuis, which had an orthodox bishop named Ammonius, who committed to Origen the delivery of an instruction in his Church. The said Pope Heraclas, having heard this, went to Thmuis, deposed Ammonius for this cause, and set up in his stead as bishop a younger man named Philip, who was of great note among the Christians. --Chapman, J. (1910). Heraclas. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved September 19, 2019 from New Advent

Origen would outlive this bishop too and die under Dioynius, who after the death of Origen spoke highly of him, possibly believing he underwent torture for being a Christian.  According to Jules Lebreton:

Shortly after the condemnation of Origen, Demetrius died. His successor was the priest Heraclas, whom Origen had appointed as assistant, and who after his condemnation had taken his place at the head of the Catechetical School. It seems that Origen tried at this time to return to Alexandria and to take up his teaching once more, but Heraclas upheld the sentence of Demetrius. In 247 Heraclas died in his turn, and was succeeded by St. Dionysius. He, however, took no steps to recall to Alexandria the man who had nevertheless been his own master. But in the time of the Decian persecution, Origen was to receive, after his painful confession of the Faith, a friendly letter from the Bishop of Alexandria.

These facts enable us to understand better the significance and the motives of the sentence of Demetrius: if his two successors, sometime pupils of Origen, did nothing to recall their master to Alexandria, it must have been because his dismissal was motivated not merely by the personal jealousy of Demetrius, but also by the Church’s own interests.-- A History of the Early Church: The triumph of Christianity, page 44 by Jules Lebreton

If Origen was "rehabilitated" it was after he died. Furthermore, there is no indication Rome refused it's agreement of the condemnation of Origen that occurred under Patriarch Demetrius of Alexandria.

Bishop Barron's latest try at defending reasonable hope

This entry is in regards to Bishop Robert Barron's webpage on the issue of reasonable hope.

I have long been challenging Bishop Barron in comments over his vain speculation for the hope that all men will be saved.  (As a side note, as I mentioned elsewhere, in 2017, I had the opportunity to ask a member of the CDF whether von Balthasar/Bishop Barron's position is tenable for a Catholic. His reply was the doctrine is absurd and certainly will not reflect reality. He plainly told me there are at least 3 people he is certain are in Hell. He was concerned when I told him there is a bishop teaching this "reasonable hope".)

Bishop Barron disabled comments to his YouTube video where he insists the children of the church are able to hope "reasonably" that Hell will be empty of human beings (strange concept to defend in this age of suicide bombers, terrorism, rampant abortion, adultery, clerical sex abuse, euthanasia etc.)

I assert that, despite the insistence of people like Bishop Barron and other disciples of von Balthasar, the doctrine that there is a reasonable hope that all be saved is outside the limits of orthodoxy since its denied by Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 48) and Trent (Session VI, Chapter 3) and contradicts the plain reading of the Gospel (Matthew 7, Luke 13), in effect, making the words of Christ into false threats, making the Savior a liar.

There are many reasons the bishop could have disabled comments.

1) They were getting vile. There were numerous obnoxious, insulting comments against Bishop Barron, but this didn't stop him for years. Perhaps, it was getting to be too much.

2) He was tired of repeating himself. Also, possible, some thought he was overtly teaching universalism. Then, again, I've seen times where the Bishop misunderstood people as thinking the bishop believed all might be saved.  Regardless, it was done over and over.

3) He made many bad arguments. He made awful arguments in the comments, and even had to resort to suggesting the private revelation of Fatima might have been wrong. An opinion that is very unwise for any cleric to suggest. Lately, it seems he has reinterpreted the vision of Hell to just be a warning only, and does not necessarily reflect the actual state of Hell. Which would seem to make it a pious fraud, should no one really go to Hell. He made several other awful arguments that I will address later.

4) Some arguments he could not refute. I know I provided him with Trent and Vatican II on his idea of Hell. He dismissed Trent as stating a hypothetical--which it was not using hypothetical language at all. He simply did not respond to my argument from Vatican II which is even more direct against his position. 

Whatever the reason may be, Bishop Barron has created a special page on his website to explain/defend his position. Much of the page is dedicated to repeating his view is only speculation and that Hell is a dogma of faith, though he believes it might not really be for humans at all, thus disabling it as dogma. The page is full of half baked defenses for his position, even to the point where it borders on being dishonest, ignoring contrary evidence, selectively using quotes. Perhaps, this is why the page is written in the third person, so in case the statements contained therein are ruled heresy, the bishop can simply distance himself from his own webpage saying an employee wrote it.

The page states:

The purpose of this FAQ page is to provide a one-stop source for honest people looking for clarity on the issue. In particular, our intention is to clarify what Bishop Barron believes about hell, damnation, and salvation, and to confirm that his views are within the confines of orthodox Catholic teaching.

As I mentioned before, I personally informed a member of the CDF 2 years ago about Bishop Barron's position, which greatly concerned the bishop in the CDF, who said certainly Hell is populated. I could only hope that this encounter, of those of others had some effect. However, the bishop is still defending his position online, insisting its within orthodoxy, though never dealing with magisterial texts like the ones I posted. His treatment of Christ's text on the broad way to damnation require him to use John 12:32 to interpret Matthew 7:14.  

Since, Bishop Barron bases his position on a man that was likely an apostate, who nonetheless managed to be appointed a cardinal, and being struck dead just before his installation, he has to defend Hans Ur von Balthasar, and make no mention of Balthasar's even more serious heresies like his Arianistic view of the incarnation with the kenotic doctrine. On von Balthasar, the page states:

What about the negative things said about the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar? 

This is a valid question, but we must remember that every prominent thinker has critics. That includes St. Augustine, St. Thomas of Aquinas, St. Catherine of Siena, G.K. Chesterton, John Henry Newman, and Pope Benedict XVI—and Jesus himself. But having critics does not make one a heretic—having heretical doctrine does. 

The important consideration is, are the critics correct in their critiques? 

Balthasar was a deep thinker and a speculative theologian in certain respects. He tested ideas to see if they could stand, in the long run, with the final authorities of Sacred Scripture and Church teaching; that’s what theologians do. But as R.R. Reno reaffirms about Balthasar:

John Paul II and Benedict XVI felt no reservations celebrating Balthasar’s intellectual contributions to the Church. Balthasar may have been wrong or one-sided when he was bold and unconventional, but he was not rejecting or undermining magisterial teaching.

Avery Cardinal Dulles affirmed the same thing about Balthasar’s position:

This [dare we hope] position of Balthasar seems to me to be orthodox. It does not contradict any ecumenical councils or definitions of the faith. It can be reconciled with everything in Scripture, at least if the statements of Jesus on hell are taken as minatory rather than predictive. Balthasar’s position, moreover, does not undermine a healthy fear of being lost.

The page makes no mention of von Balthasar's heretical views of Holy Saturday or the Kenotic doctrine, though if you read the links to FirstThings you can read about it, both having Protestant influence, the former being Calvinistic (via Balthasar's friend Karl Barth), the latter being more Arianistic and therefore seemingly apostate and was explicitly condemned by the Papacy of Pius XII. There is much more that can be said about these views.

As church history attests, several theologians were praised at one time and even thought to be within orthodoxy, only later to be anathematized. This was the case with the Origen (who Barron seems to conveniently omit was anathematized repeatedly), and Theodore of Mopsuestia (who was considered with in orthodoxy at the Council of Chalcedon, but anathematized by the Pope and Second Council of Constantinople in the Three Chapters controversy). That is to say, even if bishops or even popes said positive things about a theologian, or even explicitly defend him as orthodox as the Pope did once with Theodore of Mopsuestia, this can be corrected in the future. God willing, this will be done with von Balthasar.

Returning to the bishop's page's quotes.

First, R.R. Reno's:

John Paul II and Benedict XVI felt no reservations celebrating Balthasar’s intellectual contributions to the Church. Balthasar may have been wrong or one-sided when he was bold and unconventional, but he was not rejecting or undermining magisterial teaching.

However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church's section of the descent to hell was written explicitly to state the Church's teaching was not that of von Balthasar. As Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger  (later Pope Benedict XVI) and Christoph Schoenborn state in "Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church", cited by Lyra Pitstick:

 “The brief paragraph on Jesus’ descent into hell keeps to what is the common property of the Church’s exegetical tradition. Newer interpretations, such as that of Hans Urs von Balthasar (on the contemplation of Holy Saturday), however profound and helpful they may be, have not yet experienced that reception which would justify their inclusion in the Catechism.”--Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p 74-75

As I will go to at length later on, Pope John Paul II explicitly rejects von Balthasar's view of damnation in Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

Pope Pius XII reject the doctrine of von Balthsar--the kenotic doctrine:

There is another enemy of the faith of Chalcedon, widely diffused outside the fold of the Catholic religion. This is an opinion for which a rashly and falsely understood sentence of St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (ii, 7), supplies a basis and a shape. This is called the kenotic doctrine, and according to it, they imagine that the divinity was taken away from the Word in Christ. It is a wicked invention, equally to be condemned with the Docetism opposed to it. It reduces the whole mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption to empty the bloodless imaginations. 'With the entire and perfect nature of man'--thus grandly St. Leo the Great--'He Who was true God was born, complete in his own nature, complete in ours' (Ep. xxviii, 3. PL. Liv, 763. Cf. Serm. xxiii, 2. PL. lvi, 201).--Pope Pius XII, Sempiternus Rex Christus, Paragraph 29, September 8, 1951 (for more on this see Light in Darkness 

 Now for Cardinal Dulles' comment cited by the bishop's page:

This [dare we hope] position of Balthasar seems to me to be orthodox. It does not contradict any ecumenical councils or definitions of the faith. It can be reconciled with everything in Scripture, at least if the statements of Jesus on hell are taken as minatory rather than predictive. Balthasar’s position, moreover, does not undermine a healthy fear of being lost.

This is a partial citation, which does not even seem that confident that Balthasar is orthodox (eg "seems to me to be orthodox"). The Cardinal Dulles is wrong about not contradicting an ecumenical council, since a hypothetical Hell for humans contradicts lesser known sections of Trent and Vatican II. But, first let's see the rest of the citation by the Cardinal which continues as follows:

 But the position is at least adventurous. It runs against the obvious interpretation of the words of Jesus in the New Testament and against the dominant theological opinion down through the centuries, which maintains that some, and in fact very many, are lost. --Cardinal Dulles (emphasis mine)

Though the Cardinal did wrongly claim the position of holding to possibility an empty Hell is within orthodoxy, he admitted also, its a tough position to hold to and seems to contradict Christ Himself, and Catholic tradition. The position requires a lot of Bible twisting. The Cardinal, as with Barron, and most universalists historically, appealed to St Paul's writings, and largely downplayed Christ's--a concept that is contrary to Catholic tradition. As a side note, Cardinal Dulles was a Jesuit, an order that has had members doubting Hell, as was von Balthasar. Dulles himself was another high level Jesuit that accepted the red hat of a Cardinal (as did von Balthasar) despite the Jesuit Constitution's instructions that Jesuits are not to accept higher office. Balthasar at least refused to be made a bishop first, but accepting the appointment as a cardinal still is contrary to the Constitution's spirit.

Bishop Barron's use of Church Fathers

On this webpage, Bishop Barron, or at least one of his people, state:

What is also often overlooked, in light of these great saints and doctors in the Latin West, is the prominent speculations of the Eastern Church. The conviction that hell may be empty has been advocated by the likes of Origen of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus the Confessor, and Isaac the Syrian.

This seems to be an admission that the western doctors and fathers rejected the concept of an empty Hell. So he resorts to Eastern early Christians. There are several problems with his citations. Despite insisting throughout his article and elsewhere that he is not a Origenist that believes Hell will be extinguished, and his repeated denial to certain knowledge that Hell will be empty of human---the bishop cites the very people he denies being. The statement "the conviction that hell may be empty..." is misleading since they did not believe Hell to be empty, but will be full of sinners, perhaps most of humanity, only to be emptied out at the end of the age.

Before addressing all of the Fathers, let me first say, his citation of St Maximus the Confessor requires evidence on the part of Bishop Barron. Likely, him, or his camp, are just repeating an opinion of von Balthasar concerning St Maximus, since there is no writing of his that people can point to that clearly teaches universalism, only opinions that it must "logically" do so. Von Balthasar debated Brian Daly as to whether St Maximus was a universalist. St Maximus' commentary on the Lord's prayer seems to clearly deny the concept of Hell being extinguished:

Indeed there exists but one happiness, a communion of life with the Word, the loss of which is an endless punishment which goes on for all eternity. And that is why abandoning his body and whatever is the body’s he strives intensely toward that communion of life with God, thinking that the only loss – even he were master of everything on earth – would be in the failure of the deification by grace which he pursues. --St Maximus the Confessor, Commentary on the Our Father

Von Balthasar, himself admits Maximus the Confessor did not clearly teach universalism but insists he believed it anyway:

"Maximus is not in favor of proclaiming a universal restoration in the straightforward way in which Gregory of Nyssa and even Origen himself did it, despite their assurances to the contrary. The history of Origenism was proof enough of the bad effects of such a lack of prudence....Beginners and the imperfect should not simply be guided by kindness and by glimpses of the depths of [God's] mercy; they need fear as well."--Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor, Hans Urs von Balthasar, page 357 translated by Brian Daley, SJ

Also, see Brian Daly's article. Clearly, St Maximus was not of the belief that Hell extinguished, I cannot for certain say yet if he believed necessarily there will be people in Hell.

The first on his list the Bishop's list is Origen, who is sometimes considered the author of universalism, though it likely pre-existed him. Origen was post-humously anathematized with his writings condemned by several ecumenical councils in the strongest of terms:

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema.--Constantinople II (AD 553), Anathemas against the "Three Chapters", Canon XI 

We reject along with them Severus Peter and their interconnected band with their many blasphemies, in whose company we anathematize the mythical speculations of Origen, Evagrius and Didymus, as did the fifth synod, that assembled at {5}Constantinople.==Nicaea II (AD 787), Definition 

we anathematize Severus, Peter and Zoharas the Syrian, as well as Origen with his useless knowledge, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Didymus along with Evagrius, who also, although of the same or different opinions, were ensnared in the same pit of damnation.--Constantinople IV (AD 869), Definition 

It also embraces, approves and accepts the fifth holy synod, the second of Constantinople, which was held in the time of our predecessor most blessed Vigilius and the emperor Justinian. In it the definition of the sacred council of Chalcedon about the two natures and the one person of Christ was renewed and many errors of Origen and his followers, especially about the penitence and liberation of demons and other condemned beings, were refuted and condemned.--Council of Florence, Session XI: Bull of union with the Copts, February 4, 1442

Needless to say, citing Origen does him no actual favors.Many of the Origenist/universalist made Gehenna a purgatory like the Jews have, though the Jews made avadon the eternal place of torment, however, the Jews believe some to be annihilated, the Origenists believe everyone will be saved, usually including the demons.

Bishop Barron lists St Gregory of Nyssa as being in his camp. Generally, it is agreed he is a universalist at least in some of his writings, however, as the International Theological Commission notes, he does not seem to believe an unbaptized infant will go to heaven, though he won't say the child will be in Hell either. When he did preach universalism, it seemed to be more along the lines of Origen, a doctrine Bishop Barron acknowledges as false. St Gregory of Nyssa is not a good example to be used by Bishop Barron.

Isaac the Syrian is cited by Bishop Barron's site, a man that probably was not Catholic, but likely outside the Church, despite him being considered a saint by the Chaldean Catholic Church. Using Isaac as an example is even worse than Origen in the sense that Isaac's doctrine would logically be doubly condemned. Isaac held in high regard the writings and doctrines of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Isaac the Syrian quoting Theodore of Mopseustia states:

From the blessed Theodore, the Interpreter. After other luminous statements he says:

“In the world to come, those who have chosen here what is good, will receive the felicity of good things along with praise; whereas the wicked, who all their life have turned aside to evil deeds, once they have been set in order in their minds by punishments and the fear of them, choose the good, having come to learn how much they have sinned, and that they have persevered in doing evil things and not good; by means of all this they receive a knowledge of religion’s excellent teaching, and are educated so as to hold on to it with a good will, (and so eventually) they are held worthy of the felicity of divine munificence. For (Christ) would never have said ‘Until you pay the last farthing’ unless it had been possible for us to be freed from our sins once we had recompensed for them through punishments. Nor would He have said ‘He will be beaten with many stripes’ and ‘He will be beaten with few stripes’ if it were not (the case) that the punishments, measured out in correspondence to the sins, were finally going to have an end”.--Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian), 'The Second Part, Chapters XXXIX:8, page 166-167. translated by Sebastian Brock

Isaac quotes Theodore of Mopsuestia in his pro-Pelagian writing Against those who say that sin is ingrained by nature (CPG 3860) who in addition to believe in the Pelagian heresy, was anathematized by ecumenical council and called a blasphemer (Constantinople II [AD 553] The Sentences of the Synod). Ironically, despite Theodore and likely Isaac the Syrian being Pelagians, Pelagius himself rejected Origenism, as is clear in St Augustine's account of Pelagius appearing before a tribunal of eastern bishops.Theodore of Mopsuestia was hostile to some Origenist ideas, but not totally with apokatastasis. Yet, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Isaac the Syrian were both sympathetic to Origen;s idea of a Hell burning out and Pelagianism.

The theology of a hope for an empty Hell is incompatible with Bishop Barron's view since Isaac and Theodore's Hell is emptied at the end of time a view that was anathematized by the Pope and Patriarchs in Justinian's time, and reaffirmed by later councils and the current Catechism. It is interesting the bishop wishes to cite sources that simply do not work, obviously the Bishop would object to the salvation of the devil!

And it is clear that He does not abandon them the moment they fall, and that demons will not remain in their demonic state, and sinners will not remain in their sins; rather, He is going to bring them to a single equal state of completion in relationship to His own Being in a state in which the holy angels are now, in perfection of love and a passionless mind--Isaac the Syrian, The Second Part, Chapter 40:4, translated by Sebastian Brock

Suffice it to say, Bishop Barron really ought not to have cited Isaac the Syrian (for many reasons).

St Edith Stein

Barron's page cites St Edith Stein in this Q&A:

How was Hans Urs von Balthasar’s view on hell different than Bishop Barron’s?

In his book, Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?, Balthasar cites with approval these words from St. Edith Stein:

All merciful love can thus descend to everyone. We believe that it does so. And now, can we assume that there are souls that remain perpetually closed to such love? As a possibility in principle, this cannot be rejected. In reality, it can become infinitely improbable—precisely through what preparatory grace is capable of effecting in the soul.

Bishop Barron would not go so far as to say it is “infinitely improbable” there are people in hell. That language is too strong. But he does agree with Balthasar’s main thesis, affirmed by the Catechism, that we can pray, and hope hell is empty of people.

s pointed out in this blog. This is a very convenient copy and paste, considering the Saint did not publish this and furthermore revised her wording:

Schenk, “Factical Damnation,” p. 150, n. 35, points out that while Balthasar makes this his final position, it was not the final position of Edith Stein herself. Schenk points out that these were passing comments in a work that she herself never published, and that in 1939 in her spiritual testament, she significantly modifies. “The possibility of some final loss appears more real and pressing than one which would seem infinitely improbable.” Hauke, “Sperare per tutti?” pp. 207-8, makes the same point as well as the additional point that not everything a saint or Doctor wrote is honored when they are recognized as saints or Doctors.--From the Musings of a Pertinacious Papist blog

Continuing on, another Q&A reads:

So does Bishop Barron think hell is empty, or that all people will be saved?

No. Again, Bishop Barron’s position is one of hope—not of thought, certainty, expectation, or even probability. While hoping and praying for hell to be empty of men, he does not know whether hell is empty, think hell is empty, or expect hell to be empty.

Bishop Barron simply agrees with Pope Benedict XVI’s position: 

It seems to me that Pope Benedict’s position—affirming the reality of hell but seriously questioning whether that the vast majority of human beings end up there—is the most tenable and actually the most evangelically promising.

He also agrees with Pope John Paul II, who in a 1999 statement in the L’Osservatore Romano said:

Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.

Note the inclusion of the word “whether,” which confirms Pope John Paul II considered the possibility that hell might be empty. When the statement was included in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the word “whether” was removed by editors, but its original inclusion affirms that Pope John Paul II held this outcome to be a real possibility.

Bishop Barron's second quote is a staple in Balthasarian sympathizers circles. To the bishop's credit, he actually admits the text was corrected to remove the impression that universal salvation is possible, something many in his camp conveniently omit. This was actually an audience Pope John Paul II delivered, the text initially on the Vatican site in English and Italian include the word "whether" but the "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" omitted it. Perhaps, the Pope did not intend it, or misspoke. As far as the edit, for all we know the Pope himself, or the head of the CDF at the time Cardinal Ratzinger was the one to have it excluded!  Furthermore, Pope John Paul II did not believe in the possibility of an empty Hell and explicitly called out people like Origen and von Balthasar in his Papal Encyclical, Crossing the Threshold of Hope:

"The problem of hell has always disturbed great thinkers in the Church, beginning with Origen and continuing in our time with Sergey Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Balthasar. In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory of the "final apocatastasis," according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which indirectly abolished hell. But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew's Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard. This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. The silence of the Church is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, "It would be better for that man if he had never been born" (Mt 26:24), His words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.).”—Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Chapter 28: Does Eternal Life Exist? c.AD 1994 (emphasis mine)

In this Pope John Paul II left no room for von Balthasar's "hope," despite wanting to make him a Cardinal. Critics think appointing him to a Cardinal is necessarily approval of all his theology, however, the Pope appointed many problematic prelates. Regardless, Pope John Paul II in alluding to Matthew 25 has what Lumen Gentium had in mind when using the grammatical future to describe damnation.

The Pope Benedict XVI quote they provide doesn't even mention the idea that maybe no one will be damned. In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger, as I showed Bishop Barron before stated:

“This is why God’s all-embracing desire to save people does not involve the actual salvation of all men.  He allows us the power to refuse.”— Joseph Alois Cardinal Ratzinger, “Gott ist uns nah. Eucharistie: Mitt des Lebens” (God is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life), Chapter II: God’s Yes and His Love Are Maintained Even in Death, point 2, p. 37 (concerning pro multis in the Mass.) Published June 1, AD 2003

Bishop Barron's page gives a list of scripture that are believed to suggest universalism, or as he tries to downplay it as "hope" for it.

What biblical evidence is there that all people might be saved?

Some examples of “salvation of all” texts include:

“And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32)

“He has made known to us the mystery of his will . . . as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (Eph. 1:9-10)

“This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:3-4)

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22).

“For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” (Col. 1:19-20).

“Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” (Rom. 5:18-19).

“For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.” (Rom. 11:32).

Some of these passages like John 12:32 do not even suggest universal salvation, but merely God's desire to save all men, not that it will come to pass, since that would contradict other scripture. St John Chrysostom on this passage comments that Christ says "all men" to emphasis that He draws the gentiles not just the Jews, since the passage starts of mentioning the Greeks present. The rest of the passages, as it generally the case with universalists--almost exclusively quote Paul, since the doctrine cannot honestly be read in the gospels unless an attempt at apokastasis is made.

In regards to 1 Corinthians 15:22 we see St John Chrysostom state:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 

What then? Tell me; did all die in Adam the death of sin ? How then was Noah righteous in his generation? And how Abraham? And how Job? And how all the rest? And what, I pray? Shall all be made alive in Christ? Where then are those who are led away into hell fire? Thus, if this be said of the body, the doctrine stands: but if of righteousness and sin, it does so no longer. 

Further, lest, on hearing that the making alive is common to all, you should also suppose that sinners are saved, he adds, 

"But every man in his own order." 

For do not, because you hear of a resurrection, imagine that all enjoy the same benefits. Since if in the punishment all will not suffer alike but the difference is great; much more where there are sinners and righteous men shall the separation be yet wider. 

"Christ the first-fruits, then they that are Christ's;" i.e., the faithful and the approved.--St John Chrysostom, Homily 39 on First Corinthians,

If read in isolation these passage would even seem to plainly say all men will be saved, and give the impression there is 0 chance of it not happening.

1 Timothy 2:4 only speaks of God's desire, that is He does not desire men to be damned. Though not dogmatic, a local council mentioned in Denzinger, the council explicitly cited this verse as not saying all will be saved. As we see:

"Omnipotent God wishes all men without exception to be saved [1 Tim. 2:4] although not all will be saved. However, that certain ones are saved, is the gift of the one who saves; that certain ones perish, however, is the deserved punishment of those who perish."—Council of Quiersy chapter 3, AD 853, (Denz. 318) 

2 Peter 3:15-18 issued a warning about this very matter of using Paul for false teaching. Considering 2 Peter is an epistle of fire and brimstone, and end times, these things were likely in mind when warning people to read St Paul carefully.

Furthermore, what should be noted more is that this is the same reading of "all" in the Romans' verses that Protestants latch on to in order to declare Mary a sinner.

Barron's page makes several shocking claims about von Balthasar that they think are worth quoting, but the Bishop does not come out and say this is his position too, but will use von Balthasar to defend the absurd position, nonetheless.

Considering the bishop's team cited firstthings as a source, it is my reasonable hope that he reads Lyra Pitstick's critiques of von Balthasar's doctrines, like Christ's Descent into Hell. See here website at http://lyrapitstick.com/ One might also refer to Ralph Martin's book.



To be continued....


Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Highly civilized sin of sodomy

GK Chesterton called homosexuality a "highly civilized" since its tends to be more common is wealthier societies, at his times the English aristocracy supposed has a large amount of them. Even in the case of Sodom, it was a city under a king when many were still nomads and herdsmen like Abraham. The Bible on Sodom's wealth says:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. --Ezekiel 16:49-50

Nothing has changed, homosexuality is still most prevalent and accepted in the worlds most wealthy, fattest, most educated nations. Even despite all this education and knowledge about how overtly destructive sodomy is to the person and humanity--homosexual men account for most of the HIV infections in the USA, and it destroys the body. But false compassion is more important that telling them the truth about sodomy.

Its interesting how desperate people are to suppress the studies showing homosexuality is a symptom of homosexual sexual abuse as a minor.

Jesus beating Bad Bishops

In Luke 12, Christ gives several parables, including ones about not being greedy, suffering for His Name, and also against corrupt clergy. Is it convenient that now that the reasonable hope of universalism as a possibility is preached those in the very office of which is told will be "beaten with many stripes" should they not prepare the household of the Lord for His unexpected return? The warning applies the most to this with the most authority. This means at Judgement Day, Christ judge with the most severity Popes, then Patriarchs and Cardinals, then Archbishops, then Bishops, then monsignors, then simple priests, then deacons, and finally the laity.

Christ was fully aware, being God, that His own Church would have corrupt leaders, including Popes. Yet, despite the harshness He speaks about the clergy, He never proposes vigilante justice, or starting a new church with new clergy, as the Baptists tend to. Rather Christ seems to be saying, that if the very ones not setting the Household of the Lord in to place, the Lord Himself will come and set things straight--and punish the guilty parties in proportion to their responsibility and knowledge they possessed. The commentary of Cornelius van Lapide states the fear that the pious associate with their responsibility:

In like manner, as far as they could, SS. Gregory, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Basil, Nazianzen, Nicholas, Athanasius, shunned the office of Bishops; and in our own times Pius V., when chosen Pontiff, turned pale and almost fell into a faint. When asked the reason he frankly answered, “When I was a Religious of the Order of Benedict, I had very good hope of my salvation; when I was afterwards made a Bishop I began to have a dread about it: now that I am chosen Pontiff I almost despair of it, for how am I to give account to God for so many thousands of souls as are in this whole city, when I can scarcely answer for my own soul?” So it is in his life. Finally, the Council of Trent declares the burthen of a Bishop’s office to be one formidable to the shoulders of angels.--Lapide Commentary on Luke 12:48 

TBC

Answering Muslim in Comments

I received a year ago comments from a Muslim with the username Kemo 2002 on YouTube in response to my video on whether Muhammed is mentioned in Songs of Solomon. Since I neglected to address his comment at the time, I feel I should address it here. In his comments its evidence, like most Muslims, he does not know what the Trinity is, nor does he seem aware Islam has Allah praying to himself.

Here is a screen shot of the comment I will be addressing

In the following I will repost his comments in a more readable format with my added responses.

Kemo 2002: Ha...Would u even bear  to hear that a perfect being gets crucified and naked and rotten on a crucifix?!
Ohh how dumb u are  to think like that he wasnt killed nor crucified.. But Allah the Almight and only one god lifted him in a way we dont know maybe the one who was crucified looked like him but only Allah knows  best.

Me: What is preventing  perfect human being from being executed? Many prophets were killed. In Islam Muhammad slowly died from poison meat. How is this even a point to make? Christ in the gospel says He LAID DOWN HIS LIFE WILLINGLY (John 10:18). He could have avoided death. There is a debate whether the Quran really says Jesus was not crucified since some Muslims insist the Quran is not denying this, but denying God's word could be killed. If Jesus avoided crucifixion it would make him a false messiah and a false prophets since the Scriptures in Isaiah 53, Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 22, etc predicted He would be crucified and would raise up. Jesus himself spoke about how he would die at the hands of the Jewish authorities and Romans. Furthermore, why would Jesus need a replacement if He would simply be taken up to Heaven. Its not like the Romans would go to heaven and take him back to be crucified. If Allah knew best, why would be needlessly haves Jesus' disciple be killed in Jesus' place?

Kemo: And if u said that we are terrorists think again isis(Muslim killers pretending  to be muslims.) is made by the cia to make corruption and temptation among muslims and especially so non muslims reject the truth..If u believe we are terrorists then ur brainwashed because theyre is no where in the Quran says go strap ur self with explosive and blow ur self up but the  opposite if u commit  suicide ur going to hellfire. If u have any questions or would u like to debate in depth my instagram is:K4mo0o

Me: Instagram is a very poor media for debate. Why cannot you accept they are Muslim, what evidence do you have they are run by the CIA, why would the USA help destroy them? Why does Islam rely on many conspiracy theories?

Kemo: 1.) The Bible says that Jesus prayed. If Jesus is God, he would simply be praying/talking to himself...

Me: First, the Quran says Allah prays to himself, though most English translations deliberately try to obscure this by saying salloo means "bless":

He it is who prays (yusallee) for you and His angels too, to bring you forth out of the darkness into the light, for He is merciful to the believers. S. 33:43 Palmer 

Verily, God and His angels pray (yusalloona) for the prophet. O ye who believe! pray for him (salloo) and salute him with a salutation! S. 33:56 Palmer

In fact, this is what SAW means when Muhammed's name is mentioned. So how can you find an issue with "God praying to himself"?

Furthermore, Jesus is not praying to himself. Jesus is both God and a man. As a man, Jesus prayed, worshipped, got hungry, thirsty, tired, bleed, cried, and so on. How Islam makes sense of Allah praying to Himself, I have no idea. The Divine aspects of Jesus are mentioned at times in the Quran, like the passages alluding to Jesus creating a bird from clay and breathing into it.

Kemo: 2.) It says God had to turn his back on Jesus, when he took on the sins of the world. (So he somehow turned his back on himself?)

Me: This is a Protestant claim, I am Catholic and do not make this statement, since as you point out, it seems contradictory. A Protestant would explain this as the Trinity, three separate persons, the Father turns his back on the Son. However, logically, a Christian cannot hold this view either since it would mean there is separation and disunity in the Trinity, imply a temporary fracture in God's oneness, or Jesus being split into two. The view Jesus is separated from the Father is based on an interpretation of the verse where Jesus cries out--quoting Psalm 22, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?". The Catholic view is Jesus is quoting the Psalm, and by his death, suffering the fate like a sinful criminal would, can express the sentiment of a sinner worthy of death. The abandoning is simply God's permission for Jesus to be crucified by the hands of wicked men. Christ Himself said He died willingly for His sheep, however, as a man, he desired it occur through other means that would not have His people bear more guilt for killing their King. In the Catholic view, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all on the same page, as they must be as they all possess the same will, though Christ has two wills--a divine will that is the Father's will, and a human will that He acquired when he was conceived (John 1:14 "the word was made flesh and dwelt among us").

Kemo: 3.) Jesus was asked when the end of the world would be and his response was roughly, “I do not know, only my Father in Heaven knows”. If Jesus is God, he was then lying to the man who asked the question. The trinity is one of the “doctrines if demons” that the Bible warns about.

Me: St Paul was the one that spoke against the "doctrine of demons." Are you now admitting St Paul was a true apostle? I have a video on Matthew 24:36/Mark 13:32. Jesus in this passage is saying the Father is the source of this knowledge, the fact Jesus describes the event in detail and says He will appears riding a cloud (an allusion to Him being God in Daniel 7) shows He is in control. Elsewhere, Jesus says only God is good, He was not deny others can be good, but rather that God is the original of this. Jesus in Acts 1:6-7 when asked a related question by the Apostles, tells us that events ordained by the Father are not for humans to know. Elsewhere, like John 21 the Apostles Peter tells Christ, "you know all things!."

Kemo said:

Muslim : Who is God?  

Christian : Jesus   

ME: The FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT.

Kemo:

Muslim : Is Jesus the son of Mary.  

Christian : Yes  

Muslim : Who created Mary?  

Christian : God.  

Muslim : Who is God?  

Christian: Jesus 

ME: The FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT. 

Kemo:

Muslim : Jesus is the begotten son.  

Christian : Yes  

Muslim : Who is his father?  

Christian : God.  

Me: The Father is a specific person in the Trinity that is the head and source of the Trinity, He Is unbegotten. The Son did not beget Himself, rather He is eternally begotten of His Father.

Kemo:

Muslim : Who is God? 

Christian : Jesus.  

Me: The FATHER, SON, and Holy Spirit are God.

Kemo:

Muslim : Jesus is a servant of God.  

Christian : Yes  

Me: Jesus as a man is the servant of God, since He took form of a servant according to Philippians 2:7, which you have previously acknowledged that St Paul is a legitimate writer and Apostle of Jesus.

Kemo:

Muslim : Jesus died on the cross?  

Christian : Yes  

Muslim : Who resurrected him?  

Christian : God.

Me: According to Jesus himself in John 2, He would resurrect HIMSELF, why not? He resurrected other people which Islam acknowledges, and He could create as the Quran acknowledges with the clay birds. The New Testament says the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all involved in the resurrection of Jesus, because they are one God and do not operate as separate beings with separate wills, rather they have One will, not 3 united wills.

Kemo:

Muslim : Is Jesus a messenger. 

Christian : Yes  

Muslim : Who sent him?  

Christian : God.  

Muslim : Who is God?  

Christian : Jesus.  

Me: Jesus was sent by the Father, it was the Father's will for the Word of God to become a human. It must also be noted, we believe that the will of God the Son is the same will as the Father, its just that the will's origin is the Father. The doctrine you seem to be refuting is a non-trinitarian doctrine called modalism which technically is like the Unitarianism that Islam believes in, however it says God appears in three forms: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but are really just the same exact person.

Kemo:

Muslim: Did Jesus worship while on earth.  

Christian: Yes  

Muslim: Whom did he worship?  

Christian: God.  

Muslim : Who is God?  

Christian : Jesus.

Me: Jesus is both God and man. As a man, to be a perfect example for us, took on a human nature and led by example of how to pray, be righteous, and be a servant for humanity by preaching to it, healing, forgiving sins, resurrecting people, and dying for their sins. Muhammed's examples are an example of how NOT to be as divorce, lusting and taking your adopted sons wife, a grown mad lusting after a pre-pubescent girl, sex slavery, and raping married women in front of their husbands are examples of wickedness, deserving of great damnation in eternal Hell fire.

Kemo:

Muslim : Did God have a beginning?  

Christian : No  

Muslim: Then who was born on 25/DEC?  

Christian : Jesus.  

Muslim : Is Jesus God.  

Christian : Yes

Me: God has no beginning. Jesus' human beginning was March 25 over 2000 years ago. Jesus pre-existed as God. The Son of God has two births, one of His Father eternally, and one of the Virgin Mary at one time and place 2000 years ago. When Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, God experienced birth, though in Divinity was not born of Mary.

Kemo:

Muslim : Where's God?  

Christian : In heaven.

Me: A real Christian would say everywhere. Many Muslims believe God is ONLY in the highest heaven above His Throne. Christians believe that while Heaven is a sort of "home" of God, He being God is everywhere, in fact this way of describing it is misleading it implies God comes to an occupies space, when in reality, space was permitted to occupy along side with God a location. God does not simply occupy the universe, the universe is contained WITHIN God, since He is much greater than the universe.

Kemo:

Muslim : How many Gods are there in heaven?  

Christian : Only one God.  

Muslim : Where's Jesus?  

Christian : He is seated on the right hand of his father. 

Me: We say He is seated at the right hand of the Father. This is more of a description of His relationship, not a physical reality, since we do not believe the Father has a body in anyway, whereas Allah does.

Kemo:

Muslim : Then how many are they in heaven?  

Christian : Only one God.  

Muslim : Then how many seats? 

Christian : one  

Muslim : where's Jesus?  

Christian: Seated next to God.  

Muslim : How are they seated on one chair?  

Christian : Its only understood by those with the Ghost. You need Ghost my friend

Me:  Its likely there is no actual throne, however, if there is Christ would be seated on it since He is part of the Trinity that has a bodily form. The book of Revelation, written by the Apostle John, describes heaven as having a throne where Christ being called "the lamb" is seated with the Father. The book is highly metaphorical, and like much of the Bible to explain to human, describes spiritual things in physical terms, much like Daniel 7, Exodus 33 and Isaiah 6 did when they said they "saw God." Since the Father and Holy Spirit have no actual physical body, there is no need for an actual throne, furthermore, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are omnipresent. They are even present in Hell, since Hell itself exists within God. In Hell man is eternally deprived of the full extent of God's mercy since they already rejected it.

You speak of the "ghost" a term we Christians rarely use anymore to describe the "Holy Spirit" which Muslims believe is the angel Gabriel, a person that claimed to talk frequently with this "ghost" that choked him demanding him to read. Some Christians believe there is a type of violent ghost called a "polstergeist" which Muhammed may very well have encountered and presented itself as an angel of God, though in reality being from Hell. St Paul, a man you seem to think of as worthy of being cited as being a legitimate writer of the Bible, said Satan can appear as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). St Paul further warned of being deceived by a man, or a so called "an angel of heaven" preaching another gospel (Galatians 1:8). Muhammad promoted the false gnostic gospels, and denied doctrines the real gospel teaches.

Hadith shows Quran is either imitable, not perserved, not clear

Muslims and the Quran itself insist the Quran is so great no chapter can be imitated by humans, even if a group of them came together and tried.

Say, "If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants."--Quran 17:88

Or do they say, "He has made it up"? Rather, they do not believe. Then let them produce a statement like it, if they should be truthful. --Quran 52:33-34

There are more instances where the Quran makes similar claims (eg. 2:23, 10:38, 11:13). The Quran, which insists its a clear book (11:1, 16:89, 41:3), gives no clear criteria for how to judge inimitability, which has caused different scholars to speculation on how it is inimitable. Regardless, whatever the case may be is not really relevant to this argument.

Another claim common among Muslims is that the Quran has been perfectly perserved, that is, it has not been corrupted, no verses have been lost. I am not aware of any actual Islam text
(other than commentaries) stating the Quran today is the same as that at the time of Muhammed's death (despite the fact variants like Ḥafs and Warsh). The following verse was taken by commentator ibn Kathir to mean the Quran cannot be added to subtracted to:

 But this is an honored Qur'an  [Inscribed] in a Preserved Slate.--Quran 85:21-22

as we see in his Tafsir:

(In Al-Lawh Al-Mahfuz!) meaning, among the most high gathering, guarded from any increase, decrease, distortion, or change. This is the end of the Tafsir of Surat Al-Buruj, and all praise and blessings are due to Allah.--ibn Kathir Tafsir on Sura 85:21-22

Likewise, Surah 6:115,

And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.--Quran 6:115

According to Tafsir al-Tabari, men cannot "add or delete from Allah's Books,"

The word of God meant in this verse is the Quran. This word is complete in truth and justice. Nothing can change Allah's word which he revealed in his BOOKS. The liars cannot add or delete from Allah's BOOKS. This is referring without a doubt to the Jews and Christians because they are the people of the books which were revealed to their prophets. Allah is revealing that the words they (the people of the book) are corrupting were not revealed by Allah, since Allah's word cannot be changed or substituted. --Tafsir al-Tabari, on Quran 6:115 (cited by Sam Shamoun and accepted by Bassam Zawadi, as I cannot get the source myself)

The claims that 1) the Quran is inimitable, 2) is perfectly preserved seems to be contradicted by the hadith.

There are sunnas that claim the Quran has missing verses, one of these is the following:

 Ibn Abbas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If there were for the son of Adam a valley full of riches, he would long to possess another one like it. and Ibn Adam does not feel satiated but with dust. 1413 And Allah returns to him who returns (to HiM). 1414 Ibn Abbas said: I do not know whether it is from the Qur'an or not; and in the narration transmitted by Zuhair it was said: I do not know whether it is from the Qur'an, and he made no mention of Ibn Abbas.-- Sahih Muslim, Book 005, Number 2285

 In addition to ibn Abbas, also Abu Harb said similar:

Abu Harb b. Abu al-Aswad reported on the authority of his father that Abu Musa al-Ash'ari sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Qur'an and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it:" If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust." And we used so recite a slirah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it:" Oh people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise" (lxi 2.) and" that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection" (xvii. 13).--Sahih Muslim, Book 005, Number 2286

To this dilemma, some Muslims response either 1) yes, some of the Quran was lost,  or 2) No, the text cited by Sahih Muslim from ibn Abbas and Abu Harb is actually a hadith, not a verse from the Quran.

If 1) is true, it means the claim of perfect preservation is not true, seeming to imply both the greatest Islamic commentators ibn Kathir and al-Tabari were mistaken. Also, in turn means the Quran is not as clear as it claims itself to be since even the greatest Tafsirs got it wrong.

However, the more damaging path to take for a Muslim is 2) that ibn Abbas/abu Harb are mistaking it for a hadith. It would be better to claim the Quran has not been preserved without defect, that is this passage lost. The admission that these individuals mistook a hadith for the Quran demonstrates Muhammed's speech does resemble the Quran, making the Quran imitable, contradicting the Suras stating even a team of humans and jinn would fail.

In summary:

Premise 1: The Quran's states it is inimitable (2:23, 10:38, 11:13, 17:88, 52:33-34)
Premise 2: Early Muslims mistook a hadith for the Quran itself.
Conclusion: The Quran is imitable, contradicting its own claim, therefore the Quran is false.

or,

Premise 1: Parts of the Quran are missing according to early Muslim sources like ibn Abbas, abu Harb and Muhammed's child bride, Aisha.
Premise 2: The Quran states it is a clear book.
Premise 3: The top Islamic commentators of the Quran commenting on the Quran state that Allah's book cannot have anything lost.

Conclusion: The Quran is not clear since the top scholars misunderstood the Quran (unless the Quran was wrong too!) when the Quran claims to be preserved, therefore the Quran is false.

ibn Kathir: Allah's miracles for Moses, Jesus and Mohammed

The Quran, based on a mix of the Gospel narratives, Christian lore and apocryphal texts, in chapter 3:48-51 states Jesus' miracles included creating a bird from clay, giving sight to the blind, healing the leper, and raising the dead:

And He will teach him writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel. And [make him] a messenger to the Children of Israel, [who will say], 'Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay [that which is] like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah . And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead - by permission of Allah . And I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers. And [I have come] confirming what was before me of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so fear Allah and obey me. Indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is the straight path."--Quran 3:48-51 (Sahih International)

I will not deal here with the obvious, that the Clay Bird miracle actually demonstrates Jesus is an "associate with Allah" since Jesus is doing the same thing the Torah describes God as doing for creating man from clay and breathing life into him. Or the fact, the writing Muslim apologists tell us to read to prove this account and "prove" the Gospels have been corrupted actually still tell us the Holy Spirit is being that cannot be equated with Muhammed, or that Jesus is the Son of God, and is called "Lord" in these books. Rather, let's see what the great Sunni commentator,  Ismail ibn Kathir (c.1300 – 1373) on the Quran has to say about this passage:

"Many scholars stated that Allah sent every Prophet with a miracle suitable to his time. For instance, in the time of Musa, magic was the trade of the time, and magicians held a high position. So Allah sent Musa with a miracle that captured the eyes and bewildered every magician. When the magicians realized that Musa's miracle came from the Almighty, Most Great, they embraced Islam and became pious believers. As for `Isa, he was sent during a time when medicine and knowledge in physics were advancing. `Isa brought them the types of miracles that could not be performed, except by one sent by Allah. How can any physician bring life to clay, cure blindness and leprosy and bring back to life those entrapped in the grave Muhammad was sent during the time of eloquent people and proficient poets. He brought them a Book from Allah; if mankind and the Jinn tried to imitate ten chapters, or even one chapter of it, they will utterly fail in this task, even if they tried to do it by collective cooperation. This is because the Qur'an is the Word of Allah and is nothing like that of the creatures."--Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Quran 3:48-51

Ibn Kathir's statement can be simplified to this:

God gave each prophet a miracle best suited for his time, so that in an area they would accel beyond those of their contemporaries, therefore prove that they were sent from Allah.

For Moses': Magicians were respected in his day. God made him out perform the works of magicians, therefore proving he is from God.

For Jesus': Medicine was a valued practice in his day. God made him create birds from clay, heal the blind, the leper, and raise the dead to life, therefore proving Jesus is sent from God. 

For Muhammad:  Arab liked poems in his day. So Allah had him write (though scribe) a book SO AMAZING, that no one could EVER mimic, therefore proving Muhammed was sent from God.

That's it! No, Arab's in his day must have valued poetry above even their own lives! The claim about a word being so amazing is just like that of the Mormons' and the Book of Mormon, since Joseph Smith couldn't actually perform an real supernatural feat, and his prophecies weren't very convincing, or so ambiguous, or so conditioned there were plenty of excuses why things didn't happen.

It is no wonder Muslims still cling to how amazing the Quran is in order to prove Muhammed must be a prophet. Never mind that the Quran makes claims against Christians that were never believed by any main stream group of Christians, or seems to be confused about when Moses lived, or mistakenly quotes a Jewish rabbi's words as being God's own.