The Terrorist 

Advertisements


Categories: Evil, Extremism, Islam, Terrorism

301 replies

  1. But you won’t here this on CNN or Fox!

    Liked by 3 people

  2. He was all that and a Muslim who memorized the entire Quran. So what do you think influenced him to blow himself up. The Pot, Vodka and woman or the Quran?

    Like

    • “Not the Quran”

      Lol

      Like

    • Wow Paul, startling admission that the quran allah’s eternal speech with all its “ligustic and scientific miracles” had no influence over a young Muslim.

      Pathetic.

      Like

    • ‘He was all that and a Muslim who memorized the entire Quran’.

      Yet, there are also Muslim terrorists who didn’t memorize the Quran. In regression analysis terms, if non-memorizers and memorizers are both capable of committing acts of terrorism then the Quran alone cannot be the determinant of terrorism. But you wouldn’t know this because you’re an idiot.

      Like

    • LOL! No, what’s pathetic is your laughable straw man. Is this the best you idiots can do?

      The Quran’s enduring miracle does not mean that people with little understanding will necessarily be influenced by it. I mean, look at you as an example. Idiots like you don’t understand the Quran because God has closed your minds to it. That way, you will never believe and thus will end up in hellfire. Only when you see the fire will you regret your stupidity and stubbornness. You will curse yourself for your arrogance but it will not avail you.

      Similarly, idiots like this so-called “Muslim” terrorist obviously was fooled by his own stupidity and lack of understanding. He and others like him are a fulfillment of the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh):

      “In the end of time there will come a people young in years, foolish in minds, reciting the Qur’an which will not go beyond their throats, uttering sayings from the best of creatures, going through the religion as an arrow goes through the target.”

      Liked by 2 people

    • Faiz and Kmac

      So memorizing the entire Quran has absolutely no influence or benefit LOL. WOW

      Really repent and come to Christ who over comes everything even death on the cross

      Like

    • “Come to christ”
      Jesus is a human being who himself worships and fears his God according to your bible.
      We don’t worship human beings as you do. We are like our father Abraham. We worship Allah (sw) alone.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Kmak Faiz

      I asked this of Paul Williams but evidently he has no knowledge on the subject, maybe one of you have the knowledge.

      It is my understanding that the Shadid has all his sins forgiven with out passing over or through the fire. He goes directly to allahs paradise.

      So if that is the case, then woudn’t the Manchester Murderer believe that all his vodka, pot smoking, and womanizing sins be forgiven?

      Like

    • “Christ who over comes everything”

      didn’t overcome you

      Liked by 2 people

    • Indeed. Who would want to join a religion that produces a creature likel that?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Abdullah you wrote…

      “We don’t worship human beings as you do. We are like our father Abraham. We worship Allah (sw) alone.”

      Hmmm lets take a look at what Jesus had to say on that…

      ” You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.”

      and…

      ““Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.””

      So according to Jesus your father is not Abraham.

      Like

    • Most experts do not think the historical Jesus said those words. They are a creation of the early church.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Except that Jesus was addressing jews by that, and I challenge you to address jews like that. Would you even dare, mr hypocrite?

      Liked by 2 people

    • quote :
      ” You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.”

      hitler:
      A: existence impels the Jew to lie, and to lie perpetually just as it compels the inhabitants of the northern countries to wear warm clothing

      jesus:
      B: you are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires… when he lies, he speaks according to his own nature for he is a liar and the father of lies.

      both statements were in cultural context where “such rhetoric was often used of opponents”
      he says “such rhetoric strives to incite some action, whether human or divine, against the opponent”

      ///

      Like

    • hitler is saying exactly what johns jesus is saying i.e, it is in the NATURE of the jews to LIE.
      hitlers christian soldiers went around with this thought in mind before they killed and butchered the jews.

      Like

    • Troll: So memorizing the entire Quran has absolutely no influence or benefit LOL. WOW

      As I said, there are people who have memorized the Quran who don’t commit acts of terrorism. There are people who have memorized the Quran who commit acts of terrorism. There are people who have not memorized the Quran who commit acts of terrorism. If all types of people are capable of committing terrorism then the Quran simply cannot be the cause of terrorism, statistically speaking. Go read a few books on econometrics.

      Liked by 1 person

    • One doesn’t need econometrics so much as basic common sense to understand.

      Like

    • Troll: It is my understanding that the Shadid has all his sins forgiven with out passing over or through the fire. He goes directly to allahs paradise.

      What makes you think the Manchester bomber is a Shahid?

      Like

  3. One more thing before Paul responds with “obtuse”. You do realize that as a human bomb for allah all those sin will be forgiven and he will enter into allahs brothel with out having to pass through the fire.

    Like

  4. Maybe he was trying to get rid of all the guilt he felt because of those sins and sinful lifestyle, as some Muslims have been known to do that by suicide bombing.

    I remember reading some time ago of some group of Palestinian and / or Hamas leaders and other Muslims in Iraq who caught women and men in adultery or pre-marital sex and they said the only way to cleanse their soul would be to do that kind of suicide mission for them. One Palestinian teenager boy was also promised unlimited sex and video games in heaven if he did a suicide mission, but he got afraid, and didn’t go through with it. I cannot remember if they were successful in getting the bomb off of him or not.

    Because Islam has no way to deal with real guilt, it can lead some to commit suicide bombings.

    Guilt is one of most horrible things.

    The only way to have peace is to come to Jesus Christ in repentance and faith in Him, according to all the NT teachings.

    “come to Me all who are weary and heavy laden and you shall find rest for your souls” – Matthew 11:28-30

    “Peace I leave with you; not as the world gives do I give you; My peace I give to you; let not your heart be troubled.” John 14:17

    “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God” Romans 5:1

    Like

  5. not all; but SOME Muslims do that stuff. Those that do are too many.

    I wonder why they do that?

    there is no assurance in Islam to go to heaven or deal with guilt, except for dying in Jihad, and the Jihadists / Islamists teach that to them. Ben Laden, Al Qaeda, isis/da’esh/ hamas, etc.

    Like

    • Wrong again. Muslims have a GUARANTEE from God that they will go to paradise.

      Allah states:

      Surah 9:72

      ‘Allah has promised to the believers – men and women, – Gardens under which rivers flow to dwell therein forever, and beautiful mansions in Gardens of ‘Adn (Eden Paradise). But the greatest bliss is the Good Pleasure of Allah. That is the supreme success.

      Like

    • read the next verse, verse 73 – be harsh with them!

      Surah 9 – context of waging war against pagans (9:5) and Christians and Jews (9:28-30) and causing terror (9:14 – killing the unbelievers gives them relief – healing in their hearts – sounds like the only way to get rid of guilt is Jihadism. and 9:123) and being killed and killing (9:111)

      Like

    • I refer you to the Quran quote above.

      Like

    • “I wonder why they do that?”

      No you don’t. You are not interested in factual research about terrorism.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. so, why did those Jihadist leaders teach them that – that they can go straight to paradise and have the houris and sex and fun, etc. if they would do a suicide mission for them?

    Like

    • They taught false ideologies not from Islam.

      The evidence:

      Suicide is a major sin, and the one who does that is faced with a warning of eternity in the Fire of Hell, where Allaah will punish him with the means that he used to commit suicide. It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever throws himself down from a mountain and kills himself will be throwing himself down in the Fire of Hell for ever and ever. Whoever drinks poison and kills himself will be sipping it in the Fire of Hell for ever and ever. Whoever kills himself with a piece of iron will have that iron in his hand, thrusting it into his belly in the Fire of Hell for ever and ever.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (5442) and Muslim (109),

      It was narrated from Thaabit ibn Dahhaak that the Messenger of Allaah (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever kills himself with something will be punished with it on the Day of Resurrection.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (5700) and Muslim (110).

      It was narrated that Jundub ibn ‘Abd-Allaah said: The Messenger of Allaah (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) said: “A man among those who came before you was wounded. He panicked and took a knife and cut his hand, and the bleeding did not stop until he died. Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, said: ‘My slave hastened his death; I have forbidden Paradise to him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3276) and Muslim (113).

      https://islamqa.info/en/111938

      Like

  7. but why are so many Muslims (too many – isis, al Qaedah, Hamas, etc.) swayed by that teaching?

    Like

    • there are 1.7 billion muslims in the world. We are talking about 0.0001 %. They are an infinitesimally tiny minority & have been influenced by secular ideologies of the left, where suicide bombings originated. All this is well documented.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I am glad most Muslims don’t do that; but why do so many do do it?

      How was it from the left ?

      The ones who want to restore Caliph and Al Qaedah, and Hamas are the most conservative and fundamental and extreme, wanting to return to 600s and 700s AD.

      Like

    • pathetic answers from james white .

      here are REAL answers :

      The money changers actually weren’t doing anything wrong and they served a necessary function at the Temple. It’s hard to get at what the motive was. It appears that (in Mark’s literary view, at least), Jesus was opposed to the selling of sacrificial animals altogether. The money changers, though, were low level functionaries who just exchanged Roman coins for coins that could be used at the Temple. The Torah required that. Attacking them was like attacking the ladies selling Bingo cards for a church fundraiser. Even if you think there’s something wrong with playing Bingo in a church, those are not the people to blame, and violently attacking people who are breaking no law is terroristic regardless, especially at Passover since it had so much potential for getting people mass murdered by the Romans.

      It also did not accomplish anything. Nothing changed about Temple practices. It was pointless violence against innocent people.

      The attack on the Temple. Political violence against innocent civilians is terrorism. If some Muslims attacked ladies selling bingo cards at a mega church no one would say it wasn’t terrorism.

      Anti-Temple politics. There was a lot of opposition to Herod’s Temple because it was seen as illegitimate. Nothing was actually being done that violated Jewish law, but that wouldn’t stop it from being a terrorist attack even if there was. Jesus had no authority to decide what was corrupt or to attack anybody over it. It was also very dangerous because the Roman were really paranoid about potential riots or insurrections during Passover and starting shit at the Temple could have gotten people mass murdered. People had been mass murdered at the Temple during Passover before.

      However banal an observation it may be, it is true that the Christian is deeply attached to Jesus. Because of this fact, it is difficult for the Christian to hear any criticism of Jesus. This is understandable. And so the Christian, when confronted by such criticism, will usually defend Jesus. However, not every defense of Jesus is a legitimate line of defense. This brief comment will address a few lines of defense that cannot legitimately be brought on Jesus’ behalf.

      Because the purpose of this comment is not to indict Jesus, it will not reference specific acts of perceived wrongdoing, except where necessary. The reader should keep in mind that the point is not to say that Jesus was wrong to do or say any particular thing. The goal is limited, only to show that certain defenses cannot be brought in regard to Jesus. Elimination of these defenses does not imply that other defenses cannot be brought or that Jesus is guilty of any particular charge.

      One defense brought when a critic claims that Jesus either said or did something wrong is that Jews employ a double standard. The Christian claims that Moses and David sinned, and the Jews do not object to these men. This defense is untenable, however, because Jesus is supposed to have been perfect. No one claims that Moses or David were perfect men. Therefore, no double standard is employed by accepting these men with their faults. The claim that Jesus was perfect requires greater scrutiny of his character in order to establish that claim as true or false.

      A second defense, that Jesus used harsh criticism of others in accordance with the Jewish culture of that time and place, fails for a similar reason. Jesus is supposed to be ushering in a new culture not conforming to the corrupt culture that he came to fix. The man who said that one who called his brother “Fool!” and said that one should turn the other cheek is supposed to be bringing a higher standard, not conforming to the one he is criticizing. If he showed disrespect to gentiles, no defense can be brought in his favor that other Jews of the day would have been equally harsh. Jesus is supposed to be morally superior to others, not following in their footsteps.

      A third defense undermines any inquiry into the claims of Christianity. The Christian makes the truth claim that Jesus was a morally perfect being. If a flaw in Jesus’ character or an incorrect action or statement is brought to the Christian’s attention, he argues that it could not be incorrect, because Jesus was perfect. The conclusion precedes the evidence. The Christian accidentally invalidates his own assumptions when he does this. If Jesus’ actions, words, and attitudes cannot be examined then the claim to moral perfection can never be substantiated. The undermining of any examination through prejudice means that no conclusion can be reached. The claim of Jesus’ moral perfection never exceeds mere assertion.

      Each of these defenses of Jesus is illegitimate. The first two contradict the Christian teaching that Jesus was morally perfect. By justifying his speech and actions according to the mores of the time, they deny that Jesus exceeded the mores of the time. The third disallows for the testing of Jesus’ moral perfection. Because no examination of the claim can be performed, the claim can never be validated. Each of these defenses undermines the claim of Jesus’ moral superiority. They either contradict or undermine the principle they are meant to defend.

      “Religious attacks CAN also be terrorist attacks. They are not necessarily so.”

      What’s an example of a religious attack that’s not a terroristic attack?

      “You’re desecrating my temple, GET OUT!”

      It was not his Temple.

      “That’s not a terrorist attack, that’s more a reaction/defense imo.”

      He made a whip and was whipping people. That’s physical violence. He was preventing people from carrying anything across the courtyard and preventing people from buying and selling animals for sacrifice. He was trying to shut down the Torah mandated function of the Temple altogether at its most busy time and as using physical violence to do so. If a bunch of Muslims went through a church whipping people with bullwhips and trying to shut it down, nobody would say it was not a terrorist attack.
      that’s more a reaction/defense imo.
      Defense against what?

      . I don’t care if the Roman’s okayed this, they’re not the deciders of what is correct for a religious sect.

      The Romans didn’t have anything to do with it. It was the Temple Priests doing exactly what the Torah told them to do. The Romans were uninvolved. They stayed out of Temple practices. I think you have a really mistaken idea of what was going on. This was an attack on Jews, not on Romans.

      “Wrong: Explain why it MUST be a terrorist attack.”

      Because it’s a violent assault on civilians and upon a major religious institution during its most busy time of year and its most volatile atmosphere.

      “He’s god and he’s a jew. yeah, it is.”

      Not a God, no, and he was attacking Jews. Jews who were only doing what Jewish law required them to do.

      “Defilement of the temple?”

      Defiling it how? Nobody was doing anything but what Jewish law required them to do.
      And how would it have been Jesus’ place to police that anyway

      “I thought someone suggested the Romans had something to do with it so I was addressing that.”
      The Temple was run only by Jews. The Romans appointed the High Priests at this time, but that was as far as their involvement went. The practices Jesus were attacking were entirely Jewish.

      “Doing it to stop payments from the temple to the Romans”

      There were no payments to the Romans. This was an attack entirely on Jews.

      “Doing it to cause fear in such a way that the priests enact taco tuesday would be.”

      He threatened to destroy the whole Temple. How is that not a terroristic threat?

      I’m not speaking out of any hostility to Christianity. The challenge was to find something “immoral” about the literary character of Jesus in the Gospels. The assault on the Temple is an example of pointless violence against innocent civilians – low-level functionaries doing a necessary job, to make some entirely symbolic point. I call that terroristic but it doesn’t really matter if you accept that word. The point is that it was, in my view (and I was asked for my view) immoral. Unprovoked violence against innocent people is immoral and even more so during the week of Passover because the city was packed with people from the country, the Romans were greatly outnumbered. The city was a powder keg and the Romans were paranoid about any kinds of riots or disturbances and they reacted swiftly and ruthlessly to stop any potential unrest the second it started. They were big bud-nippers, those Romans. Causing that kind of commotion at the Temple could have gotten hundreds or thousands of innocent people killed. It would be an entirely reckless act which would have engendered great tension or dare I say it, terror among the Jewish crowds.

      Quote :
      He’d have had no authority do any of that either, but the analogy makes no sense because he attacked people were not committing any sins but just doing what the Torah told them to do.

      And this was necessary. People had to get the sacrificial animals somewhere, and it was not practical for them to carry them in from the country. They also had to be animals suitable for sacrifice, which means without blemish. There was absolutely nothing illegal about selling them at the Temple. Some people didn’t like it, but it wasn’t breaking any Jewish law.

      That’ a quote from Jeremiah, but it doesn’t make sense to interpret that as saying the theft was being done at the Temple because thieves don’t steal from their dens, they go there for sanctuary. Th Greek word there is spelaion, which literally means “cave,” as in a lair, a hideout. Jesus as calling the Temple a “hideout for thieves,” not a place where theft was taking place. That’s not what a “den” is.

      What was going on that was immoral? Nothing was in violation of Jewish law. To call it immoral would be to call the Torah itself immoral. Moreover, he was also driving out people who had gone there to sacrifice. The people who would allegedly be the victims under your theory.

      Like

    • Another reason is equally circular, namely , that jesus is recorded to have preached ‘unqualified love’ elsewhere. but how did the fellows determine that it is the loving jesus that is authentic rather than the more violent one? if this saying is so starkly contraposed to the love sayings, then why does the redactor not see that? denying that jesus uttered this logion because it alludes to MIC 7.5-6 is also circular. given that QUOTING, or ALLUDING to, the HEBREW BIBLE was common in jewish exegesis of the time, how did the fellows determine that jesus could not allude to that passage?

      However, perhaps the most common strategy is to misread jesus’ purpose clause, (‘for i have come to set a man against his father…’) as a result clause, which is not what the grammar of jesus’ language indicates at all. the relevant clauses in mt. 10 .34-35 are PURPOSE clauses, as indicated by the infinitives, in the greek expression…

      ‘ do not think that i have come to bring peace on earth; i have not come to bring peace, but a sword. for i have come to set a man against his father….’

      As daniel wallace notes purpose clauses can be expressed by a [s]imple or “naked” infinite (usually following an [intransitive] verb of motion . A close parallel to the use of the infinitive in mt. 10:34 is found in mt 5.17

      ‘think not that i have come to abolish the law and the prophets; i have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them’

      jesus did not say that his mission would simply result in family strife. jesus is saying that a primary PURPOSE of his mission is to create violence within families, and the mention of sword is consistent with that violent intent

      the bad jesus
      page 93-94

      Like

    • quote :

      The portrayal of Jesus as an anti-imperialist pervades the scholarly literature of New Testament ethics. However, portraying Jesus as an anti-imperialist actually betrays a pro-imperialist Christian agenda on the part of many New Testament ethicists.

      Usually, the main evidence cited is Jesus’ resistance to the Roman empire. However, anti-imperialism should properly describe an ideology that is against any empire. Jesus’ endorsement of the Kingdom of God, which is envisioned as an empire, should certainly disqualify him from being an anti-imperialist. In addition, many prominent New Testament ethicists are Euro-Americans with no indigenous ancestry, and so are themselves part of an empire occupying Native American lands.

      In the near future, I also plan to challenge more thoroughly one of the most important myths in Christian historiography—Constantine the Great (ruled 306-337) was where imperialism began in Christianity. Constantine, therefore, represents a corruption of Jesus’ teachings in this view.

      The placement of the start of Christian imperialism in Constantine’s reign has served to deflect attention from the fact that imperialism is inscribed in the New Testament itself. Constantine only put into effect an ideology that was already there from the beginning of Christianity and one that reaches back into what Christians call “The Old Testament.”

      Like

    • Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”
      John 18:36

      “put your sword away, all who live by the sword will die by the sword – Matthew 26:52

      “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against powers of darkness . . . ” Ephesians 6:12

      “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal ( fleshly, physical) . . . 2 Corinthians 10:3-5

      3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, 4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. 5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ . . .

      I Cor. 5:1-13 – expel the evil man out of the church

      not, “kill him” and not “execute him by the state”

      Acts 1:6-8 – “are you now going to restore the kingdom to Israel . . . ”

      ie, are you now going to get Rome off our back?

      Jesus said, basically, “no; but the power you get is not military power and not politicial power, but spiritual power to witness

      Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion. He just made it legal and that they were no longer going to persecute them.

      A different Emperor – Theodosius did much later – 380-392 AD

      Like

    • thats your version of history. There are others.

      Like

    • do you deny that Constantine did not make Christianity (306-312 edict of toleration – emperor until 337 AD) the state religion, but that was done later by Theodosius in between 380-392 AD ?

      Like

    • QUOTE :

      Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

      John 18:36

      END QUOTE

      QUESTION :

      did jesus forget that he told his pals to PURCHASE swords? did jesus forget to TELL PILATE THAT his PAL CUT OFF AN EAR?
      his pal CLEARLY did FIGHT to save jesus .

      why are you quoting gospel of john?

      gospel of john was written DECADES after mark

      “put your sword away, all who live by the sword will die by the sword – Matthew 26:52″

      so why did jesus use VIOLENCE in the temple?
      why did they even pick up a sword if they always knew jesus did not want violence? jesus himself said that his mission is to DIVIDE family members. jesus said he did not come to bring peace but fire.

      Like

    • “put your sword away, all who live by the sword will die by the sword – Matthew 26:52″

      rubio:
      Moreover, the actual rationale for not resorting to violence significantly lies here only in that such option would frustrate the divine plan (Mt. 26.54: ‘But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?’), not in a rejection of violence as such.

      Like

  8. The Hadith says: Muhammad said, “I have been made victorious through terror”

    The Quran has quotes about terror, too:

    Surah 8. 12. Your Lord inspired the angels: “I am with you, so support those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike above the necks, and strike off every fingertip of theirs.”

    Surah 33. 26. And He brought down from their strongholds those of the People of the Book who backed them, and He threw terror into their hearts. Some of them you killed, and others you took captive.

    Surah 59. 2. It is He who evicted those who disbelieved among the People of the Book from their homes at the first mobilization. You did not think they would leave, and they thought their fortresses would protect them from God. But God came at them from where they never expected, and threw terror into their hearts. They wrecked their homes with their own hands, and by the hands of the believers. Therefore, take a lesson, O you who have insight.

    Muhammad was made victorious through terror. He commanded his followers to murder people who insulted him, which resulted in multiple assassinations. He ordered the massacre of 600–900 Jews at Banu Qurayza, after they had already surrendered. He allowed his followers to rape their female captives. And, like you see in the Quran, jihad was a command from Allah.

    Surah 9. 111. God has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties in exchange for Paradise. They fight in God’s way, and they kill and get killed. It is a promise binding on Him in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Quran. And who is more true to his promise than God? So rejoice in making such an exchange—that is the supreme triumph.

    Like

    • selective decontextualied quotes mixed with lies and falsehoods.

      Like

    • the context of the one you quoted is in the harshest Surah of all – chapter 9, Al Toubeh التوبه
      or also called Al -Bara’at (the immunity) . Some Hadith say it was the very last one revealed and abrogated earlier peaceful verses.

      Like

    • “Some Hadith say it was the very last one revealed and abrogated earlier peaceful verses.”

      Really? – do quote the hadith please.

      Like

    • Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). [Sahih Bukhari, Book 56, Hadith 186]

      Like

    • Surah 8. 12. Your Lord inspired the angels: “I am with you, so support those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike above the necks, and strike off every fingertip of theirs.”

      Surah 33. 26. And He brought down from their strongholds those of the People of the Book who backed them, and He threw terror into their hearts. Some of them you killed, and others you took captive.

      Surah 59. 2. It is He who evicted those who disbelieved among the People of the Book from their homes at the first mobilization. You did not think they would leave, and they thought their fortresses would protect them from God. But God came at them from where they never expected, and threw terror into their hearts. They wrecked their homes with their own hands, and by the hands of the believers. Therefore, take a lesson, O you who have insight.

      /////////////

      when God himself makes the declaration that one is a DISBELIEVER then He also says :

      As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.

      //////////

      now a liar for jesus like you clearly knows this cannot be referring to ALL non-Muslims because Muslim is told to INVITE non-muslims to the way of Islam .

      Like

  9. I should have written:

    “Some Hadith say it was the very last one revealed; and then some Muslim scholars say that it abrogated earlier peaceful verses.”

    Several Hadith passages say Bara’a (the Immunity or Repudiation) was the last. Same as Toubeh, number 9. Here is one.

    Narrated Al-Bara:
    The last Sura that was revealed was Bara’a, and the last Verse that was revealed was: “They ask you for a legal verdict, Say: Allah’s directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs.” (4.176)
    حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، سَمِعْتُ الْبَرَاءَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ آخِرُ سُورَةٍ نَزَلَتْ بَرَاءَةَ، وَآخِرُ آيَةٍ نَزَلَتْ ‏{‏يَسْتَفْتُونَكَ ‏}‏
    USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 129
    Arabic reference : Book 65, Hadith 4605

    Sūrat at-Tawbah (Arabic: سورة التوبة‎‎, “The Repentance”), also known as al-Barā’ah (“The Repudiation”),[1] is the ninth chapter of the Qur’an. It contains 129 verses and is one of the last Madinan chapters.

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      You never answered Paul Williams at all when he asked of any reference that said and I quote you

      ““Some Hadith say it was the very last one revealed; and then some Muslim scholars say that it abrogated earlier peaceful verses.”

      Some scholars? Thank you Paul Williams. Ken could not get anything from our Quran and hadiths that says some verses abrogated the peaceful verses, except to use some scholars.

      What our learned friend Ken always forgets is that, in every religion including Christianity, some people or scholars for that matter interpret the verses to their whims and caprice. Ken childishly thinks it is only Islam.

      Do you agree with more than 85% of evangelical Christians who voted for Trump to hate and ban all Muslims Ken?

      Why did the evangelical Christians voted for President Bush to go to Iraq and supported Iraq war knowing it will create chaos?

      The answer is to use violence to spread Christianity and that is why there are many youtube footage of Christians embedded in the army to spread Christianity by force.

      Why was the persecution of the Catholics by the protestants in the USA, until liberals fought the Christians and won, then imposed freedom of religion? Where was Jesus when the Christians were killing each other.

      Ken Temple

      May 25, 2017 • 5:31 pm

      but why are so many Muslims (too many – isis, al Qaedah, Hamas, etc.) swayed by that teaching?

      Answer: Simple answer. Because the evangelical Christians voted for presidents of USA like Bush and Trump to take war in the Muslim majority countries to cause chaos so that they could spread Christianity by force and in Hamas case, the evangelical Christians a supporting zionist state to kill Palestinian babies who are sheltered in UN compound. They e. Christians support Israel to exterminate the Palestinians Christians and Muslims to pave way for amagedon and the second coming of Jesus Christ to kill all his enemies and convert the remaining Jews who were did bot die to Christianity.

      Fact: Iraq was peacefsul with Christians and Christian vice president under Saddam Hussein. Yes, just like any country like the USA that has internal wars, Iraq has its own uprisings, but there was no isis, alqueda etc. until the evangelical Christians like Ken Temple voted for war there.

      Suicide bombings originated in Israel, Japan etc. if you read history. During that time there was no single Muslim suicide bombings until the evangelical Christians took their wars to the Muslim majority lands through voting for a president who will go to war.

      Any religion can and have used their scriptures to justify their whims and caprice and not Muslims alone. Sam Shamoun has used Bible to justify his insults to Muslims here on blogging theology.

      Why Muslims now? There were not there but now means is because of the chaos and not because of Islam. The chaos was created by the evangelical Christians like Ken Temple and that is why he is deflecting the reality.

      The isis, alqaeda, etc. were not there but Islam was there so you can blame them on Islam.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

    • actually, I answered that above, you did not read very carefully.

      Like

    • Al Qaeda and suicide bombings and Islamic terrorism started long before Bush became President. What Bush and Trump do has nothing to with NT Christianity. They, as secular leaders were responding to the evil Al Qaeda terrorists who did their evil FIRST, as what Umar did in 636 beyond by attacking the Byzantine and Persian Empires FIRST. Your history is the one of beginning the aggressions. President Obama also killed terrorists and Ben Laden, Al Alawki, etc.

      Like

    • Al Qaede did many terrorisms before 9-11-2001 and that was also first big one. What Bush did later was response to the evil done by them first.

      We did not vote for war.

      What does any of that have to do with blowing oneself up at the concert in Manchester, England anyway?

      Muslims need to hold they guy responsible rather than blame Bush and Blair and the Jews for your own sins. You constantly blame rather than repent and clean up your own house – sunnis and shiites should stop killing each other and stop killing the Kurds, etc.

      Like

    • Perhaps you could stop invading Muslim countries and killing Muslims. No one is forcing you too.

      It might piss people off less.

      Agreed?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Al Qaedah started that. They pissed off the west; the west responded to their aggression, which was first.

      Like

    • Al Qaedah, if you actually listened to what they said, was fighting against American occupation of Muslim lands by you lot.

      Liked by 1 person

    • there was no occupation before 2003 and when Obama pulled out in 2012 (?), isis came.

      Like

    • They use verses from Hadith and Qur’an to justify what they do.

      Like

    • “Al Qaeda and suicide bombings and Islamic terrorism started long before Bush became President. What Bush and Trump do has nothing to with NT Christianity.”

      bush is a christian. tony blair is a christian. both christian pieces of shits have ruined human life in ME. when will they learn that your apocalyptic false “messiah” is never coming back and he is confirmed false “prophet” ?

      stop dreaming about holocaust 2 .your god is DEAD.

      Like

    • they were responded to the evil started by Al Qaedah.

      Like

  10. According to Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.” He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.” ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that “Ultimatum” obviated earlier peace treaties.[60] The Shafi‘i school took this as a justification for killing anyone who abandoned prayer and for fighting anyone who refused to pay increased religious minority taxes.[61]
    ——————

    Muhammad offered this verse [ Surah 2:256 – no compulsion] in his first year of residence in Medina when he needed the Jews’ support. Nahhas, with the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, said: “Scholars differed concerning 2:256. Some said it has been abrogated by 9:73 for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fight those that had no alternative but to surrender to Islam. Other scholars said that 2:256 had not been abrogated concerning the People of the Book. It is only the infidels who are compelled to embrace Islam.”[66] Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73 but rather interprets 9:73 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient.[67]

    Like

    • Surah 2:256 is not abrogated. I have never heard of a muslim say that.

      Like

    • Immediately following that verse comes the Qur’an’s famous statement that “there is no compulsion in religion” (v. 256).

      Muslim spokesmen in the West frequently quote that phrase to disprove the contention that Islam spread by the sword, or even to claim that Islam is a religion of peace. However, according to an early Muslim, Mujahid ibn Jabr, this verse was abrogated by Qur’an 9:29, in which the Muslims are commanded to fight against and subjugate the People of the Book. Others, however, according to the Islamic historian Tabari, say that the “no compulsion” verse was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax) and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29). No compulsion indeed.

      Like

    • However, according to an early Muslim, Mujahid ibn Jabr, this verse was abrogated by Qur’an 9:29, in which the Muslims are commanded to fight against and subjugate the People of the Book.

      Like

    • the overwhelming consensus of scholars past and present is that it is NOT abrogated.

      Like

    • Then Umar and subsequent Caliphs violated Surah 2:256

      Like

    • Ken,
      What’s your problem with surah 9 as whole? Muslims are commanded to fight those who oppress them if they have the power to do that in a context of just war. I’ve no idea why you are complaining about that as a child?
      We are not commended to turn the other cheek for the evil people.
      I’ve no idea why christians are the most people who complain about that while you’re supposed to be absolutely quiet till Jesus will come.
      Your prophet Paul taught you that even the pagan Romans were the authority from God, and you should not complain about them.

      Your teacher James White thinks burning people by an atomic bomb is the judgment from God against those people. Do you accept for us to say that with the victims of those groups who don’t act according to Islamic teachings?

      Finally, you’re pathetic. You cannot give us (one) reason why Jesus has God that he worships and fears, and you try desperately to hide this miserable failure by attacking Islam with your own understaing that you get freom the clown” school” ?

      Liked by 2 people

    • there is nothing about “those who oppress them” in Surah 9 . Surah 8:39 speaks of “fight the people until there is no more fitnah” فتنه – almost anything can be interpreted as “fitnah” from an Islamic viewpoint – the meaning of the word is “rebellion”, “mutiny”, “chaos”, “turmoil” and so any kind of opposition or disagreement against Islam is interpreted as those things by Islamic authorities – and all the questioning of Islam and apostasy can fall in this category. Worldly temptations are trials are interpreted to be fitnah. Anyway, along with the Hadiths that say “no 2 religions will be allowed in Arabia” and the one that says “I have been commanded to fight the people until they say no one is worthy of worship except Allah” (ie, until Islam is the religion of the land)

      Sahih Muslim (1:33) The Messenger of Allah said: “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat.”

      Sahih Bukhari (8:387) – “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.'”

      and Surah 9:28 – “if you fear poverty (because no more pagans are giving money to come to Mecca), (Ibn Kathir’s commentary is clear – “therefore, Allah ordered the apostle of Islam to attack the Byzantine Empire” (my paraphrase) “to get the revenues from Jiziye)

      What is really interesting is verse 28 – “if you fear poverty, soon Allah will enrich you”. the reason for that was because Muhammad had conquered the Hijaz (the Arabian peninsula, especially around Mecca and Medina, and no pagans or idol worshippers were allowed. That means the Muslims could not get tax or penalty money from the pagans. Surah 9:5 – “fight the unbelievers where ever you find them”, proves this, and several Hadith that says “no two religions will be allowed on the Arabian peninsula” see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288, and other Hadiths, quoted at the bottom of this article *) They were all killed or driven out or converted to Islam. So now, there is no revenue from the pilgrimmages, so, according to verses 28-29, they will allow the Christians and Jews to be in the Islamic state, provided they surrender and don’t fight/resist, and pay the Jiziye with humiliation, and they cannot evangelize or build new churches or even criticize Islam.

      Qur’an 9:28—O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

      Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

      Qur’an 9:30—The Jews call Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

      Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4— “Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.”

      Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—”Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.”

      and with 9:29 – fight the people of the book because of their beliefs (who believe not in Allah nor the last day and do not forbid what Allah forbids (pork, wine, statues, icons, music (some Hadith pretty much condemn all music – both Saudi and Iranian government and Taliban uses those Hadith in their prohibitions against most music) . It seems obvious that Surah 9 is the basis for the growth of the Islamic empire by war and force for the rest of the history and centuries, until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1917-1922 and abolition of the Caliphate.

      Surah 9 – It is all out war against the pagans and all out war against the people of book, unless they submit, and pay the Jiziye, and the Dhimmi principles based on that were unjust as there was no more allowance for evangelism or building new churches or outreach or criticism of Islam. When one sees the Hadith’s along with Surah 8:39 and Surah 9, (since it is either the last or next to the last Surah revealed) it seems obvious that this was the 3rd or 4th stage of Jihad in the progressive revelation of who Islam developed. see Richard Bailey’s article here.

      http://answering-islam.org/Bailey/jihad.html

      Like

    • Finally, you’re pathetic. You cannot give us (one) reason why Jesus has God that he worships and fears, . . .

      I already answered that in the post about that issue. 96 comments

      You have to understand that in Christian theology, when Jesus is on earth, He honors the Father by calling Him God, because He is God! Jesus prayed to the Father – John 17:1. There is no modalism in true Christianity. There are 3 persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So all the verses you guys bring up that seem to say “Jesus has a God” are not difficult to interpret for us, since there is only One God, and yet there are 3 persons that share that one substance/nature together in purity and fellowship from all eternity past to eternity future. I don’t deflect to Islam, I was responding to Paul’s articles here on “the Terrorist” and asking why some Muslims do the suicide bombing actions – some who memorize the Qur’an and coordinate with others in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. –

      https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/05/21/the-bible-proves-jesus-had-a-god/

      Like

    • “You have to understand that in Christian theology”
      No one does, and that’s why christian have referred to your theology as “mystery” ! A nickname for saying it doesn’t make sense, but you don’t admit it.
      Moreover, you have not answered at all.

      When you call someone/believe in someone as (your God), you imply something by that ( i.e there’re necessary consequences of that belief theologically).
      For example, when you call Jesus (my God), that means, rather it has to mean that Jesus has created you in your heart & mind, doesn’t it ?
      Based on that, I’m asking about when Jesus himself calls the Father as (his God), what does that have to mean/imply?

      Like

    • “here is nothing about “those who oppress them” in Surah 9 ”
      Read verse 13.
      Jihad is a noble concept to remove the injustice. I know already that you’re an ignorant man once you start taking courses under the clown.
      Islam is not about a lamb dying for your sins!
      Islam is a complete system for all aspects of this life & it deals with the individuals & states. I appreciate James White when he said he was still, and would be a student about Islam. Let’s not forget that he believes that burning people by an atomic bomb is God’s judgment against those people. (i.e they deserve it)

      About hadith, Ibn Taymmyiah , the teacher of ibn Kathir, explained that hadith is about people who fight against muslims and Islam not for all people such as those who muslims had agreement with already.

      Jizyah system is something approved by Jesus in your bible, so what’s your problem? I mean you’re in the west refreshing your economies by wars and weapons industries, and stealing other nations, so what’s your problem?
      Right now , you are enjoying in a land that you’ve built under the skulls of the native people that you’ve killed. You’re eager for days when your Jesus will kill all those who don’t agree with him! Those days when you occupy and plunder other nations. This is your bible.

      Morover, your religion is commanded you to be submissive, but we know from your bloody history that fantasia doesn’t work in the real life, so christians have thrown that teaching under the bus.
      Why do you complain about Islam as christians? Just be submissive or hypocrite! This your religion!
      Or just be a man and state it loudly that you religion is a joke!

      Like

  11. Ken Temple

    May 25, 2017 • 6:26 pm

    Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),

    I say;
    You forgot Jesus who said this?

    Luke 19:27
    ter)
    New International Version
    But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”

    New Living Translation
    And as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king–bring them in and execute them right here in front of me.'”

    Thanks.

    Like

  12. it was, since your Caliphs attacked Byzantine empire, conquered it; and Persia, conquered them and forced them into Islam. History is clear. Your Muslims attacked India also and the violence of Pakistan and India is the result of Muslim aggression long ago started.

    Like

  13. Peace to all. Nice job copy and pasting Ken. I will reply briefly point by point. Firstly the same source you mentioned (Ibn Kahir) as well as all classicial commentaries on the Qur’an, are unanimous in the prohibition of harming civilians during warefare (let alone outside of that). Imam Nawawi mentioned in his sharh (explanation) of Sahih Muslim that there is an Ijma’a (agreement) on this from all 4 schools of Islamic Law. As for the Caliph Abu Bakr fighting those tribes who refused to pay the Zakat tax, it was also for apostasy through warring with the Muslim polity, and not mere abandonment of paying the charity. As for the hadith regarding, “I have been commanded to fight people..” Other narrations of this same hadith mention ‘polytheists’ instead of ‘people’, as in the version recorded by Imam Nasa’i. Therefore many Islamic authorities such as Ibn Hajar al Asqalani (the renowned commentator on Bukhari) mentons that ‘people’ therefore is not general but specific to the Arab idolaters of the Prophet’s time (pbuh). And anyone who has studied the Prophetic Biography knows that the idolaters of Quraysh were the first to attack and persecute the nascent Muslim community. Another nuance that you have missed (relying on copying and pasting English translations of Arabic primary sources) is the subtle but crucial difference between the Arabic words ‘qatl’ which means to kill/fight, and ‘qatal’ which refers to mutual conflict. Ibn Hajar, Ibn Daqiq al Eid and other major classicial authorities mention this. Therefore it means he was commanded to fight those idolaters who fought him. As for abrogation, the scholars of tafsir mention the difference between naskh or absolute abrogation and takhsis which is a provisional abrogation. The verses of the sword provisionally abrogate or specify the verses of peace and self restraint depending on the relative context. Again the same sources you mention clarify this. Imam as Suyuti in his magnum opus on the science of understanding the Qur’an (Al Itiqaan fi Uloom al Qur’an) does not include Surah 9:5 as abrogating anything.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thanks for that erudite explanation Adamo!

      Hopefully Ken will learn from it.

      Like

    • Excellent response. Ken’s pathetic attempt at scholarship lies in ruins! Holy Spirit fail!

      Like

    • ” between the Arabic words ‘qatl’ which means to kill/fight, and ‘qatal’ which refers to mutual conflict.”

      ken clearly knows this because he regularly visits this site

      http://corpus.quran.com/documentation/verbforms.jsp

      i tried to tell him the same thing yesterday but he didn’t reply.

      Like

    • Surah 9:5 and 9:29 does not sound like “mutual conflict” – it says in 9:29 to attack them (the people of the book) because of what they believe, it is not like 2:190-191 at all.

      the proof is attacking the Byzantine Empire, N. Africa, Spain, France, etc. and Persia and beyond.

      Like

    • “Surah 9:5 and 9:29 does not sound like “mutual conflict” – it says in 9:29 to attack them (the people of the book) because of what they believe, it is not like 2:190-191 at all.”

      9:5 does not even use the word from qaaatalaa youqaaatilu
      what are you talking about?

      it says to attack them because they are also ready to fight

      quote :

      In 9:29 it is an interactive form QAATILOO and that means that the other part is willing or desiring to fight or fight back and so on and not committed to a peaceful resolution of the issues at hand that are mentioned in the Aya.

      Like

    • “Surah 9:5 and 9:29 does not sound like “mutual conflict” – it says in 9:29 to attack them (the people of the book) because of what they believe, it is not like 2:190-191 at all.”

      where is “uqtul” mentioned in 9:29 ?
      do the people in 9 :29 believe in God and the last day like :

      Sahih International: [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right – only because they say, “Our Lord is Allah.” And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.

      surely you can see 9:29 must be referring to a corrupt people who:

      Sahih International: O you who have believed, indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert [them] from the way of Allah. And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah – give them tidings of a painful punishment.

      Like

  14. Hey Ken and other idiot apologists who complain about Islam…

    Was the killing of Canaanite children by your mangod’s hordes right or wrong?

    Was it evil and unjust?

    Like

  15. “they were responded to the evil started by Al Qaedah.”

    there was no alqaida in iraq.

    Like

  16. Ken Temple

    May 25, 2017 • 9:00 pm

    Al Qaeda and suicide bombings and Islamic terrorism started long before Bush became President. What Bush and Trump do has nothing to with NT Christianity. They, as secular leaders were responding to the evil Al Qaeda terrorists who did their evil FIRST, as what Umar did in 636 beyond by attacking the Byzantine and Persian Empires FIRST. Your history is the one of beginning the aggressions. President Obama also killed terrorists and Ben Laden, Al Alawki, etc

    I say;
    This is a fact from an academic sources. It is not Muslim who wrote it.

    ————–

    Along with the religious consequences of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation came deep and lasting political changes. Northern Europe’s new religious and political freedoms came at a great cost, with decades of rebellions, wars and bloody persecutions. The Thirty Years’ War alone may have cost Germany 40 percent of its population.

    Source: http://www.history.com/topics/reformation

    ————–

    It shows how violent Christians were, until stopped by the liberals and freedom of religion slapped on them. Where was Muslims in that bloody wars that stopped Christians persecution of others?

    Again. Give me an example of alqaeda suicide bombings in 1960 or isis suicide bombings in 1999 if you claimed they are always there. These people weren’t there until their lands were made lawless by the bloody evangelical Christians according to the above source to create lawlessness there.

    When Christians were the rulers, no one can covert or say something against Christianity, he will be killed instantly like Calvin did to Michael. The above bloody war by the galant liberal who were then killed, tortured and persecuted by the Christians like how Calvin did to Michael saved us all now.

    Without it, there would be no freedom of religion in the West but there was and is still freedom of religion in Muslim majority lands and it was clearly decreed in the Quran that “there is no compulsion in religion”.

    Some evangelicals who do not know classical Arabic and Islam have tried to abrogate “there is no compulsion in religion” from the Quran but no single Muslim has abrogated or tried to abrogate it.

    Evangelical Christians, please do not abrogate our Quran verses for us. It is only Allah through His decree who can abrogate verses and no one else.

    Show us were Allah abrogate “no compulsion in religion” from the Quran.

    Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. even Yasir Qadhi admitted that the Abbasid Dynasty and Uthmaniye (Ottomans) are the result of the Jihads and Qatal and wars and killing the men and taking the women as sex-slaves, concubines.

    “whom your right hand possesses”
    Surah 4:24 – “they are lawful for you”

    Like

    • LOL, obviously you are not a good listener. He said the Abbasids and Ottomans were the children of slaves. What he was showing was that being the child of a slave did not make one a slave with no rights. If the most powerful men in the Islamic world were the children of slaves, then doesn’t that show the egalitarian nature of Islam? In contrast, your mangod was silent about slavery and your false apostle Paul said that slaves should accept their servitude. Yeah, a very progressive idea that!

      Also, Yasir Qadhi stated clearly that the taking of slaves was only permitted as a result of a LEGITIMATE war and that slaves could only be taken from among the prisoners of war who were not ransomed.

      Like

  18. Back to title of post:
    But the recent terrorist in Manchester, one can reasonably guess that he was trying to get rid of the guilt from all his party-animal days, having traveled to Libya recently and got instruction and training from isis / da’esh types.

    Like

    • “one can reasonably guess that he was trying to get rid of the guilt ”

      Well if he was a Muslim it is very easy: God forgives a repentant sinner. Jesus as Jesus taught.

      Like

    • He obviously did not experience forgiveness in Islam, and isis types are his mentors.

      Like

    • Ken, what are you bluffing?
      You handle a big subject by a very immature manner and from the worng angle too.
      Also, it’s clear that you have no idea about the forgivness in Islam.
      If you want to be a psychiatric doctor, then you should start with your teacher who had crushed his dad’s head.

      You yourself live in an occupied land that you have stolen from its native people for your material ambitions and by killing them.
      You are eager for days when Jesus will come to kill all people except those who believe in him.
      Your history as christians is bloody par excellence which is a fact that you cannot deny.
      Your philosophers and thinkers believe that you are the biggest terrorist nation on this world.
      Why do you think we should accpet you to be our instructor reagrding Manchester incident?
      Deal with the trunk in your eyes.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Brother Abdullah,

      Ken is just full of hot air…or is it the holy spirit? Wait, they are one and the same?

      Liked by 2 people

  19. But he violated that by committing suicide and killing others also. Obvious planning with others in Libya, etc.

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      You forgot Christians are the most aggressors in the world?

      Proof:

      Along with the religious consequences of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation came deep and lasting political changes. Northern Europe’s new religious and political freedoms came at a great cost, with decades of rebellions, wars and bloody persecutions. The Thirty Years’ War alone may have cost Germany 40 percent of its population.

      Source: http://www.history.com/topics/reformation

      Ken, were there any Muslim there when the Christians were and are aggressors and persecuting others including themselves until defeated and stopped by the persecuted liberal West?

      Were there any Muslim when the Catholics were persecuted by the protestants in the USA? until stopped by war? won by the liberals.

      Were there any Muslim when the protestants/Evangelical Christians took slaves from Africa and force converted them, then segregated their Churches to white only? until war stopped those atrocities.

      Fact: There was no al qaeda in Iraq until the Evangelical Christian votes took war and chaos there. There was no alqaeda in 1970 or isis in 2003 until the Evagelical Christians took wars to Muslim majority land in order to spread their religion by force but failed miserably. The Evangelical Christians of the US who are inviting Trump to Christian universities to ridicule Islam and Muslims now wants him to finish the last standing power Iran.

      Iran is not an Arab country but Persians. They do not depend on Trumps military supplies but are capable to create their own military supplies, so touching them will be catastrophic. That is why Israel was able to touch Arab countries but could not touch Iran, the Persian warriors. That is what the Zionist and Evangelical Christians want now-to bomb Iran.

      When they start to get Iran suicide bombers they blame it on Islam. There is hardly an Iranian suicide bomber now. When you start war there, their response is going to be catastrophic. Israel know that.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • The mistakes of the past by the west – against the American Indian tribes; African slave trade, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition – all those evils and mistakes have nothing to do with true Christianity in the New Testament, and in fact, were violations of the NT. I don’t think many of the people who actually did those things were truly born-again. John Newton, who was a slave-trader, confessed he was a rotten sinner and did that and then later, God saved him out of that by the grace of God – after he was converted, he wrote the famous song, “Amazing Grace”. You guys keep bringing up David Wood’s past life and sins before he was converted. You need to understand that Christ and the Holy Spirit can indeed change a person. You make fun of that with comments like “hot air” , etc. because there are some people who are fakers (the TV preachers of greed and claiming the Holy Spirit by doing goofy things). All the bad that you see does not nullify the truth of the gospel that God is powerful to change people.

      I Corinthians 6:9-11
      9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (passive homosexuals), nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

      Western civilization is a mixture of those bad things (sinful selfish and violent things) with some Christian principles and those that are truly converted. There are always wheat (true believers) along with tares (cultural nominal Christians, false believers, those who think they are Christians, but are not truly converted). (Matthew 13, the parable of the tares among the wheat – only on judgement day will the wheat be separated out from tares. Tares look like wheat but are not truly wheat. There are many who may say they are Christians but in reality, they are not.

      Besides, the west has recognized the evils of the past and confessed them, and we don’t do that anymore.

      But, the recent terrorism by some Muslims (another one in Egypt just happened) are still going on.

      Suicide bombers – it seems in today’s world, only (SOME) Muslims are doing that.

      Like

    • but it has no justification in Islam, a point you deliberately ignore.

      Like

    • The reports say the guy had memorized the Qur’an, and the news today an 8th person has been arrested in connection with him – that with all the other stuff in the recent years seems to show that some Muslims are connecting the Qur’an, Hadith and Tafsrs etc with terrorism and suicide bombing.

      You guys seem to ignore that stuff, and blame the problems in the house of Islam today on the west and Israel, etc.

      Like

    • There are plenty of people who are committed Christians who do hateful things:

      Central African Republic

      Anti-balaka groups destroyed almost all mosques in the Central African Republic unrest.[22][23] In 2014, Amnesty International reported several massacres committed by the Anti-balaka against Muslim civilians, forcing thousands of Muslims to flee the country.[24][25] Other sources report incidents of Muslims being cannibalized.[26][27]

      While anti-balaka groups have been frequently described as Christian militias in the media, this has been denied by Church leaders. Bishop Juan José Aguirre said: “But in no sense can it be said that the anti-balaka is a Christian group. The anti-balaka are made up of people of all kinds, terribly enraged, and including many people whom we call the ‘dispossessed’ – bandits, ex-prisoners, delinquents, criminals – who have got involved in these groups and are now extending, like a plague of locusts, across the whole of the CAR, murdering Muslims”.[28] The Tony Blair Faith Foundation has also pointed out the presence of animists in anti-balaka groups.[29] However, there have been reports that many members of Anti-balaka groups have forcibly converted Muslims to Christianity.[30][31][32][33]

      On 20 January 2014, Catherine Samba-Panza, the mayor of Bangui, was elected as the interim president in the second round voting.[34] The election of Samba-Panza was welcomed by Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General.[35] Samba-Panza was viewed as having been neutral and away from clan clashes. Her arrival to the presidency was generally accepted by the anti-balaka. Following the election, Samba-Panza made a speech in the parliament appealing to the anti-balaka to put down their weapons.[36]

      The next day anti-Muslim violence continued in Bangui,[37] just days after the Muslim former Health Minister Dr. Joseph Kalite was lynched outside the Central Mosque[38] and at least nine other people were killed when attacked when a mob, some of who were from Christian self-defence groups, looted shops in the Muslim-majority Miskine neighbourhood of Bangui.[39] As of 20 January, the ICRC reported that it had buried about 50 bodies within 48 hours.[40] It also came after a mob killed two people whom they accused of being Muslim, then dragged the bodies through the streets and burnt them.[41] Within the previous month, about 1,000 people had died.[42] On 4 February 2014, a local priest said 75 people were killed in the town of Boda, in Lobaye prefecture.[43] In the southwest, anti-balaka militants attacked Guen in early February resulting in the deaths of 60 people, according to Father Rigobert Dolongo, who also said that he had helped bury the bodies of the dead, at least 27 of whom died on the first day of the attack and 43 others the next day. As a result, hundreds of Muslim refugees sought shelter at a church in Carnot.[44]

      In May 2014, it was reported that around 600,000 people in CAR were internally displaced with 160,000 of these in the capital Bangui. The Muslim population of Bangui had dropped from 138,000 to 900. The national health system had collapsed and over half of the total population of 4.6 million were said to be in need of immediate aid. Also from December 2013 to May 2014, 100,000 people had fled to neighbouring Cameroon, Chad and the Democratic Republic of Congo bringing the number of CAR refugees in these countries to about 350,000.[45] Amnesty International blamed the anti-balaka militia of causing a “Muslim exodus of historic proportions.[46] Some Muslims of the country were also weary of the French presence in MISCA, with the French accused of not doing enough to stop attacks by Anti-balaka militias. One of the cited reasons for the difficulty in stopping attacks by anti-balaka militias was the mob nature of these attacks.[47]

      India
      Tripura
      Further information: Tripura rebellion
      The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), is a rebel group that seeks the secession of Tripura, North-East India, and is a proscribed terrorist organization in India. Group activities have been described as Christian terrorists engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs.[48][49][50] The NLFT includes in its aims the forced conversion of all tribespeople in Tripura to Christianity.[51] The NLFT says that it is fighting not only for the removal of Bengali immigrants from the tribal areas, “but also for the tribal areas of the state to become overtly Christian”, and “has warned members of the tribal community that they may be attacked if they do not accept its Christian agenda”.[52] The NLFT is listed as a terrorist organization in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.[53] The state government contends that the Baptist Church of Tripura supplies arms and gives financial support to the NLFT.[54][55][56] Reports from the state government and Indian media describe activities such as the acquisition by the NLFT of explosives through the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura,[56] and threats of killing Hindus celebrating religious festivals.[57] Over 20 Hindus in Tripura were reported to have been killed by the NLFT from 1999 to 2001 for resisting forced conversion to Christianity.[58] According to Hindus in the area, there have also been forced conversions of tribal villagers to Christianity by armed NLFT militants.[58] These forcible conversions, sometimes including the use of “rape as a means of intimidation”, have also been noted by academics outside of India.[59] In 2000, the NLFT broke into a temple and gunned down a popular Hindu preacher popularly known as Shanti Kali.[60]

      Nagaland
      Further information: Ethnic conflict in Nagaland
      See also: 2015 Indian counter-insurgency operation in Myanmar and 2015 Manipur ambush
      The Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) is also a Christian[61] Naga nationalist militant group operating in North India.[62][63] The main aim of the organization is to establish a sovereign Christian state, “Nagalim”,[64] unifying all the areas inhabited by the Naga people in Northeast India and Burma.[65] The organization’s slogan is “Nagaland for Christ”.[66][67][68][69][70][71] Its manifesto is based on the principle of Socialism for economic development and a Baptist Christian religious outlook.[72] In some of their documents the NSCN has called for recognizing only Christianity in Nagalim.[73] They believe in Christian theocracy.[74] The NSCN has been declared a terrorist organisation in India under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.[75] It is believed that the organisation primarily raises funds through trafficking drugs from Burma and selling smuggled weapons to other insurgent groups in the region.[76] The group reportedly indulges in kidnapping, assassination, extortion, forced conversion,[77] and other terrorist activities.[78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86] NSCN is accused of carrying out the 1992–1993 ethnic cleansing of Kuki tribes in Manipur, said to have left over 900 people dead. During that NSCN-IM operation, 350 Kuki villages were driven out and about 100,000 Kukis were turned into refugees.[87]

      On 3 August 2015 NSCN leader T. Muivah signed a peace accord with the Government of India in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Rajnath Singh, and NSA Ajit Doval.[88] However, NSCN also joined with a militia organization named the United Liberation Front of Western South East Asia, along with other Northeast Indian terrorist groups,[89][90] and shortly after broke off peace talks with the Indian government.[citation needed]

      Lebanon
      Maronite Christian militias perpetrated the Karantina and Tel al-Zaatar massacres of Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims during Lebanon’s 1975–1990 civil war. The 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, which targeted unarmed Palestinian refugees for rape and murder, was considered to be genocide by the United Nations General Assembly.[91] A British photographer present during the incident said that “People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing [crucifixes] and were calling themselves Christians.”[92]

      Uganda
      The Lord’s Resistance Army, a guerrilla army, was engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government in 2005. It has been accused of using child soldiers and of committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, and using forced child labourers as soldiers, porters, and sex slaves.[48][93] A quasi-religious movement that mixes some aspects of Christian beliefs with its own brand of spiritualism,[94][95] it is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the “Holy Spirit” which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations.[96][96][97][98] LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle.[94][99][100][101][102][103]

      United States
      See also: Anti-abortion violence in the United States and Terrorism in the United States
      Contemporary American Christian terrorism can be motivated by a violent desire to implement a Reconstructionist or Dominionist ideology.[104] Dominion Theology insists that Christians are called by God to (re)build society on Christian values to subjugate the earth and establish dominion over all things, as a prerequisite for the second coming of Christ.[105] Political violence motivated by dominion theology is a violent extension of the desire to impose a select version of Christianity on other Christians, as well as on non-Christians.

      After 1981, members of groups such as the Army of God began attacking abortion clinics and doctors across the United States.[106][107][108] A number of terrorist attacks were attributed by Bruce Hoffman to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ.[109] A group called Concerned Christians was deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999; they believed that their deaths would “lead them to heaven”.[110][111]

      Eric Robert Rudolph carried out the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996, as well as subsequent attacks on an abortion clinic and a lesbian nightclub. Michael Barkun, a professor at Syracuse University, considers Rudolph to likely fit the definition of a Christian terrorist. James A. Aho, a professor at Idaho State University, argues that religious considerations inspired Rudolph only in part.[112]

      Terrorism scholar Aref M. Al-Khattar has listed The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord (CSA), Defensive Action, the Montana Freemen, and some “Christian militia” as groups that “can be placed under the category of far-right-wing terrorism” that “has a religious (Christian) component”.[113]

      In 1996 three men—Charles Barbee, Robert Berry and Jay Merelle—were charged with two bank robberies and bombings at the banks, a Spokane newspaper, and a Planned Parenthood office in Washington State. The men were anti-Semitic Christian Identity theorists who believed that God wanted them to carry out violent attacks and that such attacks would hasten the ascendancy of the Aryan race.[114]

      In 2011, analyst Daryl Johnson of the United States Department of Homeland Security said that the Hutaree Christian militia movement possessed more weapons than the combined weapons holdings of all Islamic terror defendants charged in the US since the September 11 attacks.[115]

      In 2015, Robert Doggart, a 63 year old mechanical engineer, was indicted for solicitation to commit a civil rights violation by intending to damage or destroy religious property after communicating that he intended to amass weapons to attack a Muslim enclave in Delaware County, New York.[116] Doggart, a member of several private militia groups, communicated to an FBI source in a phone call that he had an M4 carbine with “500 rounds of ammunition” that he intended to take to the Delaware County enclave, along with a handgun, molotov cocktails and a machete. The FBI source recorded him saying “if it gets down to the machete, we will cut them to shreds”.[117] Doggart had previously travelled to a site in Dover, Tennessee described in chain emails as a “jihadist training camp”, and found that the claims were wrong. Doggart pleaded guilty in an April plea bargain stating he had “willfully and knowingly sent a message in interstate commerce containing a true threat” to injure someone. The plea bargain was struck down by a judge because it did not contain enough facts to constitute a true threat.[118][119] Doggart stood as an independent candidate in Tennessee’s 4th congressional district, losing with 6.4% of the vote.[120] None of the charges against him are terrorism related.[121][122][123][124]

      The November 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, in which three were killed and nine injured, was described as “a form of terrorism” by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper.[125] The gunman, Robert Lewis Dear, was described as a “delusional” man[126] who had written on a cannabis internet forum that “sinners” would “burn in hell” during the end times, and had also written about smoking marijuana and propositioned women for sex.[127][128] He had praised the Army of God, saying that attacks on abortion clinics are “God’s work”.[129] Deer’s ex-wife said he had put glue on a lock of a Planned Parenthood clinic, and in court documents for their divorce she said “He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions. He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases. He is obsessed with the world coming to an end.”

      Global ideologies
      See also: Anti-abortion violence, Christian Identity, and Christian Patriot movement
      Christian Identity is a loosely affiliated global group of churches and individuals devoted to a racialized theology which asserts that Northern European whites are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, making them God’s chosen people. It has been associated with groups such as the Aryan Nations, the Aryan Republican Army, the Army of God, the Phineas Priesthood, and The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. It has been cited as an influence on a number of terrorist attacks around the world, including the 2002 Soweto bombings.[130][131][132][133]

      These groups are estimated to have 2,000 members in the United States,[134] and an unknown number of members in Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth of Nations. Due to the promotion of Christian Identity doctrines through radio broadcasts and later through the Internet, an additional 50,000 unaffiliated individuals are thought to hold Christian Identity beliefs.[134]

      Like

    • Not Christianity at all.

      Like

    • Jesus said, “you will know them by their fruits” Matthew 7:15-20; therefore none of those folks are true Christians.

      Like

    • then we can say the same about ‘muslim’ terrorists who target children etc

      Like


    • The mistakes of the past by the west – against the American Indian tribes; African slave trade, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition – all those evils and mistakes have nothing to do with true Christianity in the New Testament, and in fact, were violations of the NT.”

      actually nothing was in violation of the nt. many interpretations of the nt have justified brutal and sick violence. jesus preaches fire division, destruction, and hatred.

      “(diamerizo), which means divide, distribute, create disunity, and in
      context, where the word is explicitly contrasted with peace (eirene),
      and the word epi + accusative (“against”) follows, the meaning is
      obviously intrafamily war. ”

      jesus’ mission was 3 years, and in this 3 years amount in time, not only did the Rabbis and Pharisees try and stone him, they tried to have him executed. Why would they do this if all he was doing was
      saying “turn the other cheek”? If all he was doing was pleading with them not to revolt from Roman authority? if all he was doing was “pray for those who persecute you”

      Like

    • They were violently reacting to Jesus; just as some family members react violently to someone who becomes a Christian. It is the unbelievers who do the violence and injustice.

      Like

    • “The reports say the guy had memorized the Qur’an, and the news today an 8th person has been arrested in connection with him ”

      christians americans who drove out native americans memorized the sick massacre of the amalekite pregnant women, infants and unborn.

      do you condemned moses who is “meek and humble” for slicing the necks of 3 year old?

      do you condemn your canaanite god yhw

      Like

    • OT theocratic Israel no longer exists. Since 70 AD – gone.
      The NT church and kingdom of God is not of this world – John 18:36

      Jesus took the Theocratic kingdom away from Israel. Matthew 21

      The authority and power that the church has is NOT in politics or military power, but in witnessing and living holy lives. Acts 1:6-8; Galatians 5; Ephesians 5-6

      There is no justification for the combining of church and government as one unity. (contrary to Islam)

      Like

    • “You guys keep bringing up David Wood’s past life and sins before he was converted. You need to understand that Christ and the Holy Spirit can indeed change a person. You make fun of that with comments like “hot air” , etc. because there are some people who are fakers (the TV preachers of greed and claiming the Holy Spirit by doing goofy things). All the bad that you see does not nullify the truth of the gospel that God is powerful to change people.”

      ken, why don’t you give up all your money, go iraq, get persecuted, run to the mountains and wait for an american bomb to liberate you ?

      Like

    • your statement makes no sense.

      Like

    • “They were violently reacting to Jesus; just as some family members react violently to someone who becomes a Christian. It is the unbelievers who do the violence and injustice.”

      but jesus says that he came to do VIOLENCE , division and SPREAD hatred among people

      quote :
      As daniel wallace notes purpose clauses can be expressed by a [s]imple or “naked” infinite (usually following an [intransitive] verb of motion . A close parallel to the use of the infinitive in mt. 10:34 is found in mt 5.17

      ‘think not that i have come to abolish the law and the prophets; i have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them’

      jesus did not say that his mission would simply result in family strife. jesus is saying that a primary PURPOSE of his mission is to create violence within families, and the mention of sword is consistent with that violent intent

      end quote

      jesus’ MISSION was to CAUSE division and hate.
      so do you think one HATE preacher is not GOING TO GET violent reaction when he himself is preaching hatred, sword and division ?

      Like

    • wrong. the first 3 , almost 4 centuries prove you are wrong. the violence and persecution were reactions to the Christians.

      Like

    • “OT theocratic Israel no longer exists. Since 70 AD – gone.
      The NT church and kingdom of God is not of this world – John 18:36”

      when christians went into different lands what did they think of themselves? THE new theocratic israel.
      they used jesus and ot to massacre and kill

      Like

    • “wrong. the first 3 , almost 4 centuries prove you are wrong. the violence and persecution were reactions to the Christians.”

      candida moss demolishes this.

      Like

    • no she did not; she only showed that some stories were exaggerated and that persecution was not constant – no one claims it was constant; it was off and on for the first 3 + centuries.

      Like

    • “wrong. the first 3 , almost 4 centuries prove you are wrong. the violence and persecution were reactions to the Christians.”

      you were given explicit verses where jesus himself said that his WISH is to spread DIVISION, HATE and OPPOSITE of peace.

      i will quote it again:

      quote :
      As daniel wallace notes purpose clauses can be expressed by a [s]imple or “naked” infinite (usually following an [intransitive] verb of motion . A close parallel to the use of the infinitive in mt. 10:34 is found in mt 5.17

      ‘think not that i have come to abolish the law and the prophets; i have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them’

      jesus did not say that his mission would simply result in family strife. jesus is saying that a primary PURPOSE of his mission is to create violence within families, and the mention of sword is consistent with that violent intent

      :::

      this is your boss doing HATE in his time.
      he also tells people to wait for the GREATER vengeance which is 2000 years too late

      Deuteronomy

      32.43: “Praise his people, O you nations; for he
      avenges the blood of his servants.”

      just like jesus makes EXCEPTIONS to his “peaceful sayings”
      and divorce laws, so did the christian TERRORISTS who went around massacring and killing in the name of your pagan god.

      tell the truth, if you “turned the other cheek” you would have been taken OUT of existence and no one would have known about the evils your religion did

      the indian natives who you MASSACRED turned the other cheek. pagan groups who you massacred EXTINCT because they turned the other cheek

      Like

    • “the indian natives who you MASSACRED turned the other cheek. pagan groups who you massacred EXTINCT because they turned the other cheek”

      it is the VICTIMS of your KILLINGS which turned the other cheek and BECAME extinct.
      what an evil you people have done all around the world.
      evil, evil and evil
      even satans shadow is probably weeping.

      Like

    • “The authority and power that the church has is NOT in politics or military power, but in witnessing and living holy lives. Acts 1:6-8; Galatians 5; Ephesians 5-6”

      what was christian “witnessing” ?

      Bart D Ehrman

      But the hottest early christian debates were with other christians, as they argued over the right things to believe and the right ways to live. these internal christian debates were often filled with vitriol and hatred. christians called one another nasty names, said ugly things about one another, and pulled out all stops to make thier christian opponents look reprehensible and stupid, denying , in many instances, that the opponents even had the right to call themselves christians.

      page 180

      forged

      Like

  20. Ken Temple

    May 25, 2017 • 11:55 pm

    He obviously did not experience forgiveness in Islam, and isis types are his mentors.

    I say;
    Indonesia is the largest most populous Muslim country with a lot of Muslims. If what you are saying is true, you will expect more Indonesian suicide bombers. You hardly see an Indonesian suicide bombers, Malaysian suicide bombers, Mauritanian suicide bombers, Dubai suicide bombers, etc.

    Those suicide bombers are mainly Arabs and some converts who sympathize with their brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, babies etc. that are killed by their thousands in USA and other drones.

    Before the West interference in Iraq, Libya, Pakistan etc. there was no any suicide bombers there. So, the suicide bombings is not Islam because Islam was there centuries ago and there was no Muslim suicide bombers until the Evangelical Christians keeps voting for presidents who will take war to the Muslim majority lands.

    Almost zero Iran suicide bombers for now. Are they not Muslims? Start your Evangelical Christians attack on them and you will see their catastrophic response. It is not Islam but Evangelical Christians war on Muslim majority lands that creates suicide bombers. Japanese and Israel creations were the initial suicide bombers and bombings by then Israeli freedom fighters. The Palestinians learnt the suicide bombings from what was done to them and not from Islam.

    Thanks.

    Like

  21. Ken Temple

    May 26, 2017 • 6:41 pm

    The mistakes of the past by the west – against the American Indian tribes; African slave trade, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition – all those evils and mistakes have nothing to do with true Christianity in the New Testament, and in fact, were violations of the NT. I don’t think many of the people who actually did those things were truly born-again. John Newton, who was a slave-trader, confessed he was a rotten sinner and did that and then later, God saved him out of that by the grace of God – after he was converted, he wrote the famous song, “Amazing Grace”. You guys keep bringing up David Wood’s past life and sins before he was converted. You need to understand that Christ and the Holy Spirit can indeed change a person. You make fun of that with comments like “hot air” , etc. because there are some people who are fakers (the TV preachers of greed and claiming the Holy Spirit by doing goofy things). All the bad that you see does not nullify the truth of the gospel that God is powerful to change people.

    I say;
    When a Christian kills it is a mistake but when a Muslim kills it is not mistake but act of terrorism-Ken Temple.
    Ken, when are you going to grow like your mentor Dr. James White who continue to caution some Christians like you to stop behaving like children. It is a child who always believes his toy is better than other boys toys.

    David Wood who keeps telling lies and trained Nabeel Quraish to also start to lie and lie against Islam, you said is now changed by the Holy Spirit?
    Most people including Christians who have issues with David Wood will tell you that David Wood is not a changed person.

    Proof:

    Thanks.

    Like

    • I don’t accept the “moon god” theory of Dr. Robert Morey and Sam Shamoun and they are discredited for using it; and Sam’s sinful anger and behavior sometimes has discredited him, and Morey’s calling for bombing Mecca and Medina discredited him big time.

      They make some vaild arguments, when they stick to texts and facts, but that is not a good argument.

      Like

    • they could justify bombing mecca from Biblical texts though.

      Like

    • yes. Numerous passages in the OT and Book of revelation. You want a list?

      Like

    • Since there is no more Theocratic Israel as in the OT, those texts are moot and no longer applicable.

      Revelation 19-20 is about when Jesus returns, He does the judgement and “wages righteous and just war” – just as you believe the Mahdi and Jesus will do also and at Judgement Day, God sends unbelievers to hell.

      So, there is no justification for that; period; and any use of any of those verses is wrong.

      Like

    • “And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness (justice) He judges and wages war.”

      Revelation 19:11

      That is what Jesus will do when He returns at the end of time; it is not a command for us to do.

      So, you do not have a good argument at all.

      Like

    • Acts 1:6-8 – authority and power is in the gospel and the Holy Spirit to witness and live holy, NOT in military or political power.

      2 Corinthians 10:3-5 – spiritual warfare, not physical

      Ephesians 6:12 – spiritual warfare, not physical

      Matthew 26:52 – put your sword away, all who live by the sword will die by the sword

      John 18:36 – My kingdom is not of this world, if it were, My servants would be fighting; as it is; my kingdom is not of this world.

      Prove you are wrong and that the NT has abrogated those OT theocratic war against Canaanites/Amorites/Amalakites texts.

      Like

    • Most Christians, historically. would disagree with you.

      Like

    • In the past, yes, during Roman Catholic medieval times, Crusades, Inquisition, yes; Calvin’s Geneva, yes; ok; Zwingli, ok (drowning those who had themselves re-baptized, based on faith alone) – Calvin and Zwingli inherited the wrong idea from Roman Catholicism. (from 400s and 500s AD to 1500s) (unity of church and state government, as in Islam, unity of mosque and state/Caliph)

      But no longer, since 1700s, most Christians agree with the view I have expressed here and is the majority conservative Biblical view today and has been for the past 300 + years.

      Like

    • since 1700s we see the influence of the european Enlightenment and the French/American revolutions. This modernist Christianity has been very influential yes. But it owes a great deal to the modern liberal zeitgeist.

      Like

    • Those NT texts are proof that you are wrong.

      Proof that you are wrong and that the NT has abrogated those OT theocratic war against Canaanites/Amorites/Amalakites texts.

      Like

    • Matthew 21;43-46 – Theocratic kingdom was taken away from Israel, therefore all OT texts about the wars against Canaanites/Amalakites/ Amorites are no longer applicable since 70 AD.

      43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.

      44 And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”

      45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.

      46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.

      Acts 1:6-8 – Jesus rebukes Peter and the disciples for thinking kingdom power was in military and politics and when they asked “are you now going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus basically is saying “no; but your authority and power is in the Holy Spirit – the power to witness even in persecution, and the power to live holy lives and be good witnesses.

      Like

    • “Since there is no more Theocratic Israel as in the OT, those texts are moot and no longer applicable.”

      when a first century jew was saying “thy kingdom come” what else did he mean except the theocratic rule from the ot?

      forget your pagan man god, lets ask about palestinian jews UNDER roman oppression singing “your KINGDOM come and your will be done here on earth…”

      what else did they mean other than torah rule?

      Like

    • please check out the following references

      isaiah 45:18, 23
      isaiah 14:1-2
      dan 7:27
      matthew 1.21-23

      matthew 22:2
      matthew 22:7

      “thy kingdom come…”

      all imply human and divine violence here on earth.

      so how would a PALESTINIAN jew UNDER roman occupation interpret “thy KINGDOM come and your will be done HERE on earth”

      Like

    • quote :
      43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.

      44 And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”

      45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.

      46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.

      end quote

      where does ANY of this talk about replacing the punishing rules in the torah?

      Like

    • you didn’t address rubio :

      rubio:
      Moreover, the actual rationale for not resorting to violence significantly lies here only in that such option would frustrate the divine plan (Mt. 26.54: ‘But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?’), not in a rejection of violence as such.

      question

      “thy KINGDOM come, thy will be done HERE ON EARTH”

      what else could this mean except the rules in the torah?

      Like

    • “2 Corinthians 10:3-5 – spiritual warfare, not physical”

      but a rapist does the physical act
      the murderer does the physical act
      a prostitute does the physical act
      the idol worshipper does the physical act

      in a system which says “forgive, forgive forgive”

      corruption is bound to set in

      everyone will tell you what “holy spirit” babbled to them

      even jesus did not buy into 2 corinthians 10 : 3-5, he went and terrorised innocent traders in the temple. that was a crime and it is surprising they didn’t kill him on the spot

      Like

  22. Lol Manchester troll…

    “Come to Christ”? You might as well ask me to do a Voodoo dance! Or how about “come to Krishna”?

    Thanks, but I’m quite content not being a pagan. I’ll stick with Islam.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Hadith and Sira

    Sahih Muslim (1:33) The Messenger of Allah said: “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat.”

    To be safe, people must profess faith in Allah (the shahada) and follow Islamic practices (the zakat and salat). Violence is thus sanctioned until the victims embrace Muhammad’s religion and become obedient, practicing Muslims.

    Sahih Muslim (19:4294) – “When you meet your enemies who are polytheists (which includes Christians), invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them … If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them”

    Osama bin Laden echoes this order from his prophet: “Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam … . Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.” (source: The al-Qaeda Reader p. 19-20)

    Sahih Bukhari (8:387) – “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.'”

    Sahih Bukhari (53:392) – “While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.”

    Sahih Bukhari (2:24) – “Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”

    Sahih Bukhari (60:80) – “The Verse:–‘You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.’ means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.”

    Sahih Bukhari (60:40) – “…:And fight them till there is no more affliction (i.e. no more worshiping of others along with Allah).”

    ‘Affliction’ (fitneh – فتنه = chaos, turmoil, confusion, rebellion, mutiny) of Muslims is defined here as a condition in which others worship a different god other than Allah. Muslims are commanded to use violence to ‘rectify’ the situation.

    Sahih Bukhari (59:643) – “Testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck!”

    Words of a military leader who Muhammad sent on an expedition with the mission of destroying a local religion in Yemen.

    Like

    • All the Hadith above and Surah 9:5 and 9:29 and 8:39 are contradictions to Surah 2:256 and Surah 109 and they came later in revelation time. Surah 2 was at the very beginning of Media period (624 AD), when Muhammad was starting to fight back against the pagans. Surah 9 came much later, towards the end of Muhammad’s life (some Hadith say it was revealed last, some say Surah 110 was revealed last; and some say one verse in Surah 5 was revealed last.

      “This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion… Surah 5:3 (some say this verse is last)

      Taken all together, and the subsequent attacks and conquering (Omar conquering Byzantine and Persia; and onward all the way until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 – 1924 and abolition of the Caliphate; prove that those texts with the Hadiths above show that the Muslims abrogated practically Surah 2:256.

      The modern consensus scholarship are those who have to comment on this all after 1924.

      But Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al Banna, Sayeed Qutb, Usama Ben Laden, Al Qaeda, Isis, Salafis and Wahabis, etc. have all argued for understanding before 1924.

      Like

    • you probably been busted on this so many times that it is impossible to count.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. ken temple gets demolished here

    Chameleon X

    and here

    https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/04/09/fight-with-them-until-there-is-no-more-fitna-disbelief-quran-839/

    and i leave with this ayah

    Sahih International: Indeed, those who have tortured the believing men and believing women and then have not repented will have the punishment of Hell, and they will have the punishment of the Burning Fire.

    Like

  25. You did not prove anything. You cannot deal with the mountain of evidence in both the Qur’an and Hadith and subsequent History that Islam carried out and applied Surah 9 in an all out warfare way against everybody pagan (pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, animists, etc.) and against Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians, etc. (Surah 8:39, and 9:5 and 9:28-30) and those Hadith above prove this.

    Like

    • here is the ayah

      Sahih International: Indeed, those who have tortured the believing men and believing women and then have not repented will have the punishment of Hell, and they will have the punishment of the Burning Fire.

      what word has been used for the word “tortured” ?

      Like

  26. Ken everything you have said about Al-Baqara 256 is utter rubbish.

    Read the actual historical evidence here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256

    Like

  27. Umar’s attack on Byzantine and Persia and subsequent history (wars against Buddhists in Afghanistan, Hindus in India, etc. ) and the laws of apostasy and not allowing any pagans to live in Arabia unless they convert, and the idea that Islam has the right to be the rulers of all areas under Sharia law and Caliphate and that no Christians were allowed to do evangelism or build new churches and all the Dhimmi and jiziye principles based on Surah 9:29 along with all the Hadith cited;

    all of this together seems like a massive contradiction to what those quotes have said. The fact is, when Islam takes over an area, the Dhimmi stuff pressure and no paganism allowed eventually does force people to become Muslims. The Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian (most were killed or fled to India, very few left today in Iran) and the Yazidis in the mountains of Iraq – communities that are left are small and inward and weak, and Jihadists are slaughtering them left and right today (isis territories, Copts in Egypt, Taliban against others in Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc.)

    The reality seems that the quotes say one thing; but the actions and pressure of Islamic laws actually in practicality contradict that verse, Surah 2:256.

    Like

    • ken you are wrong in just about everything you claim. Wrong wrong wrong.

      Like

    • “all of this together seems like a massive contradiction to what those quotes have said. The fact is, when Islam takes over an area, the Dhimmi stuff pressure and no paganism allowed eventually does force people to become Muslims”

      are you saying that it was better for dhimmi to convert to paganism? seems like it
      but we saw what happen when christianity was under paganism. it turned 1 into 3.
      it says god even visits the toilet.

      Like

    • “Allah don’t have nothing to do with doo-doo” – (see video) except He invented all the organs that get rid of waste and the whole system on the earth to deal with waste and corruption, after the fall and entrance of sin into the world.

      Like

    • “Allah don’t have nothing to do with feces” see at 2:31:18 mark and following.

      Like

    • quote :
      “Allah don’t have nothing to do with doo-doo” – (see video) except He invented all the organs that get rid of waste and the whole system on the earth to deal with waste and corruption, after the fall and entrance of sin into the world.
      ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

      don’t see your point. are you getting comfort in the belief that your god broke wind and went to take a hump because yhwh invented the digestion system?

      Like

  28. when you run out of good arguments you resort to calling me an idiot; rather than saying, “your arguments are not sound, and here is why”, etc.

    You resort to name calling and blaming others for your own problems, which is what a lot did here.

    Like

    • Ken you should stop talking rubbish, with your propagandist cut and paste jobs

      Like

    • When Islamic governments take over with Sharia law, Caliphate, apostasy laws, blasphemy laws, Dhimmi system; it is too late then; there can be no argument, since they have the power to prosecute and execute and can claim that any opposition or criticism is “fitneh” فتنه and “corruption” (fesad قساد ), which is what Islamic governments do.

      Like

    • boring rubbish propaganda.

      Like

    • that is what happened in history until breakup of Ottoman Empire and abolition of Caliphate; and that is what happens in Muslim governments since that time that implement most of the Sharia law principles – Saudi Arabia, Taliban Afghanistan and Pakistan areas, Shiite Iran, and Al Qaedah and Isis / Da’esh types, and Hamas in Gaza.

      Like

    • Lol, except that your arguments have been refuted you idiot. Oh I’m sorry. Was I resorting to name-calling?

      You’re an idiot because you repeat the same nonsense over and over and when you are refuted, you usually respond with “nope, you’re wrong…” and then repeat the same stupid nonsense. Or you just ignore the post and keep on spamming with your own mindless posts.

      So Ken, was the killing of Canaanite children right or wrong? When your mangod commanded the killing of children, who are you to complain about Islam?

      Liked by 2 people

    • there is no more Theocratic Israel after 70 AD, so there is no more Canaanite driving them out of the land, as in Deut. 7, 9, and book of Joshua.

      Jesus took the political kingdom away from Israel – Matthew 21:43-46
      Acts 1:6-8
      John 18:36

      see all the verses I gave you already above.

      Like

    • So Jesus ordered the killing of babies in 1 Samuel 15 but gave up this sort of thing later right?

      Like

    • “Jesus took the political kingdom away from Israel – Matthew 21:43-46”

      IT SAID NOTHING ABOUT REPLACING THE PUNISHMENT RULES IN THE TORAH
      jesus prayed “YOUR KINGDOM COME…..”

      this is ROOTED IN THE OT

      how does a palestinian jew, UNDER ROMAN OCCUPATION understand

      “your kingdom come”

      obviously the TORAH RULE REINSTALLED.

      Like

    • My kingdom is not of this world . . . John 18:36

      no more Theocratic Israel

      Like

    • “Jesus took the political kingdom away from Israel – Matthew 21:43-46”

      no bloody sacrifices take away punishment laws.
      don’t lie . how can the murder of jesus abrogate torah rule? even jesus didn’t believe that sacrifices take away punishment laws. show me one example in the torah where an animal offering ABROGATES theocracy.

      jesus prayed for earthly kingdom of god here on earth.

      Like

    • “My kingdom is not of this world” John 18:36

      Like

    • “My kingdom is not of this world . . . John 18:36”

      isaiah 45:18, 23
      isaiah 14:1-2
      dan 7:27
      matthew 1.21-23

      matthew 22:2
      matthew 22:7
      all seem to imply divine or human violence before establishment of kingdom, so why did john go against this?

      Like

    • What does Matthew 1:21-23 have to do with that subject?

      Matthew 22 is a parable.

      Matthew 22:7 may be an allusion (hint) to God’s judgment against the Jews for wha they did in verse 6 and maybe hinting at what happened in 70 AD, or it is a symbol of God’s judgment in hell – which is righteous and pure.

      You have not advanced the discussion, taking irrelevant verses out of context.

      Like

    • kens hatred for jewish punishment laws shows how much he hates the laws which comes from his gods mind. this is pure hatred for your gods instructions .

      Like

    • It is a matter of the Injeel = the NT principles and church (no more Israel and no more Theocracy) and New Covenant principle abrogating the OT Theocratic laws; so it is not a matter of hate at all. it is the order of progressive revelation, from OT to NT; the opposite of Islam – from peace in Meccan period to defense at beginning of Medina period to all out war in Surah 9 and all Islamic history until Caliphate abolished and fall of Ottoman Empire, 1918-1924. After that, Saudi, Iran, Hamas, Taliban, Libya, Iraq, Isis/da’esh/, Al Qaedah, and Shiites and Sunnis killing one another (Lebanon, Iraq, etc.) is result and Muslim world does not seem to be able to get a handle on their own internal problems.

      Like

    • Lol, not surprisingly, you didn’t answer the question. I didn’t ask if the killing of babies at the behest of your mangod applies to the modern world. I asked if it was right or wrong. This is the typical answer you idiots give. Dance around the question and then pretend that you answered the question.

      Was the killing of Canaanite children right or wrong. Was it right in that time, when the “theocratic Israel” existed?

      Oh and I refer you to Ezekiel 37 which states that the laws of the Tanakh were to be followed for all time. So your response is a double holy spirit fail.

      Like

    • God’s justice and judgement is always holy and right.

      Like

    • not in your theology as God requires that an innocent person be tortured to death for the guilty. Not justice.

      Like

    • No; the 2nd person of the Trinity voluntarily came to be the willing sacrifice for sin. John 10:18
      Both justice and pure love. Romans 8:5; John 3:16

      Like

    • how is it justice to punish an innocent person?

      Like

    • God, the 2nd person of the Trinity, voluntarily allowed Himself to take on the wrath of God the Father. Both pure justice and pure love; God is able to do that; And God knows best.

      Nothing is too difficult for the Lord.

      Like

    • there is NO justice in punishing an innocent person for the wrong doing of others. This is Justice 101.

      Like

    • when the innocent one is God Himself and voluntarily agreed to it. John 10:18

      Like

    • it does not change the moral problem in the slightest to say the victim was voluntarily agreed. It is still unjust to punish an innocent person for the crimes of the guilty.

      Like

    • God the Son, eternal Word (john 1:1) can do that if He wants to and He did; and His will is true.

      Like

    • Not a moral problem at all; since He is God, eternal and decided voluntarily to take on the justice and wrath against sin for us humans in all nations.

      Like

    • it is a basic unchangeable principle of Justice that only the guilty should be punished for crimes. Your theology violates this rule. Consider yourself refuted.

      Like


    • What does Matthew 1:21-23 have to do with that subject?”

      why don’t you link it with isaiah 14:1-2 ?

      “Matthew 22 is a parable.”

      “Matthew 22:7 may be an allusion (hint) to God’s judgment against the Jews for wha they did in verse 6 and maybe hinting at what happened in 70 AD, or it is a symbol of God’s judgment in hell – which is righteous and pure.”

      did jesus have any problem with that KING burning entire villages ?

      i will ask again, and don’t avoid answering

      when a first century palestinian jew says

      “thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”

      will from what? no nt existed in that time , so which book did jesus have in mind?

      Like

    • “It is a matter of the Injeel = the NT principles and church (no more Israel and no more Theocracy)”

      the historical jesus thought that jihad was required to bring back yhwhs ETERNAL and everlasting laws, so why are you lying ?

      Like

    • “not in your theology as God requires that an innocent person be tortured to death for the guilty. Not justice.”

      isn’t the idea the same for an innocent infant who gets punished for what his parents did ?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “God’s justice and judgement is always holy and right.”

      LOL, finally! A Christian pagan finally works up the courage to answer my question, and what a typical answer it was!

      So the killing of children and babies was “holy and right”? Thank you for exposing your sick theology. It’s no different from a pagan making excuses for sacrificing children to a deity like Kali. After all, when a deity commands something, it must be obeyed!

      Given your sickening defense of infanticide, what moral position are you in to criticize Islam? Christian hypocrisy rears its ugly head yet again!

      If you are hiding behind “God’s judgement” to excuse your Bible and its sick and violent passages, then why can’t Muslims refer to God’s judgement in defending Islamic rule over the corrupt Christians and Jews of Arabia, Byzantium, etc. especially since Islamic rule was enlightened and humane when compared to your pathetic Biblical “theocracy”?

      Liked by 3 people

    • Lets now hear Ken justify child killing for religious reasons.

      Like

    • Why does your mangod contradict himself? He said in Ezekiel 37 that the law was to be followed “forever”, yet in the NT, his false apostle Paul claims that the law no longer applies. You can’t have it both ways!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, we can have it both ways, if properly understood, the “forever” passages in Ezekiel 37:26-28 are about the land and being re-unified back in the land, after Babylonian captivity.

      those land “forever” passages (as in Genesis 13:15) in the OT about the OT land promises are indeed controversial. That is why Zionists claim all of the land for Israel back. That is not right. I don’t agree with that. The “land” of Canaan/Israel is a symbol of heaven – Hebrews chapter 3-4; Hebrews 11:10; 11:16; Hebrews 12:22-23 – Mt. Zion = heavenly Jerusalem, the general assembly and church . . . Hebrews 13:14.

      Galatians 4:26 – “the Jerusalem above, she is our mother”

      Revelation 21:2 and 21:10
      the new Jerusalem, coming down from heaven

      So NT abrogated Theocratic Israel on some things. (ritual sacrificial laws, temple, food laws, circumcision, Sabbath changed to Sunday; punishment laws, no more Theocracy, no more Israel as in OT and before 70 AD.)

      Circumcision is also called “forever” in Genesis 17:7-8 (same word, Olam עולם) but NT changed that. (book of Galatians and Romans – God does not require non-Jews (Gentile nations) to be circumcised or keep kosher laws or do Jewish feast days, etc.

      NT fulfills the OT.

      Like

    • ken, can you tell me the jihadi instructions a palestinian jew would have to follow to establish the kingdom of god? have you read all the text which seem to imply that VIOLENCE precede the kingdom ?

      Like

    • temple, you admitted that the christians thought that they were the new israel.

      quote :
      Deuteronomy 6:1-3 Moses tells Israel, “1. These are the commands, decrees and laws THE LORD YOUR GOD DIRECTED ME TO TEACH YOU to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, 2 so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the Lord your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life. 3 Hear, Israel, and be careful to obey so that it may go well with you and that you may increase greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey, just as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, promised you.

      at least the christian terrorists are honest to the bible. you are just a lying hypocrite .

      Like

    • NT fulfills the OT and abrogates some.

      Like

    • “God’s justice and judgement is always holy and right.”

      solomon did idolatary and caused people to prostitute their hearts to other gods, why wasn’t solomon executed ? why did davids child get executed for davids crime?
      your god is unjust and evil .

      Like

    • Oh Ken, misquoting your own Bible? Have you no shame?

      “Yes, we can have it both ways, if properly understood, the “forever” passages in Ezekiel 37:26-28 are about the land and being re-unified back in the land, after Babylonian captivity.

      those land “forever” passages (as in Genesis 13:15) in the OT about the OT land promises are indeed controversial. That is why Zionists claim all of the land for Israel back. That is not right. I don’t agree with that. The “land” of Canaan/Israel is a symbol of heaven – Hebrews chapter 3-4; Hebrews 11:10; 11:16; Hebrews 12:22-23 – Mt. Zion = heavenly Jerusalem, the general assembly and church . . . Hebrews 13:14.”

      Ezekiel 37 clearly states that the Jews would not only live in the land forever. It states that they will follow all the laws:

      “My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees.”

      Nice try though! 😉

      “Galatians 4:26 – “the Jerusalem above, she is our mother”

      Revelation 21:2 and 21:10
      the new Jerusalem, coming down from heaven

      So NT abrogated Theocratic Israel on some things. (ritual sacrificial laws, temple, food laws, circumcision, Sabbath changed to Sunday; punishment laws, no more Theocracy, no more Israel as in OT and before 70 AD.)

      Circumcision is also called “forever” in Genesis 17:7-8 (same word, Olam עולם) but NT changed that. (book of Galatians and Romans – God does not require non-Jews (Gentile nations) to be circumcised or keep kosher laws or do Jewish feast days, etc.

      NT fulfills the OT.”

      LOL, all rubbish. The later chapters of Ezekiel, especially chapter 43, explain in detail how the temple will be restored and the sacrifices will be reinstated. Why would there be a need for the temple complete with animal sacrifices if the law was abolished and Jesus had died for their sins?

      If something is to last “forever”, then it should be “forever”. Did you mangod change his mind?

      Thank you for showing how the NT contradicts the Tanakh. No wonder there were so many controversies among the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians.

      Even Paul reneged on his views about circumcision. He was so adamant in opposing it that he once wrote:

      “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Galatians 5:12).

      But then he had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3)! Why the flip-flop?

      So no Ken. You can’t have it both ways. Either the law applies “forever” or it doesn’t.

      Like

    • the vision of the restored temple in Ezekiel 40-48 was probably fulfilled when Herod spent 40 years enhancing the rebuilt temple of Ezra and Nehemiah after the Persians let the Jews go back to the land.

      NT fulfills OT. No more temple; no more Theocratic Israel; no more state and religion as together as one unified entity.

      Like

    • the sacrifices are said “to make atonement” several times in Ezekiel 40-48; so since Hebrews 8, 9, 10 say Christ is the final sacrifice, then they cannot be future; so they were fulfilled.

      NT says Jesus is the fulfillment of the glory of God returning. “we beheld His glory” (John 1:14)
      and
      that He is the true temple. (John 2:19-22)

      Gog and Magog are general terms for “the enemies of God” – the Rev. 20 passage is not meant to say that is the same thing and those countries (Persia is one, and Ethiopia is another, and Lybia in Ez. 38:1 ff) but a symbol of “the enemies of God at the end of time”.

      Like

    • cause Timothy’s mother and grandmother were Jewish. see Acts 16:1-2 (context !!) and see 2 Timothy 1:5 and 3:14-15

      Like

    • ken, where does torah give fristians allowance to clip schema from torah and disregard the rest?
      can you explain what it meant for 1st century palestinian jew to pray for “kingdom of god”
      and “your will be done on earth”
      ?

      Like

    • ken, you are doing shameless christian taqia. you are ashamed of the old testament like paul was. paul thought that the law brought out nothing but sin, the jews thought that the law brought out the good in one. jesus was praying for the restoration of kingdom of david. you are ashamed of ot law.

      Liked by 1 person

    • what is “Christian Taqia” ?

      The OT law, the moral law – “is good and holy and righteous” Romans 7:12
      and Paul was not against it.

      But he and all Christians have recognized the three parts of the Mosaic Law – 1. the Moral Law, which never changes.
      2. The ceremonial, sacrifices, feasts, food laws, Sabbath Day, etc. circumcision – these are fulfilled and abrogated in the NT.
      3. The Civil laws pertaining to Israel and the land – the punishment laws – these are also fulfilled and abrogated, as the NT is churches spreading in all nations and not unified with government power.

      Like

    • “Oh how I love Thy Law, O Lord!
      It is my meditation all the day.” Psalm 119:97

      Whoever breaks the law goes to hell. James 2:8-13

      8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

      “sin is law-less ness” 1 John 3:4

      hatred and sinful anger are the roots of murder and send people to hell.
      Matthew 5:21-26

      sexual lust and fantasies in the heart are the roots of murder and send people to hell. matthew 5:27-30

      we establish the law. Romans 3:31

      the law and the gospel go together
      I Timothy 1:8-11

      Like

    • “2. The ceremonial, sacrifices, feasts, food laws, Sabbath Day, etc. circumcision – these are fulfilled and abrogated in the NT.”

      hold on, i thought the matthean community kept the sabbath, food laws, sacrifices and circumcision law. you follow one who split the law. it is prophecied in the book of daniel about one who will split the laws.
      the schema in BURIED in the “to do ” and “not to do” law
      you cannot clip it out and say i will do this, but when you break law A, you drop the punishment. you are splitting the law of yhwh. the punishment laws are NOT DEPENDANT on blood sacrifices.
      you hate the torah. stop your christian lies and taqia. your taqia in regards to lying about the law.
      .

      Like

    • “3. The Civil laws pertaining to Israel and the land – the punishment laws – these are also fulfilled and abrogated, as the NT is churches spreading in all nations and not unified with government power.”

      they are interconnected laws. how can you break X and drop the punishment that comes RIGHT after? is this the mockery you make of the book? you divided the books and follow the parts you like?
      how come the schema is universal , but not laws pertaining to idolatry when broken?
      all these laws are INTERCONNECTED.

      Like

    • because 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 and 6:9-20 show the churches excommunicated people; but they did not execute them.

      Like

  29. فساد
    fesad

    sorry for typo

    Like

    • “When Islamic governments take over with Sharia law, Caliphate, apostasy laws, blasphemy laws, Dhimmi system; it is too late then; there can be no argument, since they have the power to prosecute and execute and can claim that any opposition or criticism is “fitneh” فتنه and “corruption” (fesad قساد ), which is what Islamic governments do.”

      like a fear mongerer

      you really like staying under the law of secular system, don’t you ?
      think about how the world would look if theocratic torah rule was reinstalled.

      under islamic rule, you wlll keep your churces, synagouges and temples

      you spread hate about islam because you like to remain under the law which gives you access to the filth in your country.

      Liked by 1 person

  30. It is not fear mongering, nor is it hate.

    Telling the truth and reality about something is not fear mongering nor hate.

    You have no good arguments, so you resort to that.

    Like “homophobia” – same method as “Islamophobia” – trying to shut down criticism and debate and disagreement.

    Like

    • ken you are a right wing islamophobe who lies about history and Islam. No one here is remotely impressed

      Like

    • no; that name calling is a tactic like the homosexuals who use the same tactics to try and shut us up.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      May 27, 2017 • 5:16 pm

      no; that name calling is a tactic like the homosexuals who use the same tactics to try and shut us up

      Ken, how about anti semetism? was it a tactics to shut us down?
      How about holocaust deniers jailed in some Western countries? Was it freedom of speech, concise, thinking?
      How about mentioning names like Hitler can cause someones job and nearly cost the current White house spokesman’s job but he has to come out and apologize and apologize so many times for him to be spared. Was it shutting us up?

      This same White house spokesman and his master will say “Islamic terrorists” to imply all Muslims are terrorist and will continue to say it without any apology and the Evangelical Christians like you are happy.

      The White house spokesman and his master Donald Trump will ban all Muslims from entering the US and the Evangelical Christians like you voted for him. Is that the truth you are talking about?

      Thanks.

      Like

  31. “Not a moral problem at all; since He is God, eternal and decided voluntarily to take on the justice and wrath against sin for us humans in all nations.”

    so how does the butcher of unborn and infant , take on his own divine wrath? is he a self abuser?

    Like

  32. None of that is applicable to me, so you loose that argument.

    I guess “thinkverywell” is the same person as “intellect”

    Liked by 1 person

    • while man god wants to take photo opportunity by doing healing , he notes :

      …2his disciples asked him, “rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?

      “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

      so jesus says that he knows nothing original sin.
      so how was it justice for god to transfer sins on jesus and then beat him to a pulp , when jesus did not know about original sin or transference of sin ?

      based on this passage you made your god unjust.

      so if

      Like

    • paul wrote :

      it is a basic unchangeable principle of Justice that only the guilty should be punished for crimes. Your theology violates this rule. Consider yourself refuted.

      ///

      yes, jesus does not know about transference of sins
      proof is in

      …2his disciples asked him, “rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?

      “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

      so ken has his god in dispute with his god on what justice is.

      Like

  33. Any response from Ken to my post?

    “LOL, finally! A Christian pagan finally works up the courage to answer my question, and what a typical answer it was!

    So the killing of children and babies was “holy and right”? Thank you for exposing your sick theology. It’s no different from a pagan making excuses for sacrificing children to a deity like Kali. After all, when a deity commands something, it must be obeyed!

    Given your sickening defense of infanticide, what moral position are you in to criticize Islam? Christian hypocrisy rears its ugly head yet again!

    If you are hiding behind “God’s judgement” to excuse your Bible and its sick and violent passages, then why can’t Muslims refer to God’s judgement in defending Islamic rule over the corrupt Christians and Jews of Arabia, Byzantium, etc. especially since Islamic rule was enlightened and humane when compared to your pathetic Biblical “theocracy”?”

    How will you defend your Bible’s infanticide?

    Like

  34. Ken said:

    “the vision of the restored temple in Ezekiel 40-48 was probably fulfilled when Herod spent 40 years enhancing the rebuilt temple of Ezra and Nehemiah after the Persians let the Jews go back to the land.

    NT fulfills OT. No more temple; no more Theocratic Israel; no more state and religion as together as one unified entity.”

    LOL, you must be joking. Those chapters cannot be referring to past events, since in chapters 38 and 39, the text refers to the battle against Gog and Magog. According to your book of Revelation, the battle of Gog and Magog has to occur 1000 years after the return of Jesus (Rev. 20.7-8).

    NT contradicts OT. Temple remains. Theocratic Israel remains; state and religion together as one unified entity forever and ever.

    Like

    • Gog and Magog are used as symbols of the enemies of God in Rev. 20, not meant to be literally be the same as those in Ezekiel 38; but Dispensationalists – Pre-Tribulationists /Millennial Madness and futurists prophesy buffs (with Christian Zionism) think that Ezekiel 38 is about a soon future war with Persia (Iran), Russia (they say Rosh means “Russia”, but it does not, as Rosh ראש, cognate with the Arabic and Farsi Ra’is,رئیس means “head”, “chief”, “boss”), Ethiopia and Libya.

      Problem is those Christians have been predicting this since the 1970s (Hal Lindsay), but they are always wrong.

      Gary DeMar points out the problems with seeing Ezekiel 38-39 as future. yet it already happened in the days of Esther. (future to Ezekiel’s prophesy)

      I don’t always agree with DeMar on everything, but on this issue, I think he got it right.

      Like

    • “I don’t always agree with DeMar on everything, but on this issue, I think he got it right.”

      ofcourse you would. since you believe torah animal sacrifices had no atonement in them and only a human blood sacrifice appeases you .

      a future blood sacrifice would destroy jesus as final atonement , so of course you would agree with him .

      Like

    • LOL, you are just reinterpreting everything because the alternative would be to admit that the NT contradicts the Tanakh, and that Christianity is a false religion.

      Gog and Magog are not simply “symbols”, because Ezekiel 39 refers to specific nations:

      “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Gog, chief prince of Meshek and Tubal.”

      Moreover, the context of Ezekiel 39 shows that it cannot be referring to past events but to events that have yet to happen. For example, it states that after Gog and Magog are defeated, and the dead are buried, the valley in which they would be buried will be called the Valley of Hamon Gog.

      “On that day I will give Gog a burial place in Israel, in the valley of those who travel east of the Sea. It will block the way of travelers, because Gog and all his hordes will be buried there. So it will be called the Valley of Hamon Gog.”

      Tell me. Which valley in the Middle East region is called the “Valley of Hamon Gog”?

      Like

  35. This was an interesting discussion between 2 Muslims and the cause of Islam text based incitement to terrorism.

    Like

    • you bring out amar nakshawani number 2 .

      Like

    • who or what is “amar Nakshawani number 2” ??

      Like

    • the shia guy from the uk .

      Like

    • Western Academia Versus “Imam” Tawhidi Jahili
      by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

      A self-proclaimed “Muslim leader” named Tawhidi has been making rounds on Australian media with scandalous and controversial remarks with which he lambaste Islam and Muslims. He claims to represent Muslims but takes every opportunity to deliver hate-filled sound bites against Muslims and Islam. He is fast becoming a household name for those predisposed to Islamophobia. And Australian media seem to love his TV presence.

      Little is actually known about this individual and what his background really is. He decorates himself with the title ‘Imam’, but hardly anyone in his locality knows who he is or recognises his religious standing in the community. As a matter of fact, on 2nd March of this year, the Australian National Imams Council or ANIC put out an official statement that Tawhidi has no recognition as a religious leader anywhere in Australia and the organisation states unambiguously that “ANIC states clearly that this individual, is not a recognised Imam, Sheikh or Muslim leader.” [1] With such an obscure background and zero accessible credentials, no thinking person should take Tawhidi seriously, especially when he forwards outrageous claims that are without substantiation.

      “Indonesia was invaded by Muslims”

      In a latest fit of rant, Tawhidi, out of his own volition, let the cat out of the bag. Just a few days ago, on national Australian TV, in his unbridled excitement to put all the blame he could muster on Muslims and Islam for the recent Manchester violence and similar other terrorist acts in recent times, Tawhidi said the following:

      “These are not something I’m imagining. These are facts. We’ve had many wars. How did Islam spread from Saudi Arabia down to Indonesia and Bosnia. All spread by the sword.” [2]

      A little knowledge can be dangerous but the above quote from the horse’s mouth reveals a deep-seated incompetence that must be taken as foolproof certificate of Tawhidi’s unreliability as a source of information for Islam. A small child, having studied world history, would be able to correct Tawhidi’s serious blunder in claiming that Islam came down all the way from “Saudi Arabia to Indonesia by the sword.” It is a matter of incontrovertible fact that Islam reached the shores of Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and the rest of Southeast Asia many centuries ago through trade missions by Arab and Indian traders and Muslim missionary work. No Muslim army from anywhere in the world reached Southeast Asia to colonise or convert anyone to the religion. This serious error that Tawhidi made publicly, which he has yet to retract, is sufficient reason to discredit him as a reliable commentator on Islam. It takes a whole new level of foolishness to completely revamp Islamic history and fabricate a whole new obscurantist narrative for one’s own agenda. But Tawhidi managed to do just that in front of millions and remains completely oblivious to the amount of rancid beans he has actually spilled. He has successfully, out of his own ignorance, and without much assistance from Muslims, discredited himself.
      “Islamic scriptures cause terrorism”

      Tawhidi’s main thesis is that Islam is really the cause behind all those atrocious acts of terrorism. He claims that Islam as a religion is the impetus that pushes Muslims towards terrorism:
      “For someone to come and say these Islamic scriptures have nothing to do with that [wars and violence], I mean, that’s against the facts. That’s not true. The Islamic scriptures is exactly what is pushing these people to behead the infidels.” [3]

      One could easily mistake those words to belong to renowned Islamophobes like Walid Shoebat or Robert Spencer, but they’re really Tawhidi’s and so one wonders if this unaccredited “imam” is really a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

      Many scholars in western academia have in fact refused such simplistic and superficial assessment of the motivations behind terrorism. Ioannis Tellidis of the College of International Studies, Kyung Hee University and Juan Carlos Antúnez state:

      “However, it is of utmost importance to highlight that what Islam does not do is to teach or call Muslims to kill innocent people in the name of a political agenda (USIP 2002). Religion does not cause terrorism (Gunning and Jackson 2011).” [4]

      The notable American sociologist and scholar Mark Juergensmeyer agrees with the assessment made by Tellidis and Antúnez:

      “Islam does not cause terrorism, nor does any other religion with which terrorist acts have been associated.” [5]

      Susan Griffin argues that no religion can claim to be the driving force behind terrorism:

      “Taken together, the essays in this chapter open up the boundaries of though and imagination by inviting us to enlarge our picture of terrorism by including the purposeful creation of conditions that lead to destitution and starvation, for instance, or by reminding us that whether speaking of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, religion does not cause terrorism.” [6]

      Although some western academics have factored in religion (or a specific brand of religious worldview) as one of the underlying motivations behind a person’s choice to commit terrorism, they typically do so with the caveat that “religion is not the sole inspiration,” but numerous other factors must be considered as more fundamental such as political ideology, cultural, foreign policies of some countries toward other countries, historical grievances, poverty and lack of identity. [7] Terrorism is without a doubt an existential problem to the world, but the causes behind it are not as simple as black and white as Tawhidi tries to paint. As the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Dalhousie University says, “Religions are ideologies that do not cause violence in and of themselves.” [8]

      Professor of Catholic Social Thought and Chair of the Institute for Systematic Theology at the University of Innsbruck Dr. Wolfgang Palaver states under the heading ‘Human Beings, not Religions, Cause Violence’:

      “Not only believers or people with a positive attitude towards religion recognize that it is much too simple to see religion as the sole root of violence.” [9]

      To put religion on the pedestal of blame as if it is the primary push that drives young men and even women to commit senseless acts of terror is not just ahistorical but it completely derails constructive work that aims to alleviate the problem. To misconstrue the reason/s behind terrorism is to hamper much needed progress in our ongoing battle against the scourge of our time that all mainstream Muslims disapprove and condemn.

      We should thus be wary of our sources of information and relegate precarious individuals with precarious claims into the forbidden section of our library, accessible only to those with the knowledge and ability to discern truth from fiction, but the dustbin would do just fine, too.

      Notes:

      [1] [Digital Mimbar]. (2017, March 4). FAKE Imams Stir Hatred And Fear by Pretending to be Muslim Leaders. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK6HngLXIOU

      [2] [LegitRy]. (2017, May 25). Imam Tawhidi debate with Dr Jamal Rifi on Sunrise. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYuHJ1mrsLI

      [3] Ibid.

      [4] Antunez, J. C. & Tellidis, I. (2014). The power of words: the deficient terminology surrounding Islam-related terrorism. In Harmonie Toros & Ioannis Tellidis (eds), Terrorism, Peace and Conflict Studies. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 123

      [5] Cited in Y. Alp Aslandogan & Bekir Cinar (2011). A Sunni Muslim scholar’s humanitarian and religious rejection of violence against civilians. In Paul Weller & Ihsan Yilmaz (eds), European Muslims, Civility and Public Life: Perspectives On and From the Gulen Movement. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 166

      [6] Griffin, S. (2011). Terror and Terrorism. In Karin Lofthus Carrington and Susan Griffin (eds), Transforming Terror: Remembering the Soul of the World. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 7

      [7] Siddik Ekici (2015).Countering Violent Extremism Among Youth: The Turkish Case. In Marco Lombardi, Eman Ragab, Vivienne Chin et. al. (eds), Counering Radicalisation and Violent Extremism Among Youth to Prevent Terrorism. Amsterdam: IOS Press BV. p. 173

      [8] Charters, D. A. & Walker, G. F. (2005). After 9/11:Terrorism and Clime in a Globalised World. Halifax: Centre for Foreign Policy Studies. p. 65

      [9] Palaver, W. (2017). Violence and Religion: A Complex Relationship. In Ednan Aslan & Marcia Hermansen (eds), Religion and Violence: Muslim and Christian Theological and Pedagogical Reflections. Berlin: Springer VS. p. 42

      Liked by 1 person

  36. “cause Timothy’s mother and grandmother were Jewish. see Acts 16:1-2 (context !!) and see 2 Timothy 1:5 and 3:14-15”

    Lol, oh brother!

    I already know the context. The question is what difference did it make if Paul was so adamant on not having Christians circumcised? Why was he willing to compromise? And how different is it from what Peter did when he wouldn’t eat with Gentiles?

    Like

  37. What haopened Ken? Why the sudden silence? You were pretty active for a couple.of days.

    Why does the book of Ezekiel deal with future events if the law is supposed to already be abolished? What valley is called the Valley of Hamon Gog?

    Like

    • the attack in america by white christian terrorist thug has glued the lips of ken .

      Like

    • the real victims who did turn the cheek are now extinct.
      natives in america, i am sure they spoke different dialects like the berbers in morroco, but what language do the natives in america speak? american english ?

      Like

    • What valley is called the Valley of Hamon Gog?

      This is about Haman, (the Agagite, a surviving descendent of king Agag of 1 Samuel) the evil enemy in the book of Esther who tried to exterminate the Jews in the Persian Empire.

      Ezekiel was written before Esther, the book of the Esther is the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38-39, the nations listed are the ones within the Persian Empire, which was great, who Haman tricked the King of Persia to decree to destroy the Jews, but when Esther and Mordacai exposed the plot, etc. the King also passed another law allowing the Jews to defend themselves.

      The prophesy was fulfilled in the book of Esther.

      Like

  38. ” The preaching of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God had an unmistakably political character. The establishment of God’s will ‘on earth’ (Mt. 6.10/Lk. 11.2) would leave no place for the Roman rule, as it entails the longing for an approaching national deliverance.”

    ken, the words “to save”
    “saviour”
    “saving”
    “salvation”
    in hebrew have a meaning of saving from DANGER THROUGH VIOLENCE .

    now when a jew in palestine among other jews prays for “thy kingdom c ome and thy will be done”

    what else COULD IT MEAN other than torah rule on earth?

    spiritual fantasy kingdoms don’t fix the problem of idolatry, eating the flesh of swine, adultery, prostitution, prostituting your hearts to other gods, etc etc

    so help me out here ken, what could a jew have meant when he was praying for “your will be done” ?

    Like

    • Bart May 28, 2017
      Yes, it appears to mean an earthly kingdom. ANd no, John would not have been happy with that view.

      Bart May 28, 2017
      Yes, you’ll note that John does not have the prayer. The prayer is thoroughly apocalyptic, and John has de-apocalypticized his traditions about Jesus.

      ken, your thoughts please.

      Like

    • can any christian tell me what does it mean for a FIRST century jew, BEHIND closed doors or in SECRET meetings, PRAYING to God for

      “your KINGDOM come… your will BE done here ON EARTH…”

      UNDER roman occupation

      he means the BRUTAL rule in the torah BROUGHT back to PUNISH the pagans, right ?

      Like

  39. We still pray that prayer – that the kingdom of God and God’s will be spread on this earth, but not through political power or force or military might; but through preaching, persuasion, love, sacrifice, service, holiness, truth, and suffering.

    In the Gospels, Jesus and John the Baptist said, “the Kingdom of God is near; therefore repent and believe” – Mark 1:15.

    Jesus showed us what the kingdom of God truly is:

    “My kingdom is not of this world, if it was, my servants would be fighting” John 18:36

    “unless you are born again by the Holy Spirit, you cannot enter or see the kingdom of God” – John 3:1-10

    The Kingdom of God is among you (Luke 17:20-21) “not within you” or “inside of you”; but “among you”
    “in your midst” (because the King (Messiah) is here on earth

    and has come to cause the kingdom to enter into this world and spread to all the nations through the church, without Theocratic Israel and the Jews common understanding of military and political Messiah.

    Acts 1:6-8
    Matthew 21:33-46

    Like

    • you are a bloody parot

      Like

    • truth is truth and worth repeating, since you don’t get it; and continue to fight against the truth.

      Like

    • ” They will join forces to swoop down on Philistia to the west. Together they will attack and plunder the nations to the east. They will occupy the lands of Edom and Moab, and Ammon will obey them”
      Plunder + Occupy = A divine prophecy which must be fulfilled.

      Like

    • “My kingdom is not of this world, if it was, my servants would be fighting” John 18:36″

      they actually did fight. imagine pilate found out that jesus told his pals to purchase swords, pilate would have been well pissed and called jesus out for his LIES.
      and jesus’ pal SLICED of an ear.
      the gospel of john, like ehrman says “DE-APocaLYSES”

      Bart May 28, 2017
      Yes, you’ll note that John does not have the prayer. The prayer is thoroughly apocalyptic, and John has de-apocalypticized his traditions about Jesus.

      Like

    • “My kingdom is not of this world, if it was, my servants would be fighting” John 18:36″

      so you don’t believe that the messiah is going to be a military leader like peter did ?

      Like

  40. No; the NT and Isaiah 53 prove this, by 2 comings.
    Jesus clearly rebuked the military Messiah idea, in Acts 1:6-8 and John 18:36 and Matthew 22:33-46.

    1. First coming of Messiah – like a lamb, sacrifice, atonement.
    2. The second coming of Messiah – like a lion, in judgment – waging just war – Revelation 19:11

    Like

    • “2. The second coming of Messiah – like a lion, in judgment – waging just war – Revelation 19:11”

      thanks for proving you are an idiot.
      think about jesus telling that the pilate. lol pilate would have smacked him silly. the gospels are lies man.

      “my kingdom is not of this world , but soon you are going to have your ass handed to you because the son of man will return with his military angers to kick you ass”

      jesus used to be deceptive in the way he used to communicate.

      Like

    • ??
      The NT and Christians have ALWAYs taught this – Revelation 19-2nd coming and judgement day in Rev. 20:10-15 – is about the second coming and future to us.

      Like

    • calling me an “idiot” reveals your character – see Matthew 5:21-26

      Like

    • “2. The second coming of Messiah – like a lion, in judgment – waging just war – Revelation 19:11”

      under divine authority , islam waged just war and gave you life to practice your pagan religion. it could have totally obliterated you and today you would be a muslim speaking arabic.

      think about it.

      Like

    • no, it was unjust and since there was no allowance for preaching the gospel and evangelism and the oppressive Dhimmi laws, and Jiziye, etc. – Islam is unjust and terrible, because of those things. The poor Copts and others have been oppressed by Islamic governments for centuries.

      Like

    • “The NT and Christians have ALWAYs taught this – Revelation 19-2nd coming and judgement day in Rev. 20:10-15 – is about the second coming and future to us.”

      that is the point. jesus is NOT against violence, that is christian bullshit.
      jesus is for “deffered violence”
      wait until the time is right then stab pregnant women as you please.

      Like

    • “calling me an “idiot” reveals your character – see Matthew 5:21-26”

      at least i didn’t call you a dog and pig. these two eat their own excretion .

      Like

    • “no, it was unjust and since there was no allowance for preaching the gospel and evangelism and the oppressive Dhimmi laws”

      when the truth had come ,what was the point of false gospels or preaching pagan beliefs like trinity and incarnation. these were already refuted in the quran .
      oppressive dhimi laws?
      you should thank islam that you had a life.

      why would one allow corruption like “the gospels” to run in government?

      why would one want to create a LAWLESS society through christian evangelism?

      “, and Jiziye, etc. – Islam is unjust and terrible, because of those things. The poor Copts and others have been oppressed by Islamic governments for centuries.”

      you caused the extinction of other christians by obeying jesus command to divide family.

      Like

    • So the second coming is about occupation and plunder?
      Wouldn’t he approve “democracy” and rule by it?

      Like

  41. When Christ returns, it is His justice. But there is nothing about humans doing that. Christ and His holy angels wage war in justice at the end. Repent before it is too late.

    God has the right to judge; which you also believe.

    The church is never given authority to do violence or try and force anyone to faith.

    But Islam spread mostly by war, Shariah, Dhimmi, Jiziye, laws of apostasy and blasphemy, therefore, force.

    For this reason, Christianity and western civilization with freedom of religion and speech, is superior in moral authority to the oppressiveness of Islam.

    Like

    • “When Christ returns, it is His justice. But there is nothing about humans doing that. Christ and His holy angels wage war in justice at the end. Repent before it is too late.”

      jesus was suppose to return to bring the “kingdom of god”
      you need to repent for worshipping false prophets.
      i am confident your false god will never return. i am confident 1 person, 2 nature is doomed in hell.

      there is nothing about humans doing that? i think you have TRASHED torah “prophecies”
      i agree with you, the torah makes a LOT of false “prophecies” about the future.

      “God has the right to judge; which you also believe.”

      NOT A god WHO gets JUDGED by HUMANS AND THEN PINNED to a cross and then DEFEATED by death.

      “The church is never given authority to do violence or try and force anyone to faith.”

      you were still practising your pagan religion under islamic power, you were not forced to convert.


      But Islam spread mostly by war, Shariah, Dhimmi, Jiziye, laws of apostasy and blasphemy, therefore, force.

      For this reason, Christianity and western civilization with freedom of religion and speech, is superior in moral authority to the oppressiveness of Islam.”

      yes, you just TRASHED your god yhwh by saying this. you indirectly called yhwh OPPRESSIVE when he told jews to kill people who prostitute their hearts to other gods.

      tell the truth, you don’t give a shit if your childrens children turns gay, becomes a pimp, becomes a prostitute or joins lgbt. you think the pagan system
      which brought you FREEDOM is much better than the oppressive torah

      even richard carrier agrees. he believes you christians should be thanking the pagans :

      quote :

      Let me dispel a common myth: no, Christianity did not bring the idea of charity to the Western world.

      The concept of charity and concern for the poor was already fully developed before the Christians borrowed the notion from their pagan and Jewish peers. It’s evident in Jewish wisdom literature, Cynic discourses, Stoic and even Epicurean moral theory, Aristotelian generosity and magnanimity, and the Greco-Roman institutions of philanthropia and euergetism. (On the role of influences on Christianity explaining its features generally, see On the Historicity of Jesus, Element 30, pp. 164-68). The idea of charity, welfare, the common good, sharing wealth, helping the poor was heavily ingrained throughout all ancient societies before Christianity. The Christians added nothing new. All they did was boast of being better at it. Which may have been as dubious a claim then as now. The data show poverty only increased under the Christians. For almost a thousand years.

      In fact social welfare in antiquity was extensive, often including subsidized and sometimes free medical care, food supplies, educational scholarships, income subsidies for the poor, and disaster relief (on some of this, see Chapter 8, and index, “charities,” in my Science Education in the Early Roman Empire); as well as access to fresh water (which required massive outlays for aqueducts and associated delivery and storage systems), and other urban infrastructure, like roads and libraries, which were free to the public. Public baths and toilets were not free, but heavily subsidized for the benefit of the poor, and sometimes indeed free (on holy days). Private charities were likewise everywhere, from burial and dinner clubs, to guilds and religious fraternities, to secular and sacred hospices. Advanced hospitals with hygienic arrangements, scientific medical staff, medicinal gardens, baths, latrines, and libraries were free to slaves and soldiers—and may have been available to the public for a fee, just as today (Science Education in the Early Roman Empire, p. 109, n. 286); otherwise, healing temples provided scaled-fee services with all the same features (Asclepius, 2.173-80; Charity & Social Aid in Greece and Rome, pp. 132 & 172, n. 156), with a big dose of fake “miracle medicine” of course; but that’s also what the Christians sold, so again, little difference.

      Christians were no different from the pagans. Within just a few centuries the Christians became defenders of continuing material and social stratification, rather than champions for ending poverty. In other words, they became pretty much just like the pagans they claimed to be superior to. And they never really had anything better to offer as models for benefaction and charitable action.

      The Philosophy of Charity

      The notion of charitable giving and support for the poor was already built into the social system and ideology of pagan antiquity. See Poverty in the Roman World, pp. 60-82 (published by the Cambridge University Press in 2006). The sharing of civic resources was a standard moral assumption of every nation-state, including public mining proceeds, food production and supply, and beyond, with many kinds of private and public philanthropic food and cash charities (ibid., pp. 6-8 and 45), implemented on a scale far beyond anything the Christians could achieve—until they took over the government and continued what the pagans started. All of this was the physical realization of ancient pagan thought.

      Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics 4.1 is entirely devoted to the virtue of “generosity” (eleutheriotês), and in section 1155a19-22 of NE 8, Aristotle outright says friendship ought to be “felt mutually by members of the same species, especially among human beings, for which reason we praise philanthropists.” Indeed, Aristotle’s views were more sophisticated and practical than any promoted by early Christians: see Judith Swanson, “Aristotle on Liberality: Its Relation to Justice and Its Public and Private Practice,” in Polity 27.1 (Autumn 1994): 3-23.

      The Christians had the obscure tale of the widow’s mite. The pagans had a fully intelligible philosophy of it:

      The word ‘generosity’ is used relatively to someone’s means; for generosity resides not in how much one gives, but in the moral character of the giver, and this is relative to the giver’s means. There is therefore nothing to prevent the man who gives less from being the more generous man, if he has less to give than those who are thought to be more generous, yet who have not made their wealth but inherited it; for in the first place, the latter sort of man has no experience of want, and secondly all men are fonder of what they themselves have achieved, as are parents and poets. It is not easy for the generous man to be rich, since he is not apt either at taking or at keeping, but at giving it away, and he does not value wealth for its own sake, but as a means to giving. (Aristotle, NE 4.1)

      Gosh. It’s as if the Christian notion of charity was invented by Aristotle. Hmmm.

      Aristotle goes on to praise this model of generosity as definitive of the good person and the good life, and denounces its contrary extremes: meanness (not giving anything to charity, or giving too little) and prodigality (giving too much, e.g. risking bankruptcy, or to the wrong people, e.g. criminals and flatterers, or for the wrong reasons, e.g. for praise rather than the good it produces). So here we have charity and giving as principles at the foundation of Western philosophy. (See T.H. Irwin, “Generosity and Property in Aristotle’s Politics,” Social Philosophy and Policy 4.2 [April 1987]: 37-54.)

      The Epicureans, likewise, promoted frugality and generosity, and accepted the poor and illiterate into their schools and clubs. The Cynics even more so. And the Stoics developed an extensive philosophy of the moral duty to be giving and generous and to help the poor. Eclectics who cobbled together personal philosophies from all the schools of thought did likewise.

      Cicero extensively advocated giving surpluses to the needy and helping the poor (On Duties 2). Seneca, the famous Stoic and quintessential philosopher of the Roman Empire, likewise argued that we should readily give alms even to anonymous beggars, and ever be ready to help the needy, and not because of pity, but rationally, as an expression of our good nature (see: On Anger 1.9.2; On Clemency 2.6.2; On Benefits 3.8.3, 4.10-11, 4.29.2-3, 5.11.5; and Moral Epistles 120.2). Musonius Rufus, the most revered philosopher of the Roman Empire, was even more adamant on this virtue of charity, to the point of arguing men should not even own slaves, so as to steal the labor of others, but do their own work or pay for it like everyone else. A point nowhere made by Jesus, anywhere in the New Testament. Altogether, Rufus preached that “to help many people” is “much more commendable than living a life of luxury,” and that “evil consists in injustice and cruelty and indifference to a neighbor’s trouble, while virtue is brotherly love and goodness and justice and beneficence and concern for the welfare of one’s neighbor.” So none of that was invented by Jesus.

      Even before Christianity came along to steal those ideas, Seneca’s father famously wrote that “among those laws that are unwritten, and yet set in stone…are the obligations on all to give alms to a beggar and throw earth on a corpse” (Seneca the Elder, Controversies 1.1.14). That statement alone demonstrates how ubiquitous was the common agreement on this point, before Christianity even existed, in the very empire they inhabited. Clearly, the Christians did not introduce it. Generosity had always been a virtue. Greek eleutheriotês was emulated by Roman liberalitas. Greek euergetês was emulated by Roman beneficentia. The Romans even introduced the virtue of mercy (clementia), acting on which also produced charity. And these three Latin virtues, mercy, beneficence, and generosity, together constituted humanitas, producing what we now call “humanitarianism” (see, for example, Cicero’s, Tusculan Disputations 4.43-57 and Academica 2.44.135).

      As Seneca himself wrote to posterity, and his friend Lucilius:

      It is indeed worthy of great praise, when man treats man with kindness! Shall we advise stretching forth the hand to the shipwrecked sailor, or pointing out the way to the wanderer, or sharing a crust with the starving? … Nature produced us related to one another, since she created us from the same source and to the same end. She engendered in us mutual affection, and made us prone to friendships. She established fairness and justice; according to her ruling, it is more wretched to commit than to suffer injury. Through her orders, let our hands be ready for all that needs to be helped. (Seneca, Moral Epistles 95.51.)

      Tossing a coin to a beggar, Seneca said, is literally the least anyone should do, to the point that it hardly warrants praise; because anyone who wouldn’t do that, should simply be condemned (On Benefits 4.29.2). A virtuous man, Seneca says, will certainly do far more than so paltry a minimum:

      He will bring relief to another’s tears, but will not add his own; to the shipwrecked man he will give a hand, to the exile shelter, to the needy alms; he will not do as most of those who wish to be thought pitiful do—fling insultingly their alms and scorn those whom they help, and shrink from contact with them—but he will give as a man to his fellow-man out of the common store…and he will not avert his countenance or his sympathy. (Seneca, On Clemency 2.6.1-2.)

      Kinda sounds like Jesus. Don’t you think?

      Christian Reality

      By contrast, while the Christians started out communists who believed in the total redistribution of wealth (Acts 4:34-35; enforced through fear, by the Stalinesque murder of non-compliers: Acts 5:1-11), within a few centuries, Christians were back to reinforcing social stratification by wealth: the poor should stay poor; the rich deserved to be rich; and only crumbs would pass from the latter to the former. At the level of nation-states, no Christian society has ever been organized otherwise since. Even today, Christian hospitals do not tender their services for free, but charge the same as for-profit ventures; and only a tiny fraction of the homeless are given a home, while most Christians live in the equivalent of palaces compared to the majority of the world’s poor; and Christian efforts to feed the hungry are another microscopic facade, serving so few of those in need that the secular state has to intervene to feed them instead, in vastly greater numbers than the entire Christian community of America can deign to offer. (See The Myth of Christian Charity.)

      In fact, poverty only rose under Christian care. I demonstrate this in my chapter on the Dark Ages being an actual thing, in Christianity Is Not Great. But as Dominic Rathbone found, the evidence extends even earlier: before the collapse of the economy in the third century, and subsequent Christian take-over of the government in the fourth century, there was much less poverty in the Roman Empire than had been assumed. The extent of it in the fourth century, when the Christians were in charge, was actually new (in “Poverty and Population in Roman Egypt,” Poverty in the Roman World, pp. 100-14). Before that, contrary to Christian rhetoric, there really weren’t that many destitute widows, for example. Almost all on record had support in friends, family, remarriage, and even in some cases by living together and supporting each other. Emergency state food and tax relief was common when needed, but notably, it was not routinely needed. Meanwhile, when poverty increased under the Christians, they instituted no policies to fix that. To the contrary, they praised poverty as virtuous. It wasn’t even a problem Christians were seeking a solution for.

      Conclusion

      There isn’t really anything significant that Christianity introduced to the West in respect to the virtue and reality of charitable giving, the sharing of wealth, or the helping of the poor. They talked a lot about how awesome they were. But as to actual values, they didn’t say much that hadn’t already been said before, often more astutely. And they didn’t do much that wasn’t already being done before. And until Deists of the Enlightenment started chiding them, they never even proposed a solution to poverty, much less attempted one. (Notions of charity were also developed in the East, independently of Western thought altogether: e.g., see Rome and China, pp. 121-36.)

      Apologists will tend to confuse ancient Christian rhetoric, for reality. Christian apologists were liars, as much then as now. They would make up claims of fabulous martyrdoms, just as readily as they made up claims of Christian superiority in charitable acts and giving. No data supports those claims. The reality appears to be the pagans were no less charitable. They organized their charity differently, but practiced it on an extensive scale. They were just as kind, just as helping, just as noble, as their Christian peers. With the collapse of the economy, the empire the Christians inherited was a dying corpse, that they just kept barely alive for a few more centuries, with ever-increasing income disparity. In the wake of that, poverty rose to nightmarish extremes. Which led to much Christian hand-wringing over it. But they never actually did anything about it. They never saw poverty as a problem to solve. They developed philosophies of charity and institutions for helping, but those never differed in any significant way from what the pagans had before then. And they had more, only because there was more poverty.

      I often hear the claim that Aristotle never included charity among his virtues. Which is astonishing because it is in fact one of his fundamental virtues, extensively discussed in an entire chapter of his book on moral theory. I often hear the claim that no one cared for or about the poor before the Christians came along, that philanthropy didn’t exist, that social welfare wasn’t a concern. Which is astonishing because in fact the Greeks and Romans were famous for inventing these things, and implementing them quite extensively compared to previous empires. In fact our very word “philanthropy” comes from them! Many Roman and Greek philosophers wrote extensively on generosity and charity and concern for the poor, as being fundamental to the good person, definitive of the moral life. Jesus did not say a single new thing in that respect—except in his radical pacifism and communism, declaring you should give everything away, and never fight even in self-defense, never sue anyone, and never resist a thief, or even enslavement (Matthew 5:38-42; Matthew 19:21-24)…a model of radical charity that Christianity never implemented on any relevant scale.

      With respect to how one should use their wealth, I am unaware of any Christian apologist on the planet today who actually lives as Jesus commanded. They live, rather, exactly according to what pagans commanded.

      Like

    • where did you cut and paste all that from? I could not read it all; too long and boring and filled with wrong thesis and bad arguments and bad presuppositions.

      Like

    • “God has the right to judge”
      Cann’t God judge by using his servants? Your bible says yes.

      “for this reason, Christianity and western civilization with freedom of religion and speech, is superior in moral authority to the oppressiveness of Islam.”
      For this very reason Jesus will say to you ” I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of (((lawlessness))) “.

      You don’t give S**t for the law of God following your prophet paul who called the law of God as “garbage”, but you praise the law of human because you believe firmly it’s more just than the law of God.

      This hypocrisy of christians has already been exposed. You’re like the jewish zionists who claim the holy land to be for them,yet they don’t give S**t for Torah.
      It’s only muslims who have the right to follow the path of our father Abraham. May Allah bless muslims and Islam.

      I’m just wondering, what kind of tribulation that Jesus & James were spoking about if christians are the other coins’s side this world’s system that blasphemes God every day? Christians identify themselves firmly with disbelievers.

      “You adulterers! Don’t you realize that friendship with the world makes you an enemy of God? I say it again: If you want to be a friend of the world, you make yourself an enemy of God.” James 4:4.

      I wish if James were here to see what christians are doing!

      Liked by 1 person

    • LOL, I love it when Christians try to take credit for the progress of western nations. It is laughable to see how they try to revise their history.

      No Ken, your revisionist fantasy is simply not true. The freedom of religion and speech in the west has nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, only after Christianity was weakened during the Enlightenment did western nations make any real progress. The history of your religion shows that it was largely opposed to freedom of religion and speech. Stop trying to take credit for it. It makes you look foolish.

      The irony is that historically, Christianity has largely spread to most areas of the world through violence and coercion. They even coerced each other by violently repressing “heretical” groups like the Copts in Egypt. Christianity spread in the new world largely through Canaanite-esque genocides. In Africa, it has largely spread due to colonialism, which was only possible via military force.

      Liked by 1 person

  42. did you read that long article hill billy?

    Like

    • Ah, atheist and discredited serial adulterer Richard Carrier – a massive hypocrite. His arguments are bogus and stupid and not worth time to try and digest.

      He is foolish. The fool has said in his heart, “there is not god” – psalm 14:1 Romans 1 and 3

      Like

  43. Is that Richard Zetter in discussion with Adnan. I am looking at Part 1, in order to understand Part 2; may take a while to digest it all. Better than the cut and paste job from kuffur Richard Carrier.

    Like

  44. Is that Richard Zetter in discussion with Adnan ?

    Like

    • ken, i pray you stop worshipping 1 person , 2 natures and deep down in your heart you know that you are criminal for worshipping created thing. 3 things are not 1 thing fried.

      3 different things are not 1 thing in any language. in any mind

      one advice for you. under roman occupation, jesus did not go around attacking the pagans, he tried to fix the hypocrisy in his own house. in the same way, look into your own house friend and not the muslim who you see as criminal

      may God bring your heart to worship Him and Him alone.

      currently you are pagan and dying in this state you could be burning in the depth of hell. think about what you said about the ALMIGHTY, you said a woman PUSHED out 2 natures from her privates

      please, think about this .save yourself from the fire.

      Like

  45. tell the truth, you don’t give a shit if your childrens children turns gay, becomes a pimp, becomes a prostitute or joins lgbt. you think the pagan system
    which brought you FREEDOM is much better than the oppressive torah

    1. foul language is offensive and also against your own religion.

    2. everything else you say is not true; if the west had kept Christian – Judeo morality (basic 10 commandments morality) along with freedom – like it was up until 1960s (but the problems of racial discrimination were bad against Blacks – everyone admits that.)

    No one is saying we should go back to those days with racial laws and segregation.

    But the homosexual stuff would have been kept out of society (that is so bad today) if the church is alive and doctrinal and is allowed to help people and preach and counsel people. Problem is the Leftism political agenda started adding prostitution, pornography, drugs, rebellion, violence in mobs, Marxism, Darwinism as dogma in public government schools, political correctness, homosexuals, transgender, abortion, etc. into their agenda and the result is moral corruption from within.

    Like

    • freedom of religion and speech in the west is still better than Saudi Arabia, Iran, Isis, Hamas, Taliban, Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc.

      Like

    • “2. everything else you say is not true; if the west had kept Christian – Judeo morality (basic 10 commandments morality) along with freedom – like it was up until 1960s (but the problems of racial discrimination were bad against Blacks – everyone admits that.)”

      in the 1960′ how many people were able to OPENLY convert to islam ?

      forget 1960’s lets go back to 1900’s

      how many people could openly convert to the religion and convert others?

      what do you mean “along with freedom”

      you mean freedom to do what you want to worship?

      so you are fine with your family in the 1960 worshipping the private parts of the god kali?

      or having communal meal with idols?

      Like

    • ken, if yhwh made his powerful presence in israel, and he could change hearts, why did he tell the jews to slaughter anyone who prostituted their hearts to other gods and then entice others ?

      was yhwh afraid for his children?

      why did yhwh oppress other religions in israel? isn’t this barbaric, evil and cutting the freedom of the heart to choose by itself.

      Like

    • ” Problem is the Leftism political agenda started adding prostitution, pornography, drugs, rebellion, violence in mobs, Marxism, Darwinism as dogma in public government schools, political correctness, homosexuals, transgender, abortion, etc. into their agenda and the result is moral corruption from within.”

      the problem is your pagan beliefs tell you to turn the other cheek and let oppressor oppress you. jesus told you to allow people to walk all over you and if persecution gets too tough, run away to a mountain.
      jesus’ method is clearly ruining everything.

      Like

    • ” Problem is the Leftism political agenda started adding prostitution, pornography, drugs, rebellion, violence in mobs, Marxism, Darwinism as dogma in public government schools, political correctness, homosexuals, transgender, abortion, etc. into their agenda and the result is moral corruption from within.”

      jimmy swaggart would have been angry with you on this. if you put a control to freedom, how could he have got a prostitute after 1 hour of preaching ?

      Like

    • He is a hypocrite and false teacher and totally discredited.

      Like

    • “if the west had kept Christian – Judeo morality (basic 10 commandments morality) along with freedom – like it was up until 1960s”

      what do you do with offenders who continue to offend under these rules? you trashed the torah, so no death penalty

      so the only option left is to allow the rape of society . and if persecution gets too tough run away to a mountain.

      Like

  46. Ken said:

    “This is about Haman, (the Agagite, a surviving descendent of king Agag of 1 Samuel) the evil enemy in the book of Esther who tried to exterminate the Jews in the Persian Empire.

    Ezekiel was written before Esther, the book of the Esther is the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38-39, the nations listed are the ones within the Persian Empire, which was great, who Haman tricked the King of Persia to decree to destroy the Jews, but when Esther and Mordacai exposed the plot, etc. the King also passed another law allowing the Jews to defend themselves.

    The prophesy was fulfilled in the book of Esther.”

    LOL, are you serious? You are literally just making things up now. I am concerned for you Ken. You seem to have a lying spirit in you, like Ahab. It’s making you say idiotic things. Repent to the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad before it is too late.

    First, the book of Ezekiel describes a great war between the Israelites and Gog and Magog, which ends with the utter destruction of the latter. The great mass of corpses had to be buried, so the valley where they are buried is called the “Valley of Hamon Gog”. Yet you want us to believe that it referred to events in the book of Esther? Where in that book was there a great war? Where were those killed in the war ultimately buried? Clearly, your claim is rubbish. Ironically, it actually backfires anyway because it creates a false prophecy, contrary to your claim. None of the events in Ezekiel were fulfilled in Esther.

    Second, the linguistic evidence refutes your nonsense even more. The “Valley of Hamon Gog” in Hebrew is “gê hă-mō-wn gō-wḡ”. “Haman”, on the other hand, is a completely different word and is thought to be a Persian name. You will also notice that the valley is called “HAMON Gog”, not “HAMAN Gog”. Finally, “Hamon Gog” literally means “the multitude of Gog”, which refers to the army of Gog (http://biblehub.com/strongs/hebrew/1996.htm).

    It amazes me how easily you can misquote your own Bible. The lying spirit in you is deceiving you. But I guess it can’t be helped. The Bible is mostly false, so in order to defend a false book, you have to resort to more falsehoods.

    Liked by 3 people

  47. Yes, Christianity influenced the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution

    “we hold these truths as self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that is, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . . ”

    “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”

    These are phrases that came from the Judeo-Christian tradition of Genesis 1-2 (created equal in the image of God) and Romans 1:19-21 (creation shows an intelligent Creator and Romans 2:14-16 – conscience within man speaks of the laws of morality that are basic to all humans and cultures.

    Like

    • Sorry – those quotes are from the 1776 Declaration of Independence – those were developed by Jefferson from influence by John Locke, who was influenced by those aspects of Christianity, which the Declaration of Independence influenced the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

      Like

    • LOL, more revisionist nonsense from Ken’s lying spirit.

      Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. He was influenced by deism. In fact, he was opposed to Christianity that he edited the Bible to conform to his interpretation of Jesus’ teachings. I’m sure you have heard of the Jefferson Bible. It was nothing like your Bible.

      Jefferson was criticized by many Christians of his time as a “howling atheist”. That is how different his religious beliefs were from mainstream Christianity.

      Another influential figure in early America was Thomas Paine. Read his book “The Age of Reason” and you’ll see how hostile Paine was to Christianity.

      By the way, according to your false apostle Paul, women were not equal to men (1 Corinthians 11:9).

      Like

    • To add more in refuting Ken’s revisionist history, the founding fathers did not consider men and women to be equal. It was not until the 20th century that women finally got the right to vote.

      Also, they did not consider all men to be equal since most of them had African slaves. Perhaps here, they were indeed influenced by Christianity!

      Like

  48. Gary DeMar shows that Ezekiel 37-39 was fulfilled in the book of Esther.

    Ezekiel 38:4 – about horses, horsemen, shields, buckler, swords, etc. are describing warfare in Esther’s day; not modern tanks, lazers, bombs, etc. DeMar does a good job of showing that if it was about future to us in modern warfare – Ezekiel could have used the language he used in chapters 1-3, – an excellent point.

    Hamon and Haman have the same three Hebrew letters – המנ – so it is possible that “Hamon” is actually about “Haman” – the Agagite, who lead the plan to exterminate all the Jews in the Persian Empire during Xerxes (Khasharyasha – خشایارشاه )

    Like

    • By the way, the “Ken” that Gary DeMar mentions around the 18 minute mark is NOT me. (someone from the audience) Maybe it was Ken Gentry, who has also written on these eschatology and prophesy issues.

      I don’t agree with everything that DeMar teaches, but I think he makes some great points here.

      Like “Rosh” is not “Russia” (which Hal Lindsay popularized in the 1970s during height of cold war)

      The Hebrew word “Rosh” just means “chief” or “head” or “boss” and is cognate with the Arabic and Farsi – Ra’ies – رئیس

      Like

    • LOL, then Gary DeMar is a bigger nutjob and liar than you are. The lying spirit is strong in him!

      Show me where the book of Esther talks about a great war between the Israelites and their enemies. Were all the enemy dead buried in the “Valley of Hamon Gog”? Where does it say that?

      As I said, “Hamon” is an actual Hebrew word. “Haman” is a foreign word. The former means “multitudes”. The latter is a proper name. Just because they have the same root letters does not mean they are the same. That is a childish argument.

      Your blind acceptance of DeMar’s nonsense shows why no one needs to take you seriously. An objective reader will see that Ezekiel was referring to a future war and also believed that the Jews would live under the law for all time. That directly contradicts your revisionist NT. The Tanakh and NT are polar opposites in this regard. Of course, this is due more to Paul than to Jesus and his disciples. The former rejected the law (but also flip-flopped), while the latter live under the law.

      Liked by 1 person

    • It was future to Ezekiel, duh.

      Like

    • How ironic that you want to look at the actual meaning of the Hebrew word “Rosh”, but want to simultaneously play around with the word “Hamon”. You can’t have it both ways! “Hamon” means “multitudes”. How would that refer to “Haman”?

      Liked by 1 person

  49. The Persian Empire – Esther 1:1 – “from India to Ethiopia” “over 127 Provinces” King Xerxes (or Ahashuerus or Khashayarsha خشایارشاه

    Hamon – Esther 3:5-6, 8, 12 – commands to exterminate all the Jews, even women and children, etc.
    letters sent to “all the provinces” in the King’s territory, the Persian Empire.

    This corresponds to areas named in Ezekiel 38-39.

    Like

  50. Ken,
    You are avoiding the main points. Have you realized what a joke your religion is?

    Like

  51. ken , you say that god became “fully man”
    you say that jesus is 1 person, 2 natures

    if 1 person , 2 natures sees a fish on the table and wants to eat it

    who/what does jesus listen to? the fully man part or the fully god part?

    lets assume that the fish has deadly microbes in it and jesus is very hungry

    does jesus listen to his hunger? where does the fully god part go?

    1. does god, in both natures listen to his human nature?

    2. does god listen to only 1 nature?

    3. do you split the 1 person, and have god listening to half a person ?

    Like

  52. Ken said:

    “It was future to Ezekiel, duh.”

    Yes, it was. And since Ezekiel described a future WAR, he could not be referring to events in the fictional book of Esther, duh!

    Show me where the book of Esther talks about a great war between the Israelites and their enemies. Were all the enemy dead buried in the “Valley of Hamon Gog”? Where does it say that?

    Like

  53. More proof that the book of Ezekiel was not referring to events in the book of Esther:

    In Ezekiel 43, God’s “glory” returns to the rebuilt temple. From that point on, God’s glory would never again leave the temple:

    “While the man was standing beside me, I heard someone speaking to me from inside the temple. 7 He said: “Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet. This is where I will live among the Israelites forever. The people of Israel will never again defile my holy name—neither they nor their kings—by their prostitution and the funeral offerings[b] for their kings at their death.”

    Notice again that it says “forever”. This is not an ambiguous statement. God is saying that He will dwell among the Israelites FOREVER within the Holy of Holies.

    Like

Please leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: