Forty Answers to “Forty Reasons I Am A Catholic”: #2

Today, we continue our series examining and responding to Catholic apologist and philosopher, Peter Kreeft’s book, “Forty Reasons I Am A Catholic” (2018). Thanks for joining me.

capture30

Claim #2: “I am a Catholic because it’s the best of five choices”

For his second reason for being Catholic, Peter Kreeft posits that Catholicism is the best of the five following choices:

  1. Atheism – Kreeft sees atheism as an undesirable choice because conscience and the Universe indicate the existence of God.
  2. Polytheism – Kreeft argues that belief in many gods is faulty because one particular god gradually gains ascendancy over others in such a religious system.
  3. Pantheism – Kreeft concludes pantheism is inferior because the nebulous “force” inevitably always has a dark side (e.g. the ying and the yang).
  4. The Monotheism of Judaism and Islam – Kreeft states that while Judaism and Islam are based on “the God of the Bible,” he says their rejection of the deity of Jesus Christ renders them less than the optimal choice.
  5. Catholicism – Although Kreeft concedes that Protestantism is Christian, he claims the Catholic church is superior because of 1) its continuity in doctrine, 2) its apostolic succession, and 3) her belief in the Eucharistic Real Presence for two thousand years.

Response

There’s no need to debate Kreeft’s rejection of atheism, polytheism, and pantheism because I’m somewhat in concurrence. So let’s skip to point # 4. Here, Kreeft argues that Judaism and Islam are actually good choices because both religions are based on “the God of the Bible” and unite “the two deepest instincts in the human heart, – namely, the religious instinct and the moral instinct” (p.10). As a works-righteousness religion, Catholicism took the bold step during its Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) of recognizing other works-righteousness religions, especially Judaism and Islam, as legitimate pathways to God. Prior to the 20th century and the rise of religious liberalism, the RCC taught that only baptized Catholics had a chance of meriting Heaven. The VII council’s Nostra aetate (Latin: “In our time”) Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions, promulgated by pope Paul VI on 28 October 1965 fully recognized Judaism and Islam as legitimate religions and pathways to God in their own right. Yet, God’s Word, the Bible, emphatically states there is no salvation outside of faith in Jesus Christ alone as Savior.

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” – John 3:18

“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” – Acts 4:12

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” – John 3:16-18

God’s Word is crystal clear. Salvation is by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. The Catholic church’s and Peter Kreeft’s acceptance of Judaism and Islam as legitimate religions is heretical dogma. But of course the RCC doesn’t stop at Judaism and Islam. Nostra aetate, also recognizes Buddhism, Hinduism, and all other religions as acceptable pathways to Heaven. Another VII document, Lumen gentium (“Light of the Nations”) declared that even atheists (“those who, without fault, have not yet arrived at an express recognition of God”) could also merit Heaven. As the work-righteousness Catholic church was increasingly influenced by liberal theologians and sought to modernize itself, it propagated a form of semi-Universalism, stating that all religionists and even atheists are able to merit Heaven according to the “light they have been given.”

In point #5, Kreeft argues the superiority of the Roman Catholic church over Protestantism/Gospel Christianity due to 1) its continuity in doctrine, 2) its apostolic succession, and 3) its belief in the Eucharistic Real Presence for two thousand years. Let’s briefly examine Kreeft’s claims, one at a time:

  1. Continuity of doctrine – While the RCC has always taught the un-Biblical notion of salvation by sacramental grace and merit, it has changed many doctrines and introduced new ones. Above, we discussed how the RCC changed its view on the salvation of non-Catholics at the Second Vatican Council. As recently as 2016, in his Amoris Laetitia encyclical, pope Francis reversed Catholic doctrine and lifted the ban on sacraments for remarried divorcees. There are many other examples. Kreeft’s continuity of doctrine claim is a mirage.
  2. Apostolic succession – RC-ism bases its claim to apostolic succession on a woeful misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18, that Peter was granted apostolic primacy that would be perpetuated through his successors as bishop of Rome. The RCC venerates Augustine as one of its greatest “doctors of the church,” yet Augustine wrote of Matthew 16:18 that Jesus Christ was not granting primacy to Peter, but interpreted the verse to mean that Jesus would build His church upon the revelation given to Peter that He was the Christ, just as Protestants teach. Who is right? Kreeft or Augustine?
  3. The RCC’s belief in the Eucharistic Real Presence for two thousand years – The belief that RC priests miraculously transform bread wafers and wine into the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ and offer up the “host” (victim) as a sacrifice for the sins of mass goers and others named cannot be found in the New Testament. The mass and the eucharist are notions that developed over time as the clergy class consolidated its power and privileges over the masses. Kreeft could cite quotes from “church fathers” that might seem to corroborate the RCC’s doctrine on the eucharistic real presence, while I could quote “church fathers” who taught the spiritual acceptance of Christ rather than physically eating Him (see “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History” by William Webster, Chapter Eight, The Eucharist, pp. 117-132). What then should be our standard? God’s Word or the evolving religious traditions of men?

The main difference between Roman Catholicism and Gospel Christianity that Kreeft fails to mention is that Rome teaches salvation by sacramental grace and merit while Gospel Christianity teaches salvation by God’s grace alone through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. Rome teaches justification by baptism and good works while genuine Gospel Christianity teaches justification solely by the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to the sinner at the moment he or she trusts in Christ as Savior by faith alone. Going back to Kreeft’s initial five choices, the pious works-righteousness Roman Catholic is no farther ahead than the polytheist or pantheist. All will die in their sins.

What’s our bottom line for this chapter? The Roman church teaches heresy by saying all religions and even atheism are pathways to God. The RC church and Gospel Christianity are also irreconcilably opposed on HOW a person is saved.

Kreeft is wrong. Catholicism is NOT the best of his five choices. He does not understand the superiority of Jesus Christ and the genuine Gospel over RC-ism and all other works religions. As in Kreeft’s initial chapter, there are no appeals to Scripture except for a single reference in the final paragraph, which has no connection to the arguments above.

Next week: Claim #3: “I am a Catholic because Jesus is really, truly, personally, literally present in every consecrated host in the world”

46 thoughts on “Forty Answers to “Forty Reasons I Am A Catholic”: #2

  1. A true believer would never say, “This is the best of 5 choices” he would declare, “I’ve looked and found, there’s no other way!” Kreeft implies that 4 ways are second best.
    Comparing Catholicism to other religions and finding that it shines is nothing. Comparing it to the Truth is the only standard.
    That is exactly what ecumenicalists do – they compare Catholicism to other religions and find alignment.
    May God pull the curtain back for every seeking Catholic and lead them to Truth.
    Have a good weekend Tom!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks for the good comments, Lisa Beth! Yes, Kreeft’s ranking of religious systems demonstrates the RCC’s egregious interreligious/ecumenical error of insisting they all are acceptable pathways to God. But it was inevitable that works-righteousness Catholicism would eventually concede other works religion were legitimate as well.

      Thanks and enjoy your weekend!

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Will read this shortly; responding to your comment on my page: Wow sorry to hear so much work spill over to you guys; it seems there’s a shortage of workers everywhere with every industry =(

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Yup. I’m going to purposely rachet down my pace at work today because I’m drained from Friday and yesterday. Hope you have a good Sunday! I’m a bit behind at WordPress but will catch up tomorrow.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Re:Islam are based on “the God of the Bible,”

    LOL! We know that God is triune (John 10:30, John 5:18, John 4:24, 2 Cor 3:17, Acts 5:3-4). We also know that God’s word is truth (John 17:17, Prov 30:5) thus he will not contradict himself

    What does “Allah” have to say?

    Quran 4.171: O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.

    Quran 5:72 They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.
    Quran 5:73 They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the third of three.”1 And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.
    Quran 5:74 So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
    Quran 5:75 The <b?Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food.1 Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.

    Mo or his friend “Allah”, thought that the Trinity was the Father, Son and Mary! LOL!

    Quran 5:116: And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

    Jalal – Al-Jalalayn 5:116
    And, mention, when God says, that is, when God will say, to Jesus at the Resurrection in rebuke of his followers: ‘O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to mankind, “Take me and my mother as gods, besides God”?’ He, Jesus, says, shuddering: ‘Glory be to You!, exalted be You above all that does not befit You, such as [having] a partner and so on. It is not mine, it is unjustified [for me], to say what I have no right to (bi-haqq, ‘right to’, is the predicate of laysa, ‘not’; lī, ‘mine’, is explicative). If I indeed had said it, You would have known it. You know what is, hidden by me, in my self, but I do not know what is within Your Self, that is, what You keep hidden of Your knowledge: You are the Knower of things unseen.

    Ibn Ishaq: The names of the fourteen principal men among the sixty riders were: Abdu’l-Masih the ‘Äqib, al-Ayham the Sayyid; Abü Häritha b. ‘Alqama brother of B. Bakr b. Wä’il ; Aus; al-Härith ; Zayd; Qays; Yazid ; Nubayh; Khuwaylid; ‘Amr; Khälid; ‘Abdullah; Johannes; of these the first three named above spoke to the apostle. They were Christians according to the Byzantine rite, though they differed among themselves in some points, saying He is God; and He is the son of God ; and He is the third person of the Trinity, which is the doctrine of Christianity. They argue that he is God because he used to raise the dead, and heal the sick, and declare the unseen; and make clay birds and then breathe into them so that they flew away and all this was by the command of God Almighty, ‘We will make him a sign to men.’ They argue that he is the son of God in that they say he had no known father; and he spoke in the cradle and this is something that no child of Adam has ever done. They argue that he is the third of three in that God says: We have done, We have commanded, We have created and We have decreed, and they say, If He were one he would have said I have done, I have created, and so on, but He is He and Jesus and Mary . Concerning all these assertions the Quran came down.” A. Guillaume, The life of Muhammad, A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford University Press, Seventeenth Impression 2004, Pg 271-272

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Re:Islam are based on “the God of the Bible,”

    In 1 Cor 15:1-4, Paul said that the belief in the crucifixion and resurrection is of first importance. If Christ was not raised from the dead then your faith is in vain (1 Cor 15:13-15). If Christ was not crucified, then he obviously was not resurrected.

    “Allah” says that Christ was not crucified but another made to look like him.

    “Quran 4:157: And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; *but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain*”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Re:Islam is based on “the God of the Bible,”

    God treats rape as a very serious crime, deserving of the death penalty (Deuteronomy 22:25-‬27).

    God commands Israelites to treat captives with mercy. He issues a command that if you want to take a female captive as a wife, you are to let her mourn her parents for a month, and if you no longer want her, she shall not be sold or treated like a slave (Deuteronomy 21:10-‬14). Those who didn’t marry would be put into servitude and God commands that they be treated well (Exodus 21:26-‬27, Deuteronomy 23:15-‬16).

    Now, let’s look at what Mo did to female captives. So we have Mo and his companions capturing POWs who were married women. Naturally, his companions refused to have sex with them as this sort of stuff is condemned by the Torah.

    Sahih Muslim
    Book 8, Hadith 3432

    Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:

    ” And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)” (i. e. they were lawful for them when their ‘Idda period came to an end)

    Now Allah sends this “revelation”, thus Mo allows his companions to have sex with POWs who are married women.

    Quran 4:24
    And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

    Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs 4.24
    And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess of captives, even if they have husbands in the Abode of War, after ascertaining that they are not pregnant, by waiting for the lapse of one period of menstruation….

    Ibn Al Kathir 4.24
    Forbidding Women Already Married, Except for Female Slaves
    Allah said,
    (Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married, (except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant.

    Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, “We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed, (Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.”

    Very typical behavior from Mo and his companions, raping their female captives, because “Allah” allowed them to.

    Sahih Muslim
    Book 8, Hadith 3371
    Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah be pleased with him):

    Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Mes- senger (ﷺ), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

    Sahih al-Bukhari
    Vol. 8, Book 77, Hadith 600
    Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:

    That while he was sitting with the Prophet (ﷺ) a man from the Ansar came and said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! We get slave girls from the war captives and we love property; what do you think about coitus interruptus?” Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Do you do that? It is better for you not to do it, for there is no soul which Allah has ordained to come into existence but will be created.”

    Allah also says the Mo is a pattern for all Muslims to emulate.

    Quran 33:21
    Sahih International: There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often.

    Pickthall: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.

    Yusuf Ali: Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.

    We know that God doesn’t change (Num 23:19) and God’s Law is Holy (Romans 7:12).

    We should all ask ourselves how such a religion like Islam with teachings that are so wicked and vile, can be of God? I can only pity this deluded Romanist, Peter Kreeft.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for the references, SB! Kreeft proves the RCC is apostate and he is not a genuine Christian by legitimizing Mohammed and Allah.

      Like

  6. Re:Islam is based on “the God of the Bible,”

    The Quran literally contains at least one verse from Satan (53:19-22), spoken out by Mo. So we have John Paul II literally bowing down to the words of Satan when he bowed down to the Quran and kissed it!

    Quran 53:19-22
    So have you considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza?
    And Manat, the third – the other one?
    Is the male for you and for Him the female?
    That, then, is an unjust division.

    Quran 22:52-53
    And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [or recited], Satan threw into it [some misunderstanding]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.
    [That is] so He may make what Satan throws in a trial for those within whose hearts is disease and those hard of heart. And indeed, the wrongdoers are in extreme dissension.

    22:52-53 abrogates 53:19-22.

    Now Muslims today will claim that this tradition is weak, but this was not the case for early Muslims who believed this to be a truth.

    Shahab Ahmed: The fundamental finding of the present volume is that in the first two centuries of Islam, Muslim attitudes to the Satanic verses incident were effectively the direct opposite of what they are today . This volume studies no less than fifty historical reports that narrate the Satanic verses incident and that were transmitted by the first generations of Muslims. This study of the Satanic verses incident in the historical memory of the early Muslim community will demonstrate
    in detail that the incident constituted an absolutely standard element in the memory of early Muslims of the life of their Prophet. In other words, the early Muslim community believed almost universally that the Satanic verses incident was a true historical fact. As far as the overwhelming majority of the Muslim community in the first two hundred years was concerned, the Messenger of God did indeed, on at least one occasion, mistake words of Satanic suggestion as being of Divine inspiration. For the early Muslims, the Satanic verses incident was something entirely thinkable . Before Orthodoxy, The Satanic Verses in Early Islam, Harvard University Press, 2017, Pg 2-3

    Shahab Ahmed : We may conclude this work with two observations on the question that has most concerned Orientalist and Muslim scholars about the Satanic verses incident—which is precisely the question that we have not set out to answer: did the incident actually take place? In light of the fact that the Muslim community of the first two centuries of Islam overwhelmingly accepted the historicity of the Satanic verses incident, it is hard to see how it could have been fabricated and introduced into Muslim discourse by early enemies of Islam , as Islamic orthodoxy has argued. Orientalists have insisted that Muslims could not possibly have invented such an inauspicious story. We have seen, however, that early Muslim discourse did not view the Satanic verses incident as objectionable—or even as merely unobjectionable—but rather that the incident is illustrative of the standard understanding of Muḥammad’s Prophethood among early Muslims . There is presumably no reason, therefore, why they could not have made it up. Before Orthodoxy, The Satanic Verses in Early Islam, Harvard University Press, 2017, Pg 301

    Here the traditions that tell us Satan cast a verse on Mo’s tongue and caused him to speak it out as a “revelation”:

    Ibn Ishaq: Now the apostle was anxious for the welfare of his people, wishing to attract them as ‎far as he could. It has been mentioned that he longed for a way to attract them, and the method he ‎adopted is what Ibn Hamid told me that Salama said M. b. Ishaq told him from Yazid b. Ziyad of ‎Medina from M. b. Ka’b al-Qurazi: When the apostle saw that his people turned their backs on ‎him and he was pained by their estrangement from what he brought them from God he longed ‎that there should come to him from God a message that would reconcile his people to him. ‎Because of his love for his people and his anxiety over them it would delight him if the obstacle ‎that made his task so difficult could be removed; so that he meditated on the project and longed ‎for it and it was dear to him. Then God sent down ‘By the star when it sets your comrade errs not ‎and is not deceived, he speaks not from his own desire,’ and when he reached His words ‘Have ‎you thought of al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Manat the third, the other’,‎ Satan, when he was ‎meditating upon it, and desiring to bring it (sc. reconciliation) to his people, put upon his tongue ‎‎’these are the exalted Gharaniq whose intercession is approved.’ When Quraysh heard that, ‎they were delighted and greatly pleased at the way in which he spoke of their gods and they ‎listened to him; while the believers were holding that what their prophet brought them from their ‎Lord was true, not suspecting a mistake or a vain desire or a slip , and when he reached the ‎prostration and the end of the Sura in which he prostrated himself the Muslims prostrated ‎themselves when their prophet prostrated confirming what he brought and obeying his command, ‎and the polytheists of Quraysh and others who were in the mosque prostrated when they heard ‎the mention of their gods, so that everyone in the mosque believer and unbeliever prostrated, ‎except al-Walid b. al-Mughira who was an old man who could not do so, so he took a handful of ‎dirt from the valley and bent over it . Then the people dispersed and Quraysh went out, delighted ‎at what had been said about their gods, saying, ‘Muhammad has spoken of our gods in splendid ‎fashion. He alleged in what he read that they are the exalted Gharaniq whose intercession is ‎approved.’‎

    The news reached the prophet’s companions who were in Abyssinia, it being reported that ‎Quraysh had accepted Islam, so some men started to return while others remained behind. Then ‎Gabriel came to the apostle and said, ‘What have you done, Muhammad? You have read to these ‎people something I did not bring you from God and you have said what He did not say to you. ‎The apostle was bitterly grieved and was greatly in fear of God. So God sent down (a revelation), ‎for He was merciful to him, comforting him and making light of the affair and telling him that ‎every prophet and apostle before him desired as he desired and wanted what he wanted and Satan ‎interjected something into his desires as he had on his tongue. So God annulled what Satan had ‎suggested and God established His verses i.e. you are just like the prophets and apostles. Then ‎God sent down: ‘We have not sent a prophet or apostle before you but when he longed Satan cast ‎suggestions into his longing. But God will annul what Satan has suggested. Then God will ‎establish his verses, God being knowing and wise.’ ‎Thus God relieved his prophet’s grief, and ‎made him feel safe from his fears and annulled what Satan had suggested in the words used ‎above about their gods by his revelation ‘Are yours the males and His the females? That were ‎indeed an unfair division’ (i.e. most unjust); ‘they are nothing but names which your fathers gave ‎them as far as the words ‘to whom he pleases and accepts’,‎‎ i.e. how can the intercession of their ‎gods avail with Him?‎

    When the annulment of what Satan had put upon the prophet’s tongue came from God, ‎Quraysh said: ‘Muhammad has repented of what he said about the position of your gods with ‎Allah, altered it and brought something else.’ Now those two words which Satan had put upon ‎the apostle’s tongue were in the mouth of every polytheist and they became more violently ‎hostile to the Muslims and the apostle’s followers. Meanwhile those of his companions who had ‎left Abyssinia when they heard that the people of Mecca had accepted Islam when they ‎prostrated themselves with the apostle, heard when they approached Mecca that the report was ‎false and none came into the town without the promise of protection or secretly. Of those who ‎did come into Mecca and stayed there until he migrated to Medina and were present at Badr with ‎him was ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan . . . with his wife Ruqayya d. of the apostle and Abu Hudhayfa b. ‎‎’Utba with his wife Sahla d. of Suhayl, and a number of others, in all thirty-three men. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Translated by A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, (Re-issued in Karachi, Pakistan, 1967, 13th impression, 1998) 1955, p. 165-167

    Al-Tabari:

    Satan Casts a False Revelation on the Messenger of God’s Tongue

    The Messenger of God was eager for the welfare of his people and wished to effect a reconciliation with them in whatever ways he could. It is said that he wanted to find a way to do this, and what happened was as follows.
    Ibn Humayd—Salamah–Muhammad b. Ishaq—Yazid b. Ziyad al-Madani—Muhammad b. Kali al-Qurazi: When the Messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed out, and he debated with himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed:
    By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is
    he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire …
    and when he came to the words:

    Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?
    Satan cast on his tongue
    , because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words:

    These are the high-flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval.
    When Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced and were happy and delighted at the way in which he spoke of their gods, and they listened to him, while the Muslims, having complete trust in their Prophet in respect of the messages which he brought from God, did not suspect him of error, illusion, or mistake. When he came to the prostration, having completed the surah, he prostrated himself and the Muslims did likewise, following their Prophet, trusting in the message which he had brought and following his example. Those polytheists of the Quraysh and others who were in the Mosque likewise prostrated themselves because of the reference [1193] to their gods which they had heard, so that there was no one in the mosque, believer or unbeliever, who did not prostrate himself. The one exception was al-Walid b. al-Mughirah, who was a very old man and could not prostrate himself; but he took a handful of soil from the valley in his hand and bowed over that. Then they all dispersed from the mosque. The Quraysh left delighted by the mention of their gods which they had heard, saying, ” Muhammad has mentioned our gods in the most favorable way possible, stating in his recitation that they are the high-flying cranes and that their intercession is received with approval.”

    The news of this prostration reached those of the Messenger of God’s Companions who were in Abyssinia and people said, “The Quraysh have accepted Islam.” Some rose up to return, while others remained behind. Then Gabriel came to the Messenger of God and said, “Muhammad, what have you done? You have recited to the people that which I did not bring to you from God, and you have said that which was not said to you.” Then the Messenger of God was much grieved and feared God greatly, but God sent down a revelation to him, for He was merciful to him, consolling him and making the matter light for him, informing him that there had never been a prophet or a messenger before him who desired as he desired and wished as he wished but that Satan had cast words into his recitation, as he had cast words on Muhammad’s tongue. Then God cancelled what Satan had thus cast, and established his verses by telling him that he was like other prophets and messengers, and revealed:

    Never did we send a messenger or a prophet before you but that when he recited (the Message) Satan cast words into his recitation (umniyyah). God abrogates what Satan casts. Then God established his verses. God is knower, wise.
    Thus God removed the sorrow from his Messenger, reassured him about that which he had feared and cancelled the words [1194] which Satan had cast on his tongue, that their gods were the high-flying cranes whose intercession was accepted with approval. He now revealed, following the mention of “al-Lat, al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other,” the words:

    Are yours the males and his the females? That indeed were an unfair division!
    They are but names which you have named, you and your fathers …
    to the words:

    to whom he wills and accepts.
    This means, how can the intercession of their gods avail with God?
    When Muhammad brought a revelation from God cancelling what Satan had cast on the tongue of His Prophet, the Quraysh said, “Muhammad has repented of what he said concerning the position of your gods with God, and has altered it and brought something else.” Those two phrases which Satan had cast on the tongue of the Messenger of God were in the mouth of every polytheists, and they became even more ill-disposed and more violent in their persecution of those of them who had accepted Islam and followed the Messenger of God.
    Those of the Companions of the Messenger of God who had left Abyssinia upon hearing that Quraysh had accepted Islam by prostrating themselves with the Messenger of God now approached. When they were near Mecca, they heard that the report that the people of Mecca had accepted Islam was false. Not one of them entered Mecca without obtaining protection or entering secretly. Among those who came to Mecca and remained there until they emigrated to al-Madinah and were present with the Prophet at Badr, were, from the Banu ‘Abd Shams b. ‘Abd Manaf b. Qusayy, ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan b. Abi al-‘As b. Umayyah, accompanied by his wife Ruqayyah the daughter of the Messenger of God; Abu Hudhayfah b. ‘Utbah b. Rabi’ah b. ‘Abd Shams, accompanied by his [1195] wife Sahlah bt. Suhayl; together with a number of others numbering thirty-three men.

    Al-Qasim b. al-Hasan—al-Husayn b. Daud—Hajja—Abu Ma-‘shar—Muhammad b. Ka’b al-Qurazi and Muhammad b. Qays: The Messenger of God was sitting in a large gathering of Quraysh, wishing that day that no revelation would come to him from God which would cause them to turn away from him. Then God revealed:

    By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived …
    and the Messenger of God recited it until he came to:

    Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?
    when Satan cast on his tongue two phrases:

    These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is to be desired.
    He uttered them and went on to complete the surah. When he prostrated himself at the end of the surah, the whole company prostrated themselves with him. Al-Walid b. al-Mughirah raised some dust to his forehead and bowed over that, since he was a very old man and could not prostrate himself. They were satisfied with what Muhammad had uttered and said, “We recognize that it is God who gives life and death, who creates and who provides sustenance, but if these gods of ours intercede for us with him, and if you give them a share, we are with you.”
    That evening Gabriel came to him and reviewed the surah with him, and when he reached the two phrases which Satan had cast upon his tongue he said, “I did not bring you these two.” Then the Messenger of God said, “I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken.” Then God revealed to him:

    And they indeed strove hard to beguile you away from what we have revealed to you, that you should invent other than it against us …
    to the words:

    and then you would have found no helper against us.
    He remained grief-stricken and anxious until the revelation of the verse:

    [1196] Never did we send a messenger or a prophet before you …
    to the words

    … God is knower, wise.
    When those who had emigrated to Abyssinia heard that all the people of Mecca had accepted Islam, they returned to their clans, saying, “They are more dear to us”; but they found that the people had reversed their decision when God cancelled what Satan had cast upon the Messenger of God’s tongue.
    The History of al-Tabari (Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk), Vol. 6: Muhammad at Mecca, pp. 107-112. Translated by W. M. Watt and M.V. McDonald, SUNY Press, Albany, NY, 1988, pp. 107-112.

    Abbas – Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs 22.52

    (Never sent We a messenger or a Prophet before thee) O Muhammad (but when he) the Prophet (recited (the message)) or spoke (Satan proposed (opposition) about that which he recited thereof) such that he does not act upon it. (But Allah abolisheth) but Allah elucidates (that which Satan proposeth) on the tongue of His Prophet such that he does not act upon it. (Then Allah establisheth) then He clarifies (His revelations) for His Prophet in order that he acts upon them. (Allah is Knower) of that which Satan proposes, (Wise) He decrees to abolish it;

    Jalal – Al-Jalalayn 22.52

    And We did not send before you any messenger (rasūl) — this is a prophet who has been commanded to deliver a Message — or prophet (nabī) — one who has not been commanded to deliver anything — but that when he recited [the scripture] Satan cast into his recitation, what is not from the Qur’ān, but which those to whom he [the prophet] had been sent would find pleasing. The Prophet (s) had, during an assembly of the [men of] Quraysh, after reciting the [following verses from] sūrat al-Najm, Have you considered Lāt and ‘Uzzā? And Manāt, the third one? [53:19-20] added, as a result of Satan casting them onto his tongue without his [the Prophet’s] being aware of it, [the following words]: ‘those are the high-flying cranes (al-gharānīq al-‘ulā) and indeed their intercession is to be hoped for’, and so they [the men of Quraysh] were thereby delighted. Gabriel, however, later informed him [the Prophet] of this that Satan had cast onto his tongue and he was grieved by it; but was [subsequently] comforted with this following verse that he might be reassured [of God’s pleasure]: thereat God abrogates, nullifies, whatever Satan had cast, then God confirms His revelations. And God is Knower, of Satan’s casting of that which has been mentioned, Wise, in His enabling him [Satan] to do such things, for He does whatever He will.

    Abbas – Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs 22.53

    (That He may make that which the devil proposeth) on the tongue of his Prophet (a temptation) a misfortune (for those in whose hearts is a disease) doubt and opposition for acting upon it, (and those whose hearts are hardened) towards the remembrance of Allah (Lo! the evil-doers) the idolaters: al-Mughirah Ibn Shu’bah and his host (are in open schism) they are in opposition to, and enmity with, the Truth and guidance.

    Jalal – Al-Jalalayn 22.53

    That He may make what Satan has cast a trial, a test, for those in whose hearts is a sickness, dissension and hypocrisy, and those whose hearts are hardened, namely, the idolaters, [hardened] against acceptance of the truth. For truly the evildoers, the disbelievers, are [steeped] in extreme defiance, [in] a protracted feud with the Prophet (s) and the believers, for his tongue uttered mention of their gods in a way that pleased them, and yet this was later nullified.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Unless you deal with Muslims, you would not have heard of this. This one is very useful for showing proud Romanists that their religion is apostate for bowing a knee to Allah and the Quran.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Tom,

        There is also good evidence that Mo was demon possessed and that “Allah” was a demonic force. If one were to read Mark 9:20 about the demon possessed boy, we see similarities with Mo. Another hadith tells us that the “angel” that Mo saw frightened him so much that he fell to the ground. Waraqa, a cousin of Mo’s first wife and a Nestorian monk suspected that the “angel” was of the devil.

        Which is why the Roman Church of today is so visibly apostate, yoking itself to Baal and partaking the table of the demons (1 Cor 10:16-21), that they are as anti-Christian as can be.

        In tradition (رواية) it is stated that he said, “I fear lest I should become a magician, lest one should proclaim me a follower of the Jinn”; and again: “I fear lest there should be madness” (or demoniac possession جنون) “in me”. After an accession of shivering and shutting his eyes, there used to come over him what resembled a swoon, his face would foam, and he would roar like a young camel: Abu Hurairah says: “As for the Apostle of God, when inspiration descended on him, no one could raise his glance to him until the inspiration came to an end.” In Tradition it is stated that “He was troubled thereat, and his face would foam, and he closed his eyes, and perchance roared like the roaring of the young camel.‘ ‘Umar ibnu’l Khattab says: “When inspiration descended on the Apostle of God, there used to be heard near his face as it were the buzzing 1 of bees. Pfander, Carl Gottlieb. The Mizan Ul Haqq, Or, Balance of Truth. United Kingdom, Church Missionary House, 1866, Pg 345-346

        Sahih al-Bukhari
        Vol. 4, Book 54, Hadith 461
        Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah:

        that he heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, “The Divine Inspiration was delayed for a short period but suddenly, as I was walking. I heard a voice in the sky, and when I looked up towards the sky, to my surprise, I saw the angel who had come to me in the Hira Cave, and he was sitting on a chair in between the sky and the earth. I was so frightened by him that I fell on the ground and came to my family and said (to them), ‘Cover me! (with a blanket), cover me!’ Then Allah sent the Revelation: “O, You wrapped up (In a blanket)! (Arise and warn! And your Lord magnify And keep pure your garments, And desert the idols.” (74.1-5)

        Ibn Kathir (1300-1373): “She then left ‘Addas and went to Waraqa b. Nawfal whom she asked about Gabriel. He told her the same. He then asked her what was the matter, and she made him swear not to divulge what she would tell him. He so swore, and she told him, ‘The son of ‘Abd Allah related to me – and he is truthful and never, I swear it, either told a lie or was accused of lying – that Gabriel came down to him in Hira, told him he was the prophet of this nation, and made him recite some verses he had been sent with.’
        “Waraqa was dumbfounded at this, and said, ‘If Gabriel has actually placed his feet upon the earth, he has done so for the best of people thereupon. And he never came down for anyone except a prophet. For he is the companion of all the prophets and messengers, the one whom God sends down to them. I believe what you tell me of him. Send for ‘Abd Allah’s son, so that I may question him, hear what he says and talk to him. I am afraid it may be someone other than Gabriel, for certain devils imitate him and by so doing can mislead and corrupt some men. This can result in a man becoming confused and even crazy whereas before he had been of sound mind.’” Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), Volume I, translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Ahmed Fareed Garnet Publishing Limited, 1998, pg 296-297

        Liked by 1 person

      3. SB, thanks for the very interesting information on Mohammed. Yes, the behaviors that are described do remind me of the Biblical accounts of demonic possession.

        Like

  7. Re: Although Kreeft concedes that Protestantism is Christian, he claims the Catholic church is superior because of 1) its continuity in doctrine, 2) its apostolic succession, and 3) her belief in the Eucharistic Real Presence for two thousand years.

    1) LOL! Yeah right!

    Vatican II, Lumen Gentium Paragraph 16: But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Moslems, these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. Nor is God Himself remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25–28), and since the Saviour wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those who, who through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. Vatican Council II The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Austin Flannery, O.P., General Editor (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1980), Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium II:16, p. 367.

    The Council of Florence (1441) Bull Cantata Domino: It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. Henry Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari, Thirtieth Ed. (Powers Lake: Marian House, published in 1954 by Herder & Co., Freiburg), #714, p. 230.

    2) LOL again. How can that be if there was no monarchical Bishop of Rome until the mid to late 2nd century?

    Raymond Brown S.S.: The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Pauline type of apostleship, not that of the Twelve. Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Paulist Press, 1970, pg 72.

    Francis A. Sullivan S.J.: The question whether the episcopate is of divine institution continues to divide the churches, even though Christian scholars from both sides agree that one does not find the threefold structure of ministry, with a bishop in each local church assisted by presbyters and deacons, in the New Testament. They agree, rather, that the historic episcopate was the result of a development in the post—New Testament period, from the local leader- ship of a college of presbyters, who were sometimes also called bishops (episkopoi), to the leadership of a single bishop. They also agree that this development took place earlier in the churches of Syria and western Asia Minor, than it did in those of Philippi, Corinth and Rome. Scholars differ on details, such as how soon the church of Rome was led by a single bishop, but hardly any doubt that the church of Rome was still led by a group of presbyters for at least a part of the second century. From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, Paulist Press, 2001, Pg vii-viii

    Francis A. Sullivan S.J.: There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as those of Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only during the course of the second Century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assistcd by presbyters, presiding over each local church. From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, Paulist Press, 2001, Pg 15

    3) The magisterial Proetstant reformers did not reject the real presence, what they rejected was that blasphemy of transubstantiation. The earliest teaching was the spiritual real presence and the somatic real presence was a later development.

    Joseph F. Kelly: In some cases the change is more subtle. Many early Christian theologians accepted much of the philosophy of Plato (424–347 BCE), for whom true reality was spiritual. For these Christians, the “real presence” in the Eucharist did not have to involve a physical change in the elements of the bread and wine. Later theologians had a more material understanding of the real presence and, accepting much of the philosophy of Aristotle (384–322 BCE), created the formula of transubstantiation to explain the real presence. Kelly, Joseph Francis. The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A History. United States, Liturgical Press, 2009, Pg 4-5

    CLement of ALexandria for example, said John 6:53 was a METAPHOR!

    Clement of Alexandria (150 – c. 215):  Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;”[John vi.53] describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. And when hope expires, it is as if blood flowed forth; and the vitality of faith is destroyed. ANF02, The Instructor, Book I, Chapter 6—The Name Children Does Not Imply Instruction in Elementary Principles, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Grand Rapids, MI, pp 472

    One has to be totally deluded or ignorant to buy into Peter Kreeft’s claims.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Re: Yet, God’s Word, the Bible, emphatically states there is no salvation outside of faith in Jesus Christ alone as Savior.

    More scriptures that Peter Kreeft ignores:

    1 John 2:23
    No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

    1 John 5:12
    Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

    John 5:23-24
    that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Many conservative and traditionalist Catholics disavow Vatican II’s interreligious and ecumenical overtures. Moderate Catholic apologists like Kreeft must present Catholicism as the “best” of many acceptable alternatives.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. makes sense why he did that. Reading this also made me cringe in terms of apologetics’ methodology; you know me, I want to be as biblical in my apologetics but reading this made me think why I’m super suspicious of Neo-Aquinas apologetics….

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I’m currently struggling (yawn) through a book by a Catholic author that focuses on the “greatness” of Aristotelian-Thomist natural law. It’a a shame that Sproul, Geisler, and many others became entrralled with Thomism.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks, Crissy! Yes, the RC’s insistence that Allah is “the God of the Bible” should be a red flag to every ecumenically-minded evangelical. Enjoy your Sunday!

      Liked by 1 person

  9. I hope it is ok to share my thoughts/responses from this reading and then comment on yours. If you do not like this format, please let me know! I like to process things for myself and then learn from what you have to say, if that makes sense?!

    Kreeft puts himself in a conundrum when he says on pg 10 that “only the God of the Bible (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) unites…religious instinct and moral instinct.” Romans 1 says that no one does good, no one is looking for God these are not the “two deepest instincts in the human heart.” The human heart is deceitfully wicked (Jer 17:9) the heart longs for sin more than it longs to love God and others. I realize that for Kreeft this is a works based righteousness (along with Judaism and Islam). Allah is not Yahweh. Allah is a monad while the Judeo-Christian God is Trinitarian, which he does mention at the end of the chapter.

    I didn’t realize that Kreeft converted from Protestant to Catholic. Both the Protestant church and Kreeft’s personal understanding of Jesus failed him. To claim that Jesus’s deity is the essence of Christian theology and distinct from Jewish and Islamic theology/tradition is a broad statement. To Jews, Muslims and Evangelical Christians their “sacred texts” matter. I find it fascinating that Kreeft mentions the Bible as having “Authority” yet only gives one Scripture verse. I cannot help but wonder if this was not said from “the first pope” would he have even mentioned it?”

    Ok, it makes sense why Kreeft mentions Judaism and Islam in light of the Second Vatican Council. And yes it is “heretical dogma.” I wonder how much history Kreeft really knows about the RCC? I agree with you 100% that Matthew 16:18 is taken out of context in regards to Peter. I shook my head at Kreeft’s mentioning of the eucharist. Kreeft is willfully deceived thinking that he is not part of a works based righteousness (on par with Hinduism and karma). It is fascinating to me that Kreeft just says go and read some apologetics books if you want to learn how to make a defense of the faith even though he wants people to read his defense on why he is a Catholic. I cannot help but ask does Kreeft really know/understand what it means to be Catholic?

    Are you mowing today? Hope you can get some rest! Love and blessings to you and Corinne!!!!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I actually appreciate your reading the chapter and responding before reading my post. After six years of examining Catholicism via the blog, I probably tend to focus on certain aspects. Thanks for all of your good responses!

      Kreeft does much of my “heavy lifting” for me in this chapter by echoing the official RC policy that all religions and especially Judaism and Islam are legitimate pathways to salvation. I’m curious what Rome-friendly evangelicals make of that?

      Kreeft can quote Scripture and cite church history with the “best” Catholic apologists (as he has in many other books), but it seems with this book he’s aiming for the “lowest common denominator” Catholics and nominal Protestants who won’t respond to Biblical proof texts, but who might respond to the counsel of a grandfatherly philosopher. I was initially a bit puzzled on how to rebut arguments using that approach. I’ve already drafted my response to chapter 3. No Scripture references in that one either.

      Yup, I mowed the entire lawn in the steaming heat and afterwards rewarded myself with a large blue raspberry slushy at Mickey D’s! Patio duty from now until 8 PM. How was your weekend? Thanks and love and blessings to you and Nathan!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Oh man, so glad you got yourself a slushy as a reward for yard duty! It’s brutal here today as well. It was a really nice weekend. Nathan did some fishing with our pastor of discipleship and his son and I was able to spend time with pastor’s wife and daughters and then spend some time with my dad. Yesterday enjoyed church and fishing with Nathan. I am SO thankful for the friendships God has given me both in person and online. Any updates with your sister’s house and your sisters?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Thanks! Slushees have turned into an almost daily summertime routine!

        Glad you had an enjoyable weekend!

        Thanks! The house was posted on the internet on Friday. Seven inquiries over the weekend and more activity yesterday. Not a deluge. Obviously most buyers don’t want to deal with a fixer-upper. The sisters are in flux. The oldest is moving to Arizona next week. The senior facility has been on lockdown because of a COVID outbreak, meaning my sisters can’t visit our dementia sister’s apartment and supervise her. It’s becoming more and more apparent to management that Sue’s current status as an “independent living” senior is not reality.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Thank you for this update. I couldn’t remember when your sister was moving to AZ. I am sorry to hear about the lockdown, that definitely adds stress. Praying that your Sue will end up in a place that is a safe fit for everyone. What’s your Tuesday looking like?!

        Liked by 1 person

      4. RE: Sue
        Thanks, Mandy!

        RE: Tuesday

        Just bought all my remaining paint supplies (and a slushee!) so I’m now headed out into the heat to finish priming a few spots before it rains this afternoon. R&R and reading this afternoon. What about your Tuesday?

        Liked by 1 person

      5. I went to our local farm market this morning (Nathan begs me NOT to go there, it’s a hotspot for sure; however, I got there super early and I wore my mask!). Finishing up my workout, will talk with Nathan at lunch and then head to see my PT/MT for a therapeutic massage. Corinne will understand this and maybe even smile in agreement. When I tell people I see a MT they think “oh spa day!” Absolutely not!!! Trust me, there is NOTHING enjoyable or relaxing about this!!!!

        Liked by 1 person

      6. Sounds like an enjoyable day, except for the painful massage! I quit painting early and we took a short walk along the Erie Canal. Too hot for a long walk.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. It’s a fantastic and underappreciated resource. Only in the last 10-15 years have the villages along the canal gotten smart and developed some stretches with boat docks, promenades, gardens, and restaurants.

        Like

    2. Of course Allah is not Yahweh, Peter Kreeft is either deluded or completely deceived. I can’t believe I forgot to post this one but if you’ll forgive me for interjecting. 🙂

      Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

      Sahih al-Bukhari
      Vol. 8, Book 73, Hadith 224
      Narrated Abu Huraira:

      Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “The most awful name in Allah’s sight on the Day of Resurrection, will be (that of) a man calling himself Malik Al-Amlak (the king of kings).

      Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s