JESUS SAID " I WAS SENT ONLY TO LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL"

[arah]

WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?

He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." Matthew
15:24

Matthew 10:6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

Matthew 15:23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to
him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to
bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."

Romans 15:8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the
Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the
patriarchs

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 2, 11:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?

Where did you get that information? It is all lies, Jesus told the
apostles he was sent to the Jews at that time. I been sent to New
Jersey and latter to Manila and later to China etc. we all are sent
some place for a limited time. We see the most important thing to
Jesus was to get his followers to preach the Gospel to Everyone in the
whole world, that sure shows why NON JEWS do follow Jesus as Jesus
made it his main action for His followers to reach everyone all NON
JEWS as well as JEWS and Gentiles etc.

>
> He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." Matthew
> 15:24
>
> Matthew 10:6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.
>
> Matthew 15:23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to
> him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
>
> Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to
> bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."

Just by using the word " FIRST " proves there was others that would
come later.

>
> Romans 15:8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the
> Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the
> patriarchs

It seems you use a verse out of context to make a false point. When
one puts the verse back into the whole of the verses that was given at
the same time, we read this

Rom 15:8-12

8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on
behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs

9 so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is
written:

"Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;
I will sing hymns to your name."

10 Again, it says,

"Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people."

11 And again,

"Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
and sing praises to him, all you peoples."

12 And again, Isaiah says,

"The Root of Jesse will spring up,
one who will arise to rule over the nations; NIV

Bishop R. Knapp

[Stephen Hawking]

JESUS NEVER MET A EWE HE WOULDN'T SCREW.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On Jan 2, 10:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:

"WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?

Mt 28:19 -Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost:


Notice: Name singular, three persons

[uragoner]

Islam is the 6th woe put on mankind from the greatest deciever as your
Koran
admits.... you call him Allah, the Bible calls him Lucifer, the god of
this
world,
2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds
of
them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of
Christ, who
is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Revelation 9:13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from
the
four horns of the golden altar which is before God,
14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four
angels
which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour,
and a
day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.
16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred
thousand
thousand: and I heard the number of them.
17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them,
having breastplates of fire,*(suicide vests) and of jacinth, and
brimstone:
and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of
their
mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.(fatwas,edicts and all the
other
virulent violence that foams out of the mouths of clerics, and imans
(as
toads out of their mouths in another place))
18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and
by the
smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails(the followers
of the imans and clerics)
: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with
them they do hurt.
20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet
repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship
devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of
wood:
which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk

Islam the false prophet of Revelation 16:13, and here in the book of
Daniel
in the Old Testament. Beware those who have been deceived by this
falsehood.

Daniel 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the
desire
of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
(Mohammed)
38 But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces: and a god whom
his
fathers(Abraham and the true Prophets) knew not shall he honor with
gold,
and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things (Mosques).
39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god
(Allah),
whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause
them

to rule
over many, and shall divide the land for gain.
40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him:
and
the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with
chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter
into
the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
41 He shall enter also into the glorious land (Israel), and many
countries
shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even
Edom,
and
Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the
land
of
Egypt shall not escape.
43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver,
and
over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the
Ethiopians
shall be at his steps.
44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him:
therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to
make
away many.
45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas
in
the glorious holy mountain(al aqsa in Jerusalem,oh yes and the dome of
the
rock...it did say tabernacles didn't it); yet he shall come to his
end, and
none shall help him.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
name.

Acts 2:37-39

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to
Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and
your children and for all who are far off — for all whom the Lord our
God will call." NIV

Notice: No persons or three anything. "in the name of Jesus
Christ. The term "persons" is only in Theology trying to
understand how God can be the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and be only
ONE GOD. Then we have no problem in calling our self a person. Never
three in one body, but we are seen as "Body, Soul and Spirit" in
yourself, then remember we are made in the image of God, not in
images.
Genesis 1:27
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
NIV
Genesis 9:6
6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
NIV

Yours in Christ Jesus,

Dr. R. Knapp

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he
hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without
doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity,
and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and
another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit
is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy
Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit
uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy
Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible,
but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy
Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit
Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to
acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are
three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but
begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor
created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three
Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is
greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the
Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also
believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds;
and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh
subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the
Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one
Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of
that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of
person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is
one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again
the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father,
God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and
they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully
he cannot be saved.

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sabellianism

SabellianismFrom OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Sabellianism, also known as modalism, is a heresy which states that
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one
God, rather than three distinct persons. Modalism's unitarian view of
God is commonly described by an analogy: water in its three states of
ice, liquid, and steam appear to be different substances, but in
reality they all are composed of the same chemical compound, H20.
Likewise, for Sabellians or modalists God the Father, Christ, and the
Holy Spirit appear to be three distinct persons, but they are really
just different manifestations of one solitary God.

The heresy is attributed to Sabellius, who taught a form of this
doctrine in Rome in the third century. Hippolytus of Rome, an early
Christian writer and martyr, knew Sabellius personally and mentioned
him in his Philosophumena (or Refutation of all Heresies). He knew
that Sabellius disliked Trinitarian theology, yet he called Modal
Monarchianism the heresy of Noetos, not that of Sabellius.
Sabellianism was embraced by Christians in Cyrenaica, to whom
Demetrius, Patriarch of Alexandria, wrote letters arguing against this
belief.

The chief opponent of Sabellianism was Tertullian, who labelled the
movement "Patripassianism," from the Latin words patris for "father",
and passus for "to suffer" because it implied that the Father suffered
on the Cross. The term was coined by Tertullian in his work Adversus
Praxeam, Chapter II, "By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the
devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he
put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father." (However,
it should be noted that the term in this context is used as an epithet
against Praxeas, an early anti-Montanist, and not here applied to
Sabellianism.)

Sabellius was excommunicated as a heretic by Pope Calixtus I in AD
220.

Today, Sabellianism, despite being rejected by the Church for nearly
1800 years, is accepted primarily by some Pentecostal groups, who are
sometimes referred to as Oneness Pentecostals or "Jesus Only"
Pentecostals.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

Anything a Pope is in has to be false. Sabellius was accepted for a
long time and like any teaching it has some truth and some errors. If
you accept the word of the catholic church or its Popes as truth, you
have a problem. Then I did not say anything was Sabellian or his
teachings, it was just bible and the verses to support it, I can find
people that would love their doctrines to be seen as true or false,
but to see verses and abilify such to some false teacher so called, is
a step to cultism.

>
> Today, Sabellianism, despite being rejected by the Church for nearly
> 1800 years, is accepted primarily by some Pentecostal groups, who are
> sometimes referred to as Oneness Pentecostals or "Jesus Only"
> Pentecostals.

And now number in the millions and in nations all over the world, and
thy do not see their teachings as being Sabellianism, such a link is
to dishonor the whole. I am sure if sabellian was alive he would say,
yes I believe in God, are we to dismiss all people that say they
believe in God has to be false and heretics?

[Dr. R. Knapp]

>  http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html- Hide quoted text -

Nice group of words and statements, only without expressions it is
useless and is just unproven statements, A total waste of web-space.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

HOW ANCIENT IS THE TRINITY DOCTRINE?
________________________________________

by Wesley P. Walters
As different as para-Christian groups or cults are from each other,
most have one thing in common: they hate the biblical teaching of the
Trinity. They want their God to be simplistic, uncomplicated, and less
complex than the world He created. They want a God reduced to terms
they can get their finite minds around.
Modern advances in science have shown that the created world is an
extremely complex mechanism. Those who work in nuclear physics or
molecular biology are continually discovering the complexity of the
world God has created.
In fact, some complex, seemingly contradictory data has yet to be
fitted into a rational system that explains the relationships. A
simple thing like "light" is known to move like "waves" yet strike
like "particles." Atomic physicists are still struggling to put
together a theory that can fully explain this apparent contradiction.
Those who work in the complex mathematical equations of quantum
mechanics are told by their instructors that "If you think that you
really understand quantum mechanics and how it applies to reality,
that proves you do not understand it." One of the basic theorems is
that if the speed of a particle is known, then its location can not be
known, and the more accurately you know its location, the less
accurately you know its speed. This does not seem very logical to the
average person, but it works very well in atomic physics, in which
scientists get very close to the essence of matter.
Thus, while scientists are continually learning more about how complex
and even apparently contradictory the world of created reality is,
cults that reject the complexity of the God who made this reality are
proliferating. They, along with Moslems and modern Jews, taunt
Christians, saying: "How can there be just one God, and yet the Father
be God, the Son be God and the Holy Spirit be God? Is He the Son of
Himself and the Father of both?"
Even though Christ Himself taught that the name [singular] of God in
which we baptize is Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), all
cults falsely assert that the doctrine of the Trinity is a teaching
that grew out of fourth century paganism. So unified are the cults in
this assertion that they appear to be using the same erroneous Church
history book and parroting one another.
The truth is that by the time of Christ, the first century A.D., the
Jews themselves, on the basis of the Old Testament, were coming to an
understanding of the complexity of Yahweh.
The Teachings of The Targums
When the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity 450 years before the
birth of Jesus, they had adopted Aramaic as their native language.
Although it is a dialect of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic is about as
different from it as modern Italian is from its classical Latin
ancestor. Consequently, during the first and early second centuries
A.D., Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Old Testament were made.
These translations, called Targums, were The Living Bibles of their
day, an interpretive paraphrase of Scripture. They help us see how
these first-century Jews understood their Old Testament.
One of the striking things these Targums show is that first century
Jews had come to understand the phrase "the Word of God" as referring
to a divine entity within God Himself, yet distinguishable at times
from God. J.W. Etheridge, in the introduction to his translations of
the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, has given us a number of examples
of this Jewish understanding of the term, "the Word" (Aramaic:
Memra).
In Genesis 18:1, where the Hebrew Bible says Yahweh (Jehovah) appeared
to Abraham, the Targum says, "The Word of the Lord appeared to
Abraham." Further on, where the Hebrew reports "Yahweh rained down
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of
heaven," the Targum states that "the Word of the Lord sent down upon
them sulphur and fire from the presence of the Lord out of
heaven." (Genesis 19:24)
In Genesis 16, when Hagar sees "the Angel of the Lord," the Targum
says she saw "the Word of the Lord." After seeing this "Word" (Memra)
she says, "Here has been revealed the glory of the Shekineh of the
Lord." Then, according to the Jerusalem Targum, "Hagar returned thanks
and prayed in the name of the Word of the Lord, who had appeared to
her." Thus the Word not only is regard- ed as the presence of deity,
but is in some manner personally distinguishable from the Lord.
In Genesis 28:20 the Targum of Onkelos paraphrases Jacob's vow, "If
God will be with me... then Yahweh will be my God" with the words, "If
the Word of the Lord will be my help... the Word of the Lord shall be
my God." Again, the Angel of Yahweh who spoke to Moses at the burning
bush (Exodus 3:14) is designated by the Jerusalem Targum as "the Word
of the Lord."
The distinct personality of this Divine Word is seen pointedly in
Jonathan's Targum of Isaiah 63:7-10. There, where the Hebrew text
speaks of Yahweh being their Savior, the Targum reads, "the Word
(Memra) was their Redeemer." (vs. 8) When the Israelites continued to
disobey, then "His Word (Memra) became their enemy, and fought against
them" -- an action ascribed to Yahweh in the Hebrew text. Again in
Isaiah 45:22 the Targum of Jonathan exhorts, "Look unto My Word and be
saved."
While this personalizing of the Word was being expressed in Palestine
in the Targums of Jesus' day, Philo, an Egyptian Jew and contemporary
of Jesus, was expressing similar thoughts in even more distinct words.
In his essay "On the Creation," Philo states that man was not made in
the image of some creature, but in the image of God's own uncreated
Word. He wrote: "for the Creator, we know, employed for its making no
pattern taken from among created things, but solely, as I have said,
His own Word."
Philo continues: "Man was made a likeness and imitation of the Word,
when the Divine Breath was breathed into his face. ("On the Creation,"
XLVIII: 139, Loeb Edition I, pp. 110-111)
In his work on Noah, Philo again expresses the teaching that man is
made by "the First Cause" (that is, God) in the image of "the Eternal
Word:" "Our great Moses likened the fashion of the rea- sonable soul
to no created thing, but averred it to be a genuine coinage of that
dread Spirit, the Divine and Invisible One, signed and impressed by
the seal of God, the stamp of which is the Eternal Word."
He continues: "...man has been made after the Image of God (Genesis
1:27), not however after the image of anything created... man's soul
having been made after the image of the Archetype, the Word of the
First Cause." ("Noah's Work as a Planter," I:18-20, Loeb III, pp.
222-223)
Thus, the eternal Word is in some sense distinguishable from God, and
yet at the same time is, like God, uncreated, rational and the bearer
of the divine image. This comes very close to the teaching of the New
Testament that the Word was distinguishable from God, and yet was God.
As John 1:1 expresses it, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God." It also appears similar to Paul's
teaching that the Son is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians
1:15); and the writer of Hebrews statement that the Son "is the exact
representation of His being." (Hebrews 1:3)
Philo, however, goes further. He says that God is the king and
shepherd of all creation, but rules and controls it through his
eternally existing Word, whom Philo calls God's "First-born Son."
His "hallowed flock" of created things God directs by his divine laws,
setting over it His true Word and first-born son, who shall take upon
Him its government like some viceroy of a great king. ("On Husbandry,"
I:51, Loeb III, pp. 134-135)
Philo has God expressing Himself in this manner: "I alone... sustained
the Universe to rest firm and sure upon the Mighty Word, who is My
viceroy." ("On Dreams," I:241, Loeb V, pp. 424- 425)
Therefore this eternal Word, God's first-born Son, is the upholder of
the whole creation, "the everlasting Word of the eternal God is the
very sure and staunch prop of the Whole. He it is, who extending
Himself from the midst to its utmost bounds... keeps up through all
its length Nature's unvanquished course, combining and compacting all
its parts. For the Father who begat Him constituted His Word such a
Bond of the Universe as nothing can break." ("Noah's Work as a
Planter," I:8-9, Loeb III, pp. 216-217)
This reflects the same thought that Paul expressed about the Son as
being the one "in whom all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17) It
also reminds also reminds us of Hebrews 1:3, which depicts the Son as
"sustaining all things by his powerful Word."
Philo continues his discussion of the Word by maintaining that to
those incapable of seeing the supreme cause, God Himself, He appears
to them in the form of His Angel, the Word: "For just as those who are
unable to see the sun itself, see the gleam of the parahelion and take
it for the sun, and take the halo round the moon for that luminary
itself, so some regard the image of God, His Angel, the Word, as His
very self." ("On Dreams," I:239, Loeb V, pp. 422-423) This sounds very
similar to the teaching tha t the Son is "the radiance (or outshining)
of God's glory" (Hebrews 1:3), the only part of God's nature that
people are allowed to see. This is true because "no one has ever seen
God," but "the only begotten God... He has made Him known." (John
1:18) Thus, Jesus, the Son, can say, "Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father." (John 14:9)
Philo further explained that God, being light, is "the archetype of
every other light." As such He is "prior to and high above every
archetype." Thus He holds the position of "a model of a model," that
is, He is the model for His Word, which Word becomes the model for
creation. The Word, therefore, contains all the qualities of God. As
Philo expressed it, "the model or pattern was the Word which contained
all His fullness -- light, in fact." ("On Dreams," I:75, Loeb V, pp.
336-337) Paul expressed a similar thought when he wrote that in the
Son all God's fullness dwells. (Colossians 1:19; 2:9)
To Philo, therefore, the Word of God is the eternal, uncreated Word
containing all the fullness of God and bearing His image. That divine
image which the Word bears is the image in which man was created. The
Word is further the sustainer, upholder and ruler of the world,
carrying on the governing of all things, as God's viceroy, and
containing all God's fullness.
While the Word is not a created thing and carries on all the functions
of God, Philo is clear that there are not two gods -- although he does
not attempt to explain how this can be. Philo's teaching is,
therefore, very close to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Philo
reached his conclusions without the aid of the New Testament and
certainly without deriving his ideas from pagan notions of deity. The
Old Testament teaching that the Angel of Yahweh is really the presence
of Yahweh Himself seems to have strongly influenced Philo's ideas.
To relegate the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, to a fourth-
century adaptation of paganism is to ignore the conclusions that
several Jewish theologians and teachers had reached four centuries
earlier, from God's revelations given to Israel before the time of the
coming of Christ. At the very time that the Word was becoming flesh
(John 1:1, 14), Jewish writers were already beginning to see that
God's Word could in some way be distinguished from God the Father
Himself, yet have all the fullness of God contained in Him.
________________________________________





http://prophecyarchive.com/ray/barr-family.com/godsword/trinity.htm

[duke]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:07:49 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:

>On Jan 2, 11:50�am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>
>Where did you get that information? It is all lies, Jesus told the
>apostles he was sent to the Jews at that time. I been sent to New
>Jersey and latter to Manila and later to China etc. we all are sent
>some place for a limited time. We see the most important thing to
>Jesus was to get his followers to preach the Gospel to Everyone in the
>whole world, that sure shows why NON JEWS do follow Jesus as Jesus
>made it his main action for His followers to reach everyone all NON
>JEWS as well as JEWS and Gentiles etc.

Say what?

duke, American - American

*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****

[duke]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:25:52 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:

>On Jan 2, 8:15�pm, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 10:50�am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>>
>> � Mt 28:19 -Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
>> � � � � � � � � �baptizing them in the name
>> � � � � � � � � �of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
>> Ghost:
>>
>> Notice: Name singular, three persons
>
>Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
>the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
>name.

Christians see one God in 3 persons.

[duke]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:29:18 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:

>Anything a Pope is in has to be false.

Anything a Pope is in started with his assignment by Jesus.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism

Divergent interpretations of the term "Catholic"Many individual
Christians and Christian denominations consider themselves "catholic"
on the basis, in particular, of Apostolic Succession. They fall into
five groups:

1.The Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, but which most
frequently refers to itself simply as the Catholic Church, considers
full communion with the Bishop of Rome an essential element of
Catholicism. Its constituent particular Churches (Western and Eastern)
have distinct and separate jurisdictions, while still being "in union
with Rome."[15]
2.Those, like the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, that claim
unbroken Apostolic Succession from the early Church and identify
themselves as the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox, but not the
Oriental, see themselves (along with the See of Rome) as part of a
patriarchal first-millennium structure that developed in the East into
the theory of the five patriarchal sees, but not in the West, which
preferred the theory of the three Petrine sees of Rome, Alexandria and
Antioch.[16][17][18][19] The title, "Patriarch of the West", was
rarely used by the popes until the 16th and 17th centuries, and was
included in the Annuario Pontificio from 1863 to 2005, being dropped
in the following year as never very clear, and having become over
history "obsolete and practically unusable".[18][19]
3.Those, like the Old Catholic, Anglican, and some Lutheran and other
denominations, that claim unbroken Apostolic Succession from the early
Church, and see themselves as a constituent part of the Church.
4.Those who claim to be spiritual descendants of the Apostles but have
no discernible institutional descent from the historic Church, and
normally do not refer to themselves as catholic.
5.Those who have acknowledged a break in Apostolic Succession, but
have restored it in order to be in full communion with bodies that
have maintained the practice. Examples in this category include the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in Canada vis-à-vis their Anglican and Old Catholic
counterparts.
For some confessions listed under category 3, the self-affirmation
refers to the belief in the ultimate unity of the universal church
under one God and one Saviour, rather than in one visibly unified
institution (as with category 1, above). In this usage, "catholic" is
sometimes written with a lower-case "c". The Western Apostles' Creed
and the Nicene Creed, stating "I believe in ... one holy catholic ...
church", are recited in worship services. Among some denominations in
category 3, "Christian" is substituted for "catholic" in order to
denote the doctrine that the Christian Church is, at least ideally,
undivided.[20][21][not in citation given][22]

[duke]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:41:50 -0800 (PST), jwshe...@satx.rr.com wrote:

>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism
>
>Divergent interpretations of the term "Catholic"Many individual
>Christians and Christian denominations consider themselves "catholic"
>on the basis, in particular, of Apostolic Succession. They fall into
>five groups:

>1.The Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, but which most
>frequently refers to itself simply as the Catholic Church, considers
>full communion with the Bishop of Rome an essential element of
>Catholicism. Its constituent particular Churches (Western and Eastern)
>have distinct and separate jurisdictions, while still being "in union
>with Rome."[15]

Not the Eastern Church, which became the Eastern Orthodox Church. And the
Western Church didn't become the RCC so until the EOC left.

You also failed to recognize that the RCC claims fully unbroken Apostolic
Succession.

>2.Those, like the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, that claim
>unbroken Apostolic Succession from the early Church and identify
>themselves as the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox, but not the
>Oriental, see themselves (along with the See of Rome) as part of a
>patriarchal first-millennium structure that developed in the East into
>the theory of the five patriarchal sees, but not in the West, which
>preferred the theory of the three Petrine sees of Rome, Alexandria and
>Antioch.[16][17][18][19] The title, "Patriarch of the West", was
>rarely used by the popes until the 16th and 17th centuries, and was
>included in the Annuario Pontificio from 1863 to 2005, being dropped
>in the following year as never very clear, and having become over
>history "obsolete and practically unusable".[18][19]

The EOC can't be fully apostolic succession because they broke with the Papacy.

>3.Those, like the Old Catholic, Anglican, and some Lutheran and other
>denominations, that claim unbroken Apostolic Succession from the early
>Church, and see themselves as a constituent part of the Church.
>4.Those who claim to be spiritual descendants of the Apostles but have
>no discernible institutional descent from the historic Church, and
>normally do not refer to themselves as catholic.
>5.Those who have acknowledged a break in Apostolic Succession, but
>have restored it in order to be in full communion with bodies that
>have maintained the practice. Examples in this category include the
>Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Evangelical Lutheran
>Church in Canada vis-à-vis their Anglican and Old Catholic
>counterparts.



>For some confessions listed under category 3, the self-affirmation
>refers to the belief in the ultimate unity of the universal church
>under one God and one Saviour, rather than in one visibly unified
>institution (as with category 1, above). In this usage, "catholic" is
>sometimes written with a lower-case "c". The Western Apostles' Creed
>and the Nicene Creed, stating "I believe in ... one holy catholic ...
>church", are recited in worship services. Among some denominations in
>category 3, "Christian" is substituted for "catholic" in order to
>denote the doctrine that the Christian Church is, at least ideally,
>undivided.[20][21][not in citation given][22]

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XIV/14-6.htm

Justification by Faith and the Identity of Antichrist

Justification by faith is not only that great New Testament light
which illuminates the meaning of the eschaton; it is the only light to
expose and identify the great antichrist who precedes the parousia.
Apart from the light of justification by faith, men invent all sorts
of speculations about last day events. So too, they look for an
antichrist who is drawn by carnal speculations.

The early church scanned the future in anticipation of the coming
antichrist who was depicted so strikingly by Daniel, Paul (2 Thess.)
and John the Revelator. It was generally thought that he would appear
on the scene after the fall of the Roman Empire. It is not surprising
that the early church had indistinct ideas about the great antichrist.

It is most significant that the evangelical church1 did not come to
any distinct or united conviction about the identity of antichrist
until the clear gospel light of justification by faith began to chase
away the shadows of the dark ages of the papacy. Not only did the
church of the Reformation come to a united understanding of
justification by faith, but at the same time it came to a united
understanding about the identity of antichrist. It is important,
indeed most urgent, that we realize this relationship between the
light on justification by faith and the identity of antichrist.

Now we do not contend that the Reformers were without fault in their
theology. There were points on which they could not agree among
themselves. But we had better give serious consideration to the points
on which the evangelical church reached total and united agreement.
Such unity is evidence of the Holy Spirit's endorsement. Says James
Buchanan:

Few things in the history of the Church are more remarkable than the
entire unanimity of the Reformers on the subject of a sinner's
Justification before God . . . and can only be accounted for by
ascribing it to a copious effusion of the Holy Spirit. — James
Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification (republished London: The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1961), pp. 165,166.
The same thing may be said about the Reformers' united testimony as to
the identification of antichrist. With one united voice they said that
the "man of sin" was the office of the papacy.

Nowadays many want to dismiss the Reformers' view of antichrist as
mere "polemics of a bygone era." But it was not a matter of ill will
in the midst of theological controversy. "This understanding of the
position and function of the papacy became an important part of
Luther's theology. It was not merely part of his polemic but apart
from all personal animosity a sincere theological conviction." —
George W. Forell, Faith Active in Love (Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub.
House, 1954), p.171. Said Luther, "You must be armed with Scripture so
that you cannot only call the pope the Anti-Christ but also know how
to prove it so clearly that you could die with this conviction and
stand against the devil in death." — Cited by Forell, ibid.

The reason why so many today cannot appreciate the united view of the
Reformers as to the identity of antichrist is that they do not see the
importance of justification by faith as the Reformers did. They do not
regard this doctrine as the great central article, as the very air
which Christians breathe. They do not recoil with horror to see this
doctrine adulterated or relegated to a position of only relative
importance.

To the Reformation church the papacy was the very antichrist, the
prophesied "man of sin," because it committed the ultimate impiety by
making war on justification by faith alone. Dr. F. Pieper expresses
the view of the Reformation when he writes in Christian Dogmatics:

There can be no greater enemy of the Church of God than the Papacy. In
and by the doctrine of justification the Church lives . . . Can
anything worse befall the Church than being robbed of the doctrine of
justification, by which alone she lives and exists? When the enemy
takes my earthly life, he can do me no greater harm in earthly
matters. And when the Pope has taken away the spiritual life of the
Church by robbing her of the doctrine of justification, the climax of
harm has been reached. (St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1950), Vol.2,
pp.553,554.
Said the renowned English expositor of the nineteenth century, Dr. H.
Grattan Guinness:

From the first, and throughout, that movement [the Reformation] was
energised and guided by the prophetic Word. Luther never felt strong
and free to war against the papal apostasy till he recognised the pope
as antichrist. It was then he burned the papal Bull. Knox's first
sermon, the sermon which launched him on his mission as a Reformer,
was on the prophecies concerning the Papacy. The Reformers embodied
their interpretation of prophecy in their confessions of faith, and
Calvin in his "Institutes". All the Reformers were unanimous in the
matter . . . And their interpretation of these prophecies determined
their reforming action . . . It nerved them to resist the claims of
that apostate church to the uttermost. It made them martyrs, it
sustained them at the stake. And the views of the Reformers were
shared by thousands, by hundreds of thousands. They were adopted by
princes and peoples... —H. Grattan Guinness, Romanism and the
Reformation (Toronto: S. R. Briggs, [n.d.]), pp.250-260.
The United Testimony of the Reformers as to the Identity of Antichrist

Let us now hear the united testimony of the Reformers, for their
system of prophetic interpretation became unchallenged in the
Protestant movement for three hundred years and actually became known
as "the Protestant system" of prophetic interpretation.

Martin Luther

We are convinced that the papacy is the seat of the true and real
Antichrist — D. Martin Luthers Werke, ed. Briefwechsel (Weimar,
1930-1948), Vol.2, p.167, cited in What Luther Says, ed. Ewald M.
Plass, Vol.1, p.34.

You should know that the pope is the real, true, final Antichrist, of
whom the entire Scripture speaks, whom the Lord is beginning to
consume with the spirit of His mouth and will very soon destroy and
slay with the brightness of His coming, for which we are waiting. — D.
Martin Luthers Werke, ed. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1883-),
Vol. 8, p.554., cited in Plass, op. cit, Vol.1, pp.36, 37.

John Calvin

Daniel and Paul had predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple
of God. The head of that cursed and abominable kingdom, in the Western
church, we affirm to be the Pope. When his seat is placed in the
temple of God, it suggests, that his kingdom will be such, that he
will not abolish the name of Christ or the Church. Hence it appears,
that we by no means deny that church may exist, even under his
tyranny; but he has profaned them by sacrilegious impiety, afflicted
them by cruel despotism, corrupted and almost terminated their
existence by false and pernicious doctrines; like poisonous potions,
in such churches, Christ lies half buried, the gospel is suppressed,
piety exterminated, and the worship of God almost abolished; in a
word, they are altogether in such a state of confusion, that they
exhibit a picture of Babylon, rather than of the holy city of God. —
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1960), Bk. 4, chap. 2, sec. 12.

Heinrich Bullinger

By the little horn many understand the kingdom of Mohammed, of the
Saracens and of the Turks . . . But when the apostolic prophecy in
Second Thessalonians 2 is more carefully examined, it seems that this
prophecy of Daniel and that prophecy of the apostle belong more
rightly to the kingdom of the Roman pope, which kingdom has arisen
from small beginnings and has increased to an immense size. —Trans.
from Heinrich Bullinger, Daniel Sapientissimus Dei Propheta (Daniel
the Most Wise Prophet of God), chap. 7, fol. 78v.

Nicholas Ridley

The head, under Satan, of all mischief is Antichrist and his brood;
and the same is he which is the Babylonical beast. The beast is he
whereupon the whore sitteth. The whore is that city, saith John in
plain words, which hath empire over the kings of the earth. This whore
hath a golden cup of abominations in her hand, whereof she maketh to
drink the kings of the earth, and of the wine of this harlot all
nations hath drunk; yea, and kings of the earth have lain by this
whore; and merchants of the earth, by virtue of her pleasant
merchandise, have been made rich.

Now what city is there in the whole world, that when John wrote, ruled
over the kings of the earth; or what city can be read of in any time,
that of the city itself challenged the empire over the kings of the
earth, but only the city of Rome, and that since the usurpation of
that See hath grown to her full strength? — Nicholas Ridley, A Piteous
Lamentation of the Miserable Estate of the Church in England, in the
Time of the Late Revolt from the Gospel, in Works, p.53.

Philip Melanchthon

18. Since it is certain that the pontiffs and the monks have forbidden
marriage, it is most manifest, and true without any doubt, that the
Roman Pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is very Antichrist.

19. Likewise in 2 Thess. II, Paul clearly says that the man of sin
will rule in the church exalting himself above the worship of God,
etc.

20. But it is certain that the popes do rule in the church, and under
the title of the church in defending idols.

21. Wherefore I affirm that no heresy hath arisen, nor indeed shall
be, with which these descriptions of Paul can more truly and certainly
accord and agree than with this pontifical kingdom . . .

25. The prophet Daniel also attributes these two things to Antichrist;
namely, that he shall place an idol in the temple, and worship [it]
with gold and silver; and that he shall not honor women.

26. That both of them belong to the Roman Pontiff, who does not
clearly see? The idols are clearly the impious masses, the worship of
saints, and the statues which are exhibited in gold and silver that
they may be worshiped. —Trans. from Philip Melanchthon, "De
Matrimonio," Disputationes, No.56, in Opera (Corpus Reformatorum), Vol.
12, cols. 535, 536.

John Hooper

Because God hath given this light unto my countrymen, which be all
persuaded, (or else God send them to be persuaded!) that the bishop of
Rome nor none other is Christ's vicar upon the earth; it is no need to
use any long or copious oration: it is so plain that it needeth no
probation; the very properties of antichrist, I mean of Christ's great
and principal enemy, is so openly known to all men, that are not
blinded with the smoke of Rome, that they know him to be the beast
that John describeth in the Apocalypse. — John Hooper, Declaration of
Christ and His Office, chap. 3, in Works, Vol. 1, pp.22, 23 (early
writings).

The Counter Reformation and the Origin of Futurism

Not only did the Reformers proclaim the mighty truth of justification
by faith for the liberation of men's souls, but they nerved thousands
to break from the tyranny of the dark ages of the papacy by clearly
identifying the antichrist of Bible prophecy. The symbols of Daniel,
Paul and John were applied with tremendous effect. The realization
that the incriminating finger of prophecy rested squarely on Rome
aroused the consciousness of Europe. In alarm Rome saw that she must
successfully counteract this identification of antichrist with the
papacy or lose the battle. She must present plausible arguments which
would cause men to look outside the medieval period for the
development of antichrist.

Jesuit scholarship rallied to the Roman cause by providing two
plausible alternatives to the historical interpretation of the
Protestants.

1. Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613) of Seville, Spain, devised what became
known as the "preterist" system of prophetic interpretation. This
theory proposed that the Revelation deals with events in the Pagan
Roman Empire, that antichrist refers to Nero and that the prophecies
were therefore fulfilled long before the time of the medieval church.
Alcazar's preterist system has never made any impact on the
conservative, or evangelical, wing of the Protestant movement,
although in the last one hundred years it has become popular among
Protestant rationalists and liberals.

2.Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) of Salamanca, Spain. took a far more
successful tack.

He was the founder of the "futurist" system of prophetic
interpretation. Instead of placing antichrist way in the past as did
Alcazar, Ribera argued that antichrist would appear way in the future.
About 1590 Ribera published a five hundred page commentary on the
Apocalypse, denying the Protestant application of antichrist to the
Church of Rome. The gist of his futurist system was as follows:

a. While the first few chapters in the Revelation were assigned to
ancient Rome in the time of John, the greater part of the prophecies
of the Revelation were assigned to the distant future, to events
immediately preceding the second coming of Jesus Christ.

b. Antichrist would be a single individual who would abolish the
Christian religion, rebuild the temple at Jerusalem and be received by
the Jews.

c. Antichrist's blasphemous work would continue for a literal three
and a half years.

d. The locale of the conflict with antichrist would be the Middle East
— i.e., Palestine.

Ribera's futurism was expanded and polished by later Catholic scholars
and became the genuinely "Catholic" system of prophetic
interpretation.

Roman Catholic author G. S. Hitchcock summarizes the genesis of
futurism and preterism as follows:

The Futuristic School, founded by the Jesuit Ribera in 1591, looks for
Antichrist, Babylon, and a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, at the end of
the Christian dispensation. The Praeterist School, founded by the
Jesuit Alcazar in 1614, explains the Revelation by the Fall of
Jerusalem, or by the fall of Pagan Rome in 410 A.D. — G. S. Hitchcock,
The Beasts and the Little Horn, p.7.
In 1898 English Protestant author Joseph Tanner made these
observations on the beginnings of futurism and preterism:

Accordingly, towards the close of the century of the Reformation, two
of her [Rome's] most learned doctors set themselves to the task, each
endeavouring by different means to accomplish the same end, namely,
that of diverting men 5 minds from perceiving the fulfillment of the
prophecies of the Antichrist in the Papal system. The Jesuit Alcazar
devoted himself to bring into prominence the Preterist method of
interpretation, which we have already briefly noticed, and thus
endeavoured to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled
before the Popes ever ruled at Rome, and therefore could not apply to
the Papacy. On the other hand the Jesuit Ribera tried to set aside the
application of these prophecies to the Papal Power by bringing out the
Futurist system, which asserts that these prophecies refer properly
not to the career of the Papacy, but to that of some future
supernatural individual, who is yet to appear, and to continue in
power for three and a half years. Thus, as Alford says, the Jesuit
Ribera, about A.D. 1580, may be regarded as the Founder of the
Futurist system in modern times. — Joseph Tanner, Daniel and the
Revelation (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1898), pp.16,17.
Ribera's futurism was polished and popularized by the great Catholic
controversialist, Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621) of Italy. This
astute prince of the church took up the battle against Protestantism
and became the foremost apologist for Rome in the Counter Reformation.
Bellarmine insisted that the prophecies concerning antichrist in
Daniel, Paul and John had no application to the papal power. Between
1581 and 1593 he published the most detailed defense of the Catholic
faith ever produced, called Disputationes de Controversies Christianae
Fidei Adversus Huius Temporis Haereticos. The third part of his
Disputationes was devoted to showing that antichrist is not the papacy
but a single man who will appear at the end of time. Said Bellarmine:

For all Catholics think thus that Antichrist will be one certain man;
but all heretics teach . . . that Antichrist is expressly declared to
be not a single person, but an individual throne or absolute kingdom,
and apostate seat of those who rule over the church. — Bellarmine, "De
Summo Pontifici," Disputationes, Bk. 3, chap. 2, p.185.
Bellarmine further said:

Nor can any one be pointed out who has been accepted for Antichrist,
who has ruledexactly three and one-half years; therefore the Pope is
not Antichrist. Then Antichrist has not yet come. — Ibid., chap. 8, p.
190.

The Pope is not Antichrist since indeed his throne is not in
Jerusalem, nor in the Temple of Solomon. — Ibid., chap. 13, p.195.
For nearly three hundred years the Protestant movement had no lack of
expositors who very ably defended the "Protestant," or historical,
school of prophetic interpretation. Until the nineteenth century,
Protestantism stood unitedly on the historical principle of prophetic
interpretation, and futurism therefore made no penetration within the
Protestant movement.

Futurism Enters English Protestantism

Futurism first entered Protestantism in nineteenth century England by
two seemingly widely separated developments.

1. The first was the appearance of a Romanizing tendency in the Church
of England. Briefly, the development was as follows:

a. Dr. Samuel R. Maitland (1792-1866), curate of Christ Church at
Gloucester and later librarian to the archbishop of Canterbury, was
the first notable Protestant scholar to accept the Riberan
interpretation of antichrist. Maitland held the Reformation in open
contempt and freely admitted that his view of prophecy coincided with
Catholic interpretation. His views were first published in 1826 and
received widespread study and interest.

b. James H. Todd (1805-1869), professor of Hebrew at the University of
Dublin, studied and accepted Maitland's futuristic views. He strongly
attacked the Reformers' historical system of prophetic interpretation.
Todd's views were published and widely circulated among the
theologians of his time.

c. John Henry Newman (1801-1890), famous High Church Anglican who was
converted to Rome and became a cardinal, was one of the leading
spirits in the renowned Oxford, or Tractarian, movement. Five years
before he joined the Church of Rome, Newman advocated Todd's futurism
in a tract called The Protestant Idea of Antichrist. Newman wrote:

We have pleasure in believing that in matters of Doctrine we entirely
agee with Dr. Todd . . . The prophecies concerning Antichrist are as
yet unfulfilled, and that the predicted enemy of the Church is yet to
come.
Through the publication and dissemination of thousands of tracts, the
Oxford movement leavened English Protestantism with the idea that the
Reformers' understanding of antichrist was untrustworthy. It
effectively diverted attention from Rome to some person to come in the
future.

2. About the same time as the development of the Oxford movement,
there was another development in England which played a decisive role
in bringing futurism within the Protestant movement. There was a
growing disenchantment with the deadness of the established churches,
a reaction against the spiritualizing tendency of postmillennialism
(with its tendency toward modernism and preterism) and a revival of
hope in the soon coming of Christ and the last things. Two religious
leaders played an important role in these developments:

a. Edward Irving (1792-1834), born in Scotland and a brilliant
Presbyterian preacher, became a noted expositor in the British Advent
Awakening. At first a historicist in his approach to the prophecies,
Irving came to adopt futuristic views. He despaired of the church
being able to complete her gospel commission by the ordinary means of
evangelism and began to believe and preach about the miraculous return
of the gifts and power of the early church.

In 1831 the "gift of tongues" and other "prophetic utterances" made
their appearance among his followers, first in Scotland among some
women and then in London. Irving never detected the imposture and gave
credence to these new revelations. Under the influence of these
revelations of "the Holy Ghost" "by other tongues," a new aspect was
added to the expectation of a future antichrist — the rapture of the
church before the advent of Christ. The novel origin of this novel
theory has embarrassed some of its advocates, and in the face of
certain lack of evidence heretofore, the defenders of this novel
theory have tried to deny its historical beginning. But the recent
discovery in a rare book of Rev. Robert Norton entitled The
Restoration of Apostles and Prophets; In the Catholic Apostolic
Church, published in 1861, establishes the origin of this innovative
doctrine beyond all question. Norton was a participant in the
Irvingite movement. The idea of a two-stage coming of Christ first
came to a Scottish lass, Miss Margaret Macdonald of Port Glasgow,
Scotland, while she was in a "prophetic" trance. Norton has actually
preserved Miss Macdonald's pretribulation vision and "prophetic"
utterance in his book. He says:

Marvellous light was shed upon Scripture, and especially on the
doctrine of the second Advent, by the revived spirit of prophecy. In
the following account by Miss M. M. —, of an evening during which the
power of the Holy Ghost rested upon her for several successive hours,
in mingled prophecy and vision, we have an instance; for here we first
see the distinction between that final stage of the Lord's coming,
when every eye shall see Him, and His prior appearing in glory to them
that look for Him. — Robert N. Norton, M.D., The Restoration of
Apostles and Prophets; In the Catholic Apostolic Church (1861), p.15 2

A little later the idea of the secret pretribulation rapture was
adopted and polished by the Plymouth Brethren in their founding
Powercourt Conferences of the 1830's. S. P. Tregelles, who
participated in the Powercourt Conferences, admits that the Brethren
obtained the idea of the rapture from the Irvingite movement. He
writes:
I am not aware that there was any definite teaching that there should
be a Secret Rapture of the Church at a secret coming until this was
given forth as an "utterance" in Mr. Irving's church from what was
then received as being the voice of the Spirit. But whether anyone
ever asserted such a thing or not it was from that supposed revelation
that the modern doctrine and the modern phraseology respecting it
arose. — S. P. Tregelles, The Hope of Christ's Coming, p.35, cited by
George L. Murray, Millennial Studies — A Search for Truth (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960), p.138.
b. John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), one of the prominent founders of the
movement often known as Plymouth Brethren, was not only an ardent
futurist, but he added another new dimension to the futuristic scheme—
dispensationalism. Says Oswald T. Allis in his book, Prophecy and the
Church:

The Dispensational teaching of today, as represented, for example, by
the Scofield Reference Bible, can be traced back directly to the
Brethren Movement which arose in England and Ireland about the year
1830. Its adherents are often known as Plymouth Brethren, because
Plymouth was the strongest of the early centres of Brethrenism. It is
also called Darbyism, after John Nelson Darby (1800-82), its most
conspicuous representative. The primary features of this movement were
two in number. The one related to the Church. It was the result of the
profound dissatisfaction felt at that time by many earnest Christians
with the worldliness and temporal security of the Church of England
and of many of the dissenting communions in the British Isles. The
other had to do with prophecy; it represented a very marked emphasis
on the coming of the Lord as a present hope and immediate expectation.
These two doctrines were closely connected.

1. The Parenthesis Church

The beginning of the Brethren doctrine regarding the Church is found
in the claim that an ordained ministry and eldership was not necessary
to the proper observance of the great central rite of the Christian
Church, the Lord's Supper. It was claimed that Christian believers
might meet together to break bread, without any ecclesiastical order
or government whatsoever. And since the New Testament speaks quite
definitely of the ordaining of elders, it was claimed that this
"professing church" which is characterized by a ministry or eldership
having "successive" or "derivative" authority was Jewish and Petrine,
and to be sharply distinguished from the Church described by Paul as a
"mystery," which is entirely unique, utterly distinct from Israel, a
heavenly body having no connection with the earth. So understood, the
Church age is to be regarded as a "parenthesis" between the Old
Testament kingdom of the past and the Old Testament kingdom of the
future, or in other words as constituting an "interruption" in the
fulfilment of the kingdom promises to Israel. This distinction between
the true (Pauline) Church and the professing (Petrine) church is of
fundamental importance.

2. The Any Moment Coming

Closely connected with the doctrine of the Church was the doctrine of
the Coming. Brethrenism had its beginnings at a time when there was
great interest in the doctrine of the second advent. Edward Irving had
stirred London by his flaming eloquence, declaring in sermon after
sermon that the Lord might come at any moment. The Brethren, who were
ardent Chiliasts, took the position that the Church as a heavenly body
had no connection with earthly events, that such events concerned
Israel and the nations, that the Church must live in constant
expectancy of the coming of the Lord, that no events of any kind must
be regarded as necessarily intervening between the Church and this any
moment expectancy, and particularly that the rapture of the Church
would certainly take place before the great tribulation.

This any moment doctrine of the coming had a natural and inevitable
consequence, which is of prime importance in Dispensational teaching.
It led to the discovery of a second hidden interval or parenthesis in
the course of redemptive history as set forth in the Bible. If the
Church has nothing to do with earthly events and may be raptured at
any moment, and if the Bible clearly refers to events which are to
precede the coming of Christ to the earth, the logical inference is
that there must be two aspects or "stages" of the coming: one which
concerns the Church only and is timeless and signless, and the other
which concerns the earth and will be separated from the former by an
interval during which the predicted events will take place.
Consequently, instead of adhering to the view that the rapture, the
catching up of the saints to meet the Lord in the air, would be
immediately or speedily followed by their return with Him to reign
over the earth, which was the view generally held at that time by
Premillennialists, the Brethren reached the conclusion that a sharp
distinction must be drawn between the coming of the Lord for the
saints (the rapture) and His coming with the saints (the appearing or
revelation). In between these two events, they claimed that they could
recognize an important interval of time; namely the 70th week of Dan.
ix., the second part of which they identified more or less exactly
with the events recorded in Rev. iv.-xix. Consequently, this second
parenthesis, as we may call it, between the rapture and the appearing,
is both a very necessary and also a distinctive feature of Brethren
teaching, almost if not quite as important as the Church parenthesis
referred to above.

3. The Jewish Remnant

Closely related to this teaching regarding the Church and the Coming
and indeed indispensable to it was the doctrine of the Jewish Remnant.
If the Church consists only of those who have been redeemed in the
interval between Pentecost and the rapture, and if the entire Church
is to be raptured, then there will be no Christians on earth during
the period between the rapture and the appearing. Yet during that
period 144,000 in Israel and an innumerable multitide from the
Gentiles (Rev. vii.) are to be saved. How is this to be brought about,
if the Church has been raptured and the Holy Spirit removed from the
earth? The answer to this question is found in the doctrine of the
Jewish remnant. After the rapture of the Church a Jewish remnant is to
proclaim the gospel of the kingdom and through the preaching of this
gospel multitudes are to be saved. . .

This Brethren Controversy, as we may call it, has now become largely a
thing of the past. The Plymouth Brethren are today one of the smallest
of Christian groups, and their distinctive conception of Church order
and government is very largely ignored. On the other hand, the fact
that many of the views of the Brethren (their conception of the Church
as a heavenly mystery and their prophetic program as a whole) are
fully accepted in Dispensational circles, are indeed characteristic of
Dispenationalism as such, has made Dispensationalism an issue of
greater or lesser importance in practically all evangelical
denominations at the present time . . .

Dispensationalism in America

The distinctive features of Brethrenism were fully developed and
formulated before the middle of the last century. Darby made his first
visit to Canada in 1859 and subsequently paid repeated visits to
Canada and the United States. In 1862 James Inglis of New York began
the publication of a monthly, Waymarks in the Wilderness, which helped
to spread the teachings of the Brethren on this side of the Atlantic.
One of the most influential advocates of this teaching was James H.
Brookes of St. Louis, whose Maranatha appeared about 1870 and passed
through many editions. But while Brookes' Dispensational views so
closely resemble those of the Brethren that it seems clear that they
were largely derived from them, Brookes gave no credit for them to
Darby or any other of the Brethren. This may be due to the fact that
there were associations with the name of Darby which Brookes wished to
avoid. But his attitude was characteristic of the movement as a whole.
Dispensationalists have accepted the prophetic teaching of the
Brethren, but until recently have shown themselves decidedly unwilling
to disclose the source from which they derived them. Brookes was
active in the summer conferences known as "Believers' Meetings for
Bible Study" which were commenced in the seventies, and also in the
Prophetic Conferences, the first of which was held in New York in
1878.

Without attempting to trace the history of Dispensationalism in
detail, it will suffice to point out that it has owed its rapid growth
in no small degree to two books, Jesus is Coming by "W.E.B.", and the
Scofield Reference Bible. Blackstone's Jesus is Coming was published
in 1878... The Scofield Reference Bible was published in 1909 and
revised in 1917. More than two million copies have been printed. It is
the Bible of Dispensationalists, and has probably done as much to
popularize the prophetic teachings of Darby and the Brethren as all
other agencies put together. That Scofield was indebted to the
Brethren for his Dispensational views cannot be questioned. He derived
them first indirectly, from Brookes, and then directly from the
Brethren and their writings. He held Darby's Synopsis, which is the
standard commentary among the Brethren, in high esteem; and in the
Introduction to the Reference Bible he acknowledged his indebtedness
to the Brethren Movement without expressly mentioning it, and made
special mention of the "eminent Bible teacher," Walter Scott, who was
a prominent figure among the Brethren. There are today scores of Bible
Schools and Institutes in this country and elsewhere, especially in
Canada, where Dispensational interpretation of the Bible is stressed
and the Scofield Reference Bible practically a textbook. And the
number of books and periodicals in circulation today which represent
this viewpoint is legion.—(Philadelphia: The Presbyterian & Reformed
Pub. Co., 1972), pp.9-14.

Two Outstanding Defenders of the Protestant Method of Prophetic
Exposition

When these developments in England were seriously eroding the
historical, or Protestant, system of prophetic interpretation, two
great opponents of futurism arose:

1. Edward Bishop Elliott (1793-1875), graduate of Cambridge in 1816,
produced a most elaborate work of 2,500 pages on the Apocalypse. He
exposed the fallacious interpretations which involved abandonment of
the Protestant position on antichrist, and attacked the Romanizing
tendencies in the Tractarian movement. It was Elliott who presented a
thorough, documented history of the rise of futurism and preterism
from Jesuit sources.

2. Dr. Henry Graflan Guinness (1835-1910) of London published nine
major works on prophecy between 1878 and 1905. Alarmed by the inroads
of the futurist school of counterinterpretation stemming from the
Jesuits, Guinness mounted a tremendous defense of the historical
school of Protestant view, which holds to the progressive fulfillment
of prophecy from John's time to the second advent.

A Summarized Appraisal

In the last one hundred years the Protestant movement has largely
abandoned the prophetic convictions of historic Protestantism and has
opted for theories which have their origin with the Jesuits. The
liberal wing of the Protestant movement, often denying the inspiration
of the Bible or spiritualizing away its most pointed truths, have
adopted the preterist view of prophecy, first espoused by Jesuit
Alcazar. But the right wing of Protestantism, espousing an extreme
literalism in reaction against the liberals, have taken over Ribera's
futurism, and in some circles they have made it a part of "evangelical
orthodoxy." This represents a remarkable triumph of the theories of
Rome's Counter Reformation.

Above all, we need to see the reason why Protestantism has swerved
away from her historic prophetic convictions. It is because the great
truth of justification by faith is no longer at the center of the
church's attention. As we will see in the next article, that truth has
been buried by an earthly, man-centered vision. Says Dr. Francis
Pieper:

What, then, may be the reason that men are today disinclined to
recognize the Pope as the Antichrist? Whence this strange and
deplorable phenomenon, that nearly all recent "believing" theologians
search about for the Antichrist while he is performing his work in the
Church right before their eyes, his soul-destroying activity as plain
as day? The trouble is that they have no living knowledge of the
doctrine of justification and of the importance of this doctrine for
the Church. From my own experience I must confess that I was vitally
convinced that the Pope is the Antichrist only after I realized, on
the one hand, what the doctrine of justification is and how much it
means to the Church, and, on the other hand, that the real essence of
the Papacy consists in denying and cursing the doctrine of
justification . . .

Most modern Protestant theologians have adopted the Roman view of the
doctrine of justification, as Doellinger pointed out in his lectures
on the reunion of the Christian Church. — Pieper, op. cit., Vol.2, pp.
554, 555.
—————————————

Footnotes:

1 We use this term to distinguish the true Christian community as a
whole.
2 Those wishing a thorough documentation of these facts should obtain
a copy of Dave MacPherson's The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin (Heart of
America Bible Society, Inc., 5528 Lydia St., Kansas city, Mo. 64110).

[duke]

>To the Reformation church the papacy was the very antichrist, the
>prophesied "man of sin," because it committed the ultimate impiety by
>making war on justification by faith alone.

[duke]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 05:53:49 -0800 (PST), jwshe...@satx.rr.com wrote:

>To the Reformation church the papacy was the very antichrist, the
>prophesied "man of sin," because it committed the ultimate impiety by
>making war on justification by faith alone. Dr. F. Pieper expresses
>the view of the Reformation when he writes in Christian Dogmatics:

1. What does justification mean?
2. What is justification by faith "alone".
3. Why would said reformers who came along 1600 years after the people of the
New Way be correct in their assessment and not those that knew Jesus?

[JESUS CHRIST]

On Jan 2, 7:41 pm, Stephen Hawking <perryneh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> JESUS NEVER MET A EWE HE WOULDN'T SCREW.

===============

If you had an ass, Hawking, I'd kick it into apple butter!

Please get those fetid diapers changed, and I hope your colostomy
doesn't break!

Heh-heh.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 4, 8:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:07:49 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 2, 11:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>
> >Where did you get that information?  It is all lies, Jesus told the
> >apostles he was sent to the Jews at that time.  I been sent to New
> >Jersey and latter to Manila and later to China etc. we all are sent
> >some place for a limited time.  We see the most important thing to
> >Jesus was to get his followers to preach the Gospel to Everyone in the
> >whole world, that sure shows why NON JEWS do follow Jesus as Jesus
> >made it his main action for His followers to reach everyone all NON
> >JEWS as well as JEWS and Gentiles etc.
>
> Say what?

So sorry duke you do not have the ability to understand such matters.


>
> duke, American - American

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 4, 8:26 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:25:52 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 2, 8:15 pm, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> >> On Jan 2, 10:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> "WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>
> >> Mt 28:19 -Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
> >> baptizing them in the name
> >> of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
> >> Ghost:
>
> >> Notice: Name singular, three persons
>
> >Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
> >the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
> >name.
>
> Christians see one God in 3 persons.

Then everyone that lives sees man who is made in the image of God as
body, soul and spirit, and in 1 person. You never can put God into a
box or the terms of the Catholic church. Christians see the doctrine
that is acceptable as one God in Three persons, then the Bible never
used those terms only the R.C.C that started it long after the
Apostles died said it was so. The I have no problem with that as it
was not the subject of these postings. Also duke that doctrine makes
Jesus as God not just a person as you want him to be and your denying
He is God. I know of a group that is called Trinity also and have
God as having three bodies which each person than have a body soul and
spirit, making in all 9 (NINE) in the 3 in 1 of the trinity. You can
find that teaching in the Bible that was written notes by Dr. Drake
and is on sale in most Christian book stories.
.
Rev. R. Knapp

>
> duke, American - American
>
> *****
> 1 John 3:4-6
> 4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fac

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 4, 1:45 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:29:18 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >Anything a Pope is in has to be false.
>
> Anything a Pope is in started with his assignment by Jesus.

Kind of self promoting, the Pope says if he said it, it came from
Jesus, only Jesus never met a POPE as there was none at the time Jesus
walked on this earth.
So anything a Pope says is now from God, that is interesting, even
when he uses the toilet and wants to eat, or sleep every word he says
is by you from Jesus, that is strange you need to pray and ask Mary
for permission to even get your prayers to Jesus. Does Mary have to
ask the Pope to let her hear your prayers, or the Hail Mary you all
like so much?

You need to ask the Pope for permission to post here, as He may not
like what you say, and since you did not get the permission that Jesus
was suppose to give him for you to even open you mouth or write a
word, your in deep trouble. Enjoy your ignorance it will not get you
anyplace near a pope or God. Oh yes, I seen one of your Popes once
in person in the Philippines. He was just a few hundred feet from me
at that time. He was blessing everyone that came to hear him that
day, interesting that I was in that group and you were no where to be
found.

Pastor R. Knapp

>
> duke, American - American

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, 1558
We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is
called the 'Law,' the other the 'Gospel.' For all the rest can be
gathered under the one or other of these two headings...Ignorance of
this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal
sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity.

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/lawgospel.htm

Law

A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

For each mitzvah, I have provided a citation to the biblical passage
or passages from which it is derived, Tracey R Rich

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

Gospel

Ro 10:9 -That if thou shalt confess
with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart
that God hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved.

[duke]

With that explanation, you won't understand it yourself. The way I see it, if
you were a Christian, you wouldn't call yourself a non-Jew.

[duke]

Your response purpose is confusing.

However, he who confesses Jesus is Lord (has authority over us) and believes in
him runs like hell away from sin, which is to tell God that you are his equal in
decisions of right v wrong.

[duke]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 20:35:12 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:

>On Jan 4, 8:26 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:25:52 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 2, 8:15 pm, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
>> >> On Jan 2, 10:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> "WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>>
>> >> Mt 28:19 -Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
>> >> baptizing them in the name
>> >> of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
>> >> Ghost:
>>
>> >> Notice: Name singular, three persons
>>
>> >Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
>> >the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
>> >name.
>>
>> Christians see one God in 3 persons.

>Then everyone that lives sees man who is made in the image of God as
>body, soul and spirit, and in 1 person.

Jesus the man is the closest image we've ever had of God.

>You never can put God into a
>box or the terms of the Catholic church.

You're the one that puts him in a box and hides from his teachings.

> Christians see the doctrine
>that is acceptable as one God in Three persons, then the Bible never
>used those terms only the R.C.C that started it long after the
>Apostles died said it was so. The I have no problem with that as it
>was not the subject of these postings.

Yes, the Father + the Son + the Holy Spirit = God. That's basic Christianity as
canonized by the Catholic Church.

> Also duke that doctrine makes
>Jesus as God not just a person as you want him to be and your denying
>He is God.

Actually, God became flesh in the person of Jesus. Although Jesus had a dual
nature, a divine one and a human one, he emptied himself of his knowledge as
divine in order to learn what it meant to be human.

Philippians 2:6-8 (New International Version)
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

> I know of a group that is called Trinity also and have
>God as having three bodies which each person than have a body soul and
>spirit, making in all 9 (NINE) in the 3 in 1 of the trinity. You can
>find that teaching in the Bible that was written notes by Dr. Drake
>and is on sale in most Christian book stories.

>Rev. R. Knapp

No thanks. I'm a Christian.

>
>
>>
>> duke, American - American
>>
>> *****
>> 1 John 3:4-6
>> 4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fac
>> sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
>> appeared so that he might take away our sins.
>> And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
>> him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
>> sin has either seen him or known him.
>> *****

duke, American - American

*****
1 John 3:4-6

4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,

[duke]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 20:55:02 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:

>On Jan 4, 1:45 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:29:18 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Anything a Pope is in has to be false.
>>
>> Anything a Pope is in started with his assignment by Jesus.
>
>Kind of self promoting, the Pope says if he said it, it came from
>Jesus, only Jesus never met a POPE as there was none at the time Jesus
>walked on this earth.

Silly man, Jesus gave the first assignment of Pope to Simon Peter himself. Mat
16:13-19.

>So anything a Pope says is now from God, that is interesting, even
>when he uses the toilet and wants to eat, or sleep every word he says
>is by you from Jesus, that is strange you need to pray and ask Mary
>for permission to even get your prayers to Jesus.

You're sick and disgusting to boot. I would recommend your entire flock to dump
you forever.

> Does Mary have to
>ask the Pope to let her hear your prayers, or the Hail Mary you all
>like so much?

Wow, you have a friend in satan for sure.

>You need to ask the Pope for permission to post here, as He may not
>like what you say, and since you did not get the permission that Jesus
>was suppose to give him for you to even open you mouth or write a
>word, your in deep trouble. Enjoy your ignorance it will not get you
>anyplace near a pope or God. Oh yes, I seen one of your Popes once
>in person in the Philippines. He was just a few hundred feet from me
>at that time. He was blessing everyone that came to hear him that
>day, interesting that I was in that group and you were no where to be
>found.
>
>Pastor R. Knapp
>
>>
>> duke, American - American

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On Jan 6, 6:56 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

"Jesus gave the first assignment of Pope to Simon Peter himself"

Mt 16:23 -But he turned, and said unto Peter,
Get thee behind me, Satan:
, thou art an offence unto me:
for thou savourest not the things that be of God,
but those that be of men.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On Jan 6, 6:42 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

"Your response purpose is confusing."

Law and the Christian
Geoffrey J. Paxton

Part II

The Harmony of Law and Grace

Legalism is the enemy of grace because of a faulty view of the law,
and antinomianism is the enemy of law because of its false view of
grace. Legalism neglects the "grace basis" of law, and antinomianism
neglects the "law basis" of grace. We must now expound what these
expressions signify.

Law has a "grace basis." Law, as that authority under which man has
his existence, is a loving provision of God. As far as the Bible is
concerned, man is free when he is under God's authority. The law of
God is the order of man's existence, and man is free when he lives in
conformity to that order. One of the first steps to good health is to
be in tune with reality. The prodigal illustrates this point. He
thought he would be free once he was outside the authority of his
father, so he set out on his "trip of emancipation." However, he came
to himself when he started to reflect upon the condition of his
father's servants. He made his way back to request that he become a
servant, for he knew that freedom consisted in being committed to his
father. The law of God is not a harsh, alien law which destroys man's
personhood, as some have wrongly imagined. It is that law which allows
man to be his "true" self. Man was created free because man was
created subject to the authority (law) of God.

It is not surprising, therefore, to see grace as the basis of the Ten
Commandments: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land
of Egypt . . . " (R.S.V.). This statement of fact prefaces the demands
which Jehovah makes upon His people. They are to behave in a certain
way because Jehovah has rescued them. In terms of concrete realities,
the Ten Commands expound what being rescued means.

The situation is not different when we come to the New Testament. Let
Romans 12:1 act as a typical text: "Therefore, my brothers, I implore
you by God's mercy . . . " (N.E.B.). The "therefore" and the "by God's
mercy" root and ground the demand in the unmerited and undeserved
rescue activity of God in saving His people from the pigpen.

The legalist misses this order and therefore fails to understand the
true nature of law. He seeks to make the kindness and favor of God
dependent upon his keeping the law, instead of seeing that the
obligation to keep the law rests upon the favor of God. Law is based
on grace.

What is meant when we say that grace has a law basis? Let us seek to
answer the question by asking another: On what basis does God accept
the believer? Two quite wrong answers have been given to this
question: first, the legalist's answer, which puts the emphasis upon
the obedience of man; and second, the antinomian's answer, which says
that the angry judge (God) was placated (or won over) by the merciful
mediator, Jesus Christ.

The only answer which will do justice to the Bible is that the love of
God was demonstrated in His saving activity in Jesus Christ. Jesus
Christ met the demands of the law of God by that perfect and perpetual
obedience seen in His life and death. The incarnation of the Son of
God honored the law of God. Such honoring of God's law (obedience,
active and passive) is the ground on which God accepts us. This is
what we mean when we speak of the "legal basis" of grace.

The antinomian fails to see the true harmony between law and grace,
and conceives grace as the negation of the law. He not only dishonors
the law, but grace also.

The failure to perceive this harmony of law and grace has led to a sad
misrepresentation of the character of God. When the love of God is
spoken of apart from the law, then God is seen as One who does not
care for justice. This is not the God and Father of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ. When the justice of God is spoken of apart from
His loving activity in Christ, then God is seen as an angry judge
mercilessly exacting payment for the failures of men and women. The
God and Father of Jesus Christ our Rescuer, is neither unjust (for He
has honored the law) nor unloving (for He has honored the law for us).
He is the Just and Loving One.

In summary: We must guard grace from distortion by a wrong view of the
law. We must also guard law from a misconception of grace. The
legalist expresses a misconception of law and thereby degrades grace,
and the antinomian voices a false view of grace and thereby does
damage to law. The law must be viewed in the light of grace (the grace
basis of law), and grace must be seen in the light of law (the law
basis of grace).

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/VII/7-5p2.htm

[arah]

Jwsheffi,

Correct me if I am wrong

Didn't Jesus said Peter is a liar?

Matthew 26:34


New International Version (©1984)
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the
rooster crows, you will disown me three times."

Luke 22:61 The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter
remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: "Before the rooster
crows today, you will disown me three times."

John 13:38 Then Jesus answered, "Will you really lay down your life
for me? I tell you the truth, before the rooster crows, you will
disown me three times!

How can we trust Peter????

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On Jan 6, 11:41 am, arah <arah1...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Jwsheffi,

Correct me if I am wrong"

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him,
I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father,
but by me.

[Steve Hawking]

========

FUCK YOU, jesus, and your whore mother and HIV+ father, too!

At least I exist, unlike the fictional, unreal, unholy ass-wipe you
are.

Go suck Judas's dick!

[vince garcia]

DUKE’S UNIVERSALIST HERESY EXPOSED

Listen to Catholic Answers say "Oh dear!" when I repeat Duke's very
words on how Jews, Moslems, and even ATHEISTS are saved if they live
Godly: And to him, “Godly” means “Keep the 10 commandments”
as he has repeatedly said about himself, jews, moslems, and others!

Duke:
>The Jews aren't going to hell any more than
> the Christians. But all bad men will be.

Duke:
> Salvation is for anyone who lives Christ-like" regardless of
> faith - Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, atheist.

Duke:
> I have the words of the RCC behind my words that salvation is
> for the Christ-like, regardless of religious faith.

Duke:
>I heard a homily by a priest where he said Jews are saved by
> keeping the 10 commandments. Christians are saved by following Jesus.

Duke:
> Jesus told the Jews that would live for keeping the 10 commandments.

Duke:
>Obedience should bring them eternal life as they are obeying God.

Duke:
> They're saved by following the 10 commandments faithfully.

Apostle Paul:
Gal 3:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law,
but by THE FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works
of the law: for by the works of the law shall NO flesh be justified.



Duke:
> I am more convinced that ever that God will save every man, woman and child he
> possibly can, regardless of their religious faith or their general sins, as long
> as they faithfully follow him in THEIR OWN WAY. [My emphasis]


HOW MANY ATHEISTS KEEP THE 10 COMMANDMENTS?!

I don’t know any atheists who keep the Sabbath commandment.
Yet Duke says you must keep the 10--including the Sabbath command
to be saved, and quotes Matthew 19 to that effect.

> The Gospel says that "salvation is of those that are Christ-like.” And now you
> know what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is. You and vince can call Catholic
> Answers on that one.

Duke:
> Please, please, please do contact Catholic Answers if you don't believe me.


Well, I did. Here are the results where they agree with ME and say YOU
are wrong!

Hear them say what I've told Duke for years: To have a chance for a jew
or moslem to be saved, he must be INVINCIBLY IGNORANT of the gospel, not
"Salvation is for anyone hwo lives Christ-like regardless of faith -
Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, atheist" as duke claims.

Did you get that, Duke?

Hear them state Jews must be “INVINCIBLY IGNORANT OF THE GOSPEL”
to have a chance at salvation.

Let’s see what the REAL Catholic Church says about Duke’s false
doctrine:


"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes
and preaches that none of those existing outside the
Catholic Church, not only pagans, BUT ALSO JEWS and
heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal;
but that they will go into the eternal fire which was
prepared for the devil and his angels, UNLESS BEFORE
DEATH they are joined with Her; and that so important
is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those
remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments
of the Church unto salvation and they alone can receive
an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings,
their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a
Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great
as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the
Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within
the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
-- Pope Eugene IV From his Bull Cantate Domino, 1441


Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the
Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is
spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is
possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession
of any kind of religion, AS LONG AS MORALITY IS MAINTAINED.
--ENCYCLICAL OF POPE GREGORY XVI

Compare that to Duke’s abominable theology:

Duke:
> Salvation is for anyone who lives Christ-like" regardless of
> faith - Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, atheist.

Duke:
> All people that respond positively to the teachings of Jesus, from pagan to
> Jew to Muslim to Christian who live the right life can be saved.


Hear Catholic Answers specifically deny jews are saved one way, and
Christians
by another as Duke teaches.


Check the Monday nov 21 show, 1st caller.

http://www.catholic.com/radio/calendar

So AGAIN--we have Duke making up his own doctrine about how "all israel
will be saved" means the Jews are goling to heaven, and REAL
catholicapologists contradicting it and saying just what I've been
trying to get into his addled brain


DUKE’S NESTORIAN HERESY EXPOSED...

Nestorianism is a Christological doctrine advanced by Nestorius,
Patriarch of Constantinople from 428–431. The doctrine, which was
informed by Nestorius's studies under Theodore of Mopsuestia at the
School of Antioch, emphasizes the disunion between the human and divine
natures of Jesus.

Duke follows and teaches this heresy, claiming that because Jesus was
fully human, so his human nature did not know of His Divine nature
during His life except, perhaps, at the very end of His ministry.

Duke:
>Either Jesus didn’t know about His divine nature, or if He did, it was only toward
> the end of His ministry.

Duke:
> Nobody knows when Jesus may have come to know of his
> divine nature, but the RCC thinks it was likely just prior to the
> cross, or as I've read.

Duke:
> Jesus emptied himself of his divine self.

Hear the host and apologist at Catholic Answers AGHAST at such heresy
spoken by an alleged Catholic.

This sort of heresy is unrepentant Mortal sin denying a key dogma of the
Church
on the Trinity and Hypostatic Union.

So feel free to listen to the Tues July 25, second show 40:30 into it as
the apologist and host go "Oo!" and "Wow!" in shock, and hit the "that
sounds like heresy" button as I repeat what Duke posts regularly here:
that Jesus either did not know of His divine nature at all, or else knew
just before the cross.

Duke:

>They don't have a heresy button

Listen and Judge for yourself

http://www.catholic.com/radio/calendar

On this, there "isn't really any debate; the church is clear on this
issue" ...except for duke who denies Catholic Dogma in favor of his own.

In fact, the catechism says he should not be be able to receive
Communion because of his beliefs:

1355 In the communion, preceded by the Lord's prayer and the breaking of
the bread, the faithful receive "the bread of heaven" and "the cup of
salvation," the body and blood of Christ who offered himself "for the
life of the world":181

Because this bread and wine have been made Eucharist ("eucharisted,"
according to an ancient expression), "we call this food Eucharist, and
no one may take part in it UNLESS HE BELIEVES WHAT WE TEACH IS TRUE, has
received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in
keeping with what Christ taught."

Duke doesn’t believe what the church teaches is true. he believes in his
own doctrines.


There is a technical term for those Catholics who wish to follow
the dictates of their conscience when it comes to matters of Faith and
Morals, especially in those areas where the doctrines and dogmas have
been made plain. They are called "Protestants".
-- pyotr filipivich

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

[vince garcia]

[vince garcia]

[vince garcia]

[vince garcia]

[vince garcia]

[duke]

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 09:29:41 -0800 (PST), jwshe...@satx.rr.com wrote:

>On Jan 6, 6:42 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

>"Your response purpose is confusing."

>In summary: We must guard grace from distortion by a wrong view of the
>law. We must also guard law from a misconception of grace. The
>legalist expresses a misconception of law and thereby degrades grace,
>and the antinomian voices a false view of grace and thereby does
>damage to law. The law must be viewed in the light of grace (the grace
>basis of law), and grace must be seen in the light of law (the law
>basis of grace).
>
>http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/VII/7-5p2.htm

Yes, all peoples of all faiths are called to an understanding that the Father
comes to all of us spiritually and to give us some share in the infinite merits
of the suffering and death of his son, Jesus Christ.

[duke]

Heb 4:15 - Jesus alone never sinned. So all of us are sinners because as the
last part of Mat 16:23 says, we are all satan-oriented for we're more interested
in human issues rather than the concerns of God.

Matthew 16:23 (New International Version)
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling
block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human
concerns.”

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 6, 7:52 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 20:35:12 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> > >> >> Notice: Name singular, three persons
>
> >> >Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
> >> >the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
> >> >name.
>
> >> Christians see one God in 3 persons.
> >Then everyone that lives sees man who is made in the image of God as
> >body, soul and spirit, and in 1 person.
>
> Jesus the man is the closest image we've ever had of God.

And you know that, how, have you a image of Jesus and one of the
Father God? Jesus did say if one seen Jesus they seen the Father.
No one has a image of Jesus the man, so what image or you looking at?

>
> >You never can put God into a
> >box or the terms of the Catholic church.
>
> You're the one that puts him in a box and hides from his teachings.

I do not have a image on a cross around my neck you may have and you
purchase that in a box at the store, not I. There is no image of
Jesus, but you and the Catholic church keeps that image hanging on the
cross, that is why Protestants use a empty cross, as Jesus was removed
from the Cross and rose from the dead and is no longer in a box at the
store for you to hang around your neck.

> Yes, the Father + the Son + the Holy Spirit = God.  That's basic Christianity as
> canonized by the Catholic Church.

So some church canonized it so what, means nothing God never gave them
permission. Are you saying the Catholic church made up the doctrine
and is only the mind of some old priest, and nothing more? The Bible
says The Father, Son and Holy GHOST, then that name is found in every
Proestant Church teaching and is found in the Holy Bible.

>
> > Also duke that doctrine makes
> >Jesus as God not just a person as you want him to be and your denying
> >He is God.
>
> Actually, God became flesh in the person of Jesus.  Although Jesus had a dual
> nature, a divine one and a human one, he emptied himself of his knowledge as
> divine in order to learn what it meant to be human.

No he did not, one can not empty oneself, just because one does not
want to be human, they can not remove being human. Now your doctrine
of Mary being able to pray to Jesus which you point out here was a
human, you have nothing, Jesus had to be human not some empty divine
person. He was both God and Man you can not understand that as you
are only human, and God is Spirit and how God does things, no human
can fully understand.

>
> Philippians 2:6-8 (New International Version)
>  6 Who, being in very nature God,
>    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
> 7 rather, he made himself nothing
>    by taking the very nature of a servant,
>    being made in human likeness.
> 8 And being found in appearance as a man,
>    he humbled himself
>    by becoming obedient to death—
>       even death on a cross!
>
> > I know of a group that is called Trinity also and have
> >God as having three bodies which each person than have a body soul and
> >spirit, making in all 9 (NINE) in the 3 in 1 of the trinity.  You can
> >find that teaching in the Bible that was written notes by Dr. Drake
> >and is on sale in most Christian book stories.
> >Rev. R. Knapp
>
> No thanks.  I'm a Christian.

NO NO NO you are a Catholic not a Christian.

[duke]

On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 20:04:47 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:

>On Jan 6, 7:52 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 20:35:12 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> Notice: Name singular, three persons
>>
>> >> >Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
>> >> >the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
>> >> >name.
>>
>> >> Christians see one God in 3 persons.
>> >Then everyone that lives sees man who is made in the image of God as
>> >body, soul and spirit, and in 1 person.

>> Jesus the man is the closest image we've ever had of God.

>And you know that, how, have you a image of Jesus and one of the
>Father God? Jesus did say if one seen Jesus they seen the Father.
>No one has a image of Jesus the man, so what image or you looking at?

It's basic Christianity, rk. God became flesh to show other flesh the way to
the Father. No one has ever seen the Father, or the divine Jesus, or the Holy
Spirit. But man has seen God become Jesus the man. That does not mean how tall
he was, or the color of his hair, or the size of his nose. It's means "we have
seen the man Jesus" whom we profess to possess an unseen divine nature.

>> >You never can put God into a
>> >box or the terms of the Catholic church.

>> You're the one that puts him in a box and hides from his teachings.

>I do not have a image on a cross around my neck you may have and you
>purchase that in a box at the store, not I.

Why not. His saving action for us was his death on the cross, not his
resurrection, in which he needed the Father to do.

> There is no image of
>Jesus, but you and the Catholic church keeps that image hanging on the
>cross, that is why Protestants use a empty cross, as Jesus was removed
>from the Cross and rose from the dead and is no longer in a box at the
>store for you to hang around your neck.

His saving action was not his resurrection.

>> Yes, the Father + the Son + the Holy Spirit = God.  That's basic Christianity as
>> canonized by the Catholic Church.

>So some church canonized it so what, means nothing God never gave them
>permission.

Sure he did. But you don't know what "to canonize" means.

> Are you saying the Catholic church made up the doctrine
>and is only the mind of some old priest, and nothing more?

What doctrine?

> The Bible
>says The Father, Son and Holy GHOST, then that name is found in every
>Proestant Church teaching and is found in the Holy Bible.

Yes, I know. The Catholic Church canonized those books.

>> > Also duke that doctrine makes
>> >Jesus as God not just a person as you want him to be and your denying
>> >He is God.

>> Actually, God became flesh in the person of Jesus.  Although Jesus had a dual
>> nature, a divine one and a human one, he emptied himself of his knowledge as
>> divine in order to learn what it meant to be human.

>No he did not, one can not empty oneself, just because one does not
>want to be human, they can not remove being human.

Another flagrant misquote of the bible that you don't know.

Philippians 2:6-8 (New International Version)

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing

by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,

being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Catechism of the Catholic Church
472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human
knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was
exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This
is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in
stature, and in favour with God and man",101 and would even have to inquire for
himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.102
This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking
"the form of a slave".103

>Now your doctrine
>of Mary being able to pray to Jesus which you point out here was a
>human, you have nothing, Jesus had to be human not some empty divine
>person.

Why.............did Jesus HAVE to be human? Aren't you putting the carriage
before the horse? God DID become human in the man Jesus.

> He was both God and Man you can not understand that as you
>are only human, and God is Spirit and how God does things, no human
>can fully understand.

I'm going with scripture on that one, not you, who is a blank sheet on what
scripture says.

>> Philippians 2:6-8 (New International Version)
>>  6 Who, being in very nature God,
>>    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
>> 7 rather, he made himself nothing
>>    by taking the very nature of a servant,
>>    being made in human likeness.
>> 8 And being found in appearance as a man,
>>    he humbled himself
>>    by becoming obedient to death—
>>       even death on a cross!

>> > I know of a group that is called Trinity also and have
>> >God as having three bodies which each person than have a body soul and
>> >spirit, making in all 9 (NINE) in the 3 in 1 of the trinity.  You can
>> >find that teaching in the Bible that was written notes by Dr. Drake
>> >and is on sale in most Christian book stories.
>> >Rev. R. Knapp

>> No thanks.  I'm a Christian.

>NO NO NO you are a Catholic not a Christian.

A Christian is a Catholic as well described by Jesus in the 4 gospels. That
leaves you out.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 3, 4:31 pm, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:

> On Jan 3, 11:25 am, "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> > > Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
> > the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
> > name.
>

> > Acts 2:37-39
>
> > 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to
> > Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
>
> > 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the
> > name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will
> > receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and
> > your children and for all who are far off — for all whom the Lord our
> > God will call." NIV
>
> > Notice: No persons or three anything.  "in the name of Jesus
> > Christ.     The term "persons" is only in Theology trying to
> > understand how God can be the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and be only
> > ONE GOD.   Then we have no problem in calling our self a person. Never
> > three in one body, but we are seen as "Body, Soul and Spirit" in
> > yourself, then remember we are made in the image of God, not in
> > images.
> > Genesis 1:27
> > 27 So God created man in his own image,
> > in the image of God he created him;
> > male and female he created them.
> > NIV
> > Genesis 9:6
> > 6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
> > by man shall his blood be shed;
> > for in the image of God
> > has God made man.
> > NIV
>
> > Yours in Christ Jesus,
>
> > Dr. R. Knapp

1 John 1:1-2:2

1 JOHN

1 Christ was alive when the world began, yet I myself have seen him
with my own eyes and listened to him speak. I have touched him with my
own hands. He is God's message of life. 2 This one who is life from
God has been shown to us, and we guarantee that we have seen him; I am
speaking of Christ, who is eternal Life. He was with the Father and
then was shown to us. 3 Again I say, we are telling you about what we
ourselves have actually seen and heard, so that you may share the
fellowship and the joys we have with the Father and with Jesus Christ
his son. 4 And if you do as I say in this letter, then you, too, will
be full of joy, and so will we.

5 This is the message God has given us to pass on to you: that God is
Light and in him is no darkness at all. 6 So if we say we are his
friends but go on living in spiritual darkness and sin, we are lying.
7 But if we are living in the light of God's presence, just as Christ
does, then we have wonderful fellowship and joy with each other, and
the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from every sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and
refusing to accept the truth. 9 But if we confess our sins to him, he
can be depended on to forgive us and to cleanse us from every wrong.
[And it is perfectly proper for God to do this for us because Christ
died to wash away our sins.] 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we are
lying and calling God a liar, for he says we have sinned.

2 My little children, I am telling you this so that you will stay away
from sin. But if you sin, there is someone to plead for you before the
Father. His name is Jesus Christ, the one who is all that is good and
who pleases God completely. 2 He is the one who took God's wrath
against our sins upon himself and brought us into fellowship with God;
and he is the forgiveness for our sins, and not only ours but all the
world's. TLB

Now read on to the foolish explanation of a Roman Catholic that needs
to be saved and thinks his church has it. Remember to pray for all
the children that church has molested, and think is that really a
church you want to believe what they say. "want some candy ?"

>
> 1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he
> hold the catholic faith;

No problem since the Catholic faith is the Universal faith that Jesus
is Lord and that His blood cleans one of all sin. 1 John 1 5-7 This
has nothing to do with the "Roman Catholic faith" or the "Protestant
faith"

>
> 2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without
> doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

You play with words, if one is perished he is no more so nothing is
left to be "everlastingly" Once something is "perished" it is no more,
try not to be so silly in your requirements.

> 3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity,
> and Trinity in Unity;

Nope that is what the Roman Catholic faith is not the Bible faith that
does not even say "God in Trinity" or the term "Trinity" to start
with. God is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit. ONE GOD.

> 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

Well that is not bible, as the bible does not even use the word
"persons" in writing about the Godhead, or anything about dividing the
substance that the Roman Catholic church does all the time, Even
having pictures of three old men, siting next to each other in their
Trinity of Persons. That sure is dividing what ever you want to call
that substance. So the RCC is lost and going to Hell.

>
> 5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and
> another of the Holy Spirit.

Show us the verse that calls the Father a "person" or the Holy Spirit
as a person? You will find only the man Jesus the Son as a "person".
Prove you statements by facts, not just some monk or priest mindset or
make up remarks.

>
> 6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit
> is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

God is ONE that is for sure and the son of God said He is equal even
as a human person equal with God. No such thing as "co-eternal"
another RCC word to trick people into following the Pope which they
also call "holy father" and knee to etc.

>
> 7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy
> Spirit.
>
> 8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit
> uncreated.
>
> 9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy
> Spirit incomprehensible.
>
> 10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
>
> 11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

You really have to give up drinking way too much whiskey, beer or
wine, the above has no foundation but does show you all do divide the
Godhead into a lot of people and one cooperation like a group of gods
and pagan myths.

>
> 12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible,
> but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

Get off the drinks you write like a drunk.

>
> 13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy
> Spirit almighty.

So now you got three gods all supper and like the myths of Greek
mythology.

>
> 14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

I hate to have to give you a hundred dollar bill and see how make
divide it up. You got three gods there that is not Christian and the
Catholic will try to tell you it is not RCC either only they have so
many "Saints made of stone like Idols all over St. Peters Church in
Rome that any pagan going there feels right at home with all the
images like a Buddhist temple.


>
> 15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

Lots of "Gods" there only problem is there is only ONE GOD and God
said that and what God says goes, what the RCC says means nothing,
they are not God and do not speak for God.

>
> 16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

No "yet they are" NO THEY!!!! You are made as Body, Soul and
Spirit, do you address yourself as a "They". If you do, you need
mental health in the hospital sooner then later.

>
> 17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit
> Lord;

Three Lords, and these are three people as that is what a person is,
not three people being one person. Such thinking makes on insane.

I will stop now your getting so pagan with your trying to make ONE GOD
a group of gods here it is just sick.

>
> 18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
>
> 19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to
> acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
>
> 20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are
> three Gods or three Lords.

Now mind of your own? Can not even add or think, kind of like a group
of insane people being told what to say, and do.
>
> 25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is
> greater or less than another.
>
> 26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
>
> 27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the
> Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
>
> 28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
>
> 29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also
> believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
>
> 30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord
> Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

Good old Protestant faith, nice you got yourself so confused you now
have no idea what your suppose to say.

>
> 31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds;
> and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

So now your God has a Mother, you should really check into a mental
ward now. God has no mother, never had and since He is, never will
need one, it is no wonder the RCC call this a mystery they are so
confused trying to fit God into a Roman Catholic teaching they went
crazy.

>
> 32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh
> subsisting.

How many goes do you have now, Greek gods and idols you have only gave
them names of holy men and woman, so one can putt the wool over the
unlearned.

>
> 33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the
> Father as touching His manhood.

So what is it, God is now inferior but was suppose to be equal as you
pointed out above, No one can touch His manhood, man is not eternal he
dies and the body turns goes back to the ground, as God made mankind
from the dirt of the ground to start with.

>
> 34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one
> Christ.

You got to stop drinking, now you got a ONE and that is TWO but only
one of them is God, even if they are suppose to be both God, please
seek so help, all this is a form of mental illness.

>
> 35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of
> that manhood into God.
>
> 36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of
> person.
>
> 37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is
> one Christ;
>
> 38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again
> the third day from the dead;
>
> 39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father,
> God, Almighty;
>
> 40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
>
> 41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
>
> 42. and shall give account of their own works.
>
> 43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and
> they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
>
> 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully
> he cannot be saved.
>

If you want the RCC to save you and that is all that can, you really
should check in at a Bible Believing Protestant Church they will point
you to Jesus Christ that without faith and love to Gods Son, the gift
of eternal life the blood of the Son of God the body of Jesus given so
that all could be saved. The faith you posted here is a fairytale,
and pagan myths.
1 John 1:1-2:2

1 JOHN

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we
have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have
touched — this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life
appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you
the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3
We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may
have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and
with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our joy complete.

5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God
is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have
fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live
by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we
have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son,
purifies us from all sin.

8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is
not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will
forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we
claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word
has no place in our lives.

2 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But
if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our
defense — Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning
sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of
the whole world. NIV

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 8, 8:07 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 20:04:47 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 6, 7:52 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 20:35:12 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >>  > >> >> Notice: Name singular, three persons
>
> >> >> >Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
> >> >> >the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
> >> >> >name.

Rom 1:1-6

1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle,
separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His
prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our
Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and
declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of
holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. 5 Through Him we have
received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all
nations for His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus
Christ;
NKJV

>
> >> >> Christians see one God in 3 persons.
> >> >Then everyone that lives sees man who is made in the image of God as
> >> >body, soul and spirit, and in 1 person.
> >> Jesus the man is the closest image we've ever had of God.
> >And you know that, how, have you a image of Jesus and one of the
> >Father God?  Jesus did say if one seen Jesus they seen the Father.
> >No one has a image of Jesus the man, so what image or you looking at?
>
> It's basic Christianity, rk.  God became flesh to show other flesh the way to
> the Father.  No one has ever seen the Father, or the divine Jesus, or the Holy
> Spirit.  But man has seen God become Jesus the man.  That does not mean how tall
> he was, or the color of his hair, or the size of his nose.  It's means "we have
> seen the man Jesus" whom we profess to possess an unseen divine nature.

No that is basic Catholic paganizn duky. 1 John 1:1-2:2

> >> >You never can put God into a
> >> >box or the terms of the Catholic church.
> >> You're the one that puts him in a box and hides from his teachings.
> >I do not have a image on a cross around my neck you may have and you
> >purchase that in a box at the store, not I.
>
> Why not.  His saving action for us was his death on the cross, not his
> resurrection, in which he needed the Father to do.

Without the resurrection which Jesus did himself as God, there be no
saving action. The Resurrection showed His Word was true not like the
silly stuff you post here.

>
> >  There is no image of
> >Jesus, but you and the Catholic church keeps that image hanging on the
> >cross, that is why Protestants use a empty cross, as Jesus was removed
> >from the Cross and rose from the dead and is no longer in a box at the
> >store for you to hang around your neck.
>
> His saving action was not his resurrection.

One is the payment for sins by His blood and the other is to show what
He said was acceptable for all man to be saved if they accept Jesus as
their Lord and Saviour. John 11:25-27

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who
believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever
lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

27 She said to Him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the
Son of God, who is to come into the world." NKJV

[duke]

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:14:54 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:

>> >No one has a image of Jesus the man, so what image or you looking at?

>> It's basic Christianity, rk.  God became flesh to show other flesh the way to
>> the Father.  No one has ever seen the Father, or the divine Jesus, or the Holy
>> Spirit.  But man has seen God become Jesus the man.  That does not mean how tall
>> he was, or the color of his hair, or the size of his nose.  It's means "we have
>> seen the man Jesus" whom we profess to possess an unseen divine nature.

>No that is basic Catholic paganizn duky. 1 John 1:1-2:2
>1 JOHN

>1 Christ was alive when the world began, yet I myself have seen him
>with my own eyes and listened to him speak.

Yes, the divine Jesus is the 2nd person of the triune Godhead. And 2 John 1:7
says:

2 John 1:7 (New International Version)
7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as
coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the
deceiver and the antichrist.

It sounds like you are the antichrist.

>> >> >You never can put God into a
>> >> >box or the terms of the Catholic church.
>> >> You're the one that puts him in a box and hides from his teachings.
>> >I do not have a image on a cross around my neck you may have and you
>> >purchase that in a box at the store, not I.
>>
>> Why not.  His saving action for us was his death on the cross, not his
>> resurrection, in which he needed the Father to do.

>Without the resurrection which Jesus did himself as God

Uh, nooooo.

Acts 5:30 (New International Version)
30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by
hanging him on a cross.

You see, the Jesus that walked the earth was a man.

>, there be no
>saving action. The Resurrection showed His Word was true not like the
>silly stuff you post here.

Yet his death on the cross is saving action. His resurrection was a message to
us that we too can follow him out of obedience to God.

>> >  There is no image of
>> >Jesus, but you and the Catholic church keeps that image hanging on the
>> >cross, that is why Protestants use a empty cross, as Jesus was removed
>> >from the Cross and rose from the dead and is no longer in a box at the
>> >store for you to hang around your neck.

>> His saving action was not his resurrection.

>One is the payment for sins by His blood and the other is to show what
>He said was acceptable for all man to be saved if they accept Jesus as
>their Lord and Saviour. John 11:25-27

Ah, but it said so much more than that, didn't it.

Rom 1:5 which you posted earlier.

> 5 Through Him we have
>received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith

Wow, obedience to the faith. Now isn't that a kick in the butt for you. You
openly reject much of what Jesus taught like the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments and the
teaching authority and foundational base in the Papacy..

[arah]

Surah Az-Zukhruf (The Gold Adornments)


1. Ha-Mim.

[These letters are one of the miracles of the Qur'an, and none but
Allah (Alone) knows their meanings].

2. By the manifest Book (that makes things clear, i.e. this Qur'an).

3. We verily, have made it a Qur'an in Arabic, that you may be able to
understand (its meanings and its admonitions).

4. And Verily, it (this Qur'an) is in the Mother of the Book (i.e. Al-
Lauh Al-Mahfuz), before Us, indeed Exalted, full of Wisdom.

5. Shall We then (warn you not and) take away the Reminder (this
Qur'an) from you, because you are a people Musrifun.

6. And how many a Prophet have We sent amongst the men of old.

7. And never came there a Prophet to them but they used to mock at
him.

8. Then We destroyed men stronger (in power) than these, and the
example of the ancients has passed away (before them).

9. And indeed if you ask them, "Who has created the heavens and the
earth?" They will surely say: "The All-Mighty, the All-Knower created
them."

10. Who has made for you the earth like a bed, and has made for you
roads therein, in order that you may find your way,

11. And Who sends down water (rain) from the sky in due measure. Then
We revive a dead land therewith, and even so you will be brought forth
(from the dead),

12. And Who has created all the pairs and has appointed for you ships
and cattle on which you ride,

13. In order that you may mount firmly on their backs, and then may
remember the Favour of your Lord when you mount thereon, and say:
"Glory to Him who has subjected this to us, and we could never have it
(by our efforts)."

14. And verily, to Our Lord we indeed are to return!

15. Yet they assign to some of His slaves a share with Him (by
pretending that He has children, and considering them as equals or co-
partners in worship with Him). Verily, man is indeed a manifest
ingrate!

16. Or has He taken daughters out of what He has created, and He has
selected for you sons?

17. And if one of them is informed of the news of (the birth of) that
which he set forth as a parable to the Most Beneficent (Allah) (i.e.
of a girl), his face becomes dark, gloomy, and he is filled with
grief!

18. (Do they then like for Allah) a creature who is brought up in
adornments (wearing silk and gold ornaments, i.e. women), and in
dispute cannot make herself clear?

19. And they make the angels who themselves are slaves to the Most
Beneficent (Allah) females. Did they witness their creation? Their
evidence will be recorded, and they will be questioned!

20. And they said: "If it had been the Will of the Most Beneficent
(Allah), we should not have worshipped them (false deities)." They
have no knowledge whatsoever of that. They do nothing but lie!

21. Or have We given them any Book before this (the Qur'an), to which
they are holding fast?

22. Nay! They say: "We found our fathers following a certain way and
religion, and we guide ourselves by their footsteps."

23. And similarly, We sent not a warner before you (O Muhammad ) to
any town (people) but the luxurious ones among them said: "We found
our fathers following a certain way and religion, and we will indeed
follow their footsteps."

24. (The warner) said: "Even if I bring you better guidance than that
which you found your fathers following?" They said: "Verily, We
disbelieve in that with which you have been sent."

25. So We took revenge of them, then see what was the end of those who
denied (Islamic Monotheism).

26. And (remember) when Ibrahim (Abraham) said to his father and his
people: "Verily, I am innocent of what you worship,

27. "Except Him (i.e. I worship none but Allah Alone) Who did create
me, and verily, He will guide me."

28. And he made it [i.e. La ilaha ill-Allah (none has the right to be
worshipped but Allah Alone)] a Word lasting among his offspring (True
Monotheism), that they may turn back (i.e. to repent to Allah or
receive admonition).

29. Nay, but I gave (the good things of this life) to these
(polytheists) and their fathers to enjoy, till there came to them the
truth (the Qur'an), and a Messenger (Muhammad ) making things clear.

30. And when the truth (this Qur'an) came to them, they (the
disbelievers in this Qur'an) said: "This is magic, and we disbelieve
therein."

31. And they say: "Why is not this Qur'an sent down to some great man
of the two towns (Makkah and Ta'if)?"

32. Is it they who would portion out the Mercy of your Lord? It is We
Who portion out between them their livelihood in this world, and We
raised some of them above others in ranks, so that some may employ
others in their work. But the Mercy (Paradise) of your Lord (O
Muhammad ) is better than the (wealth of this world) which they amass.

33. And were it not that all mankind would have become of one
community (all disbelievers, desiring worldly life only), We would
have provided for those who disbelieve in the Most Beneficent (Allah),
silver roofs for their houses, and elevators (and stair-ways, etc. of
silver) whereby they ascend,

34. And for their houses, doors (of silver), and thrones (of silver)
on which they could recline,

35. And adornments of gold. Yet all this (i.e. the roofs, doors,
stairs, elevators, thrones etc. of their houses) would have been
nothing but an enjoyment of this world. And the Hereafter with your
Lord is only for the Muttaqun.

36. And whosoever turns away (blinds himself) from the remembrance of
the Most Beneficent (Allah) (i.e. this Qur'an and worship of Allah),
We appoint for him Shaitan (Satan - devil) to be a Qarin (an intimate
companion) to him.

37. And verily, they (Satans / devils) hinder them from the Path (of
Allah), but they think that they are guided aright!

38. Till, when (such a one) comes to Us, he says [to his Qarin
(Satan / devil companion)] "Would that between me and you were the
distance of the two easts (or the east and west)" a worst (type of)
companion (indeed)!

39. It will profit you not this Day (O you who turn away from Allah's
remembrance and His worship, etc.) as you did wrong, (and) that you
will be sharers (you and your Qarin) in the punishment.

40. Can you (O Muhammad ) make the deaf to hear, or can you guide the
blind or him who is in manifest error?

41. And even if We take you (O Muhammad ) away, We shall indeed take
vengeance on them.

42. Or (if) We show you that wherewith We threaten them, then verily,
We have perfect command over them.

43. So hold you (O Muhammad ) fast to that which is inspired in you.
Verily, you are on a Straight Path.

44. And verily, this (the Qur'an) is indeed a Reminder for you (O
Muhammad ) and your people (Quraish people, or your followers), and
you will be questioned (about it).

http://www.noblequran.com/translation/surah43.html

On Jan 9, 5:35 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran [Paperback]
Robert Spencer (Author)


Editorial Reviews
From the Inside Flap
The Koran: It may be the most controversial book in the world. Some
see it as a paean to peace, others call it a violent mandate for
worldwide Islamic supremacy.
How can one book lead to such dramatically different conclusions? New
York Times bestselling author Robert Spencer reveals the truth in The
Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran: not many Westerners know what's
in the Koran, since so few have actually read it -- even among the
legions of politicians, diplomats, analysts, and editorial writers who
vehemently insist that the Koran preaches tolerance.

Now, Spencer unveils the mysteries lying behind this powerful book,
guiding readers through the controversies surrounding the Koran's
origins and its most contentious passages. Stripping out the obsolete
debates, Spencer focuses on the Koran's decrees toward Jews,
Christians, and other Infidels, explaining how they were viewed in
Muhammad's time, what they've supposedly done wrong, and most
important, what the Koran has in store for them.


From the Back Cover
Praise for The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran
" Meticulous, comprehensive, indispensable. `I read the Koran so you
don't have to,' Spencer writes--but even for those of us who have read
the Koran, this is a richly illuminating work."
--Bruce Bawer, author of Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing
Freedom and While Europe Slept

" Governing officials and media spokesmen may ignore Spencer's
warnings, but they do so at their own risk, because Islamic jihadists
are not ignoring what's in the Koran, and are working to destroy our
freedoms in obedience to Koranic dictates. In illuminating for
Westerners exactly what the Koran teaches, Spencer has performed a
valuable service in the defense of Western civilization against the
Islamic jihad."
--Geert Wilders, Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Party for
Freedom (PVV), the Netherlands

" Unlike most of today's self-styled experts, Robert Spencer won't
tell you that `slay the idolaters wherever you find them' really means
`love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.' In The
Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, Spencer shows once again that
he is America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on
modern jihadism, insisting that we come to grips with the words behind
the ideology that fuels international terror."
--Andrew C. McCarthy, senior fellow at the National Review Institute
and author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Infidels-Guide-Koran/dp/1596981040

[arah]

The Mercy of Allah in Regard to Forgiveness

"O son of Adam, as long as you call upon Me and put your hope in Me, I
have forgiven you for what you have done and I do not mind. O son of
Adam, if your sins were to reach the clouds of the sky and then you
would seek My forgiveness, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, if you
were to come to Me with sins that are close to filling the earth and
then you would meet Me without ascribing any partners with Me, I would
certainly bring to you forgiveness close to filling it."

In this Hadithi Qudsi, Allah gives hope to mankind more than any other
narration. It displays the quality and attribute of Allahs mercy.
Indeed, He is ar-Rahman, the Most Compassionate, and ar-Raheem, the
Most Merciful. In this Hadithi Qudsi, Allah tells man of the greatness
of His forgiveness and mercy so that no one would despair due to the
amount of sins he may have committed. This is supported by the
following verse of the Holy Quran:

Say: O My servants who have transgressed against their own souls,
despair not of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins.
Truly, He is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Surah az-Zumar 39:53)

This hadith teaches us the importance of realizing Allahs mercy,
having faith and hope in Him especially when making dua, calling to
Allah alone for forgiveness, and the importance of repentance in the
life and faith of a believer.

Allah catches the attention of mankind by calling out, O son of Adam!
This is a call to every human being. Why didnt Allah say, O mankind or
O People? The significance of this specific call is because it was the
first human being, Adam (alaiyhis-salam) who committed the first sin.
Adam was an example to all humans of the consequences of sin and how
to turn to Allah for forgiveness of ones sins. This gives hope that
even after committing a violation, ones sins can be forgiven if one
repents to Allah sincerely the same way that the father of mankind
sinned, repented, and was forgiven by Allah.

Allah calls out to His servants, a call of forgiveness, mercy, and
compassion. For He knows that man was created weak and is prone to
fall into sin. After calling out to mankind, Allah informs them that
as long as they call on Him and put their hope in Him, He will forgive
them and not mind. This statement alone can convince one to have hope
and never to despair. When one calls out to Allah or makes dua, he is
displaying his need and dependence of Allah. He is demonstrating his
weakness to the fact that he has no power to do anything for himself.
It is the essence of submission and servitude. It is also a
recognition of Allahs attributes of kindness, generosity, forgiving
and merciful nature, and His unlimited power and knowledge. Humans are
never in a situation where they are not in need of Allah. A believer
always turns to Allah to ask for guidance as well as to seek
forgiveness of sins and shortcomings.

Allahs says, Call on me and I will respond to you. One of the most
important conditions of making dua is that one must completely trust
that Allah will respond. One must also supplicate with sincerity,
hope, and seriousness. One must not have any doubt at all on whether
Allah will respond to ones call or if He accepts the dua. The
Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaiyhi wa sallam) said, Supplicate
Allah while you are certain of a response. And know that Allah does
not respond to a supplication from a heart that is heedless and
inattentive. He also forbade that one say, Oh Allah, forgive me if You
will. But he said, Instead, you should ask with will and conviction
for there is nothing so great to Allah that He cannot grant it.

When supplicating, one should truly seek Allahs aid and His
forgiveness and demonstrate his need for Allah and submit to Him with
fear and hope in receiving the desired response. Allah advises in
Surat al-Araaf 7:56:

And invoke Him in fear and aspiration (of hope). Indeed, the mercy of
Allah is near to those who do good.

Another important condition of supplication is that one must not
become hasty and impatient and stop supplicating because he did not
receive a response sooner or at all. The Prophet (sallallahu alaiyhi
wa sallam) said, You are responded to as long as you do not become
hasty and say, I supplicated and it is not being or was not responded
to.

And the final condition of ones dua being responded to is that one
must make sure he is living off of halal and permissible means.

Allah says, Put your hope in Me. Man was not created sinful, but he
was created weak. He is prone to fall into the temptations of sin and
the whispers of Satan and when he does, he should always remember to
turn to Allah, call upon Him, and ask for forgiveness with hope in His
mercy. Allah stated in a Hadithi Qudsi, I am with My servant as He
expects of Me. The meaning of this is that Allah treats His servants
the way he expects Him to. If one has hope in Allah and trusts Him,
Allah will act accordingly to that servants beliefs and faith. And if
he does not have faith and is in despair of his Lords mercy, Allah
will act accordingly. Not having hope in Allah and despairing of His
mercy is a great sin and an act of kufr. Allah quotes Prophet Yaqoob
(alaiyhis-salam) in the Quran:

Indeed, no one despairs of relief from Allah except the disbelieving
people. (Surah Yusuf 12:87)

One must be hopeful of Allahs mercy and forgiveness and fearful of His
punishment. It is this fear that should lead one to seek Allahs
forgiveness with hope. Allah says:

Know that Allah is severe in punishment and that Allah is Forgiving
and Merciful. (Surat al-Maaidah 5:98)

In the above verse, Allah gives us reason to fear because His
punishment is justly severe, as well as good reason to have hope,
since He is the Most Forgiving and Merciful. There should be a balance
between fear and hope and not too much or too less of one or the
other. If there is too much fear, then a person may negate Allahs
quality of mercy and ascribe to Him unkindness (Allah forbid!).
There was a sect called Khawaarij, who worshipped Allah only in fear
and held the belief that anyone who commits major sins was a
disbeliever and would be thrown into the Hellfire forever. This is a
gross extremism and straying from the correct path.

Yet, another sect, which emerged within the first century of Islam,
had no fear and believed that sins did not affect ones faith and that
as long as one believed and testified in Islam, he would enter
Paradise regardless of his actions. Both of these extremes lead to a
dangerous consequence.

To understand the balance of fear and hope of Allah, let us look at
the very first chapter of the Quran, Surat al-Fatiha. The first verse
says, All praise be to Allah, Lord of all the worlds. In this verse,
love for Allah is expressed. We acknowledge that Allah is our Lord and
the Lord of all the worlds. He is the Creator of all things; He
sustains and nourishes everything; He gives life and death; anything
good that we have is from Him; and everything is dependant on him and
nothing can happen unless Allah wills it to happen.
In the second verse we express our hope in Him by stating, ar-Rahma-
nir-Raheem. The meaning of which is: The Beneficent, the Merciful.
When we mention these two names of Allah, then we have hope, since He
is the One, who is full of mercy and we hope He will forgive out
mistakes and shortcomings. We should never lose hope because there is
no reason to.

And in the third ayah of Surat al-Fatiha, fear of Allah is expressed
when we recite, Master (King) of the Day of Judgement. When we recite
this verse, we remind ourselves of the Day that we will be standing in
front of our Lord and be questioned for our deeds, a Most Awful Day.
It will be a day in which not even the smallest action will be hidden.
This reminder of the Day of Judgement should bring fear to our
hearts.

Fear and hope, both should be equally proportioned in our hearts, in
our worship, and in our dua to Allah. Allah says:

Call out to Him with fear and hope. (Surat al-Araaf 7:56)
They forsake their beds to call their Lord in fear and hope. (Surat as-
Sajdah 32:16)

The Prophet (sallallahu alaiyhi wa sallam) said, The like of these two
qualities do not unite in the heart of a servant except that Allah
gives him what he hopes for and protects him from what he feared.

In the Hadithi Qudsi that is being discussed in this paper, Allah
says, O son of Adam, if your sins were to reach the clouds of the sky
and you would then seek My forgiveness, I would forgive you. Here, we
will discuss the importance of repentance and seeking forgiveness and
its virtues.

First of all, we should never lose hope or stop asking for Allahs
forgiveness. Its importance is shown to us in the following hadith of
the Prophet (sallallahu alaiyhi wa sallam): O people! Turn to Allah in
repentance and seek His forgiveness, for surely I make repentance a
hundred times every day. Repentance is such a great act of worship
that doing it can totally erase ones sins altogether, as the Noble
Prophet (sallallahu alaiyhi wa sallam) said, One who repents from sins
is like one without sin.

When a person sins and then sincerely turns to Allah for forgiveness,
one will find Allah ready to accept his repentance and to forgive him,
as this verse indicates:

And whoever does a wrong or wrongs himself, but then seeks forgiveness
from Allah, he will find Allah forgiving and merciful. (Surat an-Nisaa
4:110)

Everyone commits sin and does wrong, but Allah is always willing to
forgive and He always gives them a chance to repent and seek His
forgiveness. A believer should never forget the fact that Allah is so
forgiving. If Allah had willed, He could have held everyone
accountable for his or her sins, but He has decreed that He shall
allow His servants to seek His forgiveness and that He shall in fact
forgive who and what He wills. In fact, Allah commands that His
servants seek His forgiveness:

And seek Allahs forgiveness. Certainly, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
(Surat al-Muzzammil 73:20)

Repentance is an act, which purifies the soul and brings the servant
closer to His Lord. It puts the heart at rest from guilt. It protects
one from falling prey to his desires and lusts and increases his
faith.

Allah then says in the Hadithi Qudsi that is being discussed, O son of
Adam, if you were to come to Me with sins close to filling the earth
and then you would meet Me without ascribing any partners with Me, I
would certainly bring you forgiveness close to filling it. Look at how
great Allahs mercy, compassion, and love is! The least Allah asks for
is that one not ascribe any partners and gods with Him, for, He is
alone in His Sovereignty. And after that if one commits sins and seeks
sincere forgiveness, Allah will forgive him and shower His mercy upon
him.

However, one is not forgiven if he seeks repentance from Allah at the
time of death when he sees the angels or when the sun rises from the
west at the approaching of the Day of Judgement. This is confirmed by
the following verse:

And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil
deeds until death faces one of them and he says, Now I repent, nor of
those who dies while they are disbelievers. For them, We have prepared
a painful torment. (Surat an-Nisaa 4:18)

Allah also does not forgive one who commits shirk, which is the
association of partners with Allah. Forgiveness will only come to
those who die while adhering to tawheed and avoiding any form of
shirk.

Verily, Allah does not forgive that partners should be set up with
Him, but He forgives whatever is less than that for whomever He wills.
And whoever sets up partners with Allah has indeed invented a
tremendous sin. (Surat an-Nisaa 4:48)

Verily, Allah forgives not the setting up of partners with Him, but He
forgives whom He pleases whatever is less than that. And whoever sets
up partners with Allah has indeed strayed far away. (Surat an-Nisaa
4:116)

We must ask ourselves this question: Would we be willing to forgive
anyone who hurts us and disobeys us constantly as easily as Allah is
Able to forgive? Most probably, the answer would be no. But our
Creator is the Most Kind and He is the Most Perfect.

Lo! Allah is a Lord of Kindness to mankind, but most of mankind give
not thanks. (Surat al-Baqarah 2:143)


In this Hadithi Qudsi, mankind is encouraged to seek Allahs
forgiveness and repent, but there are five conditions of repentance,
which must be met for ones repentance to be accepted. The first and
most important is that the act of repentance be sincerely for Allah
alone. Secondly, the person must feel remorse and guilt over his
actions so much so that he wished he had never done it in the first
place. The third condition is that the person must immediately cease
performing the wrong and sinful act. Fourthly, the repentant person
must have a firm intention to never commit the sin again. And lastly,
the person must repent before it is too late, meaning before death
approaches.

Allah, Blessed and Exalted, finishes the Hadithi Qudsi with the
following words, O son of Adam! If you were to come to Me with sins
that are close to filling the earth and you would then meet Me without
ascribing any partners to Me, I would certainly bring to you
forgiveness close to filling it. Again, the mercy of Allah is clearly
demonstrated by His Divine Words. However, there is a condition. One
must not associate any partners with Allah, which is shirk. And Allah
does not forgive shirk and if one dies without believing in Allah
alone as ones Creator, then he will be doomed to the Hellfire for all
of eternity. So, Allah emphasizes the importance of calling on Him
alone. He has no and needs no partners, associates, wives, children,
etc. There is no god, but Allah. None forgives sins except Him, so one
seeking forgiveness should seek it only from Allah.

Will they not repent to Allah and ask His forgiveness? For Allah is
the Forgiving, the Merciful. (Surat al-Maaidah 5:74)
And who can forgive sins except Allah? (Surah Ali Imran 3:135)

Allah praises the one who truly believes, has hope, and seeks the
forgiveness of his Creator, as did his father, Adam:

Say: Shall I not inform you of things far better than those (things of
this world)? For the pious, there are gardens with their Lord, wherein
rivers flow. Therein (is their) eternal home and pure wives. And Allah
will be pleased with them. And Allah is Seer of the slaves. Those who
say, Our Lord! We have indeed believed, so forgive us our sins and
save us from the punishment of the Fire. They are those who are
patient, those who are true and obedient with sincere devotion in
worship to Allah. Those who spend (in charity) and those who pray and
beg for Allahs forgiveness in the last hours of the night. (Surah Ali
Imran 3:15-17)

Allahs forgiveness and mercy is far greater and more vast than the
sins of the creation. One must always have trust and hope in Allah in
both good times and bad times and especially when seeking Allahs
forgiveness. And the believer who calls out to his Lord for
forgiveness demonstrates his true weakness and that he is totally
dependent on the Creator. When one confesses his sins to Allah and
sincerely repents with hope in Allahs mercy, the heart should come to
peace and the soul should feel rest. When a person has hope, he has no
reason to despair because it only leads to destruction. Allah gives
hope to all, especially those who despair that there is no reason to
despair because Allah is the Most Merciful of all those who show
mercy. Allah praises those who repent and turn to Him:

And those who, when they commit a lewd act or wrong themselves with
evil, remember Allah and ask forgiveness for their sinsand who
forgives sins except Allah? And they do not persist in what (wrong)
they were doing while they knew it. For such, the reward is
forgiveness from their Lord and Gardens with rivers flowing through,
wherein they shall abide forever. How excellent is the reward of the
doers (of good)! (Surah Ali Imran 3:135-136)


http://quranicverse99.tripod.com/islamicways/id4.html



On Jan 6, 3:42 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> *****- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Terror of Islam and it's cruelty - Islam Exposed

http://www.hinduunity.org/articles/islamexposed/islammain.html

Conclusion

In concluding this small treatise on the important Islamic doctrine of
jihãd, the reader must be reminded that it does not purport to be a
critique of Islam as such. Even in the restricted field of its survey,
its aim has been descriptive rather than critical. But before one
leaves the subject it is only fair to address to the reader certain
reflections which the foregoing discussion inevitably raises.


(1) The first reflection is on the failure of the world at large to
take note of this creed of hate and violence, and get forewarned as to
the peril it entails to the civilisation of all non-Muslim peoples
including those who profess Christianity. The decline of the West, of
which Spengler wrote, is nowhere so evident as in its total
indifference to the Islamic doctrine of jihãd, and in the absolute
neglect of its duty to confront such a creed intellectually while
broadcasting over the whole world its pernicious implications. Thanks
to the money-power of the oilrich Arab countries, Islam has spread its
tentacles to the farthest point of the globe, and is making known its
intention of world-domination in no uncertain terms. The intellect of
the West looks at the spectacle, benumbed and fascinated, sometimes
breaking into loud acclamations as to the glory that is Islam, and
sometimes mumbling incoherent protests against its ‘fundamentalism’.
As Nirad Chaudhury has pointed out, this division of Islam into two
variants - the one Fundamentalist and the other Liberal - is the
result of “either ignorance or repulsive hypocrisy”. Whatever else may
get liberalised, jihad cannot; and the West’s failure to understand
the true nature of the current Islamic Revival must be recognised as
the most colossal intellectual failure of the present epoch. It is
against the background of this failure that a great many contemporary
events have to be judged: the West’s prevarication with the events in
Bosnia or in Kashmir; its impatience with Israel in its life-and-death
struggle in surroundings where a single false step could spell its
destruction; and, coming to a lower plane, the Prince of Wales’s
breaking out into singing the glory of Islam from a public platform.


(2) As regards Christian missionaries, their record is worse still.
Despite the far-flung apparatus of proselytisation they have built up
over the centuries, their latter-day flirtation with Islam is probably
the stupidest thing these worthies have done at the end of nearly two
thousand years of unceasing effort towards leading the ‘benighted
heathens’ of the world to the fold of Christianity. Apparently this
flirtation is aimed at peaceful conversion of the pagan peoples of
Asia and Africa in some sort of collaboration with the Islamic zealots
active in those countries and without causing them any unnecessary
heartburn. But it is certainly the strangest marriage of convenience
that could ever take place between two parties who have always been at
loggerheads with each other. Also it must be remembered that the study
of Islam and world’s acquaintance with its awful doctrines started
with these missionaries themselves. True, after the initial centuries
of mud-slinging at the prophet of Islam, Christian scholars had been
sobered by the reflection that in view of the identity of their own
creed of monotheism with Islam, a wholesale condemnation of the latter
would involve a condemnation of their own religion. But till the end
of the 19th century these scholars had a clear understanding of their
task. They did not fail to recognise the doctrine of jihãd for what it
was - a code of murder and rapine disguised under a thin coating of
religious verbiage. Also, however enamoured they might have been of
the Koran’s full-throated pagan-bashing, they never forgot the
supposed superiority of the Christian revelation. Even so serious a
scholar as Sir William Muir did not fail to administer a large dose of
Christianity in his monumental biography of the Prophet. Muir knew, as
all Christian missionaries knew in those days, that their greatest
adversary in the business of proselytisation was Islam. It is
therefore incomprehensible that their latter-day descendants should
join hands with Islam in every country of Asia and Africa in the game
of proselytising the pagans of those lands.


The worth of the short-lived gains they have thus achieved in those
countries must be viewed against the forces they have unleashed in
their continuing flirtation with the Islamic establishment. They must
know that a newly baptized pagan is more vulnerable to the
blandishments of Islam than an unregenerate pagan rooted in unalloyed
heatheism. The small dose of monotheism administered through
Christianity merely removes the pagan’s safeguards and renders him
inclined to a larger and a more massive dose of the same. And the
toothless Christianity of the 20th century, preached by means of fraud
and bribery and a prodigious establishment of social service, will
certainly prove no match for Islam when the latter sets out to declare
full-fledged jihãd against the converts which Christianity has gained
by years of hard labour and a mind-boggling expenditure of money. The
Western powers will certainly go through the motions of protesting
against the iniquities of such rampant ‘fundamentalism’, but will do
precious little to save those converts for Christianity. Christian
missionaries should take lesson from the fate of the Christians under
the Ottoman Empire, and, for the matter of that, under its Kemalist
successors. Slowly and surely, Turkey has been denuded of the
Christian element in its population, with the Western powers looking
on in blissful unconcern. There is no reason to believe that the same
fate does not await the new converts to Christianity in Asia and
Africa. Certainly the present-day flirtation of Christian missionaries
with Islam in these countries bodes little good to Christianity’s long-
term ends. Before it is too late the Christian churches should take a
hard look at this self-defeating policy of their missionary
establishments and warn their countries as to its possible outcome.


(3) Coming to India, the future of Hindus who form the bulk of the
population of this country seems grim indeed if their obstinate
refusal to face the reality of the current Islamic Revival with its
pronounced jihadic overtones continues as before. Hindus have been
victims of jihãd-riots in an ever-increasing progression since the
infamous Mopla riots of 1921. Political independence, besides giving
rise to an Islamic state wedded to the goal of reconquering the whole
of India for Islam, witnessed a genocidal slaughter of Hindus the like
of which is not known in world history. The Indian State since 1947
has persistently refused to investigate these riots and lay bare the
jihadic motivation behind them. This, however, is a large subject with
prodigious political dimensions, and no proper discussion of it can be
made within the compass of this book. I would confine myself to a few
remarks of a general nature regarding how Hindus and peace-loving
Muslims should address themselves to the Islamic creed under
discussion.


As for Hindus, they should clearly understand that the doctrine of
jihãd is absolutely fatal to their life and property, not to speak of
the honour of their womenfolk. If the Hindu does not make a serious
and determined effort towards persuading his Muslim brethren to
renounce the doctrine of jihãd, if he does not devote his heart and
soul to devise adequate means of achieving that end, in a word, if he
does not shed his deep-seated indifference to things Islamic, then he
is most certainly proceeding towards self-destruction and that too in
a not very distant future. To realise the overwhelming urgency of this
matter, it is only necessary to point out that, starting from the
Islamic revolution of Khomeini’s Iran, Muslims all over the world are
hell-bent on reviving the jihadic frenzy of 7th century Islam. That
Mussalmans of India should continue to feed on such frenzy and that
Hindus should persist in their delusion regarding the feasibility of
peaceful coexistence with such a frenzied folk, does no longer make
sense.


Muslims on their part must clearly understand that the doctrine of
jihãd, however useful it may be in promoting their worldly interests
and ensuring their eternal felicity in the hereafter, can hardly
command the approbation of men possessed of even a modicum of
rationality and sense of justice. An argumentative Muslim might plead
that jihãd is his only weapon for self-defence in a hostile world; but
no one in his senses would really declare permanent war against
unbelievers on such a plea. Self-defence is certainly every man’s
birthright and one can very well sympathize with a person going to war
in order to establish his birthright; but jihãd is hardly ever such a
defensive war. Jihãd is total war aimed at exterminating all
unbelievers from the face of the earth, and whoever justifies such war
on the plea of self-defence plays a gigantic game of deception on
people’s credulity.


If this reasoning be admitted, the question that immediately suggests
itself is this: is it possible to have a version of Islam that may be
called Islam without jihãd? Is such an Islam not a truncated Islam? I
should attempt an answer to this second question first.


It requires but little reflection to note that Islam in its pure form
- the Islam that is firmly and unalterably rooted in the teachings of
the Koran and the Hadis - exists nowhere in the modern world. A big
example of the altered state of affairs is the obsolescence of slavery
and the maintaining of slave concubines which, according to the Koran,
is the birthright of every Muslim and the privilege of every mujãhid.
The practice is sanctioned in the Koran and the Hadis and confirmed by
the Prophet’s Sunnah. Despite such incontrovertible pleas of legality
and respectability, these two customs are no longer defended in
Islamic countries, and even the Ulema do not preach these usages with
their accustomed fervour. If, however, the Prophet’s Sunnah be binding
on every Muslim, then it follows that no practice sanctioned by him
can count as being of temporary validity. “It becometh not a believing
man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided an
affair (for them) that they should claim any say (in it),” says the
Koran (33/36). If this be true, then it is obvious that the observance
of one part of the Sunnah of the Prophet to the neglect of another
would prove destructive to the whole theory of the Sunnah. If the
Sunnah for the slave concubine be temporary, on what authority will
the Sunnah for jihãd count as permanent? The Koranic authority for
both being similar, how do we distinguish between the relative worth
of either?


Indeed, the matter does not seem to admit of any very considerable
controversy. Theologians of Islam divide the whole gamut of Islamic
duties into five clear divisions: (1) Itiqãdãt, implying matters of
belief; (2) Ãdãb, the system of Islamic moralities; (3) Ibãdãt,
involving matters of religious practice like prayers and fasting
including the practice of jihãd; (4) Mu‘malãt which includes laws of
business transactions; and (5) Uqûbãt, penal provisions of Islam. Out
of these five divisions, the last two, namely, Mu‘malãt and Uqûbãt are
in a state of obsolescence in most countries under Islam. It stands to
reason that Islam in its pristine purity is non-existent in most
Islamic countries. In view of this it is sheer perverseness to argue
that Islamic Ibãdãt is not susceptible to any such modification as the
renunciation of jihãd would imply.


It may be objected that the Koran pronounces the undertaking of jihãd
to constitute a Mussalman’s supreme duty, whereas no such
pronouncement is available for divisions like Mu‘malãt and Uqûbãt. But
contrariwise, one can also argue that the Sunnah of the Prophet has
been declared to be perfect in its totality, the greatest good of a
Mussalman’s existence being supposed to consist in an unquestioning
copying of the Prophet’s life-style. Now if the Mussalman, even with
such deep-seated conviction regarding the inviolability of Sunnah, can
choose to violate the Prophet’ Sunnah with respect to slavery and
slave concubinage, and indeed to consider such violation as being of
perfect validity, then the violation of the injunction of jihãd can
certainly not be faulted on any count. What we should take up instead
is an investigation into the obstacles to such a step.


The greatest obstacle is no doubt the education imparted in the
maktabs and madrasahs - the seminaries that teach the tenets of Islam.
The Ulema would not allow the infringement of a single tenet, at least
on the plane of theory. That they have not renounced even the
injunction regarding slave concubines “whom one’s right hands
possesses”, comes out most clearly in communal riots in India in which
the violation of Hindu women always forms a part of the ritual. It is
doubtful if all communal riots are started by the Ulema, but the
lesson that infidel women are lawful plunder for Muslim rioters in
their role of mujãhids is undoubtedly inculcated in Islamic seminaries
managed and governed by the Ulema. Without a thorough-going reform of
this system of education, the prospect for Islam without jihãd is
bleak indeed.


It is here that India’s Secularism is attended with the biggest
question mark in its day to day observance. Since 1947, thousands of
Islamic seminaries have sprung up throughout the length and breadth of
this country in pursuance of clauses in our Constitution, and the
Indian State is prevented from interfering in their management by the
operation of those very clauses. Leading the Mussalmans to the path of
peaceful coexistence with their Hindu neighbours by appealing to such
Secularism, is an expectation ludicrous in itself; but the deception
played upon peace-loving Muslims by this sop of Secularism is worse
still. The intolerably farcical element in this sordid business is the
unceasing propaganda, daily mounted in our media with screaming
headlines and loud protestations, in favour of this very Secularism
and the State’s proclamation that without this policy no communal
amity is possible in India. This assertion is of course the exact
opposite of the truth. A Secularism that allows reckless proliferation
of Islamic seminaries without any attempt to reform their system of
education is the surest pathway to unhindered communal discord.


Is it possible to remove these forbidding obstacles? Could those
Mussalmans to whom the cause of communal concord is dearer than
jihadic outbursts of Islam, devise a way to preach the message of
Islam without jihãd? To outward seeming the feasibility of such
preaching appears remote indeed. But even in Islam there are some
pathways for peace and communal concord. These are of course narrow
and beset with insurmountable hurdles, but honest and sincere
endeavour on the part of earnest Mussalmans can perhaps make them
broader and more accessible to the generality of Muslims.


It must be remembered that the Koran itself has recorded the hesitant
murmurings of certain followers of early Islam who had wanted
‘respite’ from the duty of jihãd (4/77), and others who had preferred
service to pilgrims as a better Islamic duty than going into battle
against infidels (9/19-22). It is true that on both occasion Allah
dismissed their conscientious objections peremptorily; but even after
that the trend persisted. The hadîs which declares that the Prophet
had not been sent to preach the pacifism of Jews and Christians
acquires significance in this context. The peace-loving Mussalman in
our own day can appeal to these incidents and forestall the objection
of die-hard mujãhids by pleading that Allah himself had enjoined the
duty of war as a contingent one necessitated by circumstances.


Indeed a close study of the Koran would convince any one that the duty
of jihãd was all along ‘contingent’ as distinguished from the
‘permanent’ duties of prayer, pilgrimage and the like. It was in fact
no part of the Meccan dispensation, but was enjoined only in Medina
for the expansion of Islam which was made possible only under certain
exceptional circumstances. Peace-loving Mussalmans of our time can
very well plead that an essentially contingent injunction can claim no
permanent validity and that the duty of jihãd can be set aside
following the change of circumstances.


Such a movement for Islam without jihãd would obviously require a
thorough-going reform in the existing scheme of Islamic education
obtaining in India. The Indian State’s supine indifference to such
reform is not only reprehensible in itself, but also goes against all
the lessons of history. As early as 1871, W.W. Hunter (in his Indian
Mussalmans) had impressed upon the then British-Indian Government the
absurdity of the British-managed Calcutta Madrassa providing an
educational fare in which jihãd formed a large part of the curriculum
prepared for Muslim students. The present Indian State has produced
few administrators of Hunter’s calibre, and the frequent outpourings
of its spokesmen regarding the noble and peace-living faith of Islam
are not known to have made the slightest dent into the scheme of
Islamic education obtaining under the present regime. Such a scheme of
education must be overhauled, yielding place to a more suitable one.


Indeed the movement for Islam without jihãd can never be organised by
Muslims alone, however well-intentioned. Such a movement requires the
active cooperation of Hindus as well as the Indian State. Had the
Indian State sponsored Islam without jihãd since its inception, there
is little doubt that by now the leadership of the Muslim community
would have passed on to peace-loving Muslims. But right from the start
the Muslim element in India’s political set up had been under the
shadow of the Ulema of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s vintage. Till now the
preponderating force in India’s polity has been the Azad-Nehru axis.
This force never emphasized the possible role of pacifism in Islam.
Since the days of the Khilafat agitation, Azad had been proclaiming
the role of the sword in Islam. In his view of course this sword was
the sword of self-defence, but as has been shown in the course of this
work, it is pre-eminently the sword for the destruction of infidels.
The confusion was worse confounded by the fathers of our Constitution
labouring under an invincible ignorance regarding the tenets of
Islam.


If the truth were to be told, the greatest enemies of Muslim pacifism
have not been the Ulema but the so-called secularists of India, most
of them hailing from Hindu society itself The ignorance of these
worthies in regard to everything Islamic has to be seen to be
believed. The only consolation they can derive is from the fact that
at present such ignorance is a universal phenomenon. The Western
world’s intellectual decline is nowhere so manifest as in this
context. India’s Secularism is on its own admission merely a pale
imitation of its Western original which itself has nowhere taken note
of the Islamic doctrine of jihãd. Consequently, the riot-prone
behaviour pattern of the immigrant Muslim population in Western
countries has left them helpless and guessing. The Western media call
it ‘ethnic unrest’ - a stupid description betraying abysmal ignorance
about the nature of Islam.


The Indian State can seek consolation from the fact that its own
Muslim problem has gradually tended to become a problem for the whole
world. The problem cannot be solved without attempting far-reaching
reform in Islam in general and Islamic education in particular. Islam
being a world phenomenon, Indians cannot do much towards achieving
such reform. But the ‘Secular State’ of India has never attempted even
the little that it could achieve. The State which offers no helping
hand to such unfortunate victims of Islam as the helpless Shah Bano
and the scholarly Mushir-ul-Hassan but which confers honours on such
exponents of jihãd as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, has certainly forfeited
every right to exist except on the sufferance of the hundreds and
thousands of mujãhids it sustains and nurtures and daily inspires with
the holy resolve to destroy its very foundation.


http://www.bharatvani.org/books/jihad/ch12.htm

[arah]

Introduction

Jihad

The literal meaning of Jihad is struggle or effort, and it means much
more than holy war.

Muslims use the word Jihad to describe three different kinds of
struggle:

A believer's internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as
possible
The struggle to build a good Muslim society

Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary

Many modern writers claim that the main meaning of Jihad is the
internal spiritual struggle, and this is accepted by many Muslims.

However there are so many references to Jihad as a military struggle
in Islamic writings that it is incorrect to claim that the
interpretation of Jihad as holy war is wrong.

Jihad and the Prophet

The internal Jihad is the one that Prophet Muhammad is said to have
called the greater Jihad.

But the quotation in which the Prophet says this is regarded as coming
from an unreliable source by some scholars. They regard the use of
Jihad to mean holy war as the more important.


The internal Jihad

Learning the Qur'an by heart is considered engaging in Greater Jihad
© The phrase internal Jihad or greater Jihad refers to the efforts of
a believer to live their Muslim faith as well as possible.

All religious people want to live their lives in the way that will
please their God.

So Muslims make a great effort to live as Allah has instructed them;
following the rules of the faith, being devoted to Allah, doing
everything they can to help other people.

For most people, living God's way is quite a struggle. God sets high
standards, and believers have to fight with their own selfish desires
to live up to them, no matter how much they love God.

The five Pillars of Islam as Jihad

The five Pillars of Islam form an exercise of Jihad in this sense,
since a Muslim gets closer to Allah by performing them.

Other ways in which a Muslim engages in the 'greater Jihad' could
include:

Learning the Qur'an by heart, or engage in other religious study.
Overcoming things such as anger, greed, hatred, pride, or malice.
Giving up smoking.
Cleaning the floor of the mosque.
Taking part in Muslim community activities.
Working for social justice.
Forgiving someone who has hurt them.

The Greater Jihad controversy

The Prophet is said to have called the internal Jihad the "greater
Jihad".

On his return from a battle, the Prophet said: "We are finished with
the lesser jihad; now we are starting the greater jihad." He explained
to his followers that fighting against an outer enemy is the lesser
jihad and fighting against one's self is the greater jihad (holy war).

This quotation is regarded as unreliable by some scholars. They regard
the use of jihad as meaning 'holy war' as the more important.

However the quotation has been very influential among some Muslims,
particularly Sufis.


Holy war

When Muslims, or their faith or territory are under attack, Islam
permits (some say directs) the believer to wage military war to
protect them.

However Islamic (shariah) law sets very strict rules for the conduct
of such a war.

In recent years the most common meaning of Jihad has been Holy War.

And there is a long tradition of Jihad being used to mean a military
struggle to benefit Islam.

What can justify Jihad?

There are a number of reasons, but the Qur'an is clear that self-
defence is always the underlying cause.

Permissable reasons for military Jihad:

Self-defence
Strengthening Islam
Protecting the freedom of Muslims to practise their faith
Protecting Muslims against oppression, which could include
overthrowing a tyrannical ruler
Punishing an enemy who breaks an oath
Putting right a wrong

What a Jihad is not

A war is not a Jihad if the intention is to:
Force people to convert to Islam
Conquer other nations to colonise them
Take territory for economic gain
Settle disputes
Demonstrate a leader's power

Although the Prophet engaged in military action on a number of
occasions, these were battles to survive, rather than conquest, and
took place at a time when fighting between tribes was common.



The rules of Jihad

In recent years the most common meaning of Jihad has been Holy War ©
A military Jihad has to obey very strict rules in order to be
legitimate.

The opponent must always have started the fighting.
It must not be fought to gain territory.
It must be launched by a religious leader.
It must be fought to bring about good - something that Allah will
approve of.
Every other way of solving the problem must be tried before resorting
to war.
Innocent people should not be killed.
Women, children, or old people should not be killed or hurt.
Women must not be raped.
Enemies must be treated with justice.
Wounded enemy soldiers must be treated in exactly the same way as
one's own soldiers.
The war must stop as soon as the enemy asks for peace.
Property must not be damaged.
Poisoning wells is forbidden. The modern analogy would be chemical or
biological warfare.

The Qur'an on Jihad

The Qur'an has many passages about fighting. Some of them advocate
peace, while some are very warlike. The Bible, the Jewish and
Christian scripture, shows a similar variety of attitudes to war.

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but
begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
Qur'an 2:190

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight),
because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for
their aid.
Qur'an 22:39

Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead)
send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you
(to war against them).
Qur'an 4:90

But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards
peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all
things).
Qur'an 8:61

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/jihad_1.shtml

> and the maintaining of slave ...
>
> read more »

[duke]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:24:04 -0800 (PST), jwshe...@satx.rr.com wrote:

>Terror of Islam and it's cruelty - Islam Exposed

Amen.

[arah]

On Jan 9, 8:14 am, "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> 1 JOHN
>
> 1 Christ was alive when the world began, yet I myself have seen him
> with my own eyes and listened to him speak. I have touched him with my

> own hands. ..

Again another contradiction in the bible

John 1:18

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the
Father's side, has made him known.



Exodus 33:20

But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
live."

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/ashraf.html

MORE CONTRADICTIONS
IN THE QUR'AN

INTRODUCTION
The Quran, with its many ambiguous statements, is an ideal scripture
to find contradictions. At the same time, its ambiguity provides a
good opportunity for Muslims to find some explanation or the other to
negate a contradiction. Some of the contradictions mentioned below
might have already appeared on other Web Sites with slight variations.
Though Muslim scholars emphasize on the need to understand the CONTEXT
of every verse to understand its implication better, the job is easily
said than done. The innumerable repetitions and frequent appearance of
irrelevant verses make the CONTEXT-finding task indeed difficult. One
would expect a scripture to be organized in some logical manner to
enable people to understand it better. Unfortunately the Quran, often
projected by Muslims as the FINAL TESTAMENT from God, fails in this
criterion too.
"Better than a thousand verses devoid of meaning is a single
meaningful verse
which can bring tranquility to the one who hears it"
Dhammapada, 101
1. Embryonic Sex Determination
One of the references on human reproduction which Muslims often
quote from the Quran is verse 53:45-46. This is interpreted as a
reference to the determination of sex at the fertilization stage
itself. However, elsewhere, the Quran says that the sex of a
developing embryo is determined well after the leech-like clot stage!
(53:45-46)
"That He did create the pairs - male and female from a sperm-drop*
(nutfah) when lodged (in its place)" (75:38-39)
"Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)? Then did he
become a leech-like clot; then did (Allah) make and fashion (him) in
due proportion. And of him He made the sexes, male and female" **
___________
* Note the conspicuous absence of ovum required for
fertilization.
** This view is further supported by this Hadith: "When 42
nights have passed over the drop (nutfah), Allah sends an Angel to it,
who shapes it and make its ears, eyes, skin, flesh and bones. Then he
says, "O Lord, is it male or female?" and your Lord decides what He
wishes" (Hadith, Muslim, Book 33, No. 6392)

2. Width of the Garden
There is a clear discrepancy with reference to the width of the
Paradise or Garden in the Quran. Verse 3:133 says that it is all the
heavens (Samawath: plural) and the earth combined. Verse 57:21 says
that the width is the (lower?) heaven (Sama: singular) and the earth
combined.
(3:133)
".... a Garden whose width is that (of the whole) of the heavens and
the earth, prepared for the righteous," (57:21)
".... a Garden (of Bliss), the width whereof is as the width of the
heaven and the earth, prepared for those who believe in Allah .... "


3. Who misleads people? Satan or Allah?
According to verse 4:119-120, Satan (the rejected one) is the one
who creates false desires and misleads people. Refer also 15:42.
However, according to verse 16:93, it is God who leaves people astray
as He wills! See also 4:78.
(4:119-120)
"I will mislead them, and I will create in them false
desires....." (says Satan)
"Satan make them promises and creates in them false
hopes...." (vouched by Allah) (16:93)
"If Allah so willed, He could make you all one people. But He leaves
straying whom He pleases and He guides whom He pleases ...."


4. Attitude towards unbelieving parents
Al-Quran givens contradicting information as to what a believer
should do when unbelieving parents and brothers insist on worshipping
their gods. Verse 31:15 asks believers to keep company with
unbelieving parents even if they insist (on following their
religion?), but verse 9:23 asks believers not to take their fathers
and brothers as protectors if they disbelieved!
(31:15)
"But if they strive (Jahada) to make thee join in worship with Me
things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them
company in this life with justice (and consideration)..." (9:23)
"O ye who believe! Take not protectors your fathers and your brothers
if they love infidelity above faith: If any of you do so, they do
wrong"

These verses of course appear in different contexts. Apologists
can argue that verse 9:23 is applicable only in the context of
hostilities and not otherwise. Then we have to define what is
hostility. We must not forget that many passages in the Quran reflect
an hostile environment of fluctuating fortunes between believers and
unbelievers. Since neither the Suras nor all the verses within Suras
are arranged chronologically, the contexts of these `revelations'
become that much difficult to understand. Interestingly, verse 31:15
also seems to appear in the context of `Striving' from the
Unbelievers' side. Note the word `Jahada'!

5. Which enters the Paradise: Soul or Body or Both?
After resurrection, it is the body (after reuniting with the
soul?) which enters the Paradise. This has been emphasized throughout
the Book. See verses 13:5, 17:98-99, 20:55, 34:7, 75:3-4. However
verses 27-30 in Sura 89 state that it is the Soul (Nafs)* which enters
the Garden!
(17:99)
"See they not that Allah who created the heavens and the earth has the
power to create the like of them (anew)? ...."
(75:3-4)
"Does man think that We cannot assemble his bones? Nay we are able to
to put together in perfect order the very tips of his
fingers..." (89:27-30)
(To the righteous soul will be said) "O (tho) soul, in (complete) rest
and satisfaction! Come back thou to thy Lord - well pleased (thyself),
and well-pleasing unto Him! Enter thou, thee among my Devotees! Yea,
enter thou My Heaven!"
(31:28)
"Your creation and your rising (from the dead) are only as (the
creation and the rising of) a single soul..." (Pickthall)

In Islam, the bliss in Paradise is not complete without the
corporeal and sense pleasures. Otherwise, how can one drink Zanzabil
(76:17), feel the moderate temperature (76:13), enjoy maidens (55:56)
and drink honey and milk (47:16-17). These are all joys in state for
the faithful.
Yousuf Ali (note 6128 for verse 89:27-30) also says that it is the
soul which enters the heaven, and not the gross body which perishes
(His comment is contradictory to what verse 75:3-4 says!). Read verse
31:28 also. It says man's creation or resurrection is in no wise but
as an individual soul*. Pickthall's translation (see box above) is
more clear.
_____________
* Unlike in Vedic scriptures, the Quran does not clearly recognize
the SOUL as a distinct entity from the BODY. The soul is often
referred as a source of all inclinations and desires (3:61, 12:53).
The Arabic word `Nafs' has been translated differently by different
translators: as SOUL, MIND, SPIRIT and even as HEART! The word `Nafs'
at times refers to the individual (12:53), sometimes to the Soul
(6:93, 39:42), and sometimes to God Himself (6:12,54)!. Of particular
interest is verse 21:35 which says "Every soul shall have a taste of
death.... ". This verse could mean: (i) that the Soul gets a taste of
death after separation from the body, as Yousuf Ali interprets or (ii)
that the Individual gets a taste of death as it is generally implied
on most occasions (3:61, 51:21). Those who are of the opinion that
`Nafs' in 21:35 only mean the real Soul would then have to consider
this verse as another contradiction to verses 39:42 and 89:27-30 which
imply that the Soul is taken back by Allah, momentarily during sleep
and decisively at death. Does it mean that the Soul has no death?

6. God needs man or man needs God?
A very clear contradiction exists between verses 51:56 and 35:15.
While the former verse says that God created Jinns and mankind for His
own reasons (read also 67:2), the latter one says it is man who is in
need of God! Read also 51:57.
(51:56)
"I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve me" *
(67:2)
"He who created Death and Life, that He may try which of you is the
best in deed" 35:15
"O mankind! It is you that have need of God: but God is the One Free
of all wants, worthy of all praise"

_____________
* Of interest in this regard is the popular (but probably
fabricated) Hadith: "I was a secret treasure, and I created the
creatures in order that I might be known" (*, *)

7. EVIL AND GOOD: Where do they come from?
While one verse says that both Evil and Good issue from Allah, the
very next verse says only Good comes from Allah!
(4:78)
".... If some good befalls them, they say "This is from Allah". But if
evil, they say "This is from thee" (O prophet). Say: "All things are
from Allah....."* (4:79)
"Whatever good, (O man!) happens to thee, is from Allah. But whatever
evil happens to thee, is from thyself"

________________
* Interestingly, the remainder of this verse goes like this: "But
what has come to these people. That they fail to understand a single
fact?" Can anyone understand what God says here? The fact that both
Good and Evil are from Allah or only Good is from Allah?

8. Who has to be blamed for BELIEF AND DISBELIEF ?
(6:12)
"It is they who have lost their own souls, that they will not
believe" (10:100)
"No soul can believe except by the will of Allah"

No explanation required for this contradiction!

9. Who has to be blamed for the wrongs done?
From verses 35:8, 16:93, 74:31, 2:142, we learn that it is Allah
who has to be blamed for all the misguidance. While other verses hold
man himself responsible for the wrongs done (30:9, 4:79).
(35:8)
"Allah leaves stray whom He wills and guides whom He
wills" (30:9)
"It was not Allah who wronged them, but they wronged their own
souls"

10. UNBELIEVERS: To be persecuted or forgiven?
Verses 23:117 and 98:6 say that unbelievers will not prosper and
are the worst of creatures!. Verse 9:29 also asks believers to fight
those who do not believe in Allah, the Last Day, His rules and His
religion of truth. But verse 45:14 says otherwise. Read also 16:128.
(9:29)
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor
acknowledge the religion of Truth ....." (45:14)
"Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not hope for the Days
of Allah; It is for Him to recompense (for good or evil) each people
according to what they have earned"


Apologists can argue that verse 9:29 was revealed in the context
of war and 45:14 perhaps towards the end of hostilities. The fact is
that the Quran does not specify what verses are applicable in the
context of war and what is to be followed during other occasions. And
also what rulings were for the past, what are for the present and what
are for the future! God has unfortunately left everything to our
discretion. Ironically, Apologists claim that the Quran contains
solutions for the problems of the Past, Present and Future. There is
little doubt that their claims is more emotional than factual.

11. God's advice to Muhammed on propagating Islam
We have seen apologists quoting verses from the Quran in support
of their claim that the Quran does not recommend forceful conversions.
The verse they often quote is 2:256 which says "There is no compulsion
in religion". There are also many verses in the Quran which suggest
otherwise and these have already appeared on web pages. Here we see
two contradicting directives from God on conveying Allah's religion to
the people:
(3:20)
"So if they dispute thee, say: "I have permitted my whole self to
Allah and so have those who follow me"..... "Do you (also) submit
yourselves? If they do, they are in right guidance. But if they turn
back, thy duty is to convey the message. And in Allah's sight are
(all) His servants" (8:38-39)
"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from disbelief), their
past would be forgiven; but if they persist, the punishment of those
before them is already (a matter of warning to them). And fight them
on until there is no more persecution and the religion becomes Allah's
in its entirety... "

Is verse 8:38-39 an abrogation of verse 3:20? If that is the case,
can we recommend the directives in verse 8:38-39 as the standard
method to be followed by all Muslims? Or is the latter verse given
during the context of war? To me, these verses reflect the changing
moods of the prophet in response to the public reaction he received.
We see a content & tolerant messenger in verse 3:20 and a contempt and
aggressive messenger in verse 8:38-39!

I am yet to see a scripture without any apparent internal/external
contradiction in it. In general, the bigger the size of the Book,
greater the number of contradictions. Particularly when the texts are
a compilation of `revelations' attributed to many seers or prophets.
We are living in a pluralistic environment and our effort must to
understand the sublime teachings of all religious texts. Those who
sincerely wish to investigate the Truth should do it without any bias
and prejudice. Emotion should not take an upper hand at the expense of
common sense!
"Those who take error for truth, and the truth for error, will never
attain the supreme goal,
for they are led astray by vain desires and false views"
Dhammapada, 11.

Note: Readers should not get carried away by the fact that I have
quoted verses from Buddhist scripture Dhammapada. I don't mind quoting
verses from any scripture as long as they meet these two criteria: (i)
If its message is sensible and is of great value to the present and
(ii) if it does not contradict another verse of the same Book.

[arah]

Dear jwsheff.

Thank you for sharing Al Quran with the group. I hope you have read
and understand them. I can't find the contradiction as mentioned. Let
us review every single of them and compare with the bible or other
document that explained more detail.

Where are the contradiction? The Hadith explained the Quran. What
bible said regarding Embryonic Sex Determination

>
> 2. Width of the Garden
>     There is a clear discrepancy with reference to the width of the
> Paradise or Garden in the Quran. Verse 3:133 says that it is all the
> heavens (Samawath: plural) and the earth combined. Verse 57:21 says
> that the width is the (lower?) heaven (Sama: singular) and the earth
> combined.
>   (3:133)
> ".... a Garden whose width is that (of the whole) of the heavens and
> the earth, prepared for the righteous," (57:21)
> ".... a Garden (of Bliss), the width whereof is as the width of the
> heaven and the earth, prepared for those who believe in Allah .... "

Where are the contradiction? What the bible said regarding heaven?

>
> 3. Who misleads people? Satan or Allah?
>     According to verse 4:119-120, Satan (the rejected one) is the one
> who creates false desires and misleads people. Refer also 15:42.
> However, according to verse 16:93, it is God who leaves people astray
> as He wills! See also 4:78.
>   (4:119-120)
> "I will mislead them, and I will create in them false
> desires....." (says Satan)
> "Satan make them promises and creates in them false
> hopes...." (vouched by Allah) (16:93)
> "If Allah so willed, He could make you all one people. But He leaves
> straying whom He pleases and He guides whom He pleases ...."
>

Did Allah said he mislead human?

Allah said he guide whom he please. What the bible said?

> 4. Attitude towards unbelieving parents
>     Al-Quran givens contradicting information as to what a believer
> should do when unbelieving parents and brothers insist on worshipping
> their gods. Verse 31:15 asks believers to keep company with
> unbelieving parents even if they insist (on following their
> religion?), but verse 9:23 asks believers not to take their fathers
> and brothers as protectors if they disbelieved!
>   (31:15)
> "But if they strive (Jahada) to make thee join in worship with Me
> things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them
> company in this life with justice (and consideration)..." (9:23)
> "O ye who believe! Take not protectors your fathers and your brothers
> if they love infidelity above faith: If any of you do so, they do
> wrong"
>
>     These verses of course appear in different contexts. Apologists
> can argue that verse 9:23 is applicable only in the context of
> hostilities and not otherwise. Then we have to define what is
> hostility. We must not forget that many passages in the Quran reflect
> an hostile environment of fluctuating fortunes between believers and
> unbelievers. Since neither the Suras nor all the verses within Suras
> are arranged chronologically, the contexts of these `revelations'
> become that much difficult to understand. Interestingly, verse 31:15
> also seems to appear in the context of `Striving' from the
> Unbelievers' side. Note the word `Jahada'!

What did the bible said about relationship with parent?

What the bible said about body and soul?

Why blame Allah if you disbelieve in HIM?

If Allah will, HE can forgive anyone.

11. God's advice to Muhammed on propagating Islam
>     We have seen apologists quoting verses from the Quran in support
> of their claim that the Quran does not recommend forceful conversions.
> The verse they often quote is 2:256 which says "There is no compulsion
> in religion". There are also many verses in the Quran which suggest
> otherwise and these have already appeared on web pages. Here we see
> two contradicting directives from God on conveying Allah's religion to
> the people:
>   (3:20)

> "So if they dispute thee, say: "I have permitted my whole self to
> Allah and so have those who follow me"..... "Do you (also) submit
> yourselves? If they do, they are in right guidance. But if they turn
> back, thy duty is to convey the message. And in Allah's sight are
> (all) His servants" (8:38-39)

> "Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from disbelief), their
> past would be forgiven; but if they persist, the punishment of those
> before them is already (a matter of warning to them). And fight them
> on until there is no more persecution and the religion becomes Allah's
> in its entirety... "

Where are the contradiction?? "There is no compulsion
in religion"

Where are the verses Buddhist scripture Dhammapada regarding all those
discussed?

I hope jwsheff. can cut and paste for our discussion.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 2, 11:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>
> He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." Matthew
> 15:24
>
> Matthew 10:6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.
>
> Matthew 15:23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to
> him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
>
> Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to
> bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."

It is easy, as Jesus told His followers to preach the Gospel to ALL
PEOPLE, Jews and unbelievers, which Islam now also fits, Jesus started
with the JEWS as they had the LAW that God gave them. Now Jesus came
to save all people, and made it clear, He came to the Jew first and
His followers would bring it to all the world.
Then you being a follower of Islam, and one that REJECT the Gospel and
that JESUS is the LORD and rose from the dead and is the saviour, will
try to use the Bible out of context with remarks that are really show
your hate of who Jesus is, and lie like your father the devil.

Matt 24:11-14
11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And
because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13
But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of
the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the
nations, and then the end will come. NKJV
Matt 24:11-14
11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And
because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13
But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of
the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the
nations, and then the end will come.
NKJV

Mark 13:9-10
10 And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations.

Acts 4:10-12
10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that
by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God
raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11
This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has
become the chief cornerstone.' 12 Nor is there salvation in any
other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by
which we must be saved." NKJV

The truth is found in the whole of the Holy Bible, none in the Qur'an.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 3, 4:31 pm, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:

> On Jan 3, 11:25 am, "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 2, 8:15 pm, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:

>
> > > On Jan 2, 10:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>

> > >   Mt 28:19 -Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
> > >                  baptizing them in the name
> > >                  of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
> > > Ghost:

>
> > > Notice: Name singular, three persons
>
> > Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
> > the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
> > name.
>

> 1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he
> hold the catholic faith;

Do you mean the Roman Catholic faith, as the word "Catholic" is only a
name that Rome took, it is a term for "Universal" which the believers
of Christ have, Protestant and churches not limited to one church
group. Nice try to limit the truth to the Roman Catholic Popes and
such, that many do not even believe that the Roman Catholic church is
even saved or speak for Jesus in any way.

>
> 2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without
> doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

The faith is not a term for the Roman Catholic church. Without doubt
is silly, nice try at half truths.

>
> 3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity,
> and Trinity in Unity;

So your monks made the doctrine of the Trinity and it seems like you
have a company a group of gods to use the term Unity. Unless
yourself is a unity and you call all humans a trinity, as man is Body,
soul and spirit, made in the image of God. ONE person we are not seen
as three persons, we are ONE as God is ONE. Then what does the your
catholic faith have to do with God, You made up a title for God and
most all Churches that are not Roman Catholic say they believe in ONE
God and use the word "Trinity" they do not see the Trinity is only for
the Roman Catholic church. Protestant church do not see that the
Roman Catholic church who hold the Pope as "Holy Father" There is
only one Holy Father and that is as you even teach is the Father, in
the Godhead noting to do with the Pope or your Roman Catholic Church.

>
> 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
>

> 5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and
> another of the Holy Spirit.

You are one person and if you have another the only unity you would
have was three different people that has three mothers and fathers,
which is like pagans and their gods, three gods, or as you point out
three persons, God said he is one, never does the Holy Bible use the
term for Father as a person only the man Jesus is seen as a person,
check it out in the Bible. The Holy Spirit is not another person or
god.

>
> 6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit
> is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

Nope not a word in the Word of God that says such. Such is the
teachings of the monk around 325 AD, that took over a hundred years of
argument before even priest accepted that doctrine, the to use Trinity
for God is not many gods each equal etc. No one questions it is the
Roman Catholic teachings not the "Catholic" doctrine. The true
believers in the Holy Bible and the real teachings as found in the
Bible would the Billion believers of the Protestant Churches and the
Billion Churches of the Roman Catholic churches show that "Universal"
is not just mean Roman. Roman is only one church found in Rome, not
the world.

>
> 7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy
> Spirit.

Three gods now?

>
> 8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit
> uncreated.

Where do you get that from, God is uncreated, the Son is the child of
Mary which you call the "Mother of God" by such you even deny the main
doctrine of Mary that had a child called the Son of man, the son of
God. A spirit has no creation as such is God, not a person.

>
> 9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy
> Spirit incomprehensible.

Oh this is a laugh, you point out it is "Incapable of being explained
or accounted for" check out the dictionary, you said all this about
what God is and then point out you know nothing and your statements
mean nothing and hold no foundation, that your {catholic) is foolish
and is INCOMPREHENSIBLE!

Prove you incomprehensible

It makes you a fool!

>
> 10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
>
> 11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
>

> 12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible,
> but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
>

> 13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy
> Spirit almighty.
>

> 14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

>

> 15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
>

> 16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
>

> 17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit
> Lord;
>

> 18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
>
> 19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to
> acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
>
> 20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are
> three Gods or three Lords.
>

> 21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
>
> 22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but
> begotten.
>
> 23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor
> created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
>
> 24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three
> Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

>
> 25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is
> greater or less than another.
>
> 26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
>
> 27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the
> Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
>
> 28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
>
> 29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also
> believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
>
> 30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord

> Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

>
> 31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds;
> and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
>

> 32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh
> subsisting.
>

> 33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the
> Father as touching His manhood.
>

> 34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one
> Christ.
>

> 35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of
> that manhood into God.
>
> 36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of
> person.
>
> 37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is
> one Christ;
>
> 38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again
> the third day from the dead;
>
> 39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father,
> God, Almighty;
>
> 40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
>
> 41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
>
> 42. and shall give account of their own works.
>
> 43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and
> they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
>
> 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully
> he cannot be saved.

Nope it is the ROMAN Catholic NOT the Catholic Faith, then only JESUS
saves, not a faith in the Trinity or other doctrines made by priest or
monks.
"Incapable of being explained or accounted for"
The more you said the more foolish your statements are just incapable.

You seem to have lost all honesty by leaving the Topic or the Subject
of these post. Run so hard to post 44 made up myths.

Dr. R. Knapp, B.Theology, D. Div.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 4, 8:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:07:49 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:

>
> >On Jan 2, 11:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>

> >Where did you get that information?  It is all lies, Jesus told the
> >apostles he was sent to the Jews at that time.  I been sent to New
> >Jersey and latter to Manila and later to China etc. we all are sent
> >some place for a limited time.  We see the most important thing to
> >Jesus was to get his followers to preach the Gospel to Everyone in the
> >whole world, that sure shows why NON JEWS do follow Jesus as Jesus
> >made it his main action for His followers to reach everyone all NON
> >JEWS as well as JEWS and Gentiles etc.
>
> Say what?

That would be what a insane person would and does say.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/


Contradictions in the Qur'an

The purpose of this page
We do not reject the Qur'an because of this list of contradictions.
There are many reasons of much more substantial nature why we do not
believe the Qur'an to be from the one true God. You will find those
discussed on other pages of this web site (e.g. [1], [2]). This page
is not intended as an attack on the Qur'an. Sadly, many Muslims have
become unnecessarily aggravated because they did not understand the
purpose of this collection.

It is my experience that many Muslims try to evade a discussion of the
real issues regarding the truth of Islam and Christianity by pushing
"101 Bible Contradictions" (or similar compilations) into our face.
Muslim web sites abound in articles and collections attacking the
integrity of the Bible by means of contradiction lists. Many have the
attitude that "because the Bible is riddled with contradictions,
errors, absurdities and problems, there is no need for me to make the
effort to understand it." With such an attitude no real dialog can
develop. Our goal is to get beyond superficial word games to
discussing the relevant core issues over which we differ.

It has mostly proven useless to explain one set of contradictions
because there is always another one that can be added to the list. It
is important to be able to give explanations of the difficult Biblical
passages including those that seem contradictory. We are working hard
to provide good answers to honest questions in our Bible Commentary
and the section on alleged Bible contradictions. However, most
Muslims' rejection of the Bible is not based on such contradiction
lists. For most Muslims this rejection is an integral part of their
faith long before they have ever seen any such "contradictions". These
lists are usually only used as a convenient means to justify a
rejection of the Bible which would otherwise be very difficult to
explain rationally.

Counteracting this evasive or even hostile attitude is the purpose of
this page. If both sides can come to the recognition that their own
book, the scripture which is the basis of their faith, be it the Bible
or the Qur'an, contains some very difficult passages which might even
look like plain errors or logical contradictions (depending on the
level of hostility employed when looking at it), then we might be more
forgiving towards the other and be motivated to not judge prematurely
but to make a serious effort to understand each of the books and the
essential teachings of the respective faith in a deeper way before we
come to a decision why we do or do not believe them.

Debates about contradictions are rarely fruitful because people tend
to insist reading the texts of the opponent in the most rigid and
literal manner to make it look bad, while being very lenient with
their own book, allowing extra assumptions, metaphorical
interpretations and other means to somehow explain how this can be
understood without being a contradiction.

Some Muslims have proven by their provided responses that they possess
a quite ingenious and creative mind. It is for our readers to decide
whether or not the provided answers are fully satisfactory for them.
It is not for me to make that decision on their behalf. This is one
reason that I will not remove even those contradictions that I find
answered to my personal satisfaction. A second reason is that keeping
the effectively answered contradictions on this site will help Muslims
and Christians who don't know the possible responses to contradictions
they encountered elsewhere, to find them here. As such this page can
be a valuable resource for both Christians and Muslims, similar to
various Christian pages about seeming Bible contradictions. To compare
like with like, I will make the strongest possible case for something
being contradictory and wrong, similar to the Muslim attacks on the
Bible. The difference to Muslim web sites is that we give the right of
response.

It is our prayer that even this page may help Muslims and Christians
to make progress in mutual understanding, to come to a proper
perspective regarding the "contradictions issue" and to a realization
what the real issues are which we need to concentrate on in our
dialogs and debates.

Having clarified the purpose of this page we now challenge our Muslim
friends with the following compilation to rethink their approach for
determining the truth of scripture.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Introduction
Because the Bible seemingly contains errors therefore the Bible is not
God's word. The Qur'an on the other hand is free from discrepancies
and this is proof that the Qur'an is from God since Sura 4:82 states:


Do they not ponder on the Qur'an?
Had it been from other than Allah,
they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.
See also this Muslim presentation: The no-contradiction challenge of
the Qur'an.

But reality is not as simple as many would want us believe.
There are three basic categories of contradictions in the Qur'an:


Internal contradictions: Verses contradicting each other or the laws
of logic
External errors: Verses contradicting the facts of history or science
Verses contradicting the earlier revelations
Further: Contradictions between Muslim Traditions and the Qur'an


Other web web sites with pages on errors, contradictions or problems
in the Qur'an.
For your convenience: Download all contradictions in a .zip format.

If you are able to resolve to your own satisfaction the Qur'an
problems presented here, then probably you will be able to understand
that Christians can with a similar effort explain to their own
satisfaction most of the difficulties in the Bible. Try to be fair and
evaluate the Bible with an equal standard as the Qur'an. Don't judge
it with harsher criteria than you are ready to use when reading the
Qur'an. Even better, read the Bible to understand its meaning and
message and not to find fault with it on such superficial levels.

Think about this: Errors in the Bible prove that the Qur'an is not
from God.

To several of the presented problems Muslim responses are available on
our site. Links to the individual responses will be given usually at
the bottom of the pages dealing with the specific issue. If you want
to contribute your personal response to one of the topics below I need
to insist that you do this in this format also outlining my policy on
linking or displaying Muslim responses, as well as the issue of using
English translations of the Qur'an. But some think my offer is
dishonest. There are further Muslim responses to this summary page
available.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Important notice: This is an overview page which only gives short
summaries of the observed contradictions. Before you respond to any of
them, first click on the link to the detailed discussion of the
individual contradiction!

Internal Contradictions:
Who suffers loss if Muhammad was wrong? Sura 34:50 commands Muhammad
to say, "If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss," which is a
severe factual error in the Qur'an as well as contradicting the
teaching of the Qur'an in a number of other verses.
Allah, Adam, and the Angels. There are a great number of problems and
inconsistencies between the several accounts of Adam's creation,
Allah's command to prostrate before Adam, Satans refusal, etc.
Who Was the First Muslim? Muhammad [6:14, 163], Moses [7:143], some
Egyptians [26:51], or Abraham [2:127-133, 3:67] or Adam, the first man
who also received inspiration from Allah [2:37]?
Can Allah be seen and did Muhammad see his Lord? Yes [S. 53:1-18,
81:15-29], No [6:102-103, 42:51].
Were Warners Sent to All Mankind Before Muhammad? Allah had supposedly
sent warners to every people [10:47, 16:35-36, 35:24], Abraham and
Ishmael are specifically claimed to have visited Mecca and built the
Kaaba [2:125-129]. Yet, Muhammad supposedly is sent to a people who
never had a messenger before [28:46, 32:3, 34:44, 36:2-6]. This
article also raises other issues: What about Hud and Salih who
supposedly were sent to the Arabs? What about the Book that was
supposedly given to Ishmael? Etc.
What will be the food for the people in Hell? The food for the people
in Hell will be only "Dhari" [Sura 88:6], or only foul pus from the
washing of wounds [S. 69:36], or will they also get to eat from the
tree of Zaqqum [S. 37:66]? Together, these verses constitute three
contradictions.
Can Angels Cause the Death of People? The Qur'an attacks those who
worship anyone besides God (e.g. angels or prophets) because those can
neither create, nor give life, nor cause anyone to die. Yet, the
Qur'an explicitly states that one angel or several angels are causing
certain people to die [Sura 4:97, 16:28, 32, 32:11].
Confusion Concerning Identity of the Spirit and Gabriel (a long
discussion of dozens of references)
'Iddah rules for divorced and widowed women appear to be arbitrary and
inconsistent.
Is there a minimum age of marriage for girls?
To Marry or Not to Marry? The Qur'an forbids believers to marry
idolatrous women [Sura 2:221], and calls Christians idolaters and
unbelievers [9:28-33], but still allows Muslims to marry Christian
women [5:5].
Will it be accepted of them or not?
Will Allah reward the good deeds of Unbelievers? S. 9:17 and 9:69
clearly say no. However, S. 99:7 implies yes. Moreover, S. 2:62
promises Christians reward for their good deeds. But S. 9:28-33; 5:17,
72-73 calls Christians idolaters, and S. 9:17 is very clear that
idolaters will have no reward.
Should Muslims Accept Peace or Not?
Fighting All People Until They Do What?
Compel them or Not?
Can They Disbelieve in the Last Day and be Safe?
Should Muslims show kindness to their parents? On the one hand, the
Quran commands all Muslims to show kindness to their parents, even if
they are disbelievers [17:23-24, 31:14-15, 29:8, etc.]. On the other
hand, it demands not to show any love or friendship to those who
oppose Muhammad, even if they are their parents [9:23, 58:22].
Can one be a believer in God and oppose Muhammad at the same time?
How many mothers does a Muslim have? Only one [58:2, the woman who
gave birth and none else], or two [4:23, including the mother who
nursed him], or at least ten [33:6]?
And it just doesn't add up: Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 state the Qur'anic
inheritance law. When a man dies, and is leaving behind three
daughters, his two parents and his wife, they will receive the
respective shares of 2/3 for the 3 daughters together, 1/3 for the
parents together [both according to verse 4:11] and 1/8 for the wife
[4:12] which adds up to more than the available estate. A second
example: A man leaves only his mother, his wife and two sisters, then
they receive 1/3 [mother, 4:11], 1/4 [wife, 4:12] and 2/3 [the two
sisters, 4:176], which again adds up to 15/12 of the available
property.
How many angels were talking to Mary? When the Qur'an speaks about the
announciation of the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary, Sura 3:42,45
speaks about (several) angels while it is only one in Sura 19:17-21.
(This article has received many Muslim responses which are quoted or
linked and/or discussed at the end of the article.)
Further numerical discrepancies Does Allah's day equal to 1,000 human
years (Sura 22:47, 32:5) or 50,000 human years (Sura 70:4)? ---
According to Sura 56:7 there will be THREE distinct groups of people
at the Last Judgement, but 90:18-19, 99:6-8, etc. mention only TWO
groups. --- There are conflicting views on who takes the souls at
death: THE Angel of Death [32:11], THE angels (plural) [47:27] but
also "It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death." [39:42]
Angels have 2, 3, or 4 pairs of wings [35:1]; but Gabriel had 600
wings. [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455]
How many days did Allah need to destroy the people of Aad? One day
[54:19] or several days [41:16; 69:6,7]
Six or eight days of creation? Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59
clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six
days. But in 41:9-12 the detailed description of the creation
procedure adds up to eight days. (This topic also includes many Muslim
responses and further discussion.)
Quick or Slow Creation? Allah creates the heavens and the earth in six
days [7:54] and many Muslims want to be modern and scientific, and
make that six eons, but then again, He creates instantaneously
[2:117], "Be! And it is".
Heavens or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven
[2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30].
Calling together or ripping apart? In the process of creation heaven
and earth were first apart and are called to come together [41:11],
while 21:30 states that they were originally one piece and then ripped
apart.
What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45,
25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20,
35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth
[11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]
What were jinn created from?
The descent of the Quran: Piecemeal or all at once?
Examining the inherent problems with the descent of the Quran
Is half the Quran already fully detailed?
Fully Detailed Or Incomplete? The Qur'an claims for itself to be
(fully) detailed, that nothing is left out of the book [6:38, 6:114,
12:111, 16:89 etc.]. However there are plenty of important issues
which are left unclear in the Qur'an. This article discusses the
confusion found in the quranic statements on wine.
Is the Quran Completely Clear or Not?
The Perspicuity of the Quran and It’s Mysterious Letters
Worshiping the Same or a Different God? Muhammad is commanded to speak
to the disbelievers: ... nor do you worship what I worship [109:3].
However, other verses in the Qur'an state clearly that those
disbelieving his message are in fact worshiping the same God, Allah.
Did the Meccan Polytheist Believe That Allah Was The Supreme Being?
To Intercede or Not To Intercede? - That is the Question! The Qur'an
makes contradictory statements whether on the Day of Judgment
intercession will be possible. No: [2:122-123, 254; 6:51; 82:18-19;
etc.]. Yes: [20:109; 34:23; 43:86; 53:26; etc.]. Each position can be
further supported by ahadith.
How the Islamic Doctrine of Intercession undermines Allah's
Omniscience
Where is Allah and his throne? Allah is nearer than the jugular vein
[50:16], but he is also on the throne [57:4] which is upon the water
[11:7], and at the same time so far away, that it takes between 1,000
and 50,000 years to reach him [32:5, 70:4].
The origin of calamity? Is the evil in our life from Satan [38:41],
Ourselves [4:79], or Allah [4:78]?
How merciful is Allah's mercy? He has prescribed mercy for himself
[6:12], yet he does not guide some, even though he could [6:35,
14:4].
Does Allah command to do evil? No [7:28, 16:90]. Yes [17:16, ]. Two
examples are also given, where Allah clearly commanded or permitted
indecent actions [2:229-230, 2:187].
Should Muhammad Get Paid Or Shouldn’t He?
A Contradiction Regarding Muhammad's Fatherhood
Will there be inquiry in Paradise? "neither will they question one
another" [23:101] but nevertheless they will be "engaging in mutual
inquiry" [52:25], "and they will ... question one another" [37:27].
Are angels protectors? "NO protector besides Allah" [2:107, 29:22].
But in Sura 41:31 the angels themselves say: "We are your protectors
in this life and the Hereafter." And also in other suras is their role
described as guarding [13:11, 50:17-18] and protecting [82:10].
Is Allah the only Wali? On the one hand, Allah is supposedly the only
wali (protector, helper, friend) [9:116, 17:111, 32:4, 42:28], on the
other hand, the messenger and the believers are walis [5:55, 9:71],
Allah has walis [10:62], and he raises walis [4:75].
Does Allah Act Alone Or Does He Have Partners That Assist Him?
Is Allah the Only Judge or Not?
Is Allah the only sovereign or isn’t he?
Are all obedient and prostrating to Allah? That is the claim in 16:49
and 30:26, but dozens of verses speak of the proud disobedience of
Satan [7:11, 15:28-31, 17:61, 20:116, 38:71-74, 18:50] as well of many
different human beings who reject His commands and His revelations.
Does Allah forgive shirk? Shirk is considered the worst of all sins,
but the author of the Qur'an seems unable to decide if Allah will ever
forgive it or not. No [4:48, 116], Yes [4:153, 25:68-71]. Abraham
committed this sin of polytheism as he takes moon, sun, stars to be
his Lord [6:76-78], yet Muslims believe that all prophets are without
any sin.
Abraham and the Sun
Abraham's Monotheism
Abraham's Progeny? How the Qur'an messed up Abraham's family tree
Did All Prophets Receive the Same Book?
The event of worship of the golden calf: The Israelites repented about
worshipping the golden calf BEFORE Moses returned from the mountain
[7:149], yet they refused to repent but rather continued to worship
the calf until Moses came back [20:91]. Does Aaron share in their
guilt? No [20:85-90], yes [20:92, 7:151].
Was Jonah cast on the desert shore or was he not? "Then We cast him on
a desert shore while he was sick" [37:145] "Had not Grace from his
Lord reached him, he would indeed have been cast off on the naked
shore while he was reprobate." [68:49]
Moses and the Injil? Jesus is born more than 1,000 years after Moses,
but in 7:157 Allah speaks to Moses about what is written in the Injil
[the book given to Jesus].
Can slander of chaste women be forgiven? Yes [24:5], No [24:23].
How do we receive the record on Judgment Day? On Judgement day the
lost people are given the Record (of their bad deeds): Behind their
back [84:10], or in their left hand [69:25].
Can angels disobey? No angel is arrogant, they all obey Allah
[16:49-50], but: "And behold, we said to the ANGELS: 'Bow down to
Adam'. And THEY bowed down, EXCEPT Iblis. He refused and was
haughty." [2:34]. This article includes links to answers to four
Muslim responses.
How many wings does an angel have? Angels have 2, 3, or 4 wings
[35:1]; but Gabriel had 600 wings according to Sahih al-Bukhari.
Is Satan an angel or a jinn?
Three contradictions in 2:97 and 16:101-103 Who brings the revelation
from Allah to Muhammad? The ANGEL Gabriel [2:97], or the Holy Spirit
[16:102]? The new revelation confirms the old [2:97] or substitutes it
[16:101]? The Qur'an is PURE Arabic [16:103] but there are numerous
foreign, non-Arabic words in it.
Do not say, "Three"!? It is impossible to recite Sura 4:171 without
transgressing the command contained in it.
The infinite loop problem Sura 26:192,195,196: "It (the Qur'an) is
indeed a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds, ... in clear Arabic
speech and indeed IT (the Qur'an) is in the writings of the earlier
(prophets)." Now, the 'earlier writings' are the Torah and the Injil
for example, written in Hebrew and Greek. HOW can an ARABIC Qur'an be
contained in books of other languages? Furthermore, it would have to
contain this very passage of the Qur'an since the Qur'an is properly
contained in them. Hence these earlier writings have to be contained
in yet other earlier writings and we are in an infinite loop, which is
absurd.
Is the Torah like the Qur'an, or is it not? The Muslim claim of the
corruption of the Bible leads to a contradiction between S. 2:24 and
17:88 on the one hand, and 28:49 and 46:10 on the other.
Should Jews and Christians follow the Bible or the Quran?
"An old woman" and God's character About the story of Lot: "So we
delivered him and his family, - all exept an old woman who lingered
behind." [Sura 26:170-171] And again: "But we saved him and his
family, exept his wife: she was of those who lagged behind. [Sura
7:83]. Either this is a contradiction or if indeed Lot's wife is
derogatorily called "an old woman" then this does not show much
respect for her as a wife of a prophet.
More problems with the story of Lot "And his people gave NO answer but
this: They said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men
who want to be clean and pure!" [Sura 7:82 & 27:56]. Yet: "But his
people gave NO answer but this: They said: "Bring us the Wrath of
Allah if thou tellest the truth." [Sura 29:29]. Obviously these
answers are different.
The "pleasure" of Allah? Is God's action of punishment or mercy and
guidance or misguidance arbitrary?
Did Abraham smash the idols? The accounts of Abraham, Suras 19:41-49,
6:74-83 differ quite a bit from Sura 21:51-59. While in Sura 21
Abraham confronts his people strongly, and even destroys the idols, in
Sura 19 Abraham shuts up after his father threatens him to stone him
for speaking out against the idols. And he seems not only to become
silent, but even to leave the area ("turning away from them all").
What about Noah's son? According to Sura 21:76, Noah and his family is
saved from the flood, and Sura 37:77 confirms that his seed survived.
But Sura 11:42-43 reports that Noah's son drowns.
Was Noah driven out? "Before them *the people of Noah* rejected (their
messenger): They rejected Our servant and said, 'Here is One
possessed!' And he was driven out." [Sura 54:9] Now, if he is driven
out [expelled from their country] how come they can scoff at him while
he is building the ark since we read "Forthwith he (starts)
constructing the Ark: Every time that the Chiefs of *his people*
passed by him, they threw ridicule on him." [Sura 11:38] He cannot be
both: Driven out and near enough that they can regularly pass by.
Pharaoh's Magicians: Muslims or Rejectors of Faith? Did the Magicians
of Pharaoh, Egyptians, become believers in the God of Moses
[7:103-126; 20:56-73; S. 26:29-51] or did only Israelites believe in
Moses [10:83]?
How many gods did the Egyptians worship?
Pharaoh's repentance in the face of death? According to Sura 10:90-92,
Pharaoh repented "in the sight of death" and was saved. But Sura 4:18
says that such a thing can't happen.
Abrogation? "The words of the Lord are perfect in truth and justice;
there is NONE who can change His words." [Sura 6:115] Also see 6:34
and 10:64. But then Allah (Muhammad?) sees the need to exchange some
of them for "better ones" [Sura 2:106, 16:101]. And it is not for
ignorant people to question Allah because of such practices!
Guiding to truth? "Say: 'God - He guides to the truth; and which is
worthier to be followed ...?" [Sura 10:35] But how much is left over
of this worthiness when we also read: "Allah leads astray whom he
pleases, and he guides whom He pleases, ..." [Sura 14:4]. And how do
we know in which of Allah's categories of pleasure we fall? How sure
can a Muslim be that he is one of those guided right and not one of
those led astray?
What is the punishment for adultery? Flogging with a 100 stripes (men
and women) [24:2], "confine them to houses until death do claim them
(lifelong house arrest - for the women) [4:15]. For men: "If they
repent and amend, leave them alone" [4:16]. 24:2 contradicts both the
procedure for women and men in Sura 4. And why is the punishment for
women and men equal in Sura 24 but different in Sura 4?
How are the sexually immoral supposed to be punished?
The Problem of Divine Sovereignty, Predestination, Salvation and Human
Free Will
Who suffers the consequence of sins? The Qur'an declares that everyone
will be held responsible only for his own sins [S. 17:13-15,
53:38-42]. Yet, the Qur'an accuses the Jews of Muhammad's day for the
sins committed some 2000 years earlier by other Jews, e.g. worshipping
the Golden Calf idol.
Will Christians enter Paradise or go to Hell? Sura 2:62 and 5:69 say
"Yes", Sura 5:72 (just 3 verses later) and 3:85 say "No".
God alone or also men? Clear or incomprehensible? The Qur'an is "clear
Arabic speech." [16:103] Yet "NONE knows its interpretation, save only
Allah." [3:7]. Actually, "men of understanding do grasp it." [3:7]
Was Pharaoh Drowned or Saved when chasing Moses and the Israelites?
Saved [10:92], drowned [28:40, 17:103, 43:55].
When Commanded Pharaoh the Killing of the Sons? When Moses was a
Prophet and spoke God's truth to Pharaoh [40:23-25] or when he was
still an infant [20:38-39]?
When/how are the fates determined? "The night of power is better than
a thousand months. The angels and spirit descend therein, by the
permission of their Lord, with all decrees." [97:3,4] "Lo! We revealed
it on a blessed night." [44:3] To Muslims, the "Night of Power" is a
blessed night on which fates are settled and on which everything
relating to life, death, etc., which occurs throughout the year is
decreed. It is said to be the night on which Allah's decrees for the
year are brought down to the earthly plane. In other words, matters of
creation are decreed a year at a time. Contradicting this, Sura 57:22
says, "No affliction befalls in the earth or in your selves, but it is
in a Book before we create it." This means it is written in the
Preserved Tablet, being totally fixed in Allah's knowledge before
anyone was created. All of the above is contradicted by "And every
man's fate We have fastened to his own neck." This says that man alone
is responsible for what he does and what happens to him. [17:13]
Wine: Good or bad? Strong drink and ... are only an infamy of Satan's
handiwork. [5:90, also 2:219]. Yet on the other hand in Paradise are
rivers of wine [47:15, also 83:22,25]. How does Satan's handiwork get
into Paradise?
Good News of Painful Torture? Obviously, announcing torment and
suffering to anyone is bad news, not good news. However, the Qur'an
announces the good news of painful torment [3:21, 4:138, 9:3, 9:34,
31:7, 45:8, and 84:24].
Jinns and men created for worship or for Hell? Created only to serve
God [Sura 51:56], many of them made for Hell [Sura 7:179].
Preferred for Hell? S. 17:70 says that Allah prefers (all) the
children of Adam over many of his creatures, but S. 98:6 declares the
majority of men to be the worst of creatures, many of them being even
created specifically for Hell (S. 7:179).
Will people stay in Hell forever, or not?
Will all Muslims go to Hell? According to Sura 19:71 every Muslim will
go to Hell (for at least some time), while another passage states that
those who die in Jihad will go to Paradise immediately.
Will Allah disgrace Muslims? On the day of judgment Allah will not
humiliate or disgrace the Prophet and those who believe in him [S.
66:8]. However, 19:71 says that everyone will enter Hell, and 3:192
states that whomsoever Allah sends to Hell, is disgraced thereby.
Will Jesus burn in Hell? Jesus is raised to Allah, [Sura 4:158], near
stationed with him [Sura 3:45], worshiped by millions of Christians,
yet Sura 21:98 says, that all that are worshiped by men besides Allah
will burn in Hell together with those who worship them.
Is Jesus God or Not? In Sura 16:17, 20-21 and S. 25:3 we find a
criterion to distinguish the true God from false gods. Yet, according
to S. 3:49, 55, 4:157-158, 5:110, 6:2, and 38:71-72 Jesus satisfies
the definition and should be considered true Deity.
Is Jesus Like Adam? S. 3:59 makes this claim, but how many aspects of
likeness are there really?
Can there be a son without a consort? Allah cannot have a son without
a consort [Sura 6:101], but Mary can have a son without a consort
because that is easy for Allah [Sura 19:21].
Who is the father of Jesus? A more involved argument that is difficult
to summarize in one sentence.
Begetting and Self-sufficiency A self-contradiction on account of
confused terminology.
Could Allah have a son? Sura 39:4 affirms and Sura 6:101 denies this
possibility.
Did Jesus Die already? Sura 3:144 states that all messengers died
before Muhammad. But 4:158 claims that Jesus was raised to God
(alive?).
One Creator or many? The Qur'an uses twice the phrase that Allah is
"the best of creators" [23:14, 37:125]. What other creators are in
mind? On the other hand, many verses make clear that Allah alone is
"the creator of all things" [e.g. 39:62]. There is nothing left for
others to be a creator of.
From among all nations or from Abraham's seed? Sura 29:27 states that
all prophets came Abraham's seed. But 16:36 claims that Allah raised
messengers from among every people.
Marrying the wives of adopted sons? It is important that Muslims can
marry the divorced wives of adopted sons [Sura 33:37], yet it is
forbidden to adopt sons [Sura 33:4-5].
Messengers were never sent to other than their own people? So it is
claimed in Sura 14:4 and 30:47. However, the Bible and the Qur'an, and
the Muslim traditions confirm that Jonah was sent to a different
nation.
Messengers Were Sent Only to Their Own People? Sura 14:4 states that
never was a messenger sent except in the language of his own people.
Yet, the Quran itself claims that Jesus is supposed to be a sign to
all people, that the Torah and Gospel are for all people, that Moses
was sent to Pharaoh of Egypt, and that Muhammad is sent to all of
mankind. The hadith also claim that Noah was sent to "the inhabitants
of the earth".
Did Allah give a Greek Injil to the Jews?
What kind of book is the Injil?
Messengers Amongst the Jinns and Angels? Allah sent only men as
messengers [Suras 12:109, 21:7-8, 25:20-21] but there seemingly are
messengers from Jinns and Angels [6:130; 11:69,77; 22:75; etc., see
article for details].
Do all of God's messengers eat food?
A Messenger from among the beasts? Allah sent only men as messengers
[Suras 12:109, 21:7-8, 25:20-21]. Yet, the Qur'an also speaks about a
beast that is a messenger from Allah to men [S. 27:82].
Is Muhammad Only A Warner or a Prophet/Messenger?
Did the Messengers Perform Miracles?
Divinely Inspired Ignorance?
Which Prophets Did the Jews Kill?
Another eleven contradictions...
Further:



Examples of conflicting versions of the same story in the Qur'an
Contradictory Grammar
... and more ...

Statements that are difficulties only because of the wording in the
English translation:
To speak or not to speak? Say: I shall not speak to any man
today. (Sura 19:26)
Further pages with Muslim responses:

A summary response to (some of items) above
Misha'al Al-Kadhi's response titled "Does the Word of God in the Noble
Qur'an Contain Contradictions?" He never informed me that he was
writing about me ... Maybe he hoped that as long as I don't know about
it he will not be refuted? Carefully compare my reasoning and his
reply, since many times he only responds to the short abstract given
on this page, without paying any attention to the detailed discussion
of each of these contradictions, found when one follows the given
links.
The same approach was taken by Laaman Ball in his Response to Internal
Contradictions which prompted my question in return.
Some interesting responses from the sectarian Qur'an Only camp: [*]
Osama Abdallah also put together a number of responses [*]
Answering Islam's Critics is Shabir Ally's new page in response to the
Qur'an Contradictions. Having just written a response to only the
first entry above, he already claims they are all invalid. That seems
somewhat premature to us.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

External Contradictions:


Introductory question
Science:

Solomon listening to ants? In Sura 27:18-19 Solomon overhears a
"conversation of ants".
Is this possible based on our knowledge about the mode and complexity
of ant communication?
The stars and the moon The Qur'an teaches that there are seven heavens
one above the other [67:3, 71:15], and that the stars are in the lower
heaven [67:5, 37:6, 41:12], but the moon is depicted as being in/
inside the seven heavens [71:16], even though in reality the stars are
much further away from the earth than the moon.
Qur'an and Science: Section Four in Dr. Campbell's book
Qur'an and Embryology
Can non-living matter think, feel and have a will?
The human embryonic development
The place of Sun rise and Sun set
The Seven Earths
Stars created to be thrown at devils?
Sun and moon are subject to man?
Mountains and Earthquakes
The impossible conversation
Solomon and the animals...
Allah's forgotten creatures
Shaking the trunk of the palm tree?
Thinking with the breasts?
All things are made in pairs? Sura 51:49 claims that everything is
created in pairs. But this is not true! There are quite a number of
things that have no counterpart and species where only one gender
exists.
Are Fruits Male and Female?

History:

The Qur'an Attacks ... Christianity?
Selling Joseph for a few Dirhams? (before coins were even invented)
Moses and the Samaritan?
The farthest Mosque?
Alexander the Great, a Muslim?
None else was named "John" before John the Baptist?
Two Pharaohs who crucified?
Burnt bricks in Egypt?
How many gods did the Egyptians worship?
Israel, the Quran and the Promised Land
Were they utterly destroyed?
What kind of book is the Injil?
Jesus was not crucified?
The anachronistic title al-`Aziz given to Potiphar [with special
gratitude to Islamic Awareness for making such a big deal about a
minor point on a defunct web page, and forcing the issue into public
attention.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Qur'an in Contradiction to the Earlier Revelations:

Ultimately, the strongest, most serious problem of the Qur'an is that
it affirms the scriptures of the Jews and the Christians as authentic
and true revelation from God (cf. what the Qur'an says about the
Bible), while radically denying central aspects of their message, e.g.
the core themes of sacrifice and atonement in the Torah, the
crucifixion of Jesus, the deity of Jesus and even the mere messianic
title "Son of God" for Jesus, the very nature of God, the fall and the
sinfulness of man (*, *), necessity and means of salvation, etc. For
this reason Muslims had to invent the unwarranted theory of corruption
of the earlier scriptures, even against the clear testimony of the
Qur'an itself.

In the following some smaller discrepancies between the Qur'an and the
scriptures it supposedly confirms.


Historical Compressions:
Saul, David, Gideon and Goliath
A Samaritan tempting the Israelites in Moses time?
Prophets and Kings in Israel before the time of Moses?
Moses and the Gospel?
Punishment for future disobedience?
Mary, the sister of Aaron?
Pharaoh and Haman?
A Pharaoh Who Forgot to Die in Time?
Was there a second period of slaying the sons of the Israelites?
Moses or Jacob?
Did Joseph's parents go to Egypt?
Abraham's name
Abraham and Solomon
Other contradictions in comparison to the Bible:

Introductory remark

Did God teach Adam the names of the animals?
Noah's Age
Were Believers Really Called Muslims Before the Time of Muhammad?
The Quran’s Mistakes regarding the Biblical Patriarchs
Who Adopted Moses: Pharaoh’s Daughter or Pharaoh’s Wife?
Adoption by Adaption analyzes various discrepancies inf the quranic
version of the stories of Moses and Joseph.
A Flood in the time of Moses?
Israel, the Quran and the Promised Land
The Quran, Moses and the Tablets of Stone
Solomon Working with Demons
Israel's Response to the Covenant: ‘We Obey’ or ‘We Disobey’?
Where is the Blood?
Divinely Inspired Ignorance?
Which Prophets Did the Jews Kill?
What kind of book is the Injil?
Animal sacrifices for Christians?
Why did the Queen of Sheba come to Solomon?
Ezra the Son of God?
Jesus reached old age?
Did the golden calf say 'Moo'?
Did disobedience result in extra commandments?
How many messengers were sent to Noah's people?
Further discussion: Who are those messengers that were rejected by
Noah's people?
The Progeny of Abraham?
Two young men?
How many wings does an angel have?

More contradictions between Qur'an and Bible


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Do they not ponder on the Qur'an?
Had it been from other than Allah,
they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.
-- Sura 4:82
Since this verse is claiming that there is "no contradiction /
discrepancy" in the Qur'an, therefore itself has to be part of the
list of contradictions because it contradicts the existence of the
above listed contradictions. Or would you say because it says "much"
and the above aren't "enough of them" yet to qualify for "much", all
is actually fine?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to use these contradictions when talking to your Muslim
friends, then read this.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A book on this topic, listing several hundred difficult issues in the
Qur'an is:


`Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi
Is the Qur'an Infallible?
Order Number VB 4009 E
available from:
Light of Life, P.O.Box 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria
Also available in Arabic.
Other Pages on these topics:


Contradictions in the Qur'an
Chapters 6 - 11 in the book "Behind the Veil"
Errors in the Qur'an
A Partial List of Problems and Contradictions in the Quran
Quran Contradictions
If you know of another contradiction or error I have missed so far, I
would appreciate a message informing me about it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason for this page...

If you have browsed the contradictions page and have the feeling this
is a really mean, disrespectful and distasteful attack on the
Qur'an, ... and Muslims would never do things like that to the
Bible ... maybe you would like to have a look around some Muslim
sites:


The Bible Criticism Page [1], [2], [3], [4] is copied and displayed on
many Islamic sites and often one of the first links that you see when
entering these Islamic pages: [1], [1a], [2], ... [3], and a similar
page is here.
What do you think about Muslims using Atheist material?

I take no joy in this approach. Muslims have forced it on me with
their pages.
Please read the purpose statement for this page to understand my
motivation better.

Furthermore, there are "genuinely" Muslim pages, that are not just
relying on the atheists, but they have their own Bible contradictions.
I am giving again several locations of the identical text, to show how
important these books are to Muslims and how often they are used.


Shabir Ally's "101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible" are quite
popular, but it is interesting to note that none of the Muslim pages
is willing to link to the Christian response to their attack on the
Bible. What is the fear? Why do Muslims demand that we link to their
responses on the Qur'an contradictions but they are not willing to
link to the Christian response to Bible contradictions?

Abdul Rahman Dimashkiah presents "Let the Bible Speak" ([1], [2], [3],
[4], [5])
Dr. Norlain Dindang Mababaya's "God: Is not the Author of Confusion"
is responded to on our site
101 Questions About Christianity ([1], [2], [3])
====> Christian Responses

http://answering-islam.org/Bible/Contra/index.html

[duke]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:59:31 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

I know. Why did you say what you did?

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 4, 8:26 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:25:52 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 2, 8:15 pm, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:

> >> On Jan 2, 10:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> "WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>

> >> Mt 28:19 -Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
> >> baptizing them in the name
> >> of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
> >> Ghost:
>
> >> Notice: Name singular, three persons
>
> >Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
> >the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
> >name.
>

> Christians see one God in 3 persons.

Then I am also ONE person in one body as body, soul and spirit, sure
not 3 people. The see God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, no where
does the bible the Word of God say "in 3 persons". Christians believe
in ONE GOD that is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

The teaching of the Trinity have many meanings and seen as different
to many here. Try this one of them.

God Is One God: Monotheism

There is nothing more fundamental to biblical theology than monotheism
(the biblical belief that there is one and only one God): “Hear, O
Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deut. 6:4). This verse,
known as the Shema in Hebrew (from the opening verb of the verse
meaning “hear” or “listen”), is one of the most familiar and
foundational verses in the OT. God rejects polytheism (belief in many
gods) and demands exclusive devotion: “I am the LORD, and there is no
other, besides me there is no God” (Isa. 45:5; cf. Deut. 4:35, 39; 1
Kings 8:60; Isa. 40:18; 46:9). The NT affirms the deity of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, as we shall see, but does not waver from OT
monotheism (John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4–6; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19). Jesus
quotes the Shema in a debate with the Jewish leaders (Mark 12:29), and
Paul continues to teach that there is one God while recognizing Jesus
as the divine-human Mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).


Implications of Monotheism
Because there is only one God, idolatry of any kind is evil, foolish,
wrong, and harmful. Worship of other “gods” robs the true God of the
devotion and glory he alone deserves. Idolatry can take many forms.
Idols are not only man-made objects but are anything allowed to
compete with God for ultimate loyalty. According to Jesus, money can
become an idol: “You cannot serve God and money” (Matt. 6:24). Greed,
lust, and impurity can also become indicators of idolatry (Eph. 5:5;
Col. 3:5). Idolatry is foolish, deceptive, and dangerous—and may even
involve demonic activity (1 Cor. 10:19–20).
Because there is only one God, he alone should be the ultimate object
of the believer’s affections. He alone deserves absolute allegiance
and obedience. The Great Commandment that follows the Shema is the
obvious implication of monotheism: “You shall love the LORD your God
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
might” (Deut. 6:5). The one true God deserves all we are and have. He
deserves wholehearted love because nothing compares with him.


Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles,
2008). 2513.t.

Thank you Duke, I always resources my statements and historical facts,
the above is only a small part of what people see as the Trinity, you
just push the teachings of the Roman Catholic church that you want
then one looking at what you teach about Jesus and the Godhead is that
of a unlearned lay person. You are way out of your league.


>
> duke, American - American
>
> *****-------------------------------------------------------

[duke]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:29:24 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

>On Jan 4, 8:26 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:25:52 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 2, 8:15 pm, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
>> >> On Jan 2, 10:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> "WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>>
>> >> Mt 28:19 -Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
>> >> baptizing them in the name
>> >> of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
>> >> Ghost:
>>
>> >> Notice: Name singular, three persons
>>
>> >Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
>> >the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
>> >name.
>>
>> Christians see one God in 3 persons.

>Then I am also ONE person in one body as body, soul and spirit, sure
>not 3 people.

Right, but you're not God.

>The see God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, no where
>does the bible the Word of God say "in 3 persons". Christians believe
>in ONE GOD that is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

That's what I said.

>The teaching of the Trinity have many meanings and seen as different
>to many here. Try this one of them.

>God Is One God: Monotheism

That's not a trinity, foolish little man.

duke, American - American

*****

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 22, 12:09 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:59:31 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

> wrote:
> >On Jan 4, 8:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:07:49 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jan 2, 11:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>
> >> >Where did you get that information?  It is all lies, Jesus told the
> >> >apostles he was sent to the Jews at that time.  I been sent to New
> >> >Jersey and latter to Manila and later to China etc. we all are sent
> >> >some place for a limited time.  We see the most important thing to
> >> >Jesus was to get his followers to preach the Gospel to Everyone in the
> >> >whole world, that sure shows why NON JEWS do follow Jesus as Jesus
> >> >made it his main action for His followers to reach everyone all NON
> >> >JEWS as well as JEWS and Gentiles etc.
>
> >> Say what?
>
> >That would be what a insane person would and does say.
>
> I know.  Why did you say what you did?

I know also, nice to see you agree with me, you seem to be insane and
again that is why I said what I did, and anyone that wants to see the
truth, read what I wrote, and know that the insane can not accept that
and why Duke himself put himself into that person. May God have
Mercy and Grace on his soul.

Rev. R. Knapp
www.pioneers-for-Jesus.org No charge read about what Jesus has
honored in our ministry since 1964 Full time missionaries. Be Blessed
friend.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 25, 2:54 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:29:24 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Jan 2, 10:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> "WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>
> >> >> Mt 28:19 -Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
> >> >> baptizing them in the name
> >> >> of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
> >> >> Ghost:
>
> >> >> Notice: Name singular, three persons
>
> >> >Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
> >> >the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
> >> >name.
>
> >> Christians see one God in 3 persons.
> >Then I am also ONE person in one body as body, soul and spirit, sure
> >not 3 people.
>
> Right, but you're not God.

I hate to have to enlighten you, but you are not God, either. Only
ONE GOD and God is not body, soul and spirit, we are, God is Father,

Son and Holy Ghost.


>
> >The see God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, no where
> >does the bible the Word of God say "in 3 persons".  Christians believe
> >in ONE GOD that is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
>
> That's what I said.

So what is your problem, I been saying that since I started. You may
need to look again, I do not see the word Trinity or God as Person, I
said God is the the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Now that again is
what I said and the Bible says.

>
> >The teaching of the Trinity have many meanings and seen as different
> >to many here.  Try this one of them.
> >God Is One God: Monotheism
>
> That's not a trinity, foolish little man.

That is only because you do not want to call God such, then the word
foolish tiny man shows "monoTHEISM" which the dictionary for the
English language says this "Monotheism is the Belief in a single God"
are you saying you do not believe in ONE God as Single God can not
mean anything but ONE, Single.

Then I can see why people made up the Trinity and it is why most that
say they believe in the Trinity also say they can not understand it
and even that no one will be able to understand how God fits it, just
take it by faith, the RCC monk said it was that way and the RCC could
not of made a mistake. Then I know Theology and its teachings on the
Godhead which only confuse the simple says your church and others that
say God is in TriUnity or Trinity. God understand your problems and
thank God He knows the heart also.

Dr. R. Knapp
www.pioneers-for-jesus.org

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://theexpositor.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/the-heresy-of-oneness-pentecostalism/

The Heresy of Oneness Pentecostalism
I offer this link to an explanation of Oneness Pentecostalism because
the effects of this false teaching effect me personally. I have
numerous family members and friends who have been deceived by the
heresy of the United Pentecostal Church and it breaks my heart to see
what is happening to them. This false church draws people in with big
smiles, upbeat music and fellowship, but when one makes the effort to
examine what the UPCI teaches, in the light of Scripture, it is clear
this churches teachings are contrary to the Word of God.

Watchman Fellowship offers a wonderful resource, including a great
outline on the history and teachings of One Pentecostalism. I invite
you all to make this website one of your regulars. In the profile of
Oneness Pentecostalism, they outline the basics of this false
teaching:

•Denial of the Trinity-The doctrine of the Godhead taught by Oneness
Pentecostals, rather than having its roots in the Bible, can instead
be traced to the heresy of modalism taught in the third century by
Sabellius (although it was first taught in 190 by Theodotus of
Byzantium). Sabellius taught that the monotheistic God (called a
monad) progressively revealed Himself through the offices of the
Trinity. Significantly, Sabellius was excommunicated from the Church
for his aberrant teachings. The Oneness Pentecostal teaching that God
“manifested” Himself through the offices of Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit comes directly from Sabellius, who even used the term
“manifesting” to define his doctrine.
•Jesus Only Baptism- (The teaching that a convert baptized in the
Names of the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit are not biblically
saved and that a convert must be baptized in the name of Jesus only,
or they are not born again. ) The Oneness understanding that salvation
depends upon Jesus’ Name baptism is similarly refuted by Scripture.
Oneness Pentecostals use Acts 4:12 as evidence that salvation comes
through this baptismal formula.27 If salvation comes only through
being baptized by the sacred name of God, and if the Son is simply a
manifestation of God the Father, then baptism would therefore need to
be performed in the name of Elohim or Yahweh (provided in the Old
Testament). Since even Oneness Pentecostals would dispute this
understanding, the necessity of baptism in the name of Jesus only is
easily refuted using their own logic.
•Tongues-(The teaching that a convert MUST speak in tongues upon the
moment of salvation, which coincides with water baptism in the name of
Jesus only, or that salvation is wrong.)…..it is necessary to point
out that the Oneness belief in the gift of tongues as a necessary
evidence of having the Holy Spirit (as opposed to the gift as an
evidence of the fullness of the Spirit, as some Pentecostals believe)
is unbiblical. Even Bernard admits that many of the biblical accounts
of conversions do not describe receiving the gift of tongues.
Therefore, Oneness Pentecostals are erroneously attempting to argue
that something that occasionally occurred should therefore always
occur; it is impossible to argue this point when the Bible does not
make such a claim.
I invite you to read the entire profile. Also, John Ankerberg produced
a series of wonderful resources on the subject and are available at
their website www.ankerberg.org.

Please do not be deceived by this false movement. Friendliness, good
music and good food will not save you. We must pass this and all
doctrine through the lens of Scripture. If a teaching is contrary to
the entirety of God’s Word….it is error.

[arah]

It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are
used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not
the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God.
Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender.
This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word "god," which can
be made plural, as in "gods," or made feminine, as in "goddess." It is
interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in
Aramaic, the language of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic.

The One true God is a reflection of the unique concept
that Islam associates with God. To a Muslim, Allah is the Almighty
Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Who is similar to nothing, and
nothing is comparable to Him. The Prophet Muhammad was asked by his
contemporaries about Allah; the answer came directly from God Himself
in the form of a short chapter of the Qur'an, which is considered to
be the essence of the unity or the motto of monotheism. This is
chapter 112, which reads:“ In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the
Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the
Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and
equal to Him is not anyone”.

Some non-Muslims allege that God in Islam is a stern and
cruel God who demands to be obeyed fully and is not loving and kind.
Nothing could be farther from the truth than this allegation. It is
enough to know that, with the exception of one, each of the 114
chapters of the Qur'an begins with the verse " In the name of God, the
Merciful, the Compassionate". In one of the sayings of Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH), we are told that “ God is more loving and kind than a
mother to her dear child”.

On the other hand, God is also Just. Hence, evildoers and
sinners must have their share of punishment, and the virtuous must
have God's bounties and favors. Actually, God's attribute of Mercy has
full manifestation in His attribute of Justice. People suffering
throughout their lives for His sake should not receive similar
treatment from their Lord as people who oppress and exploit others
their whole lives. Expecting similar treatment for them would amount
to negating the very belief in the accountability of man in the
Hereafter and thereby negate all the incentives for a moral and
virtuous life in this world. The following Qur'anic verses are very
clear and straightforward in this respect.

Verily, for the Righteous are gardens of Delight, in the
Presence of their Lord. Shall We then treat the people of Faith like
the people of Sin? What is the matter with you? How judge you?

Islam rejects characterizing God in any human form or
depicting Him as favoring certain individuals or nations on the basis
of wealth, power or race. He created the human-beings as equals. They
may distinguish themselves and get His favor through virtue and piety
only.

The concepts that God rested on the seventh day of
creation, that God wrestled with one of His soldiers, that God is an
envious plotter against mankind, and that God is incarnate in any
human being are considered blasphemy from the Islamic point of view.

The unique usage of Allah as a personal name of God is a
reflection of Islam's emphasis on the purity of the belief in God that
is the essence of the message of all God's messengers. Because of
this, Islam considers associating any deity or personality with God as
a deadly sin that God will never forgive, despite the fact that He may
forgive all other sins.

The Creator must be of a different nature from the things
created because if He is of the same nature as they are, He will be
temporal and will therefore need a maker. It follows that nothing is
like Him. If the maker is not temporal, then he must be eternal. But
if he is eternal, he cannot be caused, and if nothing caused Him to
come into existence, nothing outside Him causes Him to continue to
exist, which means that he must be self-sufficient. And if He does not
depend on anything for the continuance of His own existence, then this
existence can have no end. The Creator is therefore eternal and
everlasting: "He is the First and the Last".

He is Self-sufficient or Self-subsistent, or, to use a
Qur'anic term, Al-Qayyum The Creator does not create only in the sense
of bringing things into being, He. also preserves them and takes them
out of existence and is the ultimate cause of whatever happens to
them.

“ God is the Creator of everything. He is the guardian
over everything. Unto Him belong the keys of the heavens and the
earth” (39:62-63).

“ No creature is there crawling on the earth, but its
provision rests on God. He knows its lodging place and its
repository” (11:16).


God's Attributes
If the Creator is Eternal and Everlasting, then His
attributes must also be eternal and everlasting. He should not lose
any of His attributes nor acquire new ones. If this is so, then his
attributes are absolute. Can there be more than one Creator with such
absolute attributes? Can there be, for example, two absolutely
powerful Creators? A moment's thought shows that this is not
feasible.

The Qur'an summarizes this argument in the following
verses:“ God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god
with Him: for then each god would have taken of that which he created
and some of them would have risen up over others” (23:91).

“ And why, were there gods in earth and heaven other than
God, they (heaven and earth) would surely go to ruin” (21:22).


The Oneness of God
The Qur'an reminds us of the falsity of all alleged gods.
To the worshippers of man-made objects it asks:“ Do you worship what
you have carved yourself” (37:95). “ Or have you taken unto yourself
others beside Him to be your protectors, even such as have no power
either for good or for harm to themselves” (13:16).

To the worshippers of heavenly bodies it cites the story
of Abraham:“ When night outspread over him, he saw a star and said:
This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: I love not the setters.
When he saw the moon rising, he said: This is my Lord. But when it
set, he said: If my Lord does not guide me, I shall surely be of the
people gone astray. When he saw the sun rising, he said: This is my
Lord; this is greater. But when it set, he said: O my people, surely I
quit that which you associate, I have turned my face to Him who
originated the heavens and the earth; a man of pure faith, I am not
one of the idolators” (6:76-79).


The Believer's Attitude
In order to be a Muslim, that is, to surrender oneself to
God, it is necessary to believe in the oneness of God, in the sense of
His being the only Creator, Preserver, Nourisher, etc. But this
belief, later called Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah, is not enough. Many of the
idolators knew and believed that only the Supreme God could do all
this. But this was not enough to make them Muslims. To tawhid ar-
rububiyyah, one must add tawhid al-'uluhiyyah. That is, one
acknowledges the fact that it is God alone who deserves to be
worshipped, and thus abstains from worshipping any other thing or
being.

Having achieved this knowledge of the one true God, man
should constantly have faith in Him, and should allow nothing to
induce him to deny truth.

When faith enters a person's heart, it causes certain
mental states that result in certain actions. Taken together, these
mental states and actions are the proof for the true faith. The
Prophet said:“ Faith is that which resides firmly in the heart and
which is proved by deeds”.

Foremost among those mental stated is the feeling of
gratitude towards God, which could be said to be the essence of ibada
(worship).

The feeling of gratitude is so important that a non-
believer is called 'kafir', which means 'one who denies a truth' and
also 'one who is ungrateful'.

A believer loves, and is grateful to God for the bounties
He bestowed upon him, but being aware of the fact that his good deeds,
whether mental or physical, are far from being commensurate with
Divine favors, he is always anxious lest God should punish him, here
or in the Hereafter. He, therefore, fears Him, surrenders himself to
Him and serves Him with great humility. One cannot be in such a mental
state without being almost all the time mindful of God. Remembering
God is thus the life force of faith, without which it fades and
withers away.

The Qur'an tries to promote this feeling of gratitude by
repeating the attributes of God very frequently. We find most of these
attributes mentioned together in the following verses of the Qur'an:“
He is God; there is no god but He. He is the Knower of the unseen and
the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate. He is God;
there is no god but He. He is the King, the All-Holy, the All-Peace,
the Guardian of the Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-
Compeller, the All-Sublime. Glory be to God, above that they
associate! He is God, the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him
belong the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the
earth magnifies Him; He is the Almighty, the All-Wise” (59:22-24).

“ There is no god but He, the Living, the Everlasting.
Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs all that is in the
heavens and the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save
by His leave? He knows what lies before them, and what is after them,
and they comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He
wills. His throne comprises the heavens and earth. The preserving of
them oppresses Him not; He is the All-High, the All-
Glorious” (2:255).

People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your
religion, and say not as to God but the truth.

“ The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the Messenger
of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him.
So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not "Three". Refrain;
better it is for you. God is only one God. Glory be to Him -- (He is)
above having a son” (4:171).

http://www.sultan.org/articles/god.html

On Jan 29, 8:42 am, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> http://theexpositor.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/the-heresy-of-oneness-pe...

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm

Allah - the Moon God

The Archaeology of the Middle East
The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name
of "Allah." The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the
biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is
thus one of continuity. Was "Allah" the biblical God or a pagan god in
Arabia during pre-Islamic times? The Muslim's claim of continuity is
essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if
"Allah" is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it
is the next step in biblical religion. Thus we should all become
Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre-Islamic pagan
deity, then its core claim is refuted. Religious claims often fall
before the results of hard sciences such as archeology. We can
endlessly speculate about the past or go and dig it up and see what
the evidence reveals. This is the only way to find out the truth
concerning the origins of Allah. As we shall see, the hard evidence
demonstrates that the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the
Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his
daughters.







The reader must know that Islam, Judaism, and organized Christianity
(so-called) all worship a trinity of gods

Archaeologists have uncovered temples to the Moon-god throughout the
Middle East. From the mountains of Turkey to the banks of the Nile,
the most wide-spread religion of the ancient world was the worship of
the Moon-god. In the first literate civilization, the Sumerians have
left us thousands of clay tablets in which they described their
religious beliefs. As demonstrated by Sjoberg and Hall, the ancient
Sumerians worshipped a Moon-god who was called many different names.
The most popular names were Nanna, Suen and Asimbabbar. His symbol was
the crescent moon. Given the amount of artifacts concerning the
worship of this Moon-god, it is clear that this was the dominant
religion in Sumeria. The cult of the Moon-god was the most popular
religion throughout ancient Mesopotamia. The Assyrians, Babylonians,
and the Akkadians took the word Suen and transformed it into the word
Sin as their favorite name for the Moon-God. As Prof. Potts pointed
out, "Sin is a name essentially Sumerian in origin which had been
borrowed by the Semites. "

In ancient Syria and Canna, the Moon-god Sin was usually represented
by the moon in its crescent phase. At times the full moon was placed
inside the crescent moon to emphasize all the phases of the moon. The
sun-goddess was the wife of Sin and the stars were their daughters.
For example, Istar was a daughter of Sin. Sacrifices to the Moon-god
are described in the Pas Shamra texts. In the Ugaritic texts, the Moon-
god was sometimes called Kusuh. In Persia, as well as in Egypt, the
Moon-god is depicted on wall murals and on the heads of statues. He
was the Judge of men and gods. The Old Testament constantly rebuked
the worship of the Moon-god (see: Deut. 4:19;17:3; II Kngs. 21:3,5;
23:5; Jer. 8:2; 19:13; Zeph. 1:5, etc.) When Israel fell into
idolatry, it was usually the cult of the Moon-god. As a matter of
fact, everywhere in the ancient world, the symbol of the crescent moon
can be found on seal impressions, steles, pottery, amulets, clay
tablets, cylinders, weights, earrings, necklaces, wall murals, etc. In
Tell-el-Obeid, a copper calf was found with a crescent moon on its
forehead. An idol with the body of a bull and the head of man has a
crescent moon inlaid on its forehead with shells. In Ur, the Stela of
Ur-Nammu has the crescent symbol placed at the top of the register of
gods because the Moon-god was the head of the gods. Even bread was
baked in the form of a crescent as an act of devotion to the Moon-god.
The Ur of the Chaldees was so devoted to the Moon-god that it was
sometimes called Nannar in tablets from that time period.

A temple of the Moon-god has been excavated in Ur by Sir Leonard
Woolley. He dug up many examples of moon worship in Ur and these are
displayed in the British Museum to this day. Harran was likewise noted
for its devotion to the Moon-god. In the 1950's a major temple to the
Moon-god was excavated at Hazer in Palestine. Two idols of the moon
god were found. Each was a stature of a man sitting upon a throne with
a crescent moon carved on his chest. The accompanying inscriptions
make it clear that these were idols of the Moon-god. Several smaller
statues were also found which were identified by their inscriptions as
the "daughters" of the Moon-god. What about Arabia? As pointed out by
Prof. Coon, "Muslims are notoriously loath to preserve traditions of
earlier paganism and like to garble what pre-Islamic history they
permit to survive in anachronistic terms."

During the nineteenth century, Amaud, Halevy and Glaser went to
Southern Arabia and dug up thousands of Sabean, Minaean, and
Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated. In the
1940's, the archeologists G. Caton Thompson and Carleton S. Coon made
some amazing discoveries in Arabia. During the 1950's, Wendell
Phillips, W.F. Albright, Richard Bower and others excavated sites at
Qataban, Timna, and Marib (the ancient capital of Sheba). Thousands of
inscriptions from walls and rocks in Northern Arabia have also been
collected. Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship of the "daughters
of Allah" have also been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-
Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with Allah the Moon-god
represented by a crescent moon above them. The archeological evidence
demonstrates that the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the
Moon-god.

In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), the last king of
Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall
stated, "South Arabia's stellar religion has always been dominated by
the Moon-god in various variations." Many scholars have also noticed
that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as
"Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc. When the popularity of the Moon-
god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that
the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360
gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca
was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god.

This is what made it the most sacred site of Arabian paganism. In
1944, G. Caton Thompson revealed in her book, The Tombs and Moon
Temple of Hureidha, that she had uncovered a temple of the Moon-god in
southern Arabia. The symbols of the crescent moon and no less than
twenty-one inscriptions with the name Sin were found in this temple.
An idol which may be the Moon-god himself was also discovered. This
was later confirmed by other well-known archeologists.

The evidence reveals that the temple of the Moon-god was active even
in the Christian era. Evidence gathered from both North and South
Arabia demonstrate that Moon-god worship was clearly active even in
Muhammad's day and was still the dominant cult. According to numerous
inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-
ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning that he was the chief or high god
among the gods. As Coon pointed out, "The god Il or Ilah was
originally a phase of the Moon God." The Moon-god was called al- ilah,
i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The
pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children.
For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part of
their names.

The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves
that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day.
Prof. Coon goes on to say, "Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the
relatively anonymous Ilah, became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the
Supreme Being."

This fact answers the questions, "Why is Allah never defined in the
Qur'an? Why did Muhammad assume that the pagan Arabs already knew who
Allah was?" Muhammad was raised in the religion of the Moon-god Allah.
But he went one step further than his fellow pagan Arabs. While they
believed that Allah, i.e. the Moon-god, was the greatest of all gods
and the supreme deity in a pantheon of deities, Muhammad decided that
Allah was not only the greatest god but the only god.

In effect he said, "Look, you already believe that the Moon-god Allah
is the greatest of all gods. All I want you to do is to accept that
the idea that he is the only god. I am not taking away the Allah you
already worship. I am only taking away his wife and his daughters and
all the other gods." This is seen from the fact that the first point
of the Muslim creed is not, "Allah is great" but "Allah is the
greatest," i.e., he is the greatest among the gods. Why would Muhammad
say that Allah is the "greatest" except in a polytheistic context? The
Arabic word is used to contrast the greater from the lesser. That this
is true is seen from the fact that the pagan Arabs never accused
Muhammad of preaching a different Allah than the one they already
worshipped. This "Allah" was the Moon-god according to the
archeological evidence. Muhammad thus attempted to have it both ways.
To the pagans, he said that he still believed in the Moon-god Allah.
To the Jews and the Christians, he said that Allah was their God too.
But both the Jews and the Christians knew better and that is why they
rejected his god Allah as a false god.

Al-Kindi, one of the early Christian apologists against Islam, pointed
out that Islam and its god Allah did not come from the Bible but from
the paganism of the Sabeans. They did not worship the God of the Bible
but the Moon-god and his daughters al-Uzza, al-Lat and Manat. Dr.
Newman concludes his study of the early Christian-Muslim debates by
stating, "Islam proved itself to be...a separate and antagonistic
religion which had sprung up from idolatry." Islamic scholar Caesar
Farah concluded "There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea
that Allah passed to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews." The
Arabs worshipped the Moon-god as a supreme deity. But this was not
biblical monotheism. While the Moon-god was greater than all other
gods and goddesses, this was still a polytheistic pantheon of deities.
Now that we have the actual idols of the Moon-god, it is no longer
possible to avoid the fact that Allah was a pagan god in pre-Islamic
times. Is it any wonder then that the symbol of Islam is the crescent
moon? That a crescent moon sits on top of their mosques and minarets?
That a crescent moon is found on the flags of Islamic nations? That
the Muslims fast during the month which begins and ends with the
appearance of the crescent moon in the sky?



CONCLUSION
The pagan Arabs worshipped the Moon-god Allah by praying toward Mecca
several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the
temple of the Moon-god called the Kabah; kissing the black stone;
killing an animal in sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the
devil; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the crescent
moon; giving alms to the poor, etc.,

The Muslim's claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam
arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by
solid, overwhelming archeological evidence. Islam is nothing more than
a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult. It has taken the symbols, the
rites, the ceremonies, and even the name of its god from the ancient
pagan religion of the Moon-god. As such, it is sheer idolatry and must
be rejected by all those who follow the Torah and Gospel.

The religion of ancient Israel was based on revelation; the Old
Testament says that God appeared in diverse places and spoke to the
Patriarchs; there they raised altars of undressed stones, called Beth-
el—or House of God. Man's sensual imagination soon led him "to collect
his gods in the dust and fashion them as he pleased," imagining that
God resided in these Stones. Thus it became Beth-aven or House of
Vanity. Beth-el abounded in Chaldea, Asia, Egypt, Africa, Greece, in
remote parts of Europe, among the Druids, Gauls, and Celto-Scythians,
and in North and South America.

In the Hebrew language, stones fallen from the sky are called Bethel
(Heb. "House of God"). After dreaming of a ladder reaching to heaven,
Jacob called his stone pillow a Bethel-stone (Genesis 28:10-22).

"The Pagans imitated the Beth-el of Jacob and consecrated them with
oil and blood, making them gods, calling them Betyles (betylus,
baetyl, betyles). In classical antiquity a stone, either natural or
artificially shaped, venerated as of divine origin, or as a symbol of
divinity. There were a number of these sacred stones in Greece, the
most famous being on the omphalos at Delphi. Likewise there were the
so-called animated or oracular stones. "Strabo, Pliny, Helancius
(Hellanicus) or Beth-al-Jupiter, Cybele, Venus, Mithras). The greater
part of the natural Betyles were the black meteorites or fire-balls
fallen from the heavens and regarded by the Sabeists as heavenly
divinities. These meteorites were the Cabiri, and the Pelasgi—whose
most noted worshippers were wandering or dispersed men" (The Trail of
the Serpent, by Inquire Within, Boswell Publishing Co., Limited,
London (1936) p. 10).

Meteorites-cults are common in Greco-Roman civilizations. According to
the religious historian Mircea Eliade, the Temple of Artemis (Diana)
at Ephesus contained a squat statue of the mother-goddess, carved from
a meteorite that fell from Jupiter (Acts 19:26-35). The Palladium of
Troy and the conic black stone or (Baetyl) of Elagabal in Emesa,
Syria, are believed to be of meteoric origin. Likewise, the Phrygian
mother goddess Cybele worshipped in Pessinus (later Rome) was a stone;
doubtless a meteorite. A further example is the meteorite of Pessinunt
in Phrygia, which was worshipped as "the needle of Cybele," brought to
Rome in a powerful procession after the Punic war on advice from the
Delphic oracle; there the meteorite was worshipped as a fertility
goddess for further 500 years.

"The most famous of all of the stone fetishes of Arabia was, of
course, the black stone in the sanctuary of Mecca. The Kabah was, and
still is, a rectangular stone structure. Built into its Eastern corner
is the black stone which had been an object of worship for many
centuries before Mohammed appropriated the Kabah for his new religion,
and made the pilgrimage to this holy place one of the pillars of
Islam" (Mohammed: The man and his faith, Tor Andrae, 1936, Translated
by Theophil Menzel, 1960, p. 13-30; Britannica, Arabian Religions, p.
1059, 1979). The "Hadschar al Aswad" in the Kabah is the most well
known example of meteorite worship in newer times. Despite the
prohibition of portraying God and adoration of objects, pilgrims to
Mecca kiss this "Hadschar al Aswad" (black stone) which, according to
the prophet is "Yamin Allah" (the right hand of God), supposedly a
divine meteorite or Bethel-stone predating creation that fell at the
feet of Adam and Eve. It is presently embedded in the southeastern
corner of the Kabah. Muslims touch and kiss the black stone during
Hajj. moongod.htm

Further information: thoroughly study the links in this file and also
in The Cult of the Moon God The True Origin of 'Allah': The
Archaeological Record Speaks The Vatican and Islam



http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/

[duke]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:56:42 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

>On Jan 22, 12:09 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:59:31 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Jan 4, 8:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:07:49 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Jan 2, 11:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>>
>> >> >Where did you get that information?  It is all lies, Jesus told the
>> >> >apostles he was sent to the Jews at that time.  I been sent to New
>> >> >Jersey and latter to Manila and later to China etc. we all are sent
>> >> >some place for a limited time.  We see the most important thing to
>> >> >Jesus was to get his followers to preach the Gospel to Everyone in the
>> >> >whole world, that sure shows why NON JEWS do follow Jesus as Jesus
>> >> >made it his main action for His followers to reach everyone all NON
>> >> >JEWS as well as JEWS and Gentiles etc.
>>
>> >> Say what?
>>
>> >That would be what a insane person would and does say.
>>
>> I know.  Why did you say what you did?

>I know also, nice to see you agree with me, you seem to be insane

Yet I still well know that you don't know the bible very well.

and
>again that is why I said what I did, and anyone that wants to see the
>truth, read what I wrote

I don't see you demonstrating that you know the truth.

>, and know that the insane can not accept that
>and why Duke himself put himself into that person. May God have
>Mercy and Grace on his soul.

Thank you.

[duke]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:21:56 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

>On Jan 25, 2:54 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:29:24 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> On Jan 2, 10:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> "WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>>
>> >> >> Mt 28:19 -Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
>> >> >> baptizing them in the name
>> >> >> of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
>> >> >> Ghost:
>>
>> >> >> Notice: Name singular, three persons
>>
>> >> >Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
>> >> >the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
>> >> >name.
>>
>> >> Christians see one God in 3 persons.
>> >Then I am also ONE person in one body as body, soul and spirit, sure
>> >not 3 people.

>> Right, but you're not God.

>I hate to have to enlighten you, but you are not God, either. Only
>ONE GOD and God is not body, soul and spirit, we are, God is Father,
>Son and Holy Ghost.

Was not God in the flesh as Jesus?

>> >The see God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, no where
>> >does the bible the Word of God say "in 3 persons".  Christians believe
>> >in ONE GOD that is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

>> That's what I said.

>So what is your problem, I been saying that since I started.

So have I.

> You may
>need to look again, I do not see the word Trinity or God as Person, I
>said God is the the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Now that again is
>what I said and the Bible says.

That's what I said, just like I told you above.

>> >The teaching of the Trinity have many meanings and seen as different
>> >to many here.  Try this one of them.
>> >God Is One God: Monotheism

>> That's not a trinity, foolish little man.

>That is only because you do not want to call God such, then the word
>foolish tiny man shows "monoTHEISM" which the dictionary for the
>English language says this "Monotheism is the Belief in a single God"
>are you saying you do not believe in ONE God as Single God can not
>mean anything but ONE, Single.

Of course God is one God.

>Then I can see why people made up the Trinity and it is why most that
>say they believe in the Trinity also say they can not understand it
>and even that no one will be able to understand how God fits it, just
>take it by faith, the RCC monk said it was that way and the RCC could
>not of made a mistake.

Yes, we are correct.

> Then I know Theology and its teachings on the
>Godhead which only confuse the simple says your church and others that
>say God is in TriUnity or Trinity. God understand your problems and
>thank God He knows the heart also.

Yes.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 29, 3:13 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:21:56 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

> wrote:
> >On Jan 25, 2:54 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:29:24 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> On Jan 2, 10:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> "WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>
> >> >> >> Mt 28:19 -Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
> >> >> >> baptizing them in the name
> >> >> >> of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
> >> >> >> Ghost:
>
> >> >> >> Notice: Name singular, three persons
>
> >> >> >Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
> >> >> >the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
> >> >> >name.
>
> >> >> Christians see one God in 3 persons.
> >> >Then I am also ONE person in one body as body, soul and spirit, sure
> >> >not 3 people.
> >> Right, but you're not God.
> >I hate to have to enlighten you, but you are not God, either.  Only
> >ONE GOD and God is not body, soul and spirit, we are, God is Father,
> >Son and Holy Ghost.
>
> Was not God in the flesh as Jesus?

Yes that is what I have said all alone and you keep making Jesus only
a human man.

>
> >> >The see God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, no where
> >> >does the bible the Word of God say "in 3 persons".  Christians believe
> >> >in ONE GOD that is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
> >> That's what I said.
> >So what is your problem, I been saying that since I started.
>
> So have I.

No you have not Duke, no you have not.

>
> >  You may
> >need to look again, I do not see the word Trinity or God as Person, I
> >said God is the the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.   Now that again is
> >what I said and the Bible says.
>
> That's what I said, just like I told you above.

You avoided the question about the term Trinity so you have not the
word you used is not used even once in the whole bible.

>
> >> >The teaching of the Trinity have many meanings and seen as different
> >> >to many here.  Try this one of them.
> >> >God Is One God: Monotheism
> >> That's not a trinity, foolish little man.
> >That is only because you do not want to call God such, then the word
> >foolish tiny man shows "monoTHEISM"  which the dictionary for the
> >English language says this "Monotheism is the Belief in a single God"
> >are you saying you do not believe in ONE God as Single God can not
> >mean anything but ONE, Single.
>
> Of course God is one God.

Only you end up with three persons and a person is not a God or GOD.

>
> >Then I can see why people made up the Trinity and it is why most that
> >say they believe in the Trinity also say they can not understand it
> >and even that no one will be able to understand how God fits it, just
> >take it by faith, the RCC monk said it was that way and the RCC could
> >not of made a mistake.
>
> Yes, we are correct.

What you said here is you take the word of a MONK over the HOLY BIBLE
and the Word of God as seen in the Scriptures.

>
> >  Then I know Theology and its teachings on the
> >Godhead which only confuse the simple says your church and others that
> >say God is in TriUnity or Trinity.  God understand your problems and
> >thank God He knows the heart also.
>
> Yes.

That is a big YES, and I am so glad God does not have to run His
teachings by the RCC or a POPE before God can do what or say what God
wants things to be or happen.


Rev. R. Knapp

[duke]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:36:37 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

Then explain how Jesus died on the cross and then had to have the Father raise
him back to life.

Philippians 2:6-8 (New International Version)
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

>> >> >The see God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, no where
>> >> >does the bible the Word of God say "in 3 persons".  Christians believe
>> >> >in ONE GOD that is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
>> >> That's what I said.
>> >So what is your problem, I been saying that since I started.
>>
>> So have I.
>
>No you have not Duke, no you have not.

Yes, yes I have.

>> >  You may
>> >need to look again, I do not see the word Trinity or God as Person, I
>> >said God is the the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.   Now that again is
>> >what I said and the Bible says.
>>
>> That's what I said, just like I told you above.
>
>You avoided the question about the term Trinity so you have not the
>word you used is not used even once in the whole bible.

Yet we Christians know that the bible reveals God as a Trinity. Are you a
Christian?

>> >> >The teaching of the Trinity have many meanings and seen as different
>> >> >to many here.  Try this one of them.
>> >> >God Is One God: Monotheism
>> >> That's not a trinity, foolish little man.
>> >That is only because you do not want to call God such, then the word
>> >foolish tiny man shows "monoTHEISM"  which the dictionary for the
>> >English language says this "Monotheism is the Belief in a single God"
>> >are you saying you do not believe in ONE God as Single God can not
>> >mean anything but ONE, Single.
>>
>> Of course God is one God.
>
>Only you end up with three persons and a person is not a God or GOD.

Silly man.

>> >Then I can see why people made up the Trinity and it is why most that
>> >say they believe in the Trinity also say they can not understand it
>> >and even that no one will be able to understand how God fits it, just
>> >take it by faith, the RCC monk said it was that way and the RCC could
>> >not of made a mistake.
>>
>> Yes, we are correct.
>
>What you said here is you take the word of a MONK over the HOLY BIBLE
>and the Word of God as seen in the Scriptures.

Actually, we Catholics know what the bible says, and hence we know what God said
about the Trinity. You're clueless.

>> >  Then I know Theology and its teachings on the
>> >Godhead which only confuse the simple says your church and others that
>> >say God is in TriUnity or Trinity.  God understand your problems and
>> >thank God He knows the heart also.
>>
>> Yes.

>That is a big YES, and I am so glad God does not have to run His
>teachings by the RCC or a POPE before God can do what or say what God
>wants things to be or happen.

He doesn't. We accept the truth from God. What is your problem?

>Rev. R. Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 30, 6:35 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:36:37 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

> wrote:

>
> >> >> >> >> On Jan 2, 10:50 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> "WHY NON JEWS FOLLOW JESUS ?
>
> >> >> >> >> Mt 28:19 -Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
> >> >> >> >> baptizing them in the name
> >> >> >> >> of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
> >> >> >> >> Ghost:
>
> >> >> >> >> Notice: Name singular, three persons
>
> >> >> >> >Yes it is singular and it is not three persons, as we see, when Peter
> >> >> >> >the first baptism after Jesus said Mat 28:19 was done in the singular
> >> >> >> >name.
>
> >> >> >> Christians see one God in 3 persons.
> >> >> >Then I am also ONE person in one body as body, soul and spirit, sure
> >> >> >not 3 people.
> >> >> Right, but you're not God.
> >> >I hate to have to enlighten you, but you are not God, either.  Only
> >> >ONE GOD and God is not body, soul and spirit, we are, God is Father,
> >> >Son and Holy Ghost.
>
> >> Was not God in the flesh as Jesus?
> >Yes that is what I have said all alone and you keep making Jesus only
> >a human man.
>
> Then explain how Jesus died on the cross and then had to have the Father raise
> him back to life.

Jesus was fully man as well as fully God, even Catholic doctrine shows
that the Unity of God as Father, SON and Holy Ghost, shows that, it is
hard to find a way to understand how GOD can be everyplace at the same
moment, and still be in Heaven or at your house answering prayer. God
can and God does, how we will never know as we are not made like
Jesus, as Jesus had no human father like we do, His Father is Spirit,
and so in Him is God and made of Mary his mother. He is the only one
that had God Spirit as part of his body. Jesus the body the
sacrifice the Lamb of God as all the old testament prophecies of the
Messiah points, the God-Man, gave his human life so He would return to
the Father and take over His Unity with God as ONE GOD. The Father
always was and can not die, but the human part that was born of Mary
could. If he could not die there be no payment for sin, all would die
and go to Hell. God and Jesus are ONE GOD the Spirit of God is the
Unity that the Catholic church calls the Trinity and which you said
you believed in. Jesus is truly God, the Greed of the Church says so
and in Church Sunday the whole church stood and quoted that greed. I
can find it and post it if you need it, or check with the Vatican
website they should have a copy of it on line.

God to go, my wife has a appointment and I have the van and have to
drive her.

Nice question and will look at this later and may add some more then.

Pastor R. Knapp

[duke]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:30:40 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

Yep.

>it is
>hard to find a way to understand how GOD can be everyplace at the same
>moment, and still be in Heaven or at your house answering prayer.

That's easy for a Catholic. God is not a physical person. You're thinking like
a man, and Jesus called Peter "satan" for thinking that way.

And I'm still waiting on you to explain how a divine Jesus could die on the
cross and then need the Father to raise him.

>Nice question and will look at this later and may add some more then.
>Pastor R. Knapp

>> Philippians 2:6-8 (New International Version)
>>  6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
>>    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
>> 7 rather, he made himself nothing
>>    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
>>    being made in human likeness.
>> 8 And being found in appearance as a man,
>>    he humbled himself
>>    by becoming obedient to death—
>>       even death on a cross!

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Jan 29, 3:10 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:56:42 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:> >I know also, nice to see you agree with me, you seem to be insane

>
> Yet I still well know that you don't know the bible very well.

That is what mentally unstable folks always say, I heard on of them
running around yelling he was JESUS and another that preaching like he
was God. It is clear your very limited in your understanding of the
Holy Bible, and it also seems the doctrines of the RCC. As seen by
your replies.

> >again that is why I said what I did, and anyone that wants to see the
> >truth, read what I wrote
>
> I don't see you demonstrating that you know the truth.

Like I said before those that have mental problem do have that kind of
trouble, all you doing is supporting what I said was your mental state
of mind.

>
> >, and know that the insane can not accept that
> >and why Duke himself put himself into that person.   May God have
> >Mercy and Grace on his soul.
>
> Thank you.

You are welcome and hope soon you will get better, there is always
hope in God.

> >www.pioneers-for-Jesus.org No chargek read about what Jesus has

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Feb 1, 7:38 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:30:40 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:>

> >Jesus was fully man as well as fully God, even Catholic doctrine shows
> >that the Unity of God as Father, SON and Holy Ghost, shows that,
>
> Yep.
>
> >it is
> >hard to find a way to understand how GOD can be everyplace at the same
> >moment, and still be in Heaven or at your house answering prayer.
>
> That's easy for a Catholic.  God is not a physical person.  You're thinking like
> a man, and Jesus called Peter "satan" for thinking that way.

Well then you are not a Catholic. Jesus is God as your church says He
is, so you are lying. The Bible says Jesus was with God and IS GOD!
John 1:1-2

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. NIV
John 10:30 I and the Father are one."
John 6:37-40
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to
me I will never drive away.

38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the
will of him who sent me.

> And I'm still waiting on you to explain how a divine Jesus could die on the
> cross and then need the Father to raise him.

The divine Jesus did not die, it was the body of Jesus the man that
died. Then being God, He only needed Himself as God to raise the
human body again for a short time and then took it back to Heaven.

You pointed out that Jesus said why have you forsaken me only that was
the feeling as a man, because if you would of read on and stopped
cutting up the verses, Jesus gave up himself, no help from any
"Father" or another person. READ WHAT THE LORD DID SAY: Matt 27:50 And
when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
NIV

John 19:30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is
finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. NIV

[arah]

Examining the Famous Quote:
"My Father and Your Father,
My God and Your God"
from the Biblical and Quranic Perspectives



In the Gospel according to John, there is an important
narration that tells us that when the grief stricken Mary Magdalene
was standing outside of the empty tomb of her Teacher (Rabboni) Christ
Jesus, she surprisingly heard her beloved Jesus calling her by her
name. The bewildered Mary turned around and in her excitement clanged
to her Teacher. Thereupon, Jesus cautioned Mary and said to her as
under:
Stop clinging to me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go
to my brethren (disciples), and say to them, 'I ascend to my Father
and your Father, and my God and your God.' (John 20: 17).
Let us examine the above recorded crucial statement which is in
the red print, from the Biblical as well as from the Qur'anic
perspectives.

THE BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES

"My Father and your Father"

This phrase spoken by Jesus and recorded in the Bible clearly
substantiates as well as establishes the fact that the term "Father"
used by Jesus in the above statement was anything but to justify him
proclaiming an exclusive relationship with the Heavenly Father. In
other words, this unequivocally recorded verbatim authenticates that
the relationship of Jesus with "his Father" was no different from the
relationship of his disciples with the same entity as "their Father".
It was not a specifically designated exclusive or unique relationship.
The innovated conception of Jesus being the "begotten" son of the
Father was developed in the fourth century. It was injected by Jerome
into the Latin Bible to refute the claims made by Bishop Arius (d.336)
and his associates that Father alone was really God and Jesus was made
(created) and not begotten. (For more details please read Anchor Bible
- Vol.29, The Gospel according to John (i), published by Doubleday,
Garden City, N.Y, p. 13-14). Apostle John had recorded that Jesus was
"of a single kind" (Unique). The reason being Jesus was born to a
Virgin. The Qur'an upholds that concept and reveals in 3:47 that the
conception of Jesus was by the Allah's Command (a Spoken Word).

"My God and your God"

The above phrase spoken by Jesus and recorded in the Bible
clearly substantiates and establishes the fact that Jesus also **had**
a "God" and that "God of Jesus" was no other than the "God of his
Disciples". Bible records that Jesus often fell on his face and prayed
to "his God". It is fundamentally incorrect as well as illogical to
propagate or believe that the entity which prays and the entity that
responds to such prayers are One or they both are co-equal in
Authority, Capability and Power.


THE QURANIC PERSPECTIVES

"My Father and your Father"

A question often asked by the readers of the Qur'an.

Ques: Since Allah has no "Son", could Jesus - the righteous prophet of
Allah, have ever addressed "God" as "Father" or as "my Father"?

Answer: Since it is recorded in the four Gospels there is a likely
hood of Jesus (prophet Isa a. s.), having addressed "God" as "my
Father".

However, Jesus did not ever claim he was the "begotten" son of God as
indicated earlier under the Biblical perspectives. In the Semitic term
the word "Son" was usually used as a *metaphorical term* to show the
*spiritual relationship* between the parties. In the Old Testament,
prophet Moses addresses Israelis; "You are the sons of your Lord
God" (Deut. 14:1). In the New Testament Adam is called "son of God" by
Luke (3:38). None of these texts implied that there was physical
relationship between the parties. Upon closer examination of the seven
verses of the Qur'an quoted below, one notices that it is the
"begetting of the son" which is vehemently negated by Allah within
these verses. Nowhere it is recorded in the Bible that Jesus had ever
claimed being the begotten son of God, whom he called the Heavenly
Father of all.

Translations of Qur'anic Verses by Abdullah Yusuf Ali:

Say: "Praise be to Allah Who begets no son and has no partner in (His)
dominion: nor (needs) He any to protect Him from humiliation: Yea
magnify Him for His greatness and glory!" 17: 111
Further that He may warn those (also) who say "Allah hath begotten a
son": 18: 4

It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a
son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter He only says to it
"Be" and it is. 19: 35

They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!"
Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! 19: 88/89

For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that
He should beget a son. 19: 92

No son did Allah beget nor is there any god along with Him: (if there
were many gods) behold each god would have taken away what he had
created and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah (He
is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him! 23: 91

He begetteth not nor is He begotten; 112: 3

"My God and your God"

The following three verses from the Qur'an gives the clear
picture that Jesus (Isa a.s.), did preach the worshiping of one and
only God:

And behold! Allah will say "O Jesus the son of Mary! didst thou say
unto men 'worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah"?
He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to
say). Had I said such a thing Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou
knowest what is in my heart though I know not what is in Thine.
For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. 5: 116

"Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say
to wit 'Worship Allah my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over
them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up thou wast
the Watcher over them and Thou art a Witness to all things. 5: 117

"If Thou dost punish them they are Thy servants: if Thou dost forgive
them Thou art the Exalted the Wise. 5: 118

http://www.mostmerciful.com/myfather.htm

On Feb 2, 10:03 pm, "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> > Yet I still well know that you don't know the bible very well.

If you know the bible you will surely quote the bible!!!!

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Ex 3:14 - And God said unto Moses,
I AM THAT I AM: and he said,
Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,
I AM hath sent me unto you.

Joh 8:58 -Jesus said unto them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Before Abraham was,
I am.


Joh 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My Lord and my God.


meditate on

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead,
and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man,
yet He is not two, but one Christ.

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Feb 3, 8:51 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Examining the Famous Quote:
> "My Father and Your Father,
> My God and Your God"
> from the Biblical and Quranic Perspectives

More like My Devil and your father.
Your demons and your god
From facts not myths

>
> On Feb 2, 10:03 pm, "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yet I still well know that you don't know the bible very well.
>
> If you know the bible you will surely quote the bible!!!!

You like like your father the devil and here is a quote from the Bible
that shows it. "John 8:42-47 Jesus said to them, "If God were your
Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God;
nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not
understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father
you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not
stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a
lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father
of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46
Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you
not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you
do not hear, because you are not of God." NKJV

Dr. R. Knapp, B.Theology, D. Divinity Over 50 years as a Teacher of
the Holy Bible, your statement is so silly, be nice if you would read
what the quote does say and see the errors of your ways, and accept
Jesus Christ as the LORD and Savouir, as I would love to see you in
Heaven as a born again saved Christian the friend of Jesus and
follower of GOD by faith and love in Jesus. Walk in His steps, in His
life.
1 John 1:5-10

5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you,
that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that
we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not
practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the
light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus
Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. NKJV

[arah]

On Jan 3, 5:07 am, uragoner <uragon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Islam is the 6th woe put on mankind from the greatest deciever as your
> Koran admits.... you call him Allah, the Bible calls him Lucifer, the god of
> this world,


You have to do lot more reading and research so that you are able to
differentiate who is Lucifer and who is Allah.!!!

EXTRACT FROM CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

ALLAH

The name of God in Arabic.

It is a compound word from the article, 'al, and ilah, divinity, and
signifies "the god" par excellence. This form of the divine name is in
itself a sure proof that ilah was at one time an appellative, common
to all the local and tribal gods. Gradually, with the addition of the
article, it was restricted to one of them who took precedence of the
others; finally, with the triumph of monotheism, He was recognized as
the only true God.

In one form or another this Hebrew root occurs in all Semitic
languages as a designation of the Divinity; but whether it was
originally a proper name, pointing to a primitive monotheism, with
subsequent deviation into polytheism and further rehabilitation, or
was from the beginning an appellative which became a proper name only
when the Semites had reached monotheism is a much debated question. It
is certain, however, that before the time of Mohammed, owing to their
contact with Jews and Christians, the Arabs were generally
monotheists.

The notion of Allah in Arabic theology is substantially the same as
that of God among the Jews, and also among the Christians, with the
exception of the Trinity, which is positively excluded in the Koran,
cxii: "Say God, is one God, the eternal God, he begetteth not, neither
is he begotten and there is not any one like unto him."

His attributes, denied by the heterodox Motazilites, are ninety-nine
in number. Each one of them is represented by a bead in the Moslem
chaplet, while on the one hundredth and larger bead, the name of Allah
itself is pronounced.

It is preposterous to assert with Curtiss (Ursemitische Religion, 119)
that the nomadic tribes of Arabia, consider seriously the Oum-el-
Gheith, "mother of the rain", as the bride of Allah and even if the
expression were used such symbolical language would not impair, in the
least, the purity of monotheism held by those tribes. (Cf. Revue
Biblique, Oct., 1906, 580 sqq.)

Let it be noted that although Allah is an Arabic term, it is used by
all Moslems, whatever be their language, as the name of God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01316a.htm

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Jihadwatch

U.K.: Muslim cab driver refuses service to blind man over guide dog
Cab drivers who refuse service according to Islamic strictures are
engaging in false advertising if they style themselves as a regular
taxi service, which would be expected to admit service animals. They
may well also be in breach of contract with their licensing authority.
"Muslim cab driver refuses guide dog in Letchworth," from The
Advertiser, February 2 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A blind man says he was refused use of a taxi in Letchworth because
the Muslim driver would not allow his guide dog in the car.
Stevenage resident Sean Dilley had been at Letchworth Sports and
Tennis Club in

Muddy Lane with his guide dog Chipp on Sunday evening for a blind
tennis demonstration.

Friends had organised for a taxi driver to pick up the 29-year-old
after the event and take him back to Letchworth rail station.

But when the driver arrived shortly after 7pm to pick him up, he
refused to let Sean and Chipp in the car.

"The driver turned up and said you are more than welcome but I’m not
taking your dog," said Sean, who has been blind for 15 years.

"He said it was because he was a Muslim. I was horrified. This sort of
thing happens all the time and it’s not acceptable."

The debate between Sean and the driver was caught on camera by a
friend.

It has been reported that some strands of Islam teach that dogs should
be avoided because the animal's saliva is considered to be impure.

Sean is a freelance broadcaster and parliamentary lobby correspondent
for talkSPORT and last year made a film for the BBC’s Daily Politics
show highlighting how many businesses and restaurants refused entry to
guide dogs.

He called the taxi firm Gary’s Taxis to complain but was told the
driver was within his rights.

But Sean believes that the driver was breaking disability
discrimination law by refusing to take them and has reported the
matter to North Herts Council, which licenses taxis in the district.

"I have a lot of energy and I know the law, and yet I find battling
this sort of thing exhausting," he said.

"There must be many elderly or vulnerable people who can’t do that and
just put up with it.

"Often it’s difficult to prove what happened though but this time
we’ve got video evidence of what happened."

The Advertiser was unable to contact the taxi driver and Gary’s Taxis
would only say "It’s a matter between the council and the driver."

Cllr Bernard Lovewell, the council’s portfolio holder for housing and
environmental health, said: "We are currently investigating a
complaint regarding an alleged incident with a North Herts licensed
hackney carriage driver and a customer with a guide dog.

"Until we have concluded the investigation we cannot comment further.

"We would like to reassure residents that council-licensed taxi
drivers should not refuse a blind or partially sighted person from
getting in to their taxi on the grounds that they wish an assistance
dog to accompany them."
Should not, or must not?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/02/uk-muslim-cab-driver-refuses-service-to-blind-man-over-guide-dog.html


http://www.jihadwatch.org/

[duke]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 05:51:46 -0800 (PST), arah <arahar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Examining the Famous Quote:
>"My Father and Your Father,
>My God and Your God"
>from the Biblical and Quranic Perspectives
>
>
>
> In the Gospel according to John, there is an important
>narration that tells us that when the grief stricken Mary Magdalene
>was standing outside of the empty tomb of her Teacher (Rabboni) Christ
>Jesus, she surprisingly heard her beloved Jesus calling her by her
>name. The bewildered Mary turned around and in her excitement clanged
>to her Teacher. Thereupon, Jesus cautioned Mary and said to her as
>under:
>Stop clinging to me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go
>to my brethren (disciples), and say to them, 'I ascend to my Father
>and your Father, and my God and your God.' (John 20: 17).
> Let us examine the above recorded crucial statement which is in
>the red print, from the Biblical as well as from the Qur'anic
>perspectives.

Ok, go for it.

>THE BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES
>
>"My Father and your Father"
>
> This phrase spoken by Jesus and recorded in the Bible clearly
>substantiates as well as establishes the fact that the term "Father"
>used by Jesus in the above statement was anything but to justify him
>proclaiming an exclusive relationship with the Heavenly Father. In
>other words, this unequivocally recorded verbatim authenticates that
>the relationship of Jesus with "his Father" was no different from the
>relationship of his disciples with the same entity as "their Father".

I know.

>It was not a specifically designated exclusive or unique relationship.

It was to all of us equally.

>"My God and your God"

> The above phrase spoken by Jesus and recorded in the Bible
>clearly substantiates and establishes the fact that Jesus also **had**
>a "God" and that "God of Jesus" was no other than the "God of his
>Disciples".

I know. One man tells that to another man all the time.

> Bible records that Jesus often fell on his face and prayed
>to "his God". It is fundamentally incorrect as well as illogical to
>propagate or believe that the entity which prays and the entity that
>responds to such prayers are One or they both are co-equal in
>Authority, Capability and Power.

Jesus emptied himself of his divinity so he could learn to be human which can be
gained only by experience.

[bishop]

On Feb 4, 8:32 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 5:07 am, uragoner <uragon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Islam is the 6th woe put on mankind from the greatest deciever as your
> > Koran admits.... you call him Allah, the Bible calls him Lucifer, the god of
> > this  world,
>
> You have to do lot more reading and research so that you are  able to
> differentiate who is Lucifer and who is Allah.!!!
>
> EXTRACT FROM CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
>
> ALLAH

Well since Allah is a pagan god, no one needs to research it, it is,
and all pagan gods come from Lucifer as the father of such false
relgions.

>
> The name of God in Arabic.

Why do you use Arabic for, your posting in English and the Chinese
name for God sounds better then in the Philippines they call God by
another name. So it is stupit to call God by a Arabic name, when one
does not speak that language. Get a life!

>
> It is a compound word from the article, 'al, and ilah, divinity, and
> signifies "the god" par excellence. This form of the divine name is in

Nope it is El for Elohim that is the name of God that one can
speak.

> itself a sure proof that ilah was at one time an appellative, common
> to all the local and tribal gods. Gradually, with the addition of the
> article, it was restricted to one of them who took precedence of the
> others; finally, with the triumph of monotheism, He was recognized as
> the only true God.

Nothing to do with Allah, better use the Hebrew name then we are not
suppose to use the Lords name in a common way.

>
> In one form or another this Hebrew root occurs in all Semitic
> languages as a designation of the Divinity; but whether it was
> originally a proper name, pointing to a primitive monotheism, with
> subsequent deviation into polytheism and further rehabilitation, or
> was from the beginning an appellative which became a proper name only
> when the Semites had reached monotheism is a much debated question. It
> is certain, however, that before the time of Mohammed, owing to their
> contact with Jews and Christians, the Arabs were generally
> monotheists.
>
> The notion of Allah in Arabic theology is substantially the same as
> that of God among the Jews, and also among the Christians, with the
> exception of the Trinity, which is positively excluded in the Koran,

The term Trinity is only a Catholic way of trying to understand God
and they they messed that up, real good.

> cxii: "Say God, is one God, the eternal God, he begetteth not, neither
> is he begotten and there is not any one like unto him."

Jesus the Son born of Mary is the only begotten, of God. John 3:16

>
> His attributes, denied by the heterodox Motazilites, are ninety-nine
> in number. Each one of them is represented by a bead in the Moslem
> chaplet, while on the one hundredth and larger bead, the name of Allah
> itself is pronounced.

So now the Islam "Moslem" have a idol the chaplet. that does tell us
a lot. like the Hindu beads or the Buddhist beads as well as the Roman
Catholic beads, got to have them and pray with them. Just another
idol and God said not to use idols.

>
> It is preposterous to assert with Curtiss (Ursemitische Religion, 119)
> that the nomadic tribes of Arabia, consider seriously the Oum-el-
> Gheith, "mother of the rain", as the bride of Allah and even if the
> expression were used such symbolical language would not impair, in the
> least, the purity of monotheism held by those tribes. (Cf. Revue
> Biblique, Oct., 1906, 580 sqq.)
>
> Let it be noted that although Allah is an Arabic term, it is used by
> all Moslems, whatever be their language, as the name of God.
>

Then the followers of false religions will do that, as they have no
hope in fact, so they find something to replace the truth with, and
hold that till Hell becomes their home, forever.

[arah]

Another proof that you have to do lot more reading and research so

that you are able to
differentiate who is Lucifer and who is Allah.!!!

Vatican thanks Muslims for returning God to Europe
Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:38pm IST

By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor


Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran


PARIS (Reuters) - A senior Vatican cardinal has thanked Muslims for
bringing God back into the public sphere in Europe and said believers
of different faiths had no option but to engage in interreligious
dialogue.

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, head of the Catholic Church's department
for interfaith contacts, said religion was now talked and written
about more than ever before in today's Europe.

"It's thanks to the Muslims," he said in a speech printed in Friday's
L'Osservatore Romano, the official daily of the Vatican. "Muslims,
having become a significant minority in Europe, were the ones who
demanded space for God in society."

Vatican officials have long bemoaned the secularisation of Europe,
where church attendance has dwindled dramatically in recent decades,
and urged a return to its historically Christian roots. But Tauran
said no society had only one faith.

"We live in multicultural and multireligious societies, that's
obvious," he told a meeting of Catholic theologians in Naples. "There
is no civilisation that is religiously pure."

Tauran's positive speech on interfaith dialogue came after a remark by
Pope Benedict prompted media speculation that the Vatican was losing
interest in it. Some Jewish leaders reacted with expressions of
concern and the Vatican denied any change.

The "return of God" is clearly seen in Tauran's native France, where
Europe's largest Muslim minority has brought faith questions such as
women's headscarves into the political debate after decades when they
were considered strictly private issues.

"GOD IS AT WORK IN ALL"

Tauran said religions were "condemned to dialogue," a practice he
called "the search for understanding between two subjects, with the
help of reason, in view of a common interpretation of their agreement
and disagreement."

That seemed to clarify Benedict's statement on Sunday that interfaith
dialogue was "not possible in the strict sense of the word". Church
officials said a strict definition would include the option that one
side is ultimately convinced by the other.

Dialogue participants could not give up their religious convictions,
Tauran said, but should be open to learning about the positive aspects
of each others' faith.

"Every religion has its own identity, but I agree to consider that God
is at work in all, in the souls of those who search for him
sincerely," he said. "Interreligious dialogue rallies all who are on
the path to God or to the Absolute."

The uncertainty about the Vatican view coincided with increasing
contacts among world religions.

Early this month, the Vatican held a pioneering conference with a
delegation from the "Common Word" group of Muslim scholars who invited
Christian churches to a new dialogue.

A week later, Saudi King Abdullah gathered world leaders at the United
Nations as part of a dialogue he launched with a conference of faith
leaders in Madrid last July.

Christianity and Islam are the world's two largest faiths, with two
billion and 1.3 billion followers respectively. The latest interfaith
efforts are meant to counter growing tensions between these two after
the Sept. 11 attacks.

An Indian prelate, speaking after the Mumbai attacks began, said in
Rome that a lack of courage to meet across faith lines was often
behind religious violence in his country.

Archbishop Felix Machado of Nashik diocese, just east of Mumbai, told
Italian priests the violence was caused by "inequality, a lack of
justice and understanding and, above all, a lack of courage to
dialogue," the Vatican daily reported.

Original link: http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36765320081128

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/islam.htm


It should not come as a surprise that the word "Allah" was not
something invented by Muhammad or revealed for the first time in the
Quran.

The well-known Middle East scholar H.A.R. Gibb has pointed out that
the reason that Muhammad never had to explain who Allah was in the
Quran is that his listeners had already heard about Allah long before
Muhammad was ever born (Mohammedanism: An Historical Survey, New York:
Mentor Books, 1955, p.38).

Dr. Arthur Jeffery, one of the foremost Western Islamic scholars in
modern times and professor of Islamic and Middle East Studies at
Columbia University, notes:

"The name Allah, as the Quran itself is witness, was well known in pre-
Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are
found not infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions
from North Africa" (Islam: Muhammad, and His Religion, New York: The
Liberal Arts Press, 1958, p. 85).

The word "Allah" comes from the compound Arabic word, al-ilah. Al is
the definite article "the" and ilah is an Arabic word for "god." It is
not a foreign word. It is not even the Syriac word for God. It is pure
Arabic. (There is an interesting discussion of the origins of Allah,
in "Arabic Lexicographical Miscellanies" by J. Blau in the Journal of
Semitic Studies, Vol. XVII, #2, 1972, pp. 173-190).

Neither is Allah a Hebrew or Greek word for God as found in the Bible.
Allah is a purely Arabic term used in reference to an Arabian deity.
Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics I:326, T & T Clark,
states:

'"Allah" is a proper name, applicable only to their [Arabs'] peculiar
God. '

According to the Encyclopedia of Religion:

'"Allah" is a pre-Islamic name . . . corresponding to the Babylonian
Bel' (Encyclopedia of Religion, I:117 Washington DC, Corpus Pub.,
1979).

For those who find it hard to believe that Allah was a pagan name for
a peculiar pagan Arabian deity in pre-Islamic times, the following
quotations may be helpful:

"Allah is found . . . in Arabic inscriptions prior to
Islam" (Encyclopedia Britannica, I:643).

"The Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshipped,
after a fashion, a supreme god called Allah" (Encyclopedia off Islam,
I:302, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1913, Houtsma).

"Allah was known to the pre-Islamic . . . Arabs; he was one of the
Meccan deities" (Encyclopedia off Islam, I:406, ed. Gibb).

"Ilah . . . appears in pre-Islamic poetry . . . By frequency of usage,
al-ilah was contracted to Allah, frequently attested to in pre-Islamic
poetry" (Encyclopedia off Islam, III:1093, 1971).

"The name Allah goes back before Muhammad" (Encyclopedia of World
Mythology and Legend, I:41, Anthony Mercatante, New York, The Facts on
File, 1983).

"The origin of this (Allah) goes back to pre-Muslim times. Allah is
not a common name meaning "God" (or a "god"), and the Muslim must use
another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own
peculiar deity" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, I:326,
Hastings).

To the testimony of the above standard reference works, we add those
of such scholars as Henry Preserved Smith of Harvard University who
has stated:

"Allah was already known by name to the Arabs" (The Bible and Islam:
or, The Influence of the Old and New Testament on the Religion of
Mohammed, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897, p. 102).

Dr. Kenneth Cragg, former editor of the prestigious scholarly journal
Muslim World and an outstanding modern Western Islamic scholar, whose
works are generally published by Oxford University, comments:

"The name Allah is also evident in archeological and literary remains
of pre-Islamic Arabia" (The Call of the Minaret, New York: Oxford
University Press, 1956, p. 31).

Dr. W. Montgomery Watt, who was Professor of Arabic and Islamic
Studies at Edinburgh University and Visiting Professor of Islamic
studies at College de France, Georgetown University, and the
University of Toronto, has done extensive work on the pre-Islamic
concept of Allah. He concludes:

"In recent years I have become increasingly convinced that for an
adequate understanding of the career of Muhammad and the origins of
Islam great importance must be attached to the existence in Mecca of
belief in Allah as a "high god." In a sense this is a form of
paganism, but it is so different from paganism as commonly understood
that it deserves separate treatment" (William Montgomery Watt,
Muhammad's Mecca, p. vii. Also see his article, "Belief in a High God
in Pre-Islamic Mecca", Journal of Semitic Studies, Vol. 16, 1971, pp.
35-40).

Caesar Farah in his book on Islam concludes his discussion of the pre-
Islamic meaning of Allah by saying:

"There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed

to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews" (Islam: Beliefs and
Observations, New York, Barrons, 1987, p. 28).

According to Middle East scholar E.M. Wherry, whose translation of the
Quran is still used today, in pre-Islamic times Allah-worship, as well
as the worship of Ba-al, were both astral religions in that they
involved the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars (A
Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran, Osnabruck: Otto Zeller Verlag,
1973, p. 36).

[duke]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:09:37 -0800 (PST), bishop <rwkna...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Feb 4, 8:32 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 5:07 am, uragoner <uragon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Islam is the 6th woe put on mankind from the greatest deciever as your
>> > Koran admits.... you call him Allah, the Bible calls him Lucifer, the god of
>> > this  world,
>>
>> You have to do lot more reading and research so that you are  able to
>> differentiate who is Lucifer and who is Allah.!!!
>>
>> EXTRACT FROM CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
>>
>> ALLAH

>Well since Allah is a pagan god

Pagan? Muslims call Abraham father of their faith just like you do, rk.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Feb 12, 5:46 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:09:37 -0800 (PST), bishop <rwknapp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 4, 8:32 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 3, 5:07 am, uragoner <uragon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Islam is the 6th woe put on mankind from the greatest deciever as your
> >> > Koran admits.... you call him Allah, the Bible calls him Lucifer, the god of
> >> > this  world,
>
> >> You have to do lot more reading and research so that you are  able to
> >> differentiate who is Lucifer and who is Allah.!!!
>
> >> EXTRACT FROM CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
>
> >> ALLAH
> >Well since Allah is a pagan god
>
> Pagan?  Muslims call Abraham father of their faith just like you do, rk.

Seems you know nothing? Just because someone calls you their father
does that mean you are such? I do not call a Muslim anything but a
lost soul as I also see in many of your post, that is what you are.

[duke]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:04:53 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 12, 5:46 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:09:37 -0800 (PST), bishop <rwknapp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 4, 8:32 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jan 3, 5:07 am, uragoner <uragon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Islam is the 6th woe put on mankind from the greatest deciever as your
>> >> > Koran admits.... you call him Allah, the Bible calls him Lucifer, the god of
>> >> > this  world,
>>
>> >> You have to do lot more reading and research so that you are  able to
>> >> differentiate who is Lucifer and who is Allah.!!!
>>
>> >> EXTRACT FROM CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
>>
>> >> ALLAH
>> >Well since Allah is a pagan god
>>
>> Pagan?  Muslims call Abraham father of their faith just like you do, rk.

>Seems you know nothing?

You're just not all around knowledgeable as you think.

>Just because someone calls you their father
>does that mean you are such? I do not call a Muslim anything but a
>lost soul as I also see in many of your post, that is what you are.

Yet you too call father as your's but you reject much of what he teaches. What's
the difference between you and a muslim - merely you see this and he sees that.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Feb 15, 1:49 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:04:53 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> EXTRACT FROM CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
>
> >> >> ALLAH
> >> >Well since Allah is a pagan god
>
> >> Pagan?  Muslims call Abraham father of their faith just like you do, rk.
> >Seems you know nothing?
>
> You're just not all around knowledgeable as you think.
>

Who are you posting to? I know that muslim is not as knowledgeable as
she thinks she is then you are not either, and I check documents, and
have a large library of reference books to look up what I am not so
knowledgeable in, I do not think about being knowledgeable but I do
resources for information.

> >Just because someone calls you their father
> >does that mean you are such?   I do not call a Muslim anything but a
> >lost soul as I also see in many of your post, that is what you are.
>
> Yet you too call father as your's but you reject much of what he teaches. What's
> the difference between you and a muslim - merely you see this and he sees that.

Nope, not the same Father, just because someone calls you a name, does
not mean you are that person. I reject all that a muslim says their
god or their father has to say. Jesus pointed out that the liar
father is Satan, not the one I care about or follow. I can not speak
for you, but if one is to read what you say, here there is a question
about who you see as "father". There is nothing between me and a
muslim, I am a male and if that muslim is a men what would be the
difference? As for faith it is night and day difference, for one all
are sinners, then in Christ Jesus, I am saved and going to heaven.
For the muslim he rejected Jesus as saviour and since Jesus said "No
man can come to the Father (GOD) except by Him. The unbeliever will
die and go to Hell, big difference. As for seeing, I see a person as
lost that needs to be saved and live a life in joy and peace with man
and God. The muslim by the Quran sees a person as lost and a infidel
that needs to be killed, and die without Christ, the only peace is
when all none believers are dead, which would point to you as well as
me. Catholic, or Protestant, they do not care, so that is a very
large difference. I study to learn what they believe and have lived
for many years in towns that about half the people were Muslim and the
rest between Catholic and pagan. I lived in Talakag, Bukidnon,
Mindanao, Philippines, many were my friends and then we could talk to
each other.

Thank you for asking, I do enjoy hearing from you, hope the best to
you and yours.

Pastor Knapp

www.pioneers-for-jesus.org

[duke]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:32:40 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 15, 1:49 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:04:53 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> EXTRACT FROM CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
>>
>> >> >> ALLAH
>> >> >Well since Allah is a pagan god
>>
>> >> Pagan?  Muslims call Abraham father of their faith just like you do, rk.
>> >Seems you know nothing?
>>
>> You're just not all around knowledgeable as you think.

>Who are you posting to? I know that muslim is not as knowledgeable as
>she thinks she is then you are not either, and I check documents, and
>have a large library of reference books to look up what I am not so
>knowledgeable in, I do not think about being knowledgeable but I do
>resources for information.

I'm talking to you, rk. There is one God almighty, period. Christians respond
to him multiple ways, Jews another, and muslims another. A muslim's confusion
over what the one God calls us to is another version from yours. They see God
as one they must be submissive to, and you think you can play cafeteria
Christian to what he says. So why are you right and he wrong, or vice versa?

>> >Just because someone calls you their father
>> >does that mean you are such?   I do not call a Muslim anything but a
>> >lost soul as I also see in many of your post, that is what you are.

>> Yet you too call father as your's but you reject much of what he teaches. What's
>> the difference between you and a muslim - merely you see this and he sees that.

>Nope, not the same Father, just because someone calls you a name, does
>not mean you are that person. I reject all that a muslim says their
>god or their father has to say.

Yet their God is your God. They respond to him in a different way than you.

> Jesus pointed out that the liar
>father is Satan, not the one I care about or follow.

"Liar father"??? Jessu never made such a reference.

> I can not speak
>for you, but if one is to read what you say, here there is a question
>about who you see as "father".

The Father figure of the triune Godhead. What do you see?

> There is nothing between me and a
>muslim, I am a male and if that muslim is a men what would be the
>difference? As for faith it is night and day difference, for one all
>are sinners, then in Christ Jesus, I am saved and going to heaven.

>For the muslim he rejected Jesus as saviour and since Jesus said "No
>man can come to the Father (GOD) except by Him.

Yet you are heavy into rejecting much of what Jesus taught us. So who's better
off - you or the muslim?

> The unbeliever will
>die and go to Hell, big difference. As for seeing, I see a person as
>lost that needs to be saved and live a life in joy and peace with man
>and God. The muslim by the Quran sees a person as lost and a infidel
>that needs to be killed, and die without Christ, the only peace is
>when all none believers are dead, which would point to you as well as
>me.

And as you choose to ignore many of the teachings of Jesus, why are you so well
off?

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Feb 16, 12:33 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:32:40 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >> EXTRACT FROM CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
>
> >> >> >> ALLAH
> >> >> >Well since Allah is a pagan god
>
> >> >> Pagan?  Muslims call Abraham father of their faith just like you do, rk.
> >> >Seems you know nothing?
>
> >> You're just not all around knowledgeable as you think.
> >Who are you posting to?  I know that muslim is not as knowledgeable as
> >she thinks she is then you are not either, and I check documents, and
> >have a large library of reference books to look up what I am not so
> >knowledgeable in, I do not think about being knowledgeable but I do
> >resources for information.
>
> I'm talking to you, rk.  There is one God almighty, period.  Christians respond
> to him multiple ways, Jews another, and muslims another.  A muslim's confusion
> over what the one God calls us to is another version from yours.  They see God
> as one they must be submissive to, and you think you can play cafeteria
> Christian to what he says.  So why are you right and he wrong, or vice versa?

Nope your talking to some "rk" as I believe in ONE GOD Almighty the
Creator, Gen 1 and John 1:1. It seems you think the god that Islam is
saying they call Allah is that God that the Jews believe in. In and
that is not so, their god is not the Christian God either. It does
not matter what the lost and satanic pagan and Islam believe, a fake
is a fake no matter what name they call their gods. I am right
because I use documents and history as well as all kinds of resource.
Also years in College and in seminary as well as a Bible teacher
studying these matters, show me what is truth and what is not.

>
> >> >Just because someone calls you their father
> >> >does that mean you are such?   I do not call a Muslim anything but a
> >> >lost soul as I also see in many of your post, that is what you are.
> >> Yet you too call father as your's but you reject much of what he teaches. What's
> >> the difference between you and a muslim - merely you see this and he sees that.
> >Nope, not the same Father, just because someone calls you a name, does
> >not mean you are that person.  I reject all that a muslim says their
> >god or their father has to say.
>
> Yet their God is your God.  They respond to him in a different way than you.

Not my God maybe your "God" It seems you write without any knowledge
or understanding of Islam, and their religion. I lived in a town that
was mostly Muslim for many years, and lived for nearly 20 years with
their worship places and minister to many. If you think your god is
the same as their lies and evil god is the same as yours. Then even
your Priest can not help you, and unless you follow Jesus, you and
them will end up in hell. You like to lie here as you last statement
shows, you nail in your own box as a coffin, so sad for one that could
read the Bible and instead you and the muslin do it in a different way
with a different god but the same HELL as the reward for their labors.

>
> >  Jesus pointed out that the liar
> >father is Satan, not the one I care about or follow.
>
> "Liar father"???  Jessu never made such a reference.

Now you show you do not even read what Jesus did say, then since I do
know the bible and have a degree in Theological matters. Here is the
reference.
John 8:43-45

43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to
listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the
desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the
beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth
in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he

is a liar and the father of it. NKJV

> >  I can not speak
> >for you, but if one is to read what you say, here there is a question
> >about who you see as "father".
>
> The Father figure of the triune Godhead.  What do you see?

The Father not just a figure, God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

>
> >  There is nothing between me and a
> >muslim, I am a male and if that muslim is a men what would be the
> >difference?  As for faith it is night and day difference, for one all
> >are sinners, then in Christ Jesus, I am saved and going to heaven.
> >For the muslim he rejected Jesus as saviour and since Jesus said "No
> >man can come to the Father (GOD) except by Him.
>
> Yet you are heavy into rejecting much of what Jesus taught us.  So who's better
> off - you or the muslim?

I am heavy into accepting and teaching all that Jesus taught, which
you add what the RCC put in as its teachings. I am saved and going to
heaven because Jesus is my Lord and my God as the Apostles also said.
John 20:26-29

26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas
with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst,
and said, "Peace to you!" 27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your
finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put
it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing."

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have
believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

> >  The unbeliever will
> >die and go to Hell, big difference.  As for seeing, I see a person as
> >lost that needs to be saved and live a life in joy and peace with man
> >and God.  The muslim by the Quran sees a person as lost and a infidel
> >that needs to be killed, and die without Christ, the only peace is
> >when all none believers are dead, which would point to you as well as
> >me.
>
> And as you choose to ignore many of the teachings of Jesus, why are you so well
> off?

And you, just lied again and keep it up, I am not you foolish one,
then I am very well off as Jesus blesses them that serve Him.Col
3:22-25

22 Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the
flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of
heart, fearing God. 23 And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the
Lord and not to men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive
the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. 25 But
he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no
partiality. NKJV

[Mr. Malthus]

Just like your nasty priests.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Feb 16, 10:34 pm, "Mr. Malthus" <malthus...@aol.com> wrote:
> Just like your nasty priests.

What are you replying to here? All you have is your statement with
out any reason or to whom you addressing your post to, one thing I
know is that we have no "nasty priests" and I am not a Roman
Catholic.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Feb 15, 1:49 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:04:53 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 12, 5:46 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:09:37 -0800 (PST), bishop <rwknapp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 4, 8:32 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Jan 3, 5:07 am, uragoner <uragon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Islam is the 6th woe put on mankind from the greatest deciever as your
> >> >> > Koran admits.... you call him Allah, the Bible calls him Lucifer, the god of
> >> >> > this  world,
>
> >> >> You have to do lot more reading and research so that you are  able to
> >> >> differentiate who is Lucifer and who is Allah.!!!
>
> >> >> EXTRACT FROM CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
>
> >> >> ALLAH
> >> >Well since Allah is a pagan god
>
> >> Pagan?  Muslims call Abraham father of their faith just like you do, rk.
> >Seems you know nothing?
>
> You're just not all around knowledgeable as you think.
>
> >Just because someone calls you their father
> >does that mean you are such?   I do not call a Muslim anything but a
> >lost soul as I also see in many of your post, that is what you are.
>
> Yet you too call father as your's but you reject much of what he teaches. What's
> the difference between you and a muslim - merely you see this and he sees that.

There is no "YET YOU TOO CALL" You may call but not me. I do reject
the RCC teachings that are not from the Holy Bible, I never reject the
teachings of God the Father, which by your own mouth you have said you
are a Lay Catholic. I am a Born Again Christian and Christ Jesus not
a Pope is my teacher.

Muslim if you need to ask, it is plan you do not understand their
teachings and others here have done a much better job then I have at
showing by using the Qur'an the difference and the news daily from
Iraq, Iran and other nations that kill, murder and destroy Christian
Churches both Protestant and Catholic even last month. You like them
are lost and it seems you think the devil has some power to call
itself of God, when it is evil and sinner.

You prove by this how ignorant or just a trouble maker and liar.

[duke]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:58:48 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

>> >> You're just not all around knowledgeable as you think.
>> >Who are you posting to?  I know that muslim is not as knowledgeable as
>> >she thinks she is then you are not either, and I check documents, and
>> >have a large library of reference books to look up what I am not so
>> >knowledgeable in, I do not think about being knowledgeable but I do
>> >resources for information.

>> I'm talking to you, rk.  There is one God almighty, period.  Christians respond
>> to him multiple ways, Jews another, and muslims another.  A muslim's confusion
>> over what the one God calls us to is another version from yours.  They see God
>> as one they must be submissive to, and you think you can play cafeteria
>> Christian to what he says.  So why are you right and he wrong, or vice versa?

>Nope your talking to some "rk" as I believe in ONE GOD Almighty the
>Creator, Gen 1 and John 1:1.

But youi don't believe what his son said in Matthew, Mark, Luke and JOhn

>> Yet their God is your God.  They respond to him in a different way than you.

>Not my God

Yes, YOUR God. You don't respond to my God the way we Catholics do either.

>> >  Jesus pointed out that the liar
>> >father is Satan, not the one I care about or follow.

>> "Liar father"???  Jessu never made such a reference.

>Now you show you do not even read what Jesus did say, then since I do
>know the bible and have a degree in Theological matters. Here is the
>reference.
> John 8:43-45
>43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to
>listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devi

He was referring to mankind, rk, and that includes you.

>> The Father figure of the triune Godhead.  What do you see?
>The Father not just a figure, God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

So is that 3 Gods or 1 to you?

>> Yet you are heavy into rejecting much of what Jesus taught us.  So who's better
>> off - you or the muslim?
>I am heavy into accepting and teaching all that Jesus taught

No, you're NOT. You reject the Holy Mass, 5 of 7 sacraments and the teaching
authority and foundational base in the Papacy.

[duke]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:13:39 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 15, 1:49 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:04:53 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 12, 5:46 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:09:37 -0800 (PST), bishop <rwknapp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 4, 8:32 am, arah <araharah2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Jan 3, 5:07 am, uragoner <uragon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Islam is the 6th woe put on mankind from the greatest deciever as your
>> >> >> > Koran admits.... you call him Allah, the Bible calls him Lucifer, the god of
>> >> >> > this  world,
>>
>> >> >> You have to do lot more reading and research so that you are  able to
>> >> >> differentiate who is Lucifer and who is Allah.!!!
>>
>> >> >> EXTRACT FROM CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
>>
>> >> >> ALLAH
>> >> >Well since Allah is a pagan god
>>
>> >> Pagan?  Muslims call Abraham father of their faith just like you do, rk.
>> >Seems you know nothing?
>>
>> You're just not all around knowledgeable as you think.
>>
>> >Just because someone calls you their father
>> >does that mean you are such?   I do not call a Muslim anything but a
>> >lost soul as I also see in many of your post, that is what you are.
>>
>> Yet you too call father as your's but you reject much of what he teaches. What's
>> the difference between you and a muslim - merely you see this and he sees that.

>There is no "YET YOU TOO CALL" You may call but not me.

I know you don't. That's evidence the way you refuse to follow Jesus in what he
taught.

> I do reject
>the RCC teachings that are not from the Holy Bible, I never reject the
>teachings of God the Father

Oh, you're a major violator. So don't pick muslims when you are as guilty as
them.

> which by your own mouth you have said you
>are a Lay Catholic. I am a Born Again Christian and Christ Jesus not
>a Pope is my teacher.

Shall we start a list of all the teachings of Jesus you reject.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Feb 17, 1:08 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:58:48 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

> wrote:
>
> >> >> You're just not all around knowledgeable as you think.
> >> >Who are you posting to?  I know that muslim is not as knowledgeable as
> >> >she thinks she is then you are not either, and I check documents, and
> >> >have a large library of reference books to look up what I am not so
> >> >knowledgeable in, I do not think about being knowledgeable but I do
> >> >resources for information.
> >> I'm talking to you, rk.  There is one God almighty, period.  Christians respond
> >> to him multiple ways, Jews another, and muslims another.  A muslim's confusion
> >> over what the one God calls us to is another version from yours.  They see God
> >> as one they must be submissive to, and you think you can play cafeteria
> >> Christian to what he says.  So why are you right and he wrong, or vice versa?
> >Nope your talking to some "rk" as I believe in ONE GOD Almighty the
> >Creator, Gen 1 and John 1:1.
>
> But youi don't believe what his son said in Matthew, Mark, Luke and JOhn

I believe you Duke could not tell the truth and again prove it, with
such statements. Have you no shame?

>
> >> Yet their God is your God.  They respond to him in a different way than you.
> >Not my God
>
> Yes, YOUR God.  You don't respond to my God the way we Catholics do either.

That is strange as many members of my family are Roman Catholics and
they do respond to God as I do, now you are not like other Catholics
and so there is no "we Catholics" Now since "Mary the mother of Jesus,
is not the mother of God, but of the Son of God" She was blessed and
is called blessed and so she is. Only again I do not know your "my
God the way we Catholics do either". Since your god could be Allah,
or anyone else, by the way you post here.

>
> >> >  Jesus pointed out that the liar
> >> >father is Satan, not the one I care about or follow.
> >> "Liar father"???  Jessu never made such a reference.
> >Now you show you do not even read what Jesus did say, then since I do
> >know the bible and have a degree in Theological matters.  Here is the
> >reference.
> > John 8:43-45
> >43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to
> >listen to My word.  44 You are of your father the devi
>
> He was referring to mankind, rk, and that includes you.

He was talking to a person not to just mankind, and since you are a
member of mankind it does include you and all people, so there is no
point in your statement, since all people are born on earth and are
human, unless you are on drugs and think your not human.

>
> >> The Father figure of the triune Godhead.  What do you see?
> >The Father not just a figure, God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
>
> So is that 3 Gods or 1 to you?

God is ONE GOD, as that is what God said! I believe what God did
say, not what some church said or a pope, God is One, God. Father, Son
and Holy Ghost! Man is one person body, soul and spirit.

>
> >> Yet you are heavy into rejecting much of what Jesus taught us.  So who's better
> >> off - you or the muslim?
> >I am heavy into accepting and teaching all that Jesus taught
>
> No, you're NOT.  You reject the Holy Mass, 5 of 7 sacraments and the teaching
> authority and foundational base in the Papacy.
>

There you go again lying and trying to tell people what they believe
when you know all you do is lie here. I minister the Holy Communion
that represents the Body and blood of the Lord Jesus, as He commanded
it to be done, word for word. I also teach the authority of God is
God Himself. Since there was no such thing as a "Papacy" in Jesus
day, there is no such foundation. I believe in the foundation that
the Bible does point to and name. The foundation base is the Holy
Bible the words of Jesus and the Apostles found in the Holy Bible. No
other book, even your friends the Muslims and their book of the Quran,
or buddhist, Hindu or just pagan as it seems you have in your mind and
Church images and such.
2 Tim 2:19
19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal:
"The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Let everyone who names the
name of Christ depart from iniquity."
Mark 12:32-33
32 So the scribe said to Him, "Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the
truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He.


1 Cor 8:6
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and
we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,
and through whom we live.


1 Tim 2:5-7
5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man
Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in
due time,

I follow the Word of God, not the word of some man called a Pope,
Jesus is the Lord and God is the Holy Father. Not the name of the
Pope who is called by Catholics as "Holy Father" and blow to him and
kiss his ring etc. doctrines of men and followed by priest and nuns
instead of giving themselves to God they give it to the church run by
men that call themselves holy and say prayers to images and such, then
to God Himself as He points out only JESUS is the answer.

Pastor R. Knapp
www.pioneers-for-JESUS.org

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Feb 17, 2:00 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:13:39 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Pagan?  Muslims call Abraham father of their faith just like you do, rk.
> >> >Seems you know nothing?
>
> >> You're just not all around knowledgeable as you think.
>
> >> >Just because someone calls you their father
> >> >does that mean you are such?   I do not call a Muslim anything but a
> >> >lost soul as I also see in many of your post, that is what you are.
>
> >> Yet you too call father as your's but you reject much of what he teaches. What's
> >> the difference between you and a muslim - merely you see this and he sees that.
> >There is no "YET YOU TOO CALL" You may call but not me.
>
> I know you don't.  That's evidence the way you refuse to follow Jesus in what he
> taught.

The evidence is that you do not know what Jesus taught and you follow
not Jesus, but the Popes and teachings of Rome. That is what you
know I don't.

Pastor R. Knapp
www.pioneers-for-Jesus.org
Let the readers log in and see just how much Duke lies and keeps
lying, as we Pioneer for JESUS, not a Pope or the RCC. JESUS is LORD
and the ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER. obey Jesus and live, follow duke and
miss haven.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Feb 17, 2:00 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:13:39 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:

>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> You have to do lot more reading and research so that you are  able to
> >> >> >> differentiate who is Lucifer and who is Allah.!!!
>
> >> >> >> EXTRACT FROM CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
>
> >> >> >> ALLAH
> >> >> >Well since Allah is a pagan god
>
> >> >> Pagan?  Muslims call Abraham father of their faith just like you do, rk.
> >> >Seems you know nothing?
>
> >> You're just not all around knowledgeable as you think.
>
> >> >Just because someone calls you their father
> >> >does that mean you are such?   I do not call a Muslim anything but a
> >> >lost soul as I also see in many of your post, that is what you are.
>
> >> Yet you too call father as your's but you reject much of what he teaches. What's
> >> the difference between you and a muslim - merely you see this and he sees that.
> >There is no "YET YOU TOO CALL" You may call but not me.
>
> I know you don't.  That's evidence the way you refuse to follow Jesus in what he taught.

I follow Jesus, it is you that do not!

>
> > I do reject
> >the RCC teachings that are not from the Holy Bible, I never reject the
> >teachings of God the Father
>
> Oh, you're a major violator.  So don't pick muslims when you are as guilty as them.

Wonderful, now I do not need your permission, but thanks anyway, I
will pick on the Muslims and hope they do not find you. As to them
you are, the infidel because if I can not convert them to follow the
Holy Bible and Jesus as Lord and Savior, you are on their list to
murder as the Qur'an tells them to do. Now if you want to pick on
them, go right ahead, then I know them and their teachings and am
smart enough not to be fooled by them.

>
> > which by your own mouth you have said you
> >are a Lay Catholic.  I am a Born Again Christian and Christ Jesus not
> >a Pope is my teacher.
>
> Shall we start a list of all the teachings of Jesus you reject.

Well there is none so there is no list. Now you always list the Popes
and the Roman Catholic teachings which is only by their own mind and
want of power.

[duke]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:34:52 -0600, "Mr. Malthus" <malth...@aol.com> wrote:

>Just like your nasty priests.

Yep, on the head. That's baptism.

[duke]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:16:43 -0800 (PST), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

That's 2 negative blows for your church.