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.

Ecumenical councils on Origen

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.

Judas died on Hell Blvd

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.

a carpenter that was nailed to wood

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.

Unreasonable hope that all might be saved and Vatican II

Also see my other entries on Hell and von Balthasar/Bishop Barron's claim that its within orthodox to have a hope for an empty hell. Comments on Bishop Barron new page on the matter . A more detailed, comprehensive entry.

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.

Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II Volumen III, Periodus Tertia, Pars VIII, Congregationes Generales CXXIII-CXXVII, Sessio Publica V, pages 144-145

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.""

dialogue between a Muslim and I

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 ﷺ 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 ﷺ) 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 love me, 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.

Muslim Apologist inadvertently calls Muhammad Satan

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