The Last Supper where Jesus Christ instituted the New Covenant
Islam arises in the 7th century. I know that Muslims claim that they’re from the beginning of the world but Muslims deep down know this isn’t the case. Quite often Muslims say that Islam starts with Muhammad, not knowing they refute themselves. I always point this out to them when they say that Muhammad started Islam.
When Islam shows up in the 7th century it does something weird. It assumes that Christianity and Judaism will stick around. They’d like them to convert but the Quran knows that it won’t happen fully. In Surah 9:29 we read:
Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, nor abide by the religion of truth—from among those who received the Scripture—until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.
This verse sets up a a future tax plan. Why is the final prophet not continuing the line but making himself one of many? It seems odd.
Now I know the anticipated objection. Why did Christianity do the same thing with Judaism. After Jesus Christ, Judaism was here to stay. What say you Christian?
This objection assumes that Judaism is the same religion as the religion of the Old Testament. The word Judaism is not in the OT and the religion described in the OT is one of theocracy, monarchy, priesthood, sacrifices, succession, and celebrating Passover in only 7 days.
After the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, no sacrifice in the Temple was accepted by God. The Temple remained but Christ came in judgement and destroyed it. The book of Hebrews was written before 70 AD. We read:
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
– Hebrews 8:13
This is an obvious reference to the Temple of which Jesus prophesied the destruction in the Gospels. After the destruction of the Temple, Jochanan ben Zakkai founded the religion of Judaism. Like Christianity it claimed to be the inheritor of the religion of the OT which I call the Mosaic Covenant.
Now lets investigate the claim that the Jews will make. The Jews will claim that the religion of the OT was Judaism but it had to change when the Temple was destroyed. Jews will admit that what they call Judaism in the time of Jesus and in 100 AD was radically different. However, Judaism didn’t look any different between 600 and 700 AD when Islam came on the scene. The same goes with Christianity. The religion of Christianity didn’t change at all between 600 and 700 AD.
Muhammad shows up and acknowledges these two sister religions that were true at one point prior to corruption but will continue to persist until the end of time. It makes no sense. Muhammad is showing that there is no line of continuity. He wasn’t restoring anything but inventing something novel. When Jesus came, it rocked the Abrahamic world. One covenant came to an end and another started. A very thorough transition. When Muhammad came, not so much.
Why is the final prophet not continuing the line but making himself one of many? It seems odd.
I don’t understand your point here. I get the future tax plan – verse 28 also demonstrates this. I wrote about this in one of my articles.
But I don’t quite understand your point.
I discuss the relation of the future tax plan, verses 28-29 and Dhimmi-ism / Dhimmitude here:
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/dhimmi-%d8%b0%d9%85%d9%91%db%8c-in-islam/
What is really interesting is verse 28 – “if you fear poverty, soon Allah will enrich you”. the reason for that was because Muhammad had conquered the Hijaz (the Arabian peninsula, especially around Mecca and Medina, and no pagans or idol worshippers were allowed. That means the Muslims could not get tax or penalty money from the pagans. Surah 9:5 – “fight the unbelievers where ever you find them”, proves this, and several Hadith that says “no two religions will be allowed on the Arabian peninsula” see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288, and other Hadiths, quoted at the bottom of this article *) They were all killed or driven out or converted to Islam. So now, there is no revenue from the pilgrimmages, so, according to verses 28-29, they will allow the Christians and Jews to be in the Islamic state, provided they surrender and don’t fight/resist, and pay the Jiziye with humiliation, and they cannot evangelize or build new churches or even criticize Islam.
Qur’an 9:28—O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
Why didn’t Christianity and Judaism end with Muhammad? The Biblical OT religion ended when Christianity arrived.
I still don’t get your point. Can you flesh it out more?
Why is the final prophet not continuing the line but making himself one of many? It seems odd.
“not continuing the line” = ? – in Islam, he is the final prophet, so of course he doesn’t continue the line.
“one of many” = ? what do you mean? the final one in the line of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Yahya, Jesus, then Muhammad, ?
“Why is the final prophet not continuing the line but making himself one of many? It seems odd.”
Muhammad acknowledges that Christians and Jews will continue hence he sets up the tax plan. However, when Jesus came, the OT religion ended. The externals were swepped away 40 years later and if you’ve read Michael Brown’s work he talks about how according to Rabbinic sources, the sacrifices weren’t excepted in the last 40 years. In other words, the OT religion – the Mosaic Covenant, came to an end and the remnants were washed away as St. Paul talks about in that verse in Hebrews.
When Islam came, no religion ended.
One of many means one of many Abrahamic religions. There can only be one Abrahamic religion at a time. The Mosaic Covenant that reigned from Sinai to Jesus, and now the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.
The externals were swepped away 40 years later
[meaning from Jesus crucifixion and resurrection to 40 years later the temple was destroyed? – around 30 Ad to 70 AD?]
and if you’ve read Michael Brown’s work he talks about how according to Rabbinic sources, the sacrifices weren’t excepted in the last 40 years.
accepted ?
You mean the Jews did not accept the temple sacrifices from between 30-70 AD?
That does not seem right; even Paul seems to accomodate to James and the unbelieving Jews in Acts 21:17-26 (as a principle from 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, most likely telling them that these animal sacrifices of the temple are pointers / foreshadowing / prophesies of the Messiah’s final sacrifice).
Hebrews present tense for the priests still doing sacrifices at the time points to the temple still being there when book of Hebrews was written. Hebrews 8:3 to 9:6 to 10:19 – the argument vs. the “once for all time” nature of Christ’s sacrifice.
This is also why it was wrong for the early church to apply the sacerdot (priest who offers sacrifice) to the Lord’s supper and combine the concept with the word “presbuteros” and make a new word “priest” (with the Greek word for priest, “hieros / hiereus” – they combined the word “presbuteros” with “hieros” and came up with “priest” from Latin into German into English. this was a big mistake of taking something, as you wrote, “was swept away”.
The externals were swepped away 40 years later
NT ministers are pastors, elders (presbuteros), overseers (episcopos or “bishop”), but not priests who do sacrifices. The Lord’s supper / eucharist was never suppossed to be some kind of re-sacrifice or non-bloody sacrifice or representation; rather a thanksgiving (the meaning of Eucharist) of the once for all sacrifice of Christ.
and if you’ve read Michael Brown’s work
I have his five volume set – can you point to that ?
Hey Ken,
I’m away from my library but he points out that God didn’t accept the last 40 years of sacrifice. I believe its in volume 1 and/or 2. This is a common argument used and has been written about by other apologists.
I really don’t feel like debating the eucharist and the sacrificial nature right now. Watch the 2003 debate between White and Sungenis.
God bless,
Allan
They did not end with Islam because they needed revenue – tax money (Jiziye) – “if you fear poverty . . . Allah will make a way for you . . . ” verse 28-29 go together, along with the Hadiths that “no 2 religions will be allowed in Arabia”, etc.
And because they knew most Christians wouldn’t buy into it. If you’ve read Theophanes, most Christians in the Middle East didn’t convert until the tax rate was cranked up in the eighth century.
I was not really trying to bring up the Eucharist, rather the idea of priest being a hybrid word made up from presbuteros and hiereus into Latin and the clergy of “priests” as one of the earliest mistakes of early church history.
Later, that helped combine with issues of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, but I was mainly pointing out the problem with claiming a NT class of ministers called “priests”, rather than presbuteros / episkopos / pastors.
It wasn’t just the Latin Church that had priests. Every early church had priests whether it be Greek, Syriac, etc. There was no anti-Priesthood movement until the 16th century.
But in the NT, there is no church office that is called “priest”.
All the believers in Christ are priests.
1 Peter 2:4-10
Revelation 1:5-6
Revelation 5:9-10
By the way, I watched the debates (there is 2 of them) between Dr. White and Robert Sungenis on the Eucharist, and IMO, Dr. White won the argument.
I gave you that one because it focused more on the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice as opposed to the earlier one which focused on more of the real presence. Honestly, I think Sungenis won. I fully encourage every Catholic or Protestant to watch those debates and see who won. I’m more than happy to leave it up to the viewer.
The priesthood of all believers don’t neglect a ministerial priesthood. The priesthood of all believers was in the OT as well. Every Israelite was a priest(Exodus 19:6), and this didn’t interfere with the Temple priesthood.
Ken, can you show me a quote from the first 1,200 years of the church that condemns the idea of a Christian ministerial Priesthood? If not you’ll have to admit that the gates of hell prevailed.
It is not “all or nothing” as to the promise of Matthew 16, “the gates of hades shall not prevail” over the church.
The introduction of priests as a NT clergy office does not mean that the church blinked off completely.
It was slow and gradual, and evolved over centuries.
The church was still there, however with problems. Those additions grew into universal practices and doctrines and dogmas over centuries.
Okay, James White has said the concept of Eucharistic sacrifice nullifies the gospel. Maybe you don’t. Okay fine.
What would you give as sufficient evidence that the gates of hades prevailed?
Even in Luther’s day, the fact that the gospel could be found, when digging deep into Augustine and then Staupitz, who was a good man, encouraged Luther to read & study the NT in Greek – the gospel was not totally lost.
I think that when good churches started in the Reformation – Lutherans, Reformed, Zwinglians, etc. – then when Trent formally anathematized the heart of the gospel in justification by faith alone, it was only then that the RC became apostate; but since other churches had already sprung up, the promise of Matthew 16 and Ephesians 3:20-21 stands in all history.
So then you agree that the reformation was not necessary as the gospel still existed. Also, if there was no reformation, there would not have been a Trent since it was a response. So when you think about this, the reformation actually put souls in danger because in 1500 you had the gospel in Italy, Spain and elsewhere, but after Trent, there was no gospel. This doesn’t make sense unless you say that the reformation was unnecessary.
So then you agree that the reformation was not necessary as the gospel still existed.
No; the Reformation was necessary. The church was corrupt in doctrine and practice, but not 100 % gone, until Trent condemned itself; but because other churches were already in existance, then both the promise of Matthew 16 is intact and also your way of argumentation (all or nothing) is defeated.
existance is different than getting eclipsed / neglected / hidden by all the man-made traditions.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/08/historical-developments-that-led-to.html
Ken, you’ve linked me to that article I don’t know how many times. I’ve read it.
It still had the gospel but the reformation was necessary. I think this whole discussion vindicates Dr. E. Michael Jones in what he says was cause for the reformation.
Micheal Jones says it was politics mainly – political power – I disagree – it was primarily spiritual in Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, but the Roman Catholic Church had all the political power also – so the natural result of the spiritual reformation was to get the Pope and power of Rome off their backs in the political realm also – as a natural result. That is why it took so much violence (as you claim, in Elizabeth 1 – Rome had too much power over all of Europe – Pope Leo X’s indulgences to raise all that money for the building of St. Peter’s basilica – so politics was involved, but it was not the primary root cause. But it was the natural result and necessary for political freedom from the Pope’s tyrannies.
Yes, Jones says it was state sponsored looting operation. I don’t see how this is deniable. If you read Will Durant’s book he even has quotes from Melancthon saying that the Princes don’t care about the Gospel but are just accepting the new religion to loot Roman church property. The book is at home but I can produce the quotes later if you like.
Ken, in the 16th century the Pope had little power. He had a spiritual monopoly but no political power. In the 1200’s the Pope could dethrone a king by a Papal bull but by the 1500s that power was long gone. Even when Pope Sixtus IV in the 1480’s tried to instruct King Fernando of Aragon on how to properly run the Spanish Inquisition(get local bishops involved, have Rome as the final court of appeal, etc.), Fernando essentially told him to screw off and that he would do it his own way. It was actually a pretty nasty letter if you’ve read it.
Ken, in the 16th century the Pope had little power. He had a spiritual monopoly but no political power. In the 1200’s the Pope could dethrone a king by a Papal bull but by the 1500s that power was long gone.
No, I don’t agree with your assessment. The ability to raise taxes through indulgences, Tetzel, etc. to build a giant building somewhere else, in another country hundreds of miles away, using spiritual motivations, is great political power – and the RC power to punish people – inquisitions, death penalty, etc. – whatever or how ever you justify it – that the church would try people for heresy and then turn them over to the state – that is still massive and oppressive political power. They (The RC ) would have execute Luther if it was not for Frederick of Saxony kidnapping him and saving him. So the “looting” as you and MJones call it, was a natural human response to all the centuries of oppression and injustice. (from the RCC and Popes and those under him in authority)
“No, I don’t agree with your assessment.”
Ken, this is a well known fact of history. You’re familiar with Canossa right? Contrast that with Pope Paul III excommunicating King Henry VIII. When Henry IV was excommunicated he goes down to Italy and pleads for 3 days in beggars clothes outside of the Castle at Canossa for forgiveness. When Paul III excommunicated Henry VIII he declared him deposed. Guess what happened? Nothing. Guess what happened when Pope Sixtus IV tells Fernando how to run the inquisition? Nothing. The Pope’s political power was gone and Tetzel asking for money doesn’t show political power. Influence yes, power no.
I don’t know if you realized but you actually proved my point in what you said on the inquisition. Heresy was punished by the state, not the church. The only reason that the Church was involved at all is that secular judges didn’t know theology so Dominicans had to be employed to make sure they had a fair trial, again not by the church, but by the State. The state was the big player in Europe going forward. Btw, after the reformation, heresy was still punishable in Protestant countries though the definition of heresy changed to Catholics and Baptists. The RC would never have executed Luther. A Catholic monarch might have but that proves my point. That period was the age of powerful monarchs, not a powerful church.
“So the “looting” as you and MJones call it, was a natural human response to all the centuries of oppression and injustice. (from the RCC and Popes and those under him in authority)”
BTW I’m glad that you at least admitted that looting was involved. You just tried to justify it. I’d rather stick with the commandment that says not to steal.
Ken, let me recommend two books. The first is the one by William Cobbett which you know about. The second is The Crisis of Civilization by Hilaire Belloc. These two books deal with the political motive and ramifications of the reformation, such as usury becoming a part of everyday life in Europe.
I really want you to read those books. If you want I’ll read two protestant books of your choosing if you promise to read those two books.
Heresy was punished by the state, not the church.
It was a distinction without a difference in those days. they worked together as one unity.
The Church of Rome did those things –
The breakup of the unity between church and state (with the 1700s; USA freedom of religion; First Amendment) was a good thing. But granted, that has gone too far with what is happening now – the throwing off of all Christian morality and history, which began in the 1960s as mainstreamed.
Ken, Catholic countries, certainly post Gregory VII but earlier as well, had a full separation between the two. When King VIII put Thomas Cranmer in as Archbishop of Canterbury, he united Church and state and broke the almost 500 year tradition that had guided Europe theologically and politically. The Protestants are the ones who united church and state, not the Catholics.
The RC power to dig up Wycliffe’s bones and burn them and throw the ashes in the river Temes – political power. (1300s to 1400s)
The RC power to lie to Hus, try him for heresy, then have him burned at the stake – political power – and evil it was. (1400s)
First of all, that was early 1400’s, not 1500s. Still though, burning bones of a dead man isn’t political power. Hus wasn’t burned by the church. He was burned by the secular lords. The secular Lord’s wanted Hus dead because other secular lords were using him as a pawn in a similar way that John the Steadfast used Luther a hundred years later.
The whole Hus affair was political. I would recommend reading Thomas Fudge’s book.
I remember Dave Armstrong’s post on the taking over the property and churches from Roman Catholicism in England, etc.
I found a copy of William Cobbett’s book on the web. I tried to read it and gave up because of the old style – hurts my brain.
I know about Hillaire Belloc from my friend Rod Bennett. He is like Chesterton, really good for a while, then all of sudden says something totally annoying in defending RC stuff (indulgences, Mary, statues, Pope, merit, etc.) and I give up.
You have read a lot of the books that I would recommend. If I have time, later, I will try; but they are annoying because they jump off the logic train by affirming statues, indulgences, Mary stuff, etc.
art is good; but the Mary statues are NOT art.
I get what you mean with Cobbett. I fully understand. However, I don’t think you’d have the same opinion on this book by Belloc. It’s not an apologetic work for the church. He harshly criticized the Catholic Church(which many saints have done) in many ways but he talks about the political forces at work.
There is a talk by John Rao where he talks about the great Catholic kingdoms post-reformation such as Spain, the Hapsburg Empire, Poland, Genoa, etc. He talks about them from the reformation to WWI. He shows how these kingdoms only cared about the church when it benefited them. When there was a disagreement, the Church was ignored. Starting about 1300, the Church began to lose its political power VERY quickly. I could give you the reasons if you want.
I may comment more later. no more time right now.
All good Ken.
Ken, Catholic countries, certainly post Gregory VII but earlier as well, had a full separation between the two.
One cannot claim a “full separation” between them, because they were still intertwined in the “Medieval Synthesis”. (see below)
When King VIII put Thomas Cranmer in as Archbishop of Canterbury, he united Church and state and broke the almost 500 year tradition that had guided Europe theologically and politically. The Protestants are the ones who united church and state, not the Catholics.
Seems like they had no alternative, (as far as I can tell, looking back on it – who am I? “history is history” = what happened, what God allowed) given how intertwined RC practice and dogmas were there – this is called the “Medieval Synthesis” (everything was synthesized together by RC theology – culture, economics, society, politics, military actions, etc.)
Throwing that off was a good thing.
Ken, you’re blaming Catholics for what the Protestants did, then saying it was a good thing. Come to a conclusion and defend it. No more doublespeak.
I don’t know a lot of the details; but if Roman Catholics were no longer around, how could they own the property? Did Rome own them, or someone locally in England?
Same problem with Tezel in Germany, raising money to take it to Rome to build St. Peter’s Basilica. What a massive wrong that was!
In England they were typically owned by the local Catholic diocese. In the Catholic Church, it has been a practice for the church to own its own property. By the way, this is not the practice in the Orthodox Church. Orthodox parishes are usually privately owned and the owner will ask the local bishop to provide a priest. A Serb told me that once. There was actually a fight over a local Orthodox Church in my city about that because the owner wanted to switch EO jurisdictions to get a new priest.
When Henry VIII took over the church he sent soldiers to the monasteries, kicked out the monks or nuns, confiscated all things of monetary value and gave the land to one of his cronies. When Edward VI became king he confiscated the rest of the church property such as chantries and endowments.
The Catholic Church later condemned the sale of indulgences. Also, Tetzel was technically not selling indulgences. If you donated to the church you received an indulgence so it technically wasn’t a direct swap but you’d be correct to say it essentially was.
Ken,
I should also point out that when the Protestant monarchs looted church property, that was a breach of the separation of Church and state. As you know, separation goes both ways. When you say “Throwing that off was a good thing.” are you saying that you supported the looting?
The marriage of church and state with the power to punish and execute heretics was wrong from the beginning (Byzantine Emperors: Theodosius, Justinian, Heraclius)
The harshness towards the Copts and other Miaphysites and the Assyrians (Nestorians) was not right; and contributed some to the takeover of Islam, though I don’t trust Islamic viewpoint of history of the conquerings. I appreciate your evidence that you have been bringing from Theophanes (and there are Coptic sources that a Coptic Christian on Twitter that has also supplied a more balanced view of that era.
Although I agree basically with the Council of Ephesus in 431 – that Christ was always Deity from conception (the original meaning of Theotokos – the one who was bearing God the Son in the womb from conception) and that Christ is one person with 2 natures, the character of Cyril of Alexandria and what he did to marshall the weight against Nestorius was wrong and unbalanced.
Another problem is the over-exalting of Mary in calling her “The Mother of God”.
Chalcedon in 451 AD was also true – that Christ is one person with 2 natures.
But other things are not necessarily true and the government control and harshness and punishing heretics was a bad thing.
The Protestant Reformation merely reversed centuries of wrong practice and tyranny.
“The Protestant Reformation merely reversed centuries of wrong practice and tyranny.”
I hate to break it to you Ken but in Protestant countries they persecuted heretics as well. Why do you think St. Francis de Sales had to sneak into Geneva to talk to Theodore de Beze. He escaped death a number of times when he was preaching in the Savoy, before he was bishop.
What about all of the Catholic who were killed in England for the sole crime of wanting their ancestral faith? I don’t want to play a numbers game with you but you know very well that Protestants did this to Catholics. They also did it to baptists which should ring close to home with you.
They were wrong also to use physical force for heresy, etc. – but it was history.
I don’t know how to change the past, obviously.
God allowed these things, obviously.
It took centuries to break down the punishments, etc.
Yes, they persecuted the Baptists, and that was wrong. Luther was wrong to be so strong against Zwingli, basically calling him an unbeliever. Ridiculous. Calvin was wrong to be so harsh against some, and the burning of Servetus is still difficult to explain to people – most anti-Calvinism folks bring that up.
History happened. obviously, we cannot change it.
It is a mess, with lots of good, bad, and ugly.
I’m simply saying that the Protestants didn’t reverse it like you had previously said. It really only reversed when the so called “enlightenment” happened.
Yes, that is true.