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.
Origen did have some decent commentaries on Holy Scripture. However, what has been lacking in the 20th and 21st Centuries is the simple fact what the ecumenical councils said about the man, who famously taught 1)pre-existence of the soul 2) Hell will be burnt out 3)all men and fallen angels will be restored to God--thus all men will be saved. As I noted elsewhere, Origen never taught reincarnation, in fact, he explicitly rejected it. The Second Vatican Council does cite Origen's commentaries a number of times, but in no way to approve of his doctrine. In fact, at the editing of Lumen Gentium 48, a father was concerned Origenism would be understood by the wording, to which the commission stated the doctrine was not being taught at all.
Concerning doctrine and person of Origen (as well as his disciple Didymus the Blind), ecumenical councils stated the following:
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
the fifth holy synod, the latest of them, which was gathered here against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus and Evagrius,
and the writings of Theodoret against the twelve chapters of the
renowned Cyril, and the letter said to have been written by Ibas to
Mari the Persian.--Constantinople III (AD 680-681), Exposition of Faith
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
As we can, see Origen was personally anathematized by the Church, as well as his doctrines and his pupils. Even furthermore, Constantinople IV refers to his "useless knowledge" and Nicea II to his "mythical speculations."
Origen lived in the 3rd Century, but it took until the 6th century to condemn him as a heretic by an Ecumenical Council. During that time between some said he was a heretic, even Pelagius knew this and lived 150 years later, others saw him as a great theologian. Yet he was still anathematized. Others were believed to be orthodox in their lifetimes by many, yet were still condemned after their death as heretics. I suspect this will be the case with Hans Ur von Balthasar one day.
According to the evangelists, Judas hung himself and the silver he was paid to betray Christ was used to buy a field that was called Akeldama--the Field of Blood, since Acts 1 state Judas' bowels split open and gushed out. Matthew 27 simply says Judas went and hung himself. The traditional explanation is the two narratives are not contradictions, but that he hung himself on a cliff, and the tree (or whatever he used) broke and he fell down and his insides gushed out. This, of course, being symbolic and borrowed from the prophets to symbolizes the fate of the wicked.
Then, there is the question of whether Judas, who did repent, was damned to Hell. Generally, when the gospel says he repented, its understood, it was not necessarily a righteous one, after all--he killed himself. Then you have the fact Christ said it would have been better had Judas never been born. But still some insist--this is not enough evidence to say Judas is damned.
Here is another piece of evidence.
Judas' field, Akeldama, is located in a valley in Jerusalem (actually just outside the Old City Walls) on hill side. The valley==Gey ben Hinom. The etymology of the word Gehenna--the word the old and new testaments use to describe the place of eternal damnation, being the valley where infidels burned their children in the fires to the demon Moloch. The traditional site of the death of Judas now hosts a Greek Orthodox monastery. It is located near the border of the 1949 Armistice.
Even, the street name of the site is Gey Ben Hinom Street. In other words, Hell Road. Parallel to Gey Ben Hinom is Gey Ben Hinom St is the Gey Ben Hinom Stream, "Hell's Creek."
Here is a Google Earth street view of the lovely monastery in the tranquil valley housing the monk of the land of Gehenna. as well as the serene little road that, as it were, the Highway to Hell.
.
As you can see, this place had both cliffs, at least steep enough drops and trees that could be used for Judas to hang, fall and gush asunder.
Took me until now, decades, to realize the irony that Christ, who was raised by St Joseph the Carpenter, and of course in the ancient world men often took the profession of their fathers--was a carpenter who was nailed to the wood of the Cross and left to die there. I was reminded of this by the painting of the baby Jesus playing in St Joseph's shop:
Also, makes you thing about the building metaphors Christ used, very fitting a builder should make these metaphors.
A citation that has been used for decades to show that the Second Vatican Council rejected the idea of Hans Ur von Balthasar, who speculated that it is with in orthodox to hope that all men be saved, has been found.
"Unus Pater volt aliquam sententiam introduci ex qua appareat reprobos de facto haberi (ne damnatio ut mera hypothesis maneat).
English: One father wanted a sentence to be introduced from which it would be clear that there are damned defacto, lest damnation remain as a mere hypothesis.
Propositum non quadrat cum hoc contextu. Ceterum in n. 48 Schematis
citantur verba evangelica quibus Dominus ipse in forma grammaticaliter
futura de reprobis loquitur.
English: The proposal does not square with this context. In no. 48 there are cited the words of the Gospel in which the Lord Himself speaks about the damned in a form which is grammatically future.
That is to say, as James T. O'Connor referenced years ago, a father during the Council requested wording be added to show damnation is a fact, not merely a hypothesis. His request was denied because it was felt that it did not fit the context of the section in question, and furthermore, the matter that people will be damned is taught in Lumen Gentium 48, which quotes the gospel, using the grammatical future to describe the end of the wicked. "In no. 48 there are cited the words of the Gospel in which the Lord
Himself speaks about the damned in a form which is grammatically
future.""
Here is a dialogue between a Muslim and I on my youtube channel, under the video on Aramaic in the gospels. Notice the Muslim uses some very old, yet awful reasoning. My comments are under "me" and his under "you."
you: Yes he certainly wasn’t a traitor - nor was he a self obsessed narcissist who claimed divinity and asked to be worshipped alongside the Only True God (the Father - the ONLY ‘person’ in the ‘Godhead’) - in direct violation of the first commandment. Rather he was a Holy humble servant and worshipper of God.
Jesus didn’t expect people to submit to him - he expected to be obeyed as any prophet is sent to be obeyed because a prophet ‘doesn’t speak of his own authority’ but is simply conveying Gods commands. Obedience and apparent ‘submission’ to the prophet is therefore actual obedience and ‘submission’ to God.
John 16:7 needs to be reconciled with John 14:16 otherwise there is a contradiction of who is doing the sending. It’s a simple reconciliation. John 16:7 is interpreted as : Jesus will send him. How? By PRAYING to the Father (the Only True God) to send him.
Aside from the fact that John 14 is a total and complete disaster for your trinity: where you have ‘person 2’ of the ‘Godhead’ praying to ‘person 1’ to send ‘person 3’ and then ‘person 1’ sending ‘person 3’ after ‘person 2’ leaves - but you also have the problem with the Holy Spirit clearly being around during Jesus’s ministry.
A Trinitarian reading of John 14 has God praying to God to send God but God can’t send God until God goes but only after God goes can God then send God 🤔
God doesn’t PRAY like a servant
God isn’t SENT like an errand boy.
Rather God is prayed TO
Rather God SENDS and gives orders
Being SENT and PRAYING implies subordination. What kind of pathetic excuses for Gods are these 2?
Not to mention that neither the ‘Son’ or ‘Holy Spirit’ know when the day of Judgement is (Matthew 24:36) - it’s pretty clear which ‘person’ is the True God here.
Muhammad is the ‘Spirit of Truth’ and the ‘Prince of the World’ of John 14:30 who came and FULFILLED John 14:31.
How?
John 14:31 is implying a vindication - and that’s exactly what Muhammad ï·º did. He VINDICATED Jesus.
We have the Jews vilifying him for being an instigator of idolatry.
And we have the Christians ‘feeding’ the Jews with ammunition to carry on vilifying him by insisting Jesus claimed divinity and taught the blasphemous trinity!
So who’s fighting poor Jesus’s corner?
Who’s representing the true Jesus?
Well, God sent the ‘Ahmed’ of the Gentiles to vindicate Jesus. We now have a billion plus Muslims who fight Jesus’s corner and portray the true Jesus. The Jews can’t refute the Muslim Jesus but can easily refute your Jesus.
Islam is the true middle path with regards to Jesus - between the VILIFICATION of the Jews and the DEIFICATION of the Christians.
Islam already has the world’s largest religious denomination (Sunni islam) and will soon be the biggest religion in the world. That means the largest unified belief about Jesus will very soon be the Muslim belief.
This is a complete fulfilment of John 14:31.
Additionally, to imply that God (which the Holy Spirit supposedly is) can’t ‘speak on his own authority’ is blasphemy. God can’t speak on his own authority??
“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth (complete religion for the world). For He will NOT speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will tell you what is yet to come” - John 16:13
“And he (Muhammad ï·º) is NOT speaking of his own desires, it is all simply a revelation sent down to him” - Quran 53:3-4
me: If you want to call Muhammad "prince of the world" be my guest--because if you actually knew the New Testament its an expression for Satan. Go ahead call Muhammad Satan!!! "World" likewise Is an expression for evil and sin in the New Testament and John's gospel:
Now is the time of judgment on this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out--John 12:31
John 16 says the Holy Spirit will convict the world and the "ruler" or "prince" of the world will be condemned, who you say is your prophet Muhammad:
because the ruler of this world has been condemned--John 16:11
you: "self obsessed narcissist who claimed divinity and asked to be worshipped alongside the Only True God (the Father - the ONLY ‘person’ in the ‘Godhead’) - in direct violation of the first commandment. Rather he was a Holy humble servant and worshipper of God."
me: He was not a narcisstic, but made clear He receives the same honor the Father receives. He own Apostles regularly fell prostrate on the floor before Him. Jesus claimed to be able to be in more than one place at once, and Is present among his believer when they pray. The Apostle John states Jesus is God in John 1:1, and in verse 3 says all things were made through him. In John 17 Jesus prays to His Father to restore the glory He had with the Father at the beginning of time.
By the way, John 14:26 plainly has Jesus saying the Spirit of Truth aka the Paraclete is the HOLY SPIRIT:
The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that [I] told you.--John 14:26
Its not Muhammad, btw, Islam stole the Idea of the Paraclete being their prophet from the Manichieans. Jesus was speaking to the Apostles, and if He mean Muhammad, then Jesus lied since Muhammad would not be born for almost 580 years after.
You: He is the Prince of the World and the Master/Leader/Lord
(Sayyid) of the Messengers…. If you wish to say that John 14:30 is referring to Satan then you be my
guest. If the ‘Prince of the world’ means something else somewhere else in your
bible then that’s your problem. It’s not my fault your bible contradicts itself
every other page.
Me: “Prince of the World”= Satan, I will say it again,
Protestant, Catholics, and Orthodox agree on this. You are being deceptive, you
say the Bible is contradictory (but never prove it), yet you fail to show a
single verse in the Bible where the title “prince of the World” is a holy title
to have. To be part of the World in the New Testament means to be under the
power of Satan, so to be “prince of the World” means the person is Satan. Show
me the contradiction, you cited John 16 too, yet John 16 says the Prince of the
World Is evil also because it says he will be damned to Hell. John 1 explains
the world is in darkness, and Jesus comes to bring light to it.I have no issue if you wish to cite a passage
about Muhammad being the devil, frankly, we know about his deeds, he took his
step sons wife, he claimed God said its ok to have sex slaves who are still
married to their husbands, he married a little girl.If Muhammad is not Satan, he is sure close to
it, what good is preaching monotheism if it permits sins Jesus, Holy is His
Name, said will send the Soul to damnation? Jesus said taking another
wife/husband is adultery, yet Muhammad permits it. That is your own problem.
But I know the fact is, most Muslims know nothing about the New Testament
outside of usually John 14, where they also conveniently skip verse 6 where
Jesus uses titles for himself that Muslim says are exclusive to Allah, “I am
the way, the truth, the life” and says “I am the Light of the World.” He is the
light because the world is evil and He exposes it. John 14:23 Jesus said He will DWELL inside of
us, how can he be a mere man? Jesus answered and said to him,
“Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will
come to him and make our dwelling with him.”The same chapter says Jesus will answer
prayers too!
you said: If Jesus explicitly seemingly refers to the ‘Holy Spirit’ then this
is still ok. In Muslim theology the Holy Spirit is Gabriel - not God. And it
was Gabriel who conveyed the Quran (whatsoever he will hear he will speak) to
Muhammad.
me: Nice try! Gabriel in Matthew 1:35 says he is not the Holy Spirit! Jesus
gives His Apostles the Holy Spirit in John 20:22-23 by breathing on them
saying, receive the Holy Spirit! Whose sins you forgive—are forgiven!Furthermore, John 3:5 says you must be born
of “water and Spirit” This is not Gabriel, Gabriel cannot forgive sins, people
cannot receive Gabriel, or be born of Gabriel. Either way, you have to jump
through hoops to make it Muhammad. Jesus gives instructions that all nations
are to be baptized in the “in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.” Yet you think this is Gabriel? Luke 1:15 says St John
the Baptist, was “filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb” Likewise,
Luke 1:41 and 67 say John’s parents were both filled with the Holy Spirit. The
Angel Gabriel when speaking to Mary says “the Holy Spirit will come upon you…”
in order to conceive Jesus. Luke 1:26 explicitly says this angel is GABRIEL. St
Luke who wrote the gospel of Luke immediately after wrote the book of Acts
which is all about miracles the Holy Spirit performed after It entered
Christians. John 14:26 says the
Paraclete will reminds the Apostles of things Jesus said, what did Muhammad
remind them of? They all were dead. Furthermore, let’s say it’s not just about
the Apostles, what did Mohammad remind people of that Jesus said? Muhammad
rejected Jesus’ commandments therefore, he did not love Jesus according to
Jesus’ own words in John 14:15.
you said: He is widely regarded as the most influential, successful and
chronicled Abrahamic prophet in human history by impartial historians.
me: You sound like Donald Trump. Successful? Well he did get lots of money off
of his religion, he did get lots of women to have sex with.He had to get an army, his message failed to
spread initially by peace.You brag
about the “most” yet Jesus and the Torah warn about the majority, telling us
things like “do not follow the majority” “will there be faith when the Son of
Man returns?” Islam is just part of humanities resistance to the truth of
Christ, just another means of Satan to attack humanity by making them follow an
oppressive system. Most religious Muslim nations are terrible places to be,
Muslims flee in droves to Western, non Muslim nations, so why do you go and
brag about “x, y, z” is Muslim. Almost no one when given the choice wants to
live under Muslim rule, including many Muslims. By the way, name one non-Muslim
historian that says this.
you: He has brought more people to the God of Abraham and Pure Abrahamic/Mosaic
(non trinity) 1st commandment Monotheistic doctrine than ALL the prophets
before him combined.
Me: only true if you ignore Trinity, because that had more
people. Islam is partly successful because it feeds men’s sinful desires—cravings
for sex and power. The Teachings of the Lord Jesus promote CELIBACY, condemn
divorce and remarriage, discourage seeking wealth, promotes self sacrifice to
the point you must be willing to accept martyrdom at the hands of unbelievers.
We do not die expecting to have sex with women that sound like whore with
plastic surgery in heaven, Jesus said there is no marriage, procreation and so
on in Heaven, we will live like angels.
you: He has eradicated more idolatry worldwide than ALL the other prophets
combined. He has been responsible for more prostrations carried out in
monotheistic worship to the God of Abraham on the face of this earth than ALL
the previous prophets combined.
me: God does not accept Muslim worship. Islam does not even know if God is
omnipresent. To Christians it is obvious He is everywhere, since the universe
exists within God, otherwise God would be limited/finite. We do not say such nonsense
like “God has no left hand, only two right hands.” Yes, leaving idol worship is
good, but these people will still be destine for Hell if they follow Muhammad’s
teachings or believe many of the passages of the Quran which permit what we
know to be damnable sin. What good is it for someone to worship the true God if
their role model to follow was a sex addict with sex slaves, a child bride, a
man that tortured people, a man that claimed the Quran came from God, but have “revelations”
that are obviously to benefit himself or are foolish like not lingering at
Muhammad’s house too long, or his special permission to have more wives.
you: His life, sayings, scripture, law and teachings have been better preserved
than ALL the previous prophets combined.
me: Actually, we know more about Joseph Smith than Muhammad, he is another
false prophet, that we call “America’s Muhammad.” We know more about Joseph
Smith than Muhammad and all other previous “prophets” combined. So what? Generally
with new religions they are better documented, which is why people are leaving
Islam and Mormonism because the documentation about how evil these men were is
revealed.
you: He has brought ALL the land promised to Abraham in Genesis 15:18-21 to the God of Abraham and Pure
Abrahamic Monotheism.
Me: Israel is not Muslim. Furthermore, this was for the Jews.
No one else. This was accomplished in David and Solomon’s time, but because of
sin, they lost most of the land.
You: All the land Jesus preached and walked on and all the
surrounding lands have all become followers of his religion.
me: This is deceptive. Many of these people’s ancestors converted by force, or
to improve their status in society. People accepted Jesus’ teaching because it
was clear He was actually sent by God, raised the dead, sealed the sick, cured
the blind, preached mercy, forgiveness, and said He was sent to die for the
sins of humanity. Most of His Apostles were killed preaching the Holy
Gospel.Muhammad made an army. The
indigenous people of these lands are not Muslim. Ethnic Syrian, Lebanese,
Egyptian, Greek people are still Christians, not Muslims. Arab Muslims took
over their lands by force, yet you think this is a great feat.
you: His followers have had Temple Mount for the last 1300 years.
Me: On and off. Furthermore, many Muslims deny the temple
was even there, so why do you call it that? People don’t take it from you
because everyone know Muslims will become more violent and terroristic, it is
in the interest of humanity to not encourage more Muslim terrorism.
You: His scripture (the words put into the mouth of the
prophet like Moses : Deuteronomy 18:18) have become the
most recited and memorised words in human history. He has taught over a billion
Gentiles to love the Holy prophets and love Jesus and revere his mother Mary as
the most pious women who ever walked the earth.
Me: Deuteronomy 18:18 was fulfilled by the Lord Jesus, since
He is a Jew. Muhammad is not a Jew, and the verse is about “your brethren” eg
JEWS. Many Muslims have no clue who Jesus is, Jesus drank wine, said adultery
was a sin, said lust was a sin, and said He is equal to God being His only Son!
If Islam loved Jesus they would admit He was the most Pious man to ever walk
the Earth too—he was SINLESS. Even the Quran mentions God creating through
Jesus, quoting a story of Him creating birds. He also taught people that idol
worshippers/homosexuals like Alexander the Great were prophets.
You: And according to you, there’s no mention of this
‘insignificant’ individual and all the above events in your supposed book ‘full
of prophesies’!!!
Me: I never said that, we believe Muhammad and other false
prophets are warned about by Jesus, Paul, and John. In fact, St Paul, long
before Muhammad made the SPECIFIC point. No wonder Islam hates St Paul! But
even if we or an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than
the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!==Galatians 1:8.
Jesus warned about reports of wars, persecution and the rise of “Many false prophets will arise and deceive many;”—Matthew 24:11.Christians believe it is no longer prophet to
follow a prophet after Jesus, since He is the Son of God. Muhammad in any way
you twist him, will always be inferior to Jesus, Jesus you know was born of a
Virgin, created birds, healed people—Muhammad did none of this. He defiled
virgins and wives, and killed people.
You: That’s actually laughable and embarrassing for you.
Forgive us for trying to add veracity to your bible and make a suggestion that
Jesus may have mentioned him.
me: Again, Jesus and Paul mention false prophets who will have great success
that teach doctrine different from the New Testament. Muhammad fits this
description.
You: Muhammad was LIKE Moses.
Me: Muhammad was not an Israel, that alone disqualifies him.
You: All the Israelite prophets after Moses including Jesus
weren’t LIKE Moses, rather they were UNDER Moses and UNDER his law and studied
the scripture of Moses. Moses didn’t study the scripture of a previous prophet
and wasn’t under the law of a previous prophet.
Me: Moses’ had to follow the traditions the Jews received
Abraham, the Mosaic law is not a fresh law, it was built off of by the previous
prophets. God gave laws to Noah in Genesis 10-11, and laws to Abraham.
You: Rather Moses received a fresh law and a fresh scripture
and a fresh nation.
Me: Israel existed as a nation generations before Moses,
Israel is the name of Jacob—the ancestor of Moses, and even then, God said to
Abraham “I will make you into a nation.” So do not claim this is a “fresh”
nation, it’s not, no practicing Jew believes this. Any time some writes
scripture its generally “fresh.” Albeit, much of the Quran is plagiarized, even
what “Allah” says in Chapter 1 is actually a Jewish rabbi.
You: In this way, Muhammad was LIKE Moses. A mighty law bringing
prophet who received a fresh law, scripture, and nation and who didn’t study
the Torah and was never UNDER its law.
Me: He was raised by his mother and sister, who were
Israelites, they passed on the traditions from Abraham. Read Exodus 1, it says
the Hebrew midwives did not kill the male babies because “they feared God” how
can they fear him if they had no law? Genesis 22 says God gave the law to
Abraham.
You: Muhammad’s ‘nation’ are the new nation and new
‘tenants’ who received the ‘Kingdom of God’ after the Israelite rejection of
Jesus and John the Baptist prophesied by Jesus in Matthew 21:33-44.
Me: Jesus spoke to the Jews who rejected him, this prophecy
was fulfilled right after, not 600 years later. Furthermore, Jesus said the
last person the Father sent after all the prophets who were killed was “His Son”
who the Jews killed also. “FINALLY, he sent his son to them…”—Matthew
21:37.Jesus preached the kingdom of God
came right then! He gave St Peter in Matthew 16:18 the “keys of the Kingdom”
which means it was already present! 1 Peter 2 says Christians are a “holy
nation” and “kingdom.” Matthew 21:31 says “I say to you, tax collectors and
prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.” The Jews lost their
land long before Muhammad, they were banished a generation after killing Jesus,
this parable has nothing to do with actual land. It had to do with being in God’s
favor. By the way, this parable is about WINE, you Muslims believe you cannot
drink it on earth.
You: Jews are Abrahamic Monotheists who rejected Jesus and
John - lost the Kingdom of God Muslims are Abrahamic Monotheist who LOVE Jesus
and John - inherited the Kingdom of God and Temple Mount
Me: Jesus gave plain rules on how to love him, Muslims do
not do this, Jesus said you must “keep MY commandments”(John 14:15) and His
commandments are not to follow future false prophets, not to divorce and
remarry, that drinking wine is not a sin, that He is to be HONORED EQUAL to the
FATHER.When preaching about loving him,
he also says “the prince of this world….has NO power over me.” Meaning the
Devil, who you believe to be Muhammad, is certainly inferior to Jesus. Again,
if you loved Jesus, Jesus said He and the Father will DWELL inside you, “If any
one loveme, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him,
and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him."—John 14:23
You: Christians don’t count as they don’t even know what
Abrahamic Monotheism is and the meaning of the first commandment.
Me: Jesus is God, otherwise, he is a false prophet, since He
describes himself in ways only God can, then expects the same Honor God gets.
Either way, Islam is wrong.
you: “‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has
done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’” - Matthew 21:42 The Ishmaelites and
other gentiles have now become the ‘cornerstone’ and chosen nation over the
Israelites after their rejection of Jesus and John “‘The stone the builders
rejected has become the cornerstone; The Holy Kaba has become the cornerstone
and has now overtaken Jerusalem and become the most visited temple dedicated to
the God of Abraham in history and the greatest prayer direction in human
history
Me: Matthew 21:42 was fulfilled in Jesus’ own time, he and
those in Him are stone.Furthermore, I
see no evidence from the Bible that Ishmaelites are Arabs. There was some
intermixing, but Arabs pre-existed Abraham, since Jews believe some of those tribes
listed in Genesis 15 are actually Arab.This Scripture of the stone being rejected is frequently cited in the
New Testament about Jesus, none of us think it’s literally talking about an
actual stone. Jesus established Christianity then and there.We don’t obsess over praying to a certain
city.We just prefer praying facing East
since we expect Christ to return in that direction and that Is on of His
titles. The kaba is just a rock, who cares. Abraham didn’t go that far south,
he sacrifice in what is now Israel, and afterwards he stayed in Beer-sheba
which is just south of Palestinian territory.
You: . ‘Satan’ doesn’t come and preach Abrahamic Monotheism
and oppose and fight and eradicate idolatry and bring an entire pagan nation to
Old Testament 1st commandment Monotheism like Muhammad did.
Me: Satan will trick a man into think God has 3 daughters—the
exalted cranes. Satan will convince a man that marrying a child is ok. Satan
will convince a man that he can permit what Jesus forbade as sin. Satan can
permit a prophet to give permission to rape married women. Satan will tell men
you can have lots of sex in heaven. Satan will tell you Jews and Christians
corrupted the Scriptures (a lie Muhammad did not even claim in the Sunnas!)
Satan will tell you the man you believe is a prophet has the title “prince of
the world” since that is also Satan’s own title. Satan will create rival
religions to try to destroy the true, older religion. Satan will mix lies with
true. Satan will tell people Muhammad is greater than Jesus despite Jesus being
WAY more holy.
I made a video years ago, tongue in cheek, saying the Aramaic New Testament uses the word "Muslim" (the word in Aramaic as is used in passages means traitor, and is used of Judas).
A clever Muslim apologist responded using the old argument Muhammad=Spirit of Truth=Paraclete and also this:
Certainly Muhammad is not the Spirit of Truth.
However, he asserts Muhammad, the great prophet of Islam, is the "ruler of the World." I have been defeated by a Muslim, I cannot disprove this claim, therefore it must be true :))
Now is the time of judgment on this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out--John 12:31
because the ruler of this world has been condemned--John 16:11
John's gospel never mentions himself by name, in fact he seems to
omit his own mother's name.
Many know the fact that the Apostle John was present at the crucifixion and that one of the Lord's last words on the Cross were ones giving the Virgin Mary to the Apostle John:
Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. --John 19:26-27
Even more strange, is the fact that when Jesus gave the Virgin mother to John--the other gospel accounts tell us John's own mother was
present when that happened:
Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee--Matthew 27:56
James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John--Matthew 10:2
The mother of John and James wanted her sons to be seated next to Christ in the Kingdom, though Jesus seemed to rebuke that request, Matthew 19:28 tells us the Apostles will be seated on thrones along side Christ judging the 12 tribes. The Apostle John would go on to write 5 books of the New Testament: John's gospel, 1-3 Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation. James, however, would be martyred in Acts 12 and would never write Scripture. Jesus nicknamed the brothers the "sons of thunder"
At morn — at noon — at twilight dim —
Maria! thou hast heard my hymn!
In joy and woe — in good and ill —
Mother of God, be with me still!
When the hours flew brightly by,
And not a cloud obscured the sky,
My soul, lest it should truant be,
Thy grace did guide to thine and thee;
Now, when storms of Fate o’ercast
Darkly my Present and my Past,
Let my Future radiant shine
With sweet hopes of thee and thine!
In the past I made a very long response to a Modernist theologian on why Catholic theology cannot tolerate Hans Ur Von Balthasar's hypothesis that Hell might be empty of humans.
This view was adopted as valid by current Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, Robert Barron. On YouTube comments section I made several arguments (over a few years), most of the time he seems to ignore or dismiss my arguments, or misunderstand what I am disagreeing with. He does seem to be eager to address people making absurd arguments against him.
I must say, Michael Voris, a person whose tactics, speech and so on I completely cannot stand, made a video in which he attempts to rebuke Bishop Barron, however, despite tossing around their various degrees, did an awful job of making their argument.
Recently, I came across a priest's article that pointed out this excellent reference found in the Council of Trent that states not everyone will benefit from the Passion of Christ:
But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated...--Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 3: Who are justified through Christ
Now, had Trent wanted to leave universalism as possibility it could have omitted "yet do not all receive the benefit of His death." Which could imply that maybe everyone can receive the benefit of His death. Here is the back and forth I had in the comments section with the Bishop Barron (or whoever responds with his account):
Me: Dogmatically, a Catholic cannot believe universalism at all, even as just a "reasonable hope." The council of Trent on its Decree on Justification plainly states not everyone will benefit from His death:
But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated.--Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 3
Bishop Barron: Not so. That language is conditional.
Me: What is the conditional language if it reads "not all receive the benefit of His death"?
Had the council said instead, "only unto those whom the merit of His passion is communicated receive the benefit of His death" might there be still a possibility for universalism being true ultimately because hypothetically all could have had the "merit of His passion...communicated", but the council explicitly added "not all receive the benefit of His death" which removes the possibility for all humans being saved on That Day.
Obviously, the language of the council here was not hypothetical. A friend of mine, suggested perhaps this section of the council is not dogmatic, but only the canons are, however, the preface to Session VI of Trent states: "Christ Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, taught, which the
apostles transmitted, and which the Catholic Church, the Holy Ghost
reminding her thereof, has always retained; most strictly forbidding
that any henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise
than as by this present decree is defined and declared. "
Furthermore, Popes Pius X and Benedict XIV took it as a given that there will be many Catholics entering Hellfire:
"And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had
just cause to write: 'We declare that a great number of those who are
condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known
and believed in order to be numbered among the elect'"—Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo
Nimis #3, citing Benedict XIV, Instit.,
27:18
Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors condemned the proposition:
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. --Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, Error 17 1864
Is "good hope" much different than "reasonable hope"?
As I point out in my older article, Pope John Paul II (now St) actually rejected von Balthasar's idea, and even mentions von Balthasar by name
"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)
However, Pope John Paul II in his spoken General Audience, July 28, 1999 made a statement that some interpret as him accepting von Balthasar's theory as being with in orthodoxy, in the original form he said:
“La dannazione rimane una reale possibilità , ma non ci
è dato di conoscere, senza speciale rivelazione divina, se e quali
esseri umani vi siano effettivamente coinvolti.”—Papa Giovanni Paolo II,Udienza
Generale, 28 luglio 1999 (Original text)
“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.” --Pope John Paul II, General
Audience, July 28, 1999 (Original text)
However, what is frequently omitted in this assertion is that this text was edited by the Vatican soon after it was published (though it stayed a while in English and Italian), in fact, any trace of it has been removed from the official Vatican.va text. Now, it reads
La dannazione rimane una reale possibilità , ma non ci è dato di
conoscere, senza speciale rivelazione divina, quali esseri umani vi
siano effettivamente coinvolti. Papa Giovanni Paolo II,Udienza Generale, 28 luglio 1999. Present edit made during John Paul II's papacy (notice the omission of the original "if"/"whether" that is "se e")
Damnation remains a real possibility, but it is not granted to us,
without special divine revelation, to know which human beings are
effectively involved in it..”—Pope John Paul II, General Audience, July 28, 1999 (revised, edited translation now used on Vatican.va, changed sometime between 2007 and 2018)
In other translations, the correction was a lot swifter, they did not get changed recently like the English translation, notice they only say "which" and not "whether/if"
Spanish:“La condenación sigue siendo una posibilidad
real, pero no nos es dado conocer, sin especial revelación divina, cuáles [which plural] seres humanos [human beings]han quedado implicados
efectivamente en ella.”
German:”Die
Verdammnis bleibt eine wirkliche Möglichkeit. Aber uns ist es nicht bestimmt,
sie zu kennen, ohne besondere göttliche Offenbarung, welche menschlichen
Wesen wirklich darin verwickelt sind.”
So, it is evident that since the change to the text was done during St John Paul II's papacy, implies that he and the Vatican wanted to avoid any implication that the Pope might suggest universalism is possible.
Likewise, just before his ascent to the Papacy, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) stated, defending the language of "pro multis":
“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
AloisCardinal 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
This is consistent with Trent's statement and Crossing the Threshold of Hope.
Another critic of von Balthasar that's the point of the possibility of an empty Hell was discussed by the council and the Council found no need to make it clear since it was already seen as being clearly taught in Scripture itself:
“In reference to the text
from Vatican II it is to be noted that initially there was no reference to the
"eternal fire." The reference was explicitly inserted at the request
of many bishops. We know as well, from the official Relatio, that the
text was not intended to speak of the salvation of all men.[45] From the same
source we learned that "one bishop wanted a sentence to be included in
which it would be clear that there are damned defacto, lest damnation
remain as a mere hypothesis." The request was refused by the
Theological Commission responsible for drafting the document, with the comment
that "In no. 48
there are cited the words of the Gospel in which the Lord Himself speaks about
the damned in a form which is grammatically future."[46] The
significance of that remark is that when the Church speaks of damnation of
humans she speaks, as Christ himself did, not in a form of grammar which is conditional
(i.e., speaking about something which might happen), but in the grammatical
future (i.e., about something which will happen). And it was
with this understanding that the bishops of Vatican II voted upon and accepted Lumen Gentium.”—James
T. O'Connor [46]: Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II Volumen III, Periodus Tertia, Pars VIII, Congregationes Generales CXXIII-CXXVII, Sessio Publica V, pages 144-145, section 40 Latin text: "Unus Pater volt aliquam sententiam introduci ex qua appareat reprobos de facto haberi (ne damnatio ut mera hypothesis maneat). English: One father wanted a sentence to be introduced from which it would be clear that there are damned defacto, lest damnation remain as a mere hypothesis.
Propositum non quadrat cum hoc contextu. Ceterum in n. 48 Schematis citantur verba evangelica quibus Dominus ipse in forma grammaticaliter futura de reprobis loquitur. English: The proposal does not square with this context. In no. 48 there are cited the words of the Gospel in which the Lord Himself speaks about the damned in a form which is grammatically future.
In fact, the Catechism states:
"The affirmations of Sacred
Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to
the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his
eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter
by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to
destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the
way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.""—Catechism
§1036 on Hell (notice it quotes Luke 13:24 and interprets it as being
Hell)
The Catechism, quoting Scripture states that the gate of destruction is entered "are many." If Christ said "many" enter by the wide gate of destruction, then how can we say potentially "no one" might actually enter the wide gate.
On October 22, 2017, I personally met a member of the Roman Curia in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (granted he was not the head of it) on the issue of von Balthasar's theory which I mentioned by name, and he plainly stated the theory was ridiculous, and the idea that Hell is presently unpopulated is absurd. He said he could go on for hours on how wrong von Balthasar's theory was. He was shocked to know there are clergy, even a bishop that teach his hypothesis of "reasonable hope." My friend made a comment on a popular Catholic celebrity's Facebook referencing my inquiry to the member of the CDF, to which a person writing under the Facebook profile of Bishop Barron dismissed my discussion with the member of the CDF as "an appeal to authority." Here is a screen shot of the discussion with the names of peoples and places omitted.
I should also mention a few noteworthy American theologians (though they are not technically authorities) like the Servant of God, Fr John A. Hardon, SJ was very critical of Von Balthasar's theory.
as is Rev. Regis Scanlon who appeared on Church Militant with Michael Voris (I refuse to link to Voris' website) and several years ago wrote an article denouncing Balthasar using several citations from Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial documents. Since then, even Mother Miriam seems to have come out against the suggestion of Bishop Barron.
Here are a list of verses in Sacred Scripture that teach Hell will not be empty of humans on The Day:
"How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And
those who find it are few."--Matthew
7:14
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’--Matthew 7:21-23
“Many are invited, but few
are chosen."—Matthew 22:14
“I
say to you, many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven, but the
children of the kingdom will be driven out into the outer darkness,
where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth."—Matthew 8:11-2
"Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough.”—Luke 13:24
“Next
I saw a large white throne and the one who was sitting on it. The earth and the
sky fled from his presence and there was no place for them. I saw the dead, the
great and the lowly, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. Then
another scroll was opened, the book of life. The dead were judged according to
their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls. The sea gave up its dead; then
Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their
deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire. (This pool of
fire is the second death.) Anyone whose
name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the pool of fire.”—Revelation
20:11-15
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some shall live forever, othersshallbe an everlasting horror and disgrace."—Daniel 12:2
“For the LORD shall judge all mankind by fire and sword. and many shall be slain by the LORD.”—Isaiah 66:16
Example of early extra biblical writings, Church Fathers and doctors:
‘Let us beware lest we be found [fulfilling that
saying], as it is written, "Many are called, but few
are chosen. "’—Epistle of Barnabas Chapter 4
“But I shall ask you one thing, O child: that impious
Herod, where is he? The child says to him: Since you have asked, hear his
dwelling-place. He dwells, indeed, in Hades; and there has been prepared
for him fire unquenchable, Gehennawithoutend, bubbling
mire, worm that sleeps not, because he cut off three thousand infants, wishing
to slay the child Jesus, the ancient of the ages; but of all these ages I am
father.”—Acts and Martyrdom
of St Matthew
“His works that He had come as the Savior, not the
Judge of the world. But the wicked traitor refused to understand this, and took
measures against himself, not in the self-condemnation of repentance, but in
the madness of perdition, and thus he who had sold the Author of life to His
murderers, even in dying increased the amount of sin which condemned him.”—St
Leo Sermon 62:4
“He was it
is true but one man "who had not the wedding garment.
Cast him out." But why is he cast out? "For
many are called, but few chosen. "
Leave alone the few, cast out the many. It is true, that man
was but one. Yet undoubtedly that one not only was many, but those many
in numbers far surpassed the number of the good…[continues on the few
saved]”—St Augustine Homily 40:4On the New
Testament
The "way of the ungodly"
is but a transitory happiness; at the end of the way the happiness is at an end
also. Why? Because that way is "the broad road;
" its termination leads to the pit of hell.
Now, your way is narrow; and "few there
be" that enter in through it: [Matthew 7:13-14]
but into how ample a field it comes at the last, you ought to consider. "Fret
not yourself at him who prospers in his way; because of the man who brings
wicked devices to pass."—St Augustine Exposition of Psalm 37
“Do you not see that it is better to have one
healthy sheep, than ten thousand with the murrain; that fine children, though
few, are better than many children diseased withal; that in the Kingdom
there will be few, but in hell many? What have I to do with a multitude?
what profit therein? None. Rather they are a plague to the rest. It is as if
one who had the option of ten healthy persons or ten thousand sick folks,
should take to himself the latter in addition to the ten.”—St John Chrysostom Homily 8 on Acts
“In our city among so many thousands, scarcely can
one hundred be found who will be saved, for in the youngers is great
wickedness, and in the elders deadness.”--St John Chrysostom Homily 40 to the
Antiochenes
“Judas also repented, but in an evil way.”—St John
Chrysostom Homily 31
“Have you never noticed what He did even in this
world? How when He met with two thieves, He counted them not worthy of the same
estate, but one He led into the Kingdom, and the other He sent away into
Hell?”—St John Chrysostom, Homily 25
"I do not think there are many among Bishops
that will be saved, but many more that perish: and the reason is, that it is an
affair that requires a great mind."--St John Chrysostom Homily 3 on Acts of
the Apostles
"Many, after they have found the way of truth,
caught by the pleasures of the world, desert midway."—St Jerome
"Yet
doubtless there are but few who are saved. You remember a question which was lately
set before us out of the Gospel, "Lord,"
it was said, "are there few that be saved?"
What said the Lord to this? He did not
say, "Not few, but many are they who are saved."
He did not say this. But what said He, when He had heard, "Are
there few that be saved? Strive to enter by the strait gate."[Luke 13:24] When you hear then, "Are
there few that be saved?" the Lord confirmed what He
heard. Through the "strait gate"
but "few" can "enter."
In another place He says Himself, "Strait and narrow
is the way which leads unto life, and few there be that go thereby: but broad
and spacious is the way that leads to destruction, and many there be which walk
thereby." Why
rejoice we in great numbers? Give ear to me, you "few."
I know that you are "many," who
hear me, yet but "few" of you
hear to obey.”—St Augustine Sermon 61 On The New
Testament
“Consider therefore that you belong to the few and
elect; and do not grow cold after the examples of the lukewarmness of many: but
live as the few, that with the few you may be worthy of a
place in the kingdom of God: for "many are called, but few
chosen," and it is a "little
flock to which it is the Father's good pleasure to give "
an inheritance.”—St John Cassian Institutes 4:38
"There be very many come to the faith, yet
but few arrive at the heavenly kingdom; many follow God in words, but shun
Him in their lives. Whereof spring two things to be thought upon. The first,
that none should presume ought concerning himself; for though he be called to
the faith, he knows not whether he shall be chosen to the kingdom. Secondly,
that none should despair of his neighbor, even though he see him lying in
vices; because he knows not the riches of the Divine mercy."—Pope
Gregory the Great c AD 600
"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)
"Likewise concerning the redemption of the
blood of Christ, because of the great error which has arisen from this cause,
so that some, as their writings indicate, declare that it has been shed even
for those impious ones who from the beginning of the world even up to the
passion of our Lord, have died in their wickedness and have been punished by
eternal damnation, contrary to that prophet: "O death, I will be Thy
death, O hell, I will be thy bite" [Hosea
13:14]..."--Council of Valence Canon 4, AD 855 (Denz 323)
"There are few who are saved."--St Anselm
c. AD 1100
"That all Christians are to be
saved."[CONDEMNED]—Pope Pius II, 2nd Article condemned in "Cum
Sicut", Nov. 14, 1459 Denz. 717b
"Poor Judas! he has spent more than eighteen
hundred years in hell, and his hell is still at its commencement.
Poor Cain, he is in fire for more than five thousand eight hundred years, and his
hell is at its beginning."—St Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctor of the Church,
Preparation for Death, Consideration XXVII: The
Eternity of Hell, Point III:Eternity is Unchangable, p. 127
"So what must we do, we who know that the
greater number is going to be damned, and not only out of all Catholics? What
must we do? Take the resolution to belong to the little number of those who are
saved."--St. Leonard of Port Maurice AD 1751
In addition, the Catechism of Trent said Judas was damned:
It is such as these that our Saviour describes as hirelings, who, in the
words of Ezechiel, feed themselves and not the sheep, and whose
baseness and dishonesty have not only brought great disgrace on the
ecclesiastical state, so much so that hardly anything is now more vile
and contemptible in the eyes of the faithful, but also end in this, that
they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by
Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting
destruction. --Roman Catechism (Trent), Right Intention
