@~Lady~

I believe this was after the muuslims had brutally invaded and killed many Christians and Jews and the Christians started fighting back. Maybe this continued because of that. Ofcourse you will forget that piece of history.

Unfortunately, if you know the history of Mus.lims in Spain; Andallusia, Cordova, etc as its seat for Continental Europe, you wll not "boldly" wrote, as to remind me of Is.lamic history. The piece of History that did not happen, is what you just said I forgot. The truth is after inquisition, in Spain, it is then you have Crusade. Just imagine if the Mu.slims were killing non muslims at that time, would anyone who was not a Muslim exited? The Muslims ruled Spain for close to 8 Centuries! Where are you getting your informations?

Do I condone the killings, absolutely not, but it still remains that from onset the spread of Christianity wasn't by force. The spread of Is'lam from onset was by force.

If the spread of Is.lam was by force, why would they ruled a place for about 8 centuries and did not make every one a mus.lim, or ride off the face of the earth whoever did not compile? You will see that you can have it both ways. Islam ruled India almost about 8 centuries, as well, and yet they still remain a significantly small population. How is that the product of "Become musl.im or you die?"

Finally, when it came to middle east proper, we see that when the M.uslims became the ruling group, which will be different and opposing your "there was none," quote about Musl.ims, they left the people alone to practice their chosen religion. This is the reason that you have non musli.ms still, in Arabia today. When Jerusalem was conquered, the Mus.lim leader, Umar was offered to make salah in the church. He refused it, because he did not want to set presidence about it concerning the church in Jerusalem.

And finally I wonder why Mus.lims, even today are hoping that many more become Mus.lims, how was it enough in the earlier times, you suggested, that mus.lims all of a sudden not forcing anyone, anymore? Would it have been that they did not force people ever before, but the anti islami.c surrogates could not but device a lie, against it? I wonder how the protocol will change now, if I.slam was to remain pure to its trueness, all the time?

@4Him: David what Babs787 said, in his last entry above, is very heavy. Please read it, be patient in digesting it and please take a long while before you respond to it and never forget his advise. I wish you well.

babs787:

I read your biblical verses up in relation to the use of the word' father' in which you ignorantly believed that God is your Father. Please can someone be a slave and at the same time be a son?

that al'lah regards you as no more than a slave does not mean the God of the bible does so too . . . read what He says about me . . .

Romans 8:16 The Spirit [of God] itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Sorry bro, i'm not a slave pls. Everything i can overlook but dont you EVER refer to me as a slave. I dont serve your task master.

babs787:

God even asked you a question that, how could you be His Children when you have no edge than those not calling him by that and he still punish you like others and you should know that you should be different from people not calling him father because it means you must be his children and he shouldnt have left you to be suffering with others (Muslims, atheists etc).

Pls go grab a dictionary and find out the meaning of these two words:
- deceit
- revisionism

those 2 absolutely encapsulates all that you represent.

Now here is a bit of scripture for the benefit of those who may fall victim to the sleight of hand of this slave who is merely going about his master's business -

Hebrews 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

Simple - God disciplines us AS SONS just the same way our earthly father would not hesitate to whip us when we are caught stealing N5. Would our father disown us because we told a lie and got flogged? Would he refuse to pay our school fees?
Same way . . . like your father, God disciplines His children because He loves them and wants them to learn from their mistakes.

That punishment is very different from that reserved for the unsaved (like blabs and olabowale), no matter how nice a man is . . . he will NEVER love someone who he never begat neither will he work to pay his school fees.
God's wrath is forever on the lost . . .

babs787:

The economic hardship shouldnt have been your portion, you ought to have been elevated and we His slaves shouldnt be having any say in anything but you dominating everything. Oro buruku

This same subtle form of deceit was what brought down eve in the garden of Eden . . . hath God said? You ate now, have you died?

Dear, apparently you NEVER read this - Matthew 5: 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Dont gloat in your own blindness just yet . . .

Read the bible, Herod was the Tetrarch . . . Lazarus was a mere beggar. We both know where they ended up.

babs787:

David, have you come across a verse in the bible that says you should not call anybody here on earth your FATHER but the only one in heaven? Please what do you call your mother's husband and did I hear you say Father?

Rubbish . . . Matthew 23: 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The key thing which is obviously missing from most muuslims is the ability to think and understand before running away with a poor mastery of the scriptures.

The disciples of Christ had fathers . . . none of them stopped refering to them as their father.

Father . . . in the sense of the above verse you quoted is describing a purely spiritual phenomenon.

This rather than be a banana peel for the christian CLEARLY exposes your duplicitiousness. Earlier your argument had all along been that God does not want us to call Him father . . . all of a sudden . . . now you turn around and say we shld call only Him father and not our earthly fathers?

babs787:

Lastly David:

"None is more patient than Allah against the harmful and annoying words He hears (from the unbelievers among mankind). They ascribe children to Him, (They worship His created beings as Gods and saviours), yet He bestows upon them (sound) health and (worldly) provisions" (Bukhari)

None is more devious than al'lah.
Why is al'lah ANNOYED that you call him your father?
Why do the words "father" annoy and harm al'lah so so much?
Why does al'lah want NO children?

Who is this al'lah? I certainly want NO part of him.

olabowale:

Islam ruled India almost about 8 centuries, as well, and yet they still remain a significantly small population. How is that the product of "Become musl.im or you die?"

Do you know how 2 certain nations called PAKISTAN and BANGLADESH were formed?

Your hypocrisy is apalling.

olabowale:

@4Him: David what Babs787 said, in his last entry above, is very heavy. Please read it, be patient in digesting it and please take a long while before you respond to it and never forget his advise. I wish you well.

I read it and went through it with a fine toothed comb and here was my verdict - another poorly contrived piece of hypocritical turd.

Unfortunately, if you know the history of Mus.lims in Spain; Andallusia, Cordova, etc as its seat for Continental Europe, you wll not "boldly" wrote, as to remind me of Is.lamic history. The piece of History that did not happen, is what you just said I forgot. The truth is after inquisition, in Spain, it is then you have Crusade. Just imagine if the Mu.slims were killing non muslims at that time, would anyone who was not a Muslim exited? The Muslims ruled Spain for close to 8 Centuries! Where are you getting your informations?

ok every historian, non christian and non muuslim knows that the inquisition (1478) was after the crusades (1095)
now look at those dates which one came first?

@~Lady~: I was talking about Crusade, you concentrated mainly on Crusade to Jerusalem. And you only gave the first one. But there were many more to Jerusalem itself. Further, there were other places than Jerusalem/"Holy land" that the christians launched their many crusades. And it did not affect the M.uslims alone.


2.1 First Crusade 1095-1099
2.1.1 Siege of Jerusalem
2.1.2 Crusade of 1101
2.2 Second Crusade 1147–1149
2.3 Third Crusade 1187–1192
2.4 Fourth Crusade 1202–1204
2.5 Albigensian Crusade
2.6 Children's Crusade
2.7 Fifth Crusade 1217–1221
2.8 Sixth Crusade 1228–1229
2.9 Seventh Crusade 1248–1254
2.10 Eighth Crusade 1270
2.11 Ninth Crusade 1271–1272
2.12 Northern Crusades (Baltic and Germany)
2.13 Other crusades


ANDALUSIA
Books and E-Books
On Muslim History and Civilization


At the end of the Eighth Century, the whole of Andalusia was the most populous, cultured and industrious land of all Europe, and remained so for centuries. Its trade with the outside world was unrivaled, and in this time of economic expansion, the Jews, who had been virtually eliminated from the peninsula in the seventh century by the Christians, grew once more in numbers and flourished. The following description of their position is to be found in Hume's ‘Spanish People’:


Side by side with the new rulers lived the Christians and Jews in peace. The latter rich with commerce and industry were content to let the memory of their oppression by the priest-ridden Goths sleep, now that the prime authors of it had disappeared. Learned in all the arts and sciences, cultured and tolerant, they were treated by the Moors with marked respect, and multiplied exceedingly all over Spain; and, like the Christian Spaniards under Moorish rule - who were called Mozarabes - had cause to thank their now masters for an era of prosperity such as they had never known before.
This tolerance of the Jews and Christians by the Muslims, characterized the early centuries of Islam in Spain. All the Jews and Christians who accepted the Muslims as the rulers of the country were allowed to retain their possessions and their beliefs and religious practices, and to continue their way of life within the framework of the society despite the fact that both these communities denied the continuance of the prophetic tradition beyond their respective prophets, Moses and Jesus, on whom be peace. The Muslims gave the Christians the freedom to make up their own minds. As long as the Muslims of Spain followed the guidance they had been given, they did not molest the Christians and, writes Gibbon:


In a time of tranquillity and justice, the Christians have never been compelled to renounce the Gospel or to embrace the Qur'an.
As in the time of the reign of Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths, in Italy, however, the Catholic Church was not content with this arrangement. Its members felt bound to impose the official religion on anyone who would not accept their point of view. In the guidance of Islam, there are provisions for the tolerance and acceptance of the Christians and the Jews, the 'people of the Book'. In the religion of the Official Church there was only intolerance and rejection of any religion other than the one it had formulated. By claiming that God had become man, and died for humanity so that everyone who believed this would go straight to 'heaven', it logically followed that there was no longer any need for a prophet on earth. A man could do what he pleased and still go to heaven provided that he bowed before the cross and said he believed in Christ. The appearance of another prophet after Jesus (pbuh), the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), was therefore very embarrassing for the Official Christians, especially when so many people accepted his guidance. In its attempts to fulfill its claims and aspirations, the Church was bound to try and subvert Islam, and to eradicate the Muslims, in the same way that it had eliminated the Unitarian followers of Jesus before them.

While the Muslims held to the guidance they had been given, they were protected. As with the Arian Goths, the Muslims became vulnerable to the activities of the Catholic Church, once they began to wander from the guidance they had been given; the dynamic process of flowering in which the community of Cordoba bloomed during the ninth and tenth centuries, inevitably meant that the original simplicity of its first Muslim inhabitants was lost. The richer it became the further it departed from the blue-print of the first community in Madina al-Munawwara, which had been richest when its members were most poor. The Prophet said that he did not fear poverty for his community but riches. He also said that every nation has its trial, and that the trial of the Muslims would be wealth.



Those who fought to maintain or restore the practice of Islam in all its aspects thus found themselves fighting not only the Christians, but also the so-called Muslims. It was a hopeless struggle. They found themselves in a process of collapse and decay which could not be reversed. As long as the Muslims of Andalusia had remained united in their practice of Islam, they had continued to expand. As soon as they divided, their numbers began to diminish, and the Christians were able to commence the business of taking over the country. Furthermore, because of the unfortunate split between the East and the West within the Ummah of Islam, no help from the Muslims in the East was forthcoming. This disunity was one of the fundamental factors which contributed towards the eventual elimination of Islam from Spain, for it was a weakness of which the Christians took full advantage.
Once the Muslims in Andalus had divided, the armies of the Church gained a foothold in the country and, aided by the Christians living within the Muslim domains, who had grown in numbers and flourished under the tolerant Muslim rule, their hold over the country continued to grow. As in the case of Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths, the atrocities committed by the advancing Christian armies moved the Muslims to take revenge on the Christians within their kingdoms. This only weakened their position in the land, and increased the determination of the Christians to conquer them. Retaliation brought about retaliation. Intolerance bred intolerance. Revenge stimulated revenge,

Commencing with the Burgundian Crusades of 1017, the precursors of the more notorious crusades to the east, the Christians began to make significant inroads into the Iberian peninsula. The taking of Barbastro in 1064, in which thousands of Muslims were slaughtered immediately upon a long siege having been lifted after the two sides had signed a peace treaty, set off a grim pattern for the reconquest of Andalusia by the Christians:


It was an invariable custom with the Christians, whenever they took a town by force of arms, to ravish the daughters in the presence of their fathers, and the women before the eyes of their husbands and families. But on the taking of Barbastro the excesses of this kind committed by thorn pass all belief; the Muslims had never before experienced anything like it. In short, such were the crimes and excesses committed by the Christians on this occasion that there is no pen eloquent enough to describe them.


All.ah: All.ah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew; 'Alla.ha' in Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus, pbuh). The word All.ah does not have a plural or gender. Al.lah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.'
s or pbuh: Peace Be Upon Him. This expression is used for all Prophets of Allah.

Biography • Science • Civilization • History • Andalusia • Americas • Qur'an • Mu.hammad • Companions • Oil • Other • Audio • Books

~Lady~, do your own research. There were crusades before launching crusade to Jerusalem. You will see there were many crusades against Musl.ims, before the one that you listed as your first in your response to me.



E-Books on Islam and Muslims

Copyright © 1996, 1997 Dr. A. Zahoor
All Rights Reserved
Excerpts from Ahmad Thomson's book on the subject of Islam in Spain, 1989.
"Islam in Andalus," Revised Edition by A. Thomson and M. Ata'ur-Rahim, Ta-Ha Publishers, London, 1996.

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/andalusia.html

Recommend This Site To:
Name:
Email:
Your Name:

@~Lady~: Rather, the period of Inquisition, is the last phase of Crusade in Continental Europe.

@~Lady~: Rather, the period of Inquisition, is the last phase of Crusade in Continental Europe.

Really? I thought the crusades happened after the inquisition.

The truth is after inquisition, in Spain, it is then you have Crusade.

So now it has suddenly become the last phase of the inquisition?

@~Lady~: I was talking about Crusade, you concentrated mainly on Crusade to Jerusalem. And you only gave the first one. But there were many more to Jerusalem itself. Further, there were other places than Jerusalem/"Holy land" that the christians launched their many crusades. And it did not affect the M.uslims alone.


2.1 First Crusade 1095-1099
2.1.1 Siege of Jerusalem
2.1.2 Crusade of 1101
2.2 Second Crusade 1147–1149
2.3 Third Crusade 1187–1192
2.4 Fourth Crusade 1202–1204
2.5 Albigensian Crusade
2.6 Children's Crusade
2.7 Fifth Crusade 1217–1221
2.8 Sixth Crusade 1228–1229
2.9 Seventh Crusade 1248–1254
2.10 Eighth Crusade 1270
2.11 Ninth Crusade 1271–1272
2.12 Northern Crusades (Baltic and Germany)
2.13 Other crusades

No you were talking about the inquisition. I was talking about the crusades. Common man don't tell a fib. Everyone can clearly see that you were talking about the inquisition and not the crusades.

I mentioned the first year of the crusades to show that the crusades came before the inquisition. There was no need to talk about all the crusade because the first one already showed that the crusades started before the inquisition.

Even at that the crusades ended before the inquisition. Sir, you can certainly do better. I don't want to call you a liar out of respect, but you and I and others reading this thread that you have not told the truth.

YOU were speaking of the INQUISITION (Spanish), I was talking about the Crusades

~Lady~, do your own research. There were crusades before launching crusade to Jerusalem. You will see there were many crusades against Musl.ims, before the one that you listed as your first in your response to me.

You're right, the crusades of the muuslims. Wait o how did the muuslims begin to occupy the land of Jerusalem in the first place, oh yeah that's right through invasion (war)

634 A.D. Muslim invasion of Byzantine Christian Empire
Arab Muslims attack, invade and occupy Christian Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa, Asia Minor, Crete and Sicily, and attempt to conquer the Byzantine Christian Empire’s capital Constantinople in Christian Turkey, until 1169 A.D. Many of these remain under Muslim occupation.

634 A.D. Muslim invasion of Palestine
Caliphate Muslims attack, invade and occupy Christian Palestine. Jerusalem (which is mentioned 154 times in the Bible but exactly ZERO times in the Quran) falls to the Muslim occupiers in 638 A.D., until retaken by the Christian Crusaders in 1099 A.D.

650 A.D. Muslim invasion of Khazar - Arab Muslims attack, invade but fail to occupy Jewish and Christian Khazar (Ukraine and Russia), until 737 A.D.

652 A.D. Muslim invasion of Southern Italy - Syrian Arab Muslims attack, invade and occupy Christian Sicily and Italy, until 1091 A.D.

700 A.D. Muslim invasion of Nubia - Arab Muslims attack, invade but fail to occupy Christian Nubia, until 1315 when a Muslim king ascended the throne.

711 A.D. Mulsim invasion of South-west Europe - Umayyad Muslims iattack, invade and occupy Christian Spain, Portugal, Andora and Gibraltar, and tried to invade France, until 975 A.D.

846 A.D. Mulsim Saracen sacking of Rome - Saracen Muslims attack, invade and pillage Rome, the very capital of the Christian church at that time. The unholy, sacrilegeous robbed the sacred relics of the Basilica of Saint Peter and Basilica of Saint Paul, but could not breach the walls of the city.


1064 A.D. Muslim invasion of West Asia - Turkish Muslims attack, invade and occupy Asia Minor and Syria, until 1308. They remain under Muslim occupation today.

1095 A.D. The First Crusade - First Crusade begins. Campaign is limited to retaking formerly Christian lands. Today, all the territory reclaimed from Muslim occupiers durng the Crusades has returned to Muslim occupation - except for Israel, which has been returned to Jewish rule after 2500 years of occupation


So my dear as you can see the muuslims started any war that is going on now. But then again all these have been erased from the history of Islam.

Yeah all that you were told is that the western world came raining on Islam. The Christians are the ones that went around and killed people everywhere.

You missed the part where the muuslims provoked everybody and started the wars that are still existing today. Muuslims are fighting people for their own land. All that was taken from the muuslims never belonged to muuslims in the first place. Muuslims massacred and took over people's lands and then cried foul when the people fought back.

Since we're talking about Spain, Spain was a Christian nation before the muuslims invaded and then the Christians took it back.

Lady, thanks for your brilliant expose, as usual olabowale prefers to be in denial.

@4Him:

Quote from: babs787 on Yesterday at 08:47:14 PM
I read your biblical verses up in relation to the use of the word' father' in which you ignorantly believed that God is your Father. Please can someone be a slave and at the same time be a son?


that al'lah regards you as no more than a slave does not mean the God of the bible does so too . . . read what He says about me . . .

Romans 8:16 The Spirit [of God] itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Sorry bro, i'm not a slave please. Everything i can overlook but don't you EVER refer to me as a slave. I don't serve your task master.

Sorry David. Even in your Bible, in the matter where the alleged writer, Timothy is cautioning Masters and Slaves/servants about their duties to each other, he even called both parties, the slaves an the masters, servants or slave of Jesus! In that verse the Bible writer made it very clear that Jesus is also a servant of God. David. Omo mi (see I called you Omo mi, yet I am not the Baba. Baba na, Olorun a je ko pee fun e. Amin), don't let me fish out that Verse for you. You can do it. But what is the benefit anyway, if Timothy calls you Slave/Servant of Jesus and Jesus says that he is not God as in Mark 12 verse 29 and then you call God your Father, yet your Father is in Nigeria, but definitely not God?

Am sure you remember how Barack Obama was able divorce his Spiritual Mentor. So the Spiritual Mentor could have been the one who divorced him, if the table was turned around. I know that we are talking about human to human. But the case of you and God is even more critical. While you could not truly divorce yourself from the true position that God places you with Him, slave, whatever you say outside of this true position is your own desire and not a true statement in front of God. But God is the Only One nobody can question. Yet He is the Only One Who can and will question all.

Quote from: babs787 on Yesterday at 08:47:14 PM
God even asked you a question that, how could you be His Children when you have no edge than those not calling him by that and he still punish you like others and you should know that you should be different from people not calling him father because it means you must be his children and he shouldnt have left you to be suffering with others (Muslims, atheists etc).


Please go grab a dictionary and find out the meaning of these two words:
- deceit
- revisionism

those 2 absolutely encapsulates all that you represent.

Please grab the same dictionary and find out the meaning of Father and then son or daughter. You will see that God will not be described as the father and human, male or female will not be the son or daughter with Him.

Now here is a bit of scripture for the benefit of those who may fall victim to the sleight of hand of this slave who is merely going about his master's business -

Hebrews 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

Simple - God disciplines us AS SONS just the same way our earthly father would not hesitate to whip us when we are caught stealing N5. Would our father disown us because we told a lie and got flogged? Would he refuse to pay our school fees?
Same way . . . like your father, God disciplines His children because He loves them and wants them to learn from their mistakes.

That punishment is very different from that reserved for the unsaved (like blabs and olabowale), no matter how nice a man is . . . he will NEVER love someone who he never begat neither will he work to pay his school fees.
God's wrath is forever on the lost . . .

I grinned at your example above. Not because of my name being there, but because of your fable. Look here, what kind of a relationship do you truly have with the man that you call, father, when you stole N5 in private and you never honestly confess it to him and seek his forgiveness. But then he recorded all your moves and then, he took you out to the cross road, with rubber tire and a gallon of Kerosene in hand. Then he called people together to watch how he light your hide (hide and skin) on Fire and get burnt to smitherine. But wait, he then tells everyone else that he was not really your father that it is just your own desire that drives you to call him father, because he so much loves you and wanted the best for you. Well, hellfire is created for those who tell lies against God and other major sins, without changing their ways before they died.

Quote from: babs787 on Yesterday at 08:47:14 PM
The economic hardship shouldnt have been your portion, you ought to have been elevated and we His slaves shouldnt be having any say in anything but you dominating everything. Oro buruku


This same subtle form of deceit was what brought down eve in the garden of Eden . . . hath God said? You ate now, have you died?

Dear, apparently you NEVER read this - Matthew 5: 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Dont gloat in your own blindness just yet . . .

Read the bible, Herod was the Tetrarch . . . Lazarus was a mere beggar. We both know where they ended up.

You have failed to see that we continue to tell you that the writers wrote evils and you are following their evil writing. You will see that if you take everything at 100% from your book, you will have a time you call yourself child and then Slave/Servant. But David, in honesty, you did not interprete when it came to the verse where you can claim Father child relationship. You took it literally. But when it came to others that will go against that, and God Lord being One and that Jesus is a human servant/messenger/prophetof this Invisible God Lord, you find the convenience of Interpretation and not literal Biblical reading at that time. Who is Zooming who here? Honesty is a very difficult thing to have 100%. Try it regarding religion in belief in 1 whole God.

Quote from: babs787 on Yesterday at 08:47:14 PM
David, have you come across a verse in the bible that says you should not call anybody here on earth your FATHER but the only one in heaven? Please what do you call your mother's husband and did I hear you say Father?


Rubbish . . . Matthew 23: 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The key thing which is obviously missing from most muuslims is the ability to think and understand before running away with a poor mastery of the scriptures.

Is there a need for mastery in something so direct and plain as this?  It says don't call anybody on earth father. But the only one to call father is The One in heaven! That is simple enough. You have not follwoed the instruction and yet you want to apply mastery to something so simple. I think you begin to jive us, when you switch to this type of theateric called mastery of scriptures.

The disciples of Christ had fathers . . . none of them stopped refering to them as their father.

Father . . . in the sense of the above verse you quoted is describing a purely spiritual phenomenon.

Did I not say that you have such a big bag of tricks in your mastery. Now it is not father but Spiritual father? Is this the same relationship with Jesus being son? Omo Obanta. Big Ijebu man, you.

This rather than be a banana peel for the christian CLEARLY exposes your duplicitiousness. Earlier your argument had all along been that God does not want us to call Him father . . . all of a sudden . . . now you turn around and say we shld call only Him father and not our earthly fathers?

You miss his statement, David. He was reminding you that your Bible, if it was true and if you really take it to be true, then ypu should have not called anyone father, except the One in Heaven. I guess the Bible writers did not take their own instructions.

"None is more patient than Allah against the harmful and annoying words He hears (from the unbelievers among mankind). They ascribe children to Him, (They worship His created beings as Gods and saviours), yet He bestows upon them (sound) health and (worldly) provisions" (Bukhari)


None is more devious than al'lah.
Why is al'lah ANNOYED that you call him your father?
Why do the words "father" annoy and harm al'lah so so much?
Why does al'lah want NO children?

A.llah is not your father, thats why. Why should the One who is not subjected to death and He is always complete needs to have children?

Who is this al'lah? I certainly want NO part of him.  

Arrogance of Numerod, Pharaoh, Qaruun, etc.  

Do you know how 2 certain nations called PAKISTAN and BANGLADESH were formed?

Your hypocrisy is apalling.

And when did Combined Pakistan broke away from Mother India? And when did Pakistan then broke up into these two nations? Are there still Mu.slims in India now? I remember the fool who was their president, the deginer of their Nuclear Bomb. I remember he is a M.uslim. Few Years ago a m.sulim yong reciter of AlQur'an came to New york to lead us in Ramadan prayer. Only for that and he went back after it. David you aint got no argument.

I read it and went through it with a fine toothed comb and here was my verdict - another poorly contrived piece of hypocritical turd.  

Thank God you have your long life ahead of you.

olabowale:

@4Him:
Sorry David. Even in your Bible, in the matter where the alleged writer, Timothy is cautioning Masters and Slaves/servants about their duties to each other, he even called both parties, the slaves an the masters, servants or slave of Jesus! In that verse the Bible writer made it very clear that Jesus is also a servant of God. David. Omo mi (see I called you Omo mi, yet I am not the Baba. Baba na, Olorun a je ko pee fun e. Amin), don't let me fish out that Verse for you. You can do it. But what is the benefit anyway, if Timothy calls you Slave/Servant of Jesus and Jesus says that he is not God as in Mark 12 verse 29 and then you call God your Father, yet your Father is in Nigeria, but definitely not God?

Here is your problem. You latch unto one tiny completely/deliberately misunderstood portion of the bible and then build an is'lamic minaret on it.
The bible is full of allegory and does not contradict itself . . . David called himself a servant of Saul but we all know he was not a literal servant and eventually became the next King.

Ditto with the servant/slave usage in Timothy. We are servants . . . messengers . . . that is our duty to Christ BUT our ultimate inheritance is as sons and joint heirs with Christ. That much is over emphasised in the bible.

olabowale:

Please grab the same dictionary and find out the meaning of Father and then son or daughter. You will see that God will not be described as the father and human, male or female will not be the son or daughter with Him.

When did we start defining the Omnipotent with human dictionaries? I'm begining to worry about your hypocrisy.

olabowale:

You have failed to see that we continue to tell you that the writers wrote evils and you are following their evil writing.

All you have done is make false claims with no proof. When you conclusively bring me NON-IS'LAMIC proof that the biblical writers put down evil in the scriptures then i can listen to you. By the way is this the same "evil writings" you quote when it is convenient for you?

sigh. i cant explain any further.

Lady, thanks for your brilliant expose, as usual olabowale prefers to be in denial.

Thanks, but I would rather not receive a compliment from you. These were the very crusades that you called evil when you were on a rampage to labelling the Catholic Church as evil. I doubt you even took the time to know why it is that the Church went on a crusade. Or maybe you did but since your goal was to label the Church evil and find fault in it, you decide to be blind.

I don't like that all these wars have gone, on both the muuslim and Christian sides, but I at least don't go bashing out of hatred, and then hiding it saying it is out of passion.

I do have to commend you as well, because you are certainly holding your ground with Olabowale and refusing to buy into his distortment of the truth (which I know after extensive research of the Qu'ran).


Olabowale,
I commend you for your stance, but your goal was to convert me to Is'lam. It is very fortunate for me that you cannot convert me( you can call it unfortunate) but I know that my belief is based on truth. Whereas you have been believing something because you were cautioned that it is the truth.
I feel sorry for you, that you even take the interpretations given to you by the Imams as true. Instead of listening to a Christian to give you the actual meaning of what they're believing you take what the Imams tell you is the interpretations of it to be true.
For that I am sorry.
I at least came to you to find out how it is that you interpret the Qu'ran rather than going off of what I hear from others. The best way to know is to go to the source. I came to you. I figured for your age and study of the Qu'ran you would know more about it than my friends who are young muuslims.
You do, you have taught me a lot about your religion and in the process moved me to appreciate mine even more.
I do plead this of you, don't use Is'lam to interpret Christianity. You do not know anything about Christianity if you do. How can you then label something false that you do not know about?

Also, if you are going to try to convert someone bashing their religion is not the way to go. Telling them the interpretations of their own book is not the way to go, instead you will show them that you do not know anything about their religion, therefore how can you call it false?

Also, using a book that you have labeled corrupt to prove that your own religion is not good. It only shows that your book is contradictory of its belief.

When the Qu'ran can be proven without trying to prove other books as false, come back and try to convert me
When the Qu'ran can prove itself without standing upon the Bible (the book that it labels as corrupt), come back and try to convert me.
Until then, keep your opinion to yourself.

I can go through this thread and list all the unanswered questions that I have about Is'lam.
I can go through and list all the contradictory points about Is'lam

Once again, thanks for moving me to believe more in my faith. Thanks for the challenge it has caused me to study my religion more and I thank God for it.

~Lady~:

Thanks, but I would rather not receive a compliment from you. These were the very crusades that you called evil when you were on a rampage to labelling the Catholic Church as evil. I doubt you even took the time to know why it is that the Church went on a crusade. Or maybe you did but since your goal was to label the Church evil and find fault in it, you decide to be blind.

No problem, i'll simply withdraw the compliment.
I never called the crusades evil, i think you're getting it mixed up in the haste to have a leg to stand on.
I would never call evil a war that was launched to rescue Jerusalem from the hands of isl'amic invaders. No way.

What i criticised quite frankly were the dark ages when the catholic church ACTIVELY persecuted the protestant church. IT IS IN NO WAY TO BE MIXED UP AS PART OF THE CRUSADES.

~Lady~:

I don't like that all these wars have gone, on both the muuslim and Christian sides, but I at least don't go bashing out of hatred, and then hiding it saying it is out of passion.

when you expose evil they say you bash out of hatred. I ask for the upteenth time . . . hatred of what exactly? of the catholic church? Give me a break pls.

~Lady~:

I do have to commend you as well, because you are certainly holding your ground with Olabowale and refusing to buy into his distortment of the truth (which I know after extensive research of the Qu'ran).

I'd suggest we mutually hold on to the compliments. thanks.

I never called the crusades evil, i think you're getting it mixed up in the haste to have a leg to stand on.
I would never call evil a war that was launched to rescue Jerusalem from the hands of isl'amic invaders. No way.

David, you have used the crusades against the Church.

What i criticised quite frankly were the dark ages when the catholic church ACTIVELY persecuted the protestant church. IT IS IN NO WAY TO BE MIXED UP AS PART OF THE CRUSADES.

Check out the prosecution of the Catholics by the protestants

when you expose evil they say you bash out of hatred. I ask for the upteenth time . . . hatred of what exactly? of the catholic church? Give me a break please

I would really like to know what evil it is that the Catholic Church have done. By what defending herself againts heretics? Protestants attacked the Catholic Church and all she did was defend herself. As she is still doing today.
In all the discussions that we've had on this board, I still haven't seen the evil done by the Church. I am in no way saying that the Church has been perfect, clearly not, but I want to know about her evil. I am asking you to give me conspiracy theories or whatever, but what the Church actually does. I don't want what you think she does, but what she actually does.

You call her evil yet she is the one who protected your very belief today. If she didn't stand up and fight, we all may have been coerced into Is'lam. We may take what the Imams tell us to be true. We may not know the true history because as we see today, they wipe out history and replace it with their own version.

Hatred? You ask for answers you are given them, but you turn blind to them or change their interpretation to fit what you want and then call it blasphemous. You ask questions in an accusatory manner which shows you are not in search of the truth. When you are corrected, you skip over and return to your original question, because all you seek is something to agree with you, you don't want to know the truth, but want Catholics to fall in line and believe with you. When the same question is brought up about protestants, you say that theya re just humans, I guess that means that Catholics came from a different planet then.

I am not the only one who sees it David. Not just Catholics, the atheist, muuslims and other protestants who don't join in your bashing see it too. You have been called out on it many times, and yet you resort to "hatred?"
Who told you you have the correct interpretation? even the devil is misleading.

You do the exact same thing you accuse Olabowale of.

Anyway, not to turn this into anything else. I will get back on track.

~Lady~:

David, you have used the crusades against the Church.

Nope and could you pls qualify "the church" by adding "catholic" to it so we dont confuse others pls.

~Lady~:

Check out the prosecution of the Catholics by the protestants

how many did they burn at the stake, how many did they feed to lions, how many did they drive into catacombs?

~Lady~:

I would really like to know what evil it is that the Catholic Church have done. By what defending herself againts heretics?

Who are the "heretics"? Those who refused to follow catholic man made doctrine of purgatory and confessions?

~Lady~:

Protestants attacked the Catholic Church and all she did was defend herself. As she is still doing today.

Do you notice anything similar to this . . .

christians attacked muuslims and all she did was defend herself. As she is still doing today.

When did protestants attack the catholic church to destroy it? How did the catholic church defend herself? By killing millions and plunging the world thru the dark ages?

~Lady~:

In all the discussions that we've had on this board, I still haven't seen the evil done by the Church.

If your popes can see it and feel the need to apologise then i just shake my head.

~Lady~:

You call her evil yet she is the one who protected your very belief today.

Same old anti-biblical nonsense we've had to endure for centuries. Is God so weak that He needed the pope to protect His word?

~Lady~:

If she didn't stand up and fight, we all may have been coerced into Is'lam.

That would never have happened because it would have rendered God's word and His very sacrifice on the cross null and void. The catholic church stood up and fought for her own doctrine . . . certainly not the doctrine of Christ.

~Lady~:

I am not the only one who sees it David. Not just Catholics, the atheist, muuslims and other protestants who don't join in your bashing see it too. You have been called out on it many times, and yet you resort to "hatred?"

Hatred, hatred. . . . expose their errors and they say u resort to hatred. Even the pharisees labelled Christ a son of belzebub.

~Lady~:

Who told you you have the correct interpretation? even the devil is misleading.

That's why i dont respond to every topic. Because there are some i frankly have no idea about.

~Lady~:

You do the exact same thing you accuse Olabowale of.

Not at all, that accusation is squarely yours. Continue venerating Mary and then accuse those who point out the bible to you as bashing u out of hatred.

~Lady~:

Anyway, not to turn this into anything else. I will get back on track.

get back on track all you want . . . catholicism is merely less violent than is'lam. They are both the same - idol worship.

@4him

that al'lah regards you as no more than a slave does not mean the God of the bible does so too . . . read what He says about me . . .

Unless you are inclined to falsehood because I have verses from your bible where God used Servant/Slave for His prophets/Messengers and lest I forget, I asked you a question therein.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit [of God] itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Are you not ashamed David to have quoted Paul that contradicted himself on the road to Damascus and went further to go against the teaching of Jesus

Sorry bro, i'm not a slave please. Everything i can overlook but don't you EVER refer to me as a slave. I don't serve your task master.

If the prophets, Messengers before you were referred to as Slaves/Servants, what stops you from same and  you shouldnt forget that Jesus in which you claimed to be his followers happened to be a slave too even from your bible!!

Please make the denial again and I would give you verses right fro your OT to your NT on the use of Slaves.

Now here is a bit of scripture for the benefit of those who may fall victim to the sleight of hand of this slave who is merely going about his master's business -

Ok, let us read on.

Hebrews 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

Brethren, why not put away this deceit and stop this your garlala dance. You are quoting from a person in which you wouldnt be able to defend him more by the time we dig deep into the book of Hebrew, the contradiction, lies etc therein. Why not let Jesus speak for himself and when you are done with, we will check the indepth meaning of the word 'son' as being used by the jews and what they meant

Simple - God disciplines us AS SONS just the same way our earthly father would not hesitate to whip us when we are caught stealing N5. Would our father disown us because we told a lie and got flogged? Would he refuse to pay our school fees?
Same way . . . like your father, God disciplines His children because He loves them and wants them to learn from their mistakes.

I dont take that crap David. So God punish you like He punish slaves, atheists etc and even went as far as putting you His SON into HELL. I thought they say omo eni ko ni buru titi ka a fi fun ekun paje. The stubborness of your son cannot warrant you to alllow him to be killed by Lion.

That punishment is very different from that reserved for the unsaved (like blabs and olabowale), no matter how nice a man is . . . he will NEVER love someone who he never begat neither will he work to pay his school fees.
God's wrath is forever on the lost . . .

Do you care to shed light on the punishmnt for Son different from that of a slave? Yeye David

Even His lost son huh to the extent of hoarding them into Hell and by the way, can you do that to your children. Can you allow them to be doomed for life just because they sinned

Dear, apparently you NEVER read this - Matthew 5: 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Dont gloat in your own blindness just yet . . .

Read the bible, Herod was the Tetrarch . . . Lazarus was a mere beggar. We both know where they ended up.

David, I laugh when I read your dubious way of responding to posts, having known the truth but prefer to dance about nakedly.

I can see that your lack of understanding of the word 'son' has really affected you and couldnt allow to reason. Brother, the title being used there refers to SERVANTS as opposed to christian meaning. Ask any Jew you know and they would tell you but I do not really blame but your translators.

18:4 Furthermore, [this divine writ is meant] to warn all those who assert, "God has taken unto Himself a son."

18:5 No knowledge whatever have they of Him, and neither had their forefathers: dreadful -is this saying that comes out of their mouths, [and] nothing but falsehood do they utter!

19:35 It is not conceivable that God should have taken unto Himself a son: limitless is He in His glory! When He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it "Be" -and it is!

19:90 whereat the heavens might well-nigh be rent into fragments, and the earth be split asunder, and the mountains fall down in ruins!

19:91 That men. should ascribe a son to the Most Gracious,

19:92 although it is inconceivable that the Most Gracious should take unto Himself a son!  

19:93[b] Not one of all [the beings] that are in the heavens or on earth appears before the Most Gracious other than as a servant:[/b]

23:91 Never did God take unto Himself any offspring, nor has there ever been any deity side by side with Him: [for, had there been any,] lo! each deity would surely have stood apart [from the others] in whatever it had created, and they would surely have [tried to] overcome one another! Limitless in His glory is God, [far] above anything that men may devise by way of definition,

Rubbish . . . Matthew 23: 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The key thing which is obviously missing from most muuslims is the ability to think and understand before running away with a poor mastery of the scriptures.

The disciples of Christ had fathers . . . none of them stopped refering to them as their father.

Father . . . in the sense of the above verse you quoted is describing a purely spiritual phenomenon.

This rather than be a banana peel for the christian CLEARLY exposes your duplicitiousness. Earlier your argument had all along been that God does not want us to call Him father . . . all of a sudden . . . now you turn around and say we shld call only Him father and not our earthly fathers?

Brother, I marvelled at your dishonesty in trying to avoid my above verse.

1. Why did he tell them not to call anybody on earth father
2. Can you shed light on the spiritual phenomen you inferred?

"None is more patient than Allah against the harmful and annoying words He hears (from the unbelievers among mankind). They ascribe children to Him, (They worship His created beings as Gods and saviours), yet He bestows upon them (sound) health and (worldly) provisions" (Bukhari)

None is more devious than al'lah.
Why is al'lah ANNOYED that you call him your father?
Why do the words "father" annoy and harm al'lah so so much?
Why does al'lah want NO children?

Who is this al'lah? I certainly want NO part of him.

Brother, I weep at your ignorance and you digging your grave with thine hands. By the way, is is not Allah Northern christians, Arab christians call God?

I weep for your soul at your blasphemous quote up

Take time to read these:



18:4 Furthermore, [this divine writ is meant] to warn all those who assert, "God has taken unto Himself a son."

18:5 No knowledge whatever have they of Him, and neither had their forefathers: dreadful -is this saying that comes out of their mouths, [and] nothing but falsehood do they utter!

19:35 It is not conceivable that God should have taken unto Himself a son: limitless is He in His glory! When He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it "Be" -and it is!

19:90 whereat the heavens might well-nigh be rent into fragments, and the earth be split asunder, and the mountains fall down in ruins!

19:91 That men. should ascribe a son to the Most Gracious,

19:92 although it is inconceivable that the Most Gracious should take unto Himself a son!  

19:93[b] Not one of all [the beings] that are in the heavens or on earth appears before the Most Gracious other than as a servant:[/b]

23:91 Never did God take unto Himself any offspring, nor has there ever been any deity side by side with Him: [for, had there been any,] lo! each deity would surely have stood apart [from the others] in whatever it had created, and they would surely have [tried to] overcome one another! Limitless in His glory is God, [far] above anything that men may devise by way of definition,

o boy blabs . . . take am easy o. this thing is too long for me to start responding to. Small small abeg.

But wait o . . . u call urself a slave and then use the term "brethren"? Do you know what it means or are u just borrowing another biblical term as usual?

@4him

o boy blabs . . . take am easy o. this thing is too long for me to start responding to. Small small abeg.

But wait o . . . u call yourself a slave and then use the term "brethren"? Do you know what it means or are u just borrowing another biblical term as usual?

Dude, you may do the needful by telling me the meaning of the word 'brethren'. By the way where is Tosin, its been long I heard from him?

Nope and could you please qualify "the church" by adding "catholic" to it so we don't confuse others please.

Like I said "The Church"

how many did they burn at the stake, how many did they feed to lions, how many did they drive into catacombs?

Are you asking about the Protestants or the Catholics? If the protestansts, many, that is how we have some martyrs of the Church today. Many were killed.
If the Catholics, many Protestants were killed too. If you're going to point one flaw point out the other. I at least know that the Church isn't perfect, and I don't go bashing protestants. Out of Protestanism many men with their own doctrines have risen. That is why today you have so many self-proclaimed preachers, and lately so many of them are being exposed. That is why today you have so many interpretations for the one Bible and Christians are slinging at each other, "this is false, that is false" Christ established the Church as a whole, he didn't commission every man on the street to be keepers of his flock.

Who are the "heretics"? Those who refused to follow catholic man made doctrine of purgatory and confessions?

Those who refuse to follow what the Bible says. Those who turn a blind eye to what is clearly in the Bible. Those who label themselves worthy of being keepers of Christ's flock. Purgatory is in the Bible and you cannot argue that confession isn't in it either. You also cannot argu that penance is not in the Bible. Just because it is hard for you to do doesn't mean that it is not in the BIble. Now we have people not wanting to pay tithes interpreting the Bible to suit them. You also have those who want to commit fornication finding a way out in the Bible. Religion with contentment is truly a gain. You want the easy way out. Don't want to be held liable for your actions. You claim Christ gave us authority, when the authority is exercised you scream "false"

Against the muuslims and atheists you bring up doctrines in the Bible, yet you label those same doctrines as false, when it suits you.
I only laugh. You don't have to accept it, I could care less, but you have shown your true self and thank goodnes I am not the only one who sees it. Everyone does.

Like I said, you are no different from Olabowale.

Do you notice anything similar to this . . .

christians attacked muuslims and all she did was defend herself. As she is still doing today.

hahaha funny enough above you saw that as a good thing, but now it is bad huh.
You claimed not to condemn the crusades, but here you are condemning it

When did protestants attack the catholic church to destroy it?

Maybe you choose to be blind to this too. Why don't you look up the Church martyrs and see what pops up?

If your popes can see it and feel the need to apologise then i just shake my head.

I still want you to list them out so that I may decide for myself. Maybe I just didn't hear of it, why don't you educate me on the matter.

Same old anti-biblical nonsense we've had to endure for centuries. Is God so weak that He needed the pope to protect His word?

I never called the crusades evil, i think you're getting it mixed up in the haste to have a leg to stand on.
I would never call evil a war that was launched to rescue Jerusalem from the hands of isl'amic invaders. No way.

Hmm I guess it was a bad thing then.

That would never have happened because it would have rendered God's word and His very sacrifice on the cross null and void. The catholic church stood up and fought for her own doctrine . . . certainly not the doctrine of Christ.

hmm just above it was good, now it's not.

Hatred, hatred. . . . expose their errors and they say u resort to hatred. Even the pharisees labelled Christ a son of belzebub.

Even the devil quotes the Bible and he definitely interprets too.

Not at all, that accusation is squarely yours. Continue venerating Mary and then accuse those who point out the bible to you as bashing u out of hatred.

Should Olabowale now post the things you've accused him of?
I will continue venerating Mary. She is the Ark of the covenant. She is the Mother of my saviour and the Mother to us all. Christ gave her to us when he said "Woman behold your son" "Here is your mother" there is a reason he gave her to his most beloved disciple, just as were are his beloved disciples.
Mary is among my prayer group. No she has no tomb, she was taken body and soul to heaven. Any arguments, show me her tomb. There are saints in heaven, we know this in revelation but not just that, we know that it is very capable for the faithful to be in heaven, Moses and Elijah.

There are more of these, but hey this isn't a discussion about Catholics.

If Catholics worship Idols, then so do you. You should give up that Bible you know, evil men put it together. You shouldn't have anything to do with evil

Olabowale

You know I kept wondering why you muuslims always attack Paul. Then it came to me, Paul was the one commissioned to go to the gentiles. He is the biggeset threat to Is'lam. Muhaamad is supposed to be the prophet that would take God to all people. But since Paul had already done that, you try to attack him and say that he was doing what Christ didn't teach. It all makes sense now.

My goodness desperation is laughable

~Lady~:

[size=14pt]Those who refuse to follow what the Bible says.[/size]

Pls keep this in mind as it will form the basis of questioning the rest of ur post.

~Lady~:

Purgatory is in the Bible

Where pls? Honest . . . i am actually in search of someone to prove me wrong this time.

~Lady~:

and you cannot argue that confession isn't in it either.

Confession to whom? Again pls show me in the bible pls.

~Lady~:

You also cannot argu that penance is not in the Bible.

Again pls show me in the bible pls. I'm begging at this point.

~Lady~:

Religion with contentment is truly a gain.

its "GODLINESS" ma'am . . . not mere religion.

~Lady~:

You claimed not to condemn the crusades, but here you are condemning it

u're deliberately getting things muddled up . . . the crusades (with the ORIGINAL goal being to re-capture jerusalem from muuslim invaders) is what i supported. The persecution of the protestant church (erroneously and dubiously also couched as part of the "crusades" is what i do not support. I hope that is crystal clear as it is distressing to see you actively trying to push a lie into my posts.

~Lady~:

I will continue venerating Mary. She is the Ark of the covenant.

Again let me not bother to argue here . . . kindly show me where this is EXPLICITLY spoken of in the bible.
There was an ark of the covenant in the old testament . . . Mary certainly wasnt born then . . . but maybe you know something i dont. I'm waiting.

~Lady~:

Christ gave her to us when he said "Woman behold your son" "Here is your mother" there is a reason he gave her to his most beloved disciple, just as were are his beloved disciples.

Pls open the bible and show me where the early apostles took her as the mother of the church . . . pls i desperately want to learn now.

~Lady~:

Mary is among my prayer group. No she has no tomb, she was taken body and soul to heaven.

Pls show us where this is written in the bible.

~Lady~:

Any arguments, show me her tomb.

We cant find Moses' tomb, we cant find the tomb of elisha, we cant find the tomb of Timothy . . . surely they werent all taken to heaven body and soul.

Or since i'm clueless . . pls show me in your bible.

~Lady~:

If Catholics worship Idols, then so do you. You should give up that Bible you know, evil men put it together. You shouldn't have anything to do with evil

The early apostles, the jewish prophets of God, faithful disciples penned those words under the inspiration of God. The catholic church merely compiled it into a book and NOW wish to take false credit for it. But hey . . . i'm just like olabowale isnt it?

Ok here we go. Bible verses and explanations for all the heresy above.

Thanks.

Where please? Honest . . . i am actually in search of someone to prove me wrong this time.

I will only do my best to show you where it is. The word purgatory may not be in the Bible, but the concept of it is.

Matthew 12:32
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

This passage implies that there are some sins which are forgiven in the next world. Where is this next world? (I am seriously asking you here)

Jesus' descent to free those in bondage, where was this?
It couldn't be "hell" as we know it, because as we know when you go to hell there is no way out. If all the sins are "purged" while we're on earth, there wouldn't be need for Christ to descend.

18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1 peter 3:18-20

8Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things
Ephesians 4:8-10


29Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? 1 Corinthians 15:29


1Corinthians 3:13-15
13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each one's work.----fire can destroy and also purify
14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, taht person will receive a wage
15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire
In this Paul talks about the works of each man. each work will be checked by fire. If the work passes the test, the person will be rewarded. If the work does not pass the test, it will be punished, but Paul goes on and offers hope for the person whose work is burned up, that the person will be saved, but only through the fire, the fire here is purgatory.

Matthew 5:26
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
In Matt 5:26 Jesus talks about a place from which you wouldn't be released until you paid everything you owe

Matthew 18:34-35
And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
Jesus, talking about the unforgiving debtor, said he would be tortured until his debt was paid. Jesus then said the Father would do the same to us.

Where is this place we will be in until we have paid our last farthing? A place we must stay until our debt is completely paid. We know it can't be hell because no matter how much we pay there is no escape or pardon. It can't be heaven because Scripture tells us nothing defiled can enter heaven.
Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Something we all should be aware of is that Scripture says we defile ourselves with "idle words.” Now don't confuse an idle word with a useless word. The biblical definition of an idle word is a malicious assertion or calumny. I thought I should mention this because at times many of us sow our words in the fields of gossip and calumny

Matthew 12:36-37
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Place yourself in the following scenarios. You are a Christian according to any Church's standards. You are walking the Christian walk daily but in a moment of weakness you make a malicious statement against someone. You want to repent and plan to do so at your evening devotions but before you can ask God's forgiveness you are killed in a car accident. Would true justice require an eternity in hell?

An opportunity arises to help someone. To do a good work. Perhaps give to a charity, perhaps change a flat tire for some old lady. You get the idea. The epistle of James says neglecting these good works would be a sin for the Christian.

James 4:17
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

For a sin of omission are people doomed to spend eternity in hell? The examples given are sins committed by people who were Christians in every sense of the word. These people are probably guilty of only venial sins. All their lives they had tried to live for God. Don't the Scriptures teach that such people reap eternal life.

Galatians 6:7-8
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting

Would the all just God determine that these people spend eternity in hell? This seems like a mockery of justice. The kind of justice dispensed by courts on earth. But even with the corrupt courts we have, would a person with a parking ticket and a murderer both be sentenced to death? Of course not! Then how can we accuse the Omnipotent, All Just God of dispensing such justice?

Job 8:3-4
Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice?

Catholics believe sins are classified into two categories. The first category is called mortal sin. Mortal comes from the word mortis in Latin which means death. It is so called because Catholics believe if you die without having repented of mortal sin you will go to hell, the second death.

The second category of sin is referred to as venial sin. Venial comes from the Latin word venialis which means pardonable. The Scripture below supports this position that there are varying degrees of sin and the quotes from the Early Church Fathers at the end of this section show that this is what the early Church taught and believed.

1 John 5:16-17
If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.


Many private revelations to saints have shown Purgatory to be a place where sin is purged by fire. Even though Catholics are not required to accept or believe private revelations a glance at the Old Testament shows that these revelations may have a basis. We see Isaiah’s sin purged by a live coal.

Isaiah 6:5-7
Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.

2Maccabees 12: 43-46
43 , In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view

44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death
45 Bt if he did this with a viw to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought
46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that ehy might be freed from sin.

I was skeptical about putting in maccabees there since your Bible does not have it and you don't consider it to be scripture, but I do consider it to be scripture. Why? because the criteria used by the Jews to eliminate these books don't show that the books were not inspired. These books were hels as scripture up until a few centuries before Jesus Christ. These works also don't contradict the law of Moses and are in accordance with the sayings of Jesus Christ. Which leads me to believe that he quoted from these books



The protestants are not too keen on praying for the dead either, but it still amazes me why prayers are still offered at non-Catholic funerals. I wonder why the prayers are needed.

We are all called to perfection and holiness. Our mission on this earth is to become as much like Jesus as we can. Well even in my walk I know I do fall and have to seek God's face, but there are those who die before they get on their knees and ask for forgiveness. I know I have been put in that position. I had an accident and honestly I didn't see it coming, it was so fatal taht people thought I died on impact, when they saw me come out they were shocked. I thank God, but I also thank God for purgatory because Lod knows that as an imperfect person, I hadn't asked for forgiveness, and I'm not talking about going to confession. I was in a rush and had many things on my mind, seeking forgiveness for a sin in the car was the farthest thing from my mind. That's why we have Purgatory. It is more like a place to clean up before seeing God. Oh, sure we will experience pain for our sins to the point we will weep because we shall see how our sins appear to God. But we have this to look forward to:

Revelation 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.



Wait a minute I didn't even define purgatory for you. Purgatory is is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.
As in the Catechism: All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal slavation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.


I hope you don't have it in mind that the Church teaches that everyone goes through purgatory. That would say that Christ's death is meaningless. It only teaches that those who die through the grace of Christ but still have imperfections from sin will undergo a purification process.

Confession to whom? Again please show me in the bible please.

Confession to one another as in James5: 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another
Forgive me for taking my confession very seriously and not just picking a random Emeka from the streets and asking for prayers, just like I won't pick any random Emeka from the street to perform my marital rites or my funeral rites or my baptismal rites. If you feel anyone can do it then so be it for you, but for me confession is very serious.

Again please show me in the bible please. I'm begging at this point.

I won't make the same mistake twice, so let me first define penance for you.
Penance- consecration of a Christian sinner's personal and ecclesial steps of conversion. Acts of reconciliation. Contrition, showing that you mean your repentance rather than saying I won't do it again, evidence of repentance

But it is without use if first you do not do an internal penance, it urges the expression in visible signs
Isaiah 1:16-17 Wash yourselves clean! Put away your misdeeds from before my eyes; cease doing evil; learn to do good. Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan's plea, defend the widow.

Joel 1: 13
Gird yourselves and weep, O priests! wail O ministers of the altar! Come spend the night in sackcloth, O ministers of my God!
The house of your God is deprived of offering and libation.

Joel 2:12-13
Yet even now, says the Lord, return to me with your whole ehart, with fasting, and weeping, and mourning
Rend your hearts, not your garments, and return to the Lord, your God. For gracious and merciful is he, slow to anger, rich in kindness, and relenting in punishment.

Matthew 6:1-6
But take care not to perform ighteos deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father.
When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as in the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Ame, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your ight is doing
so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you
When you pray do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward
But when you pray go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

Matthew 3: 7-9
When he saw many Pharisees and Saducees comng to his baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father"

But in Luke you will see that this goes further

Luke 10
And the crowd asked him, "What then should we do?" He said to them in reply, "Whoever has two cloaks should share with the person who has none. And whoever has food should do likewise."


While writing this, I decided to look up protestant view on the issue and I see that they actually have the meaning of the sacrament of penance wrong. I came across one that states that forgiveness does not come by penance but through repentance. That's when I finally understood the protestant. I now understand that they think that penance is different from repentance.

Penance supports repentance just like works supports faith. Basically show evidence of it. Don't just say o Father forgive me, but show that you mean that you are sorry for your sins. This is penance. Remember Christ says "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I wil declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me you evildoers."

Rather Christ says that we should build our house on the rock. "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on themwill be like a wise man who built his house on the rock."

Those who don't their house will be blown away "Everyone who listens to this words of mine and does not act on them will be like the fool who built his house on sand."

I guess this leads to the faith issue, where protestants think that Catholics don't believe that slavation is by faith. But rather that salvation is by faith with works.

Yes indeed the Bible states that salvation is by faith in Christ, alone. Catholics agree with this. It is not by our might or our works that we receive salvation, but by our faith in Christ. Salvation is not just doing a good work and then not believing in God, that is atheism. Catholics are not atheists. But rather we decide to be not only hearers of the word but also doers of it.

James 1:22

Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror. He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he loked like. But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed in what he does.
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, his religion is vain. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

I really think that the last sentence describes the faith with works perfectly. While maintaing that Christ is the messiah and saviour of the world and the Son of God and reigns in unity with the Father and Holy Spirit, a person also does the work.
A person also feeds the hungry, shelter the homeless, doing works to prove repentance and much more. Doing good works, but also maintaining faith. This is what Catholics believe.

We do not believe that salvation is simply by going to work or just giving money to the person on the street without believing in God and in Christ. If this is true then the muuslims and atheists will find the easy way to heaven. Catholics don't hold that belief.

Ofcourse there is the penalty for just having faith and not showing it or acting upon it, a person who does this has this to look forward to

Matt 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
25:32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.
25:33 "And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
25:34 "Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
25:35 'for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in;
25:36 'I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'
25:37 "Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink?
25:38 'When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You?
25:39 'Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'
25:40 "And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'
25:41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
25:42 'for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink;
25:43 'I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.'
25:44 "Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?'
25:45 "Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
25:46 "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

its "GODLINESS" ma'am . . . not mere religion.

1Timothy 6:6 Indeed, religion with contentment is a great gain.
Same thing. We're talking about the belief in God and walking in faith. Religion here is godliness. Same thing.

u're deliberately getting things muddled up . . . the crusades (with the ORIGINAL goal being to re-capture jerusalem from muuslim invaders) is what i supported. The persecution of the protestant church (erroneously and dubiously also couched as part of the "crusades" is what i do not support. I hope that is crystal clear as it is distressing to see you actively trying to push a lie into my posts.

No I am not. In one instance you mention the crusades as something good but later on you go on to say that the Church's motive for the crusades was to protect herself. Do you even know what "The Church" is and always has been, Despite the sins of men?
That is what you are speaking against. For as long as Christ gave us authority you speak against his body. "The Church" is taken very seriously, where you might view it as a denomination I along with other Catholics view it as the body of Christ, even with our imperfections. We still work together to get the job and done, and seek God's help to weed the evil ones. Thank God they come to light and can be dealt with. We still stay the course of keeping true to what was requested by Christ that we are one. No he didnt mean the different denomintaions that we have today. Infact there were to be no denominations. There were no denominations until the protestant decided to start naming themselves "Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Presbyters, and much much much more" The Church was to be one, the Church was to be holy, the Church yes was to be Catholic (Universal). without limitations in language and geography and more, yet meditating on the same mysteries of Christ, having one belief.

You mention the crusades in its original form, the crusades ended in 1291, the protestants didn't "protest" until the 15th century and then Luther bringing out to the open. The Church protected the Bible as you know it today, the doctrines that you have adopted (Trinity) and your Church history.

I need not plant anything, it is very evident what you say and how you contradict yourself.

Again let me not bother to argue here . . . kindly show me where this is EXPLICITLY spoken of in the bible.
There was an ark of the covenant in the old testament . . . Mary certainly wasnt born then . . . but maybe you know something i don't. I'm waiting.

Yes I do know something that you do not. Jesus the New Covenant, Mary his dwelling, hence Mary the Ark of the covenant. Or do we say that she didn't give birth to him and that he did not dwell in her?
God found her worthy to dwell in her, just as he dwelt in the Wood that made up the ark.

You can better understand the Catholic relationship to Mary if you look at the Israelite's relationship to the Ark of the Covenant. The Israelites did not worship the Ark but they treated it with incredible reverence. They knew that God used it powerfully and they brought it into battle (Jos. 6:3-4). The Lord punished those who did not have utmost respect for it (1 Chr. 13:10-11) and blessed those who took it into their care (1 Chr. 13:14). We don't think that it is a coincidence that the new Ark of the Covenant, Mary, is introduced into the heavenly battle against Satan in the book of Revelation. It is not because of any power that she gets on her own, but by the power she is given by Jesus her Son.

Revelations 11:19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of the covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, and earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.
Revelations 12:1 A great sing appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars
2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth
3 Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, an don its head were seven didems
4 Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down o the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.
5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne
6 The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care o for twelve hundred and sixty days.

Well let's visit this here. Who was destined to rule all the earth ? oh yes that's right, the messiah. Who's the messiah? Jesus Christ. Who's Christ's mother? Mary.
The Ark of the Covenant disappears in Jer 3:16. The Ark of the Covenant resurfaces in Revelation 11:19 as the woman who bore the King of the Israelites who is the mother of all those who follow the lamb. The devil makes war on all her children who have the testimony of Jesus (Rev 12:17) God was quite clear about who the woman was in the passage. It was Mary.

The Ark carried the Word of God. Mary carried the Word of God made flesh when she was pregnant with him. The Ark of the Covenant first disappeared in 1 Sam 4:11 when the Philistines overtook Israel. But it was returned to the Israelites after it became a curse to those who did not believe in the One True God. (1 Sam 6:4) This tells us that the Ark has a propensity to turn up after it is captured. It disappeared again, during the Babylonian conquest around 600 B.C. never to be seen again to this day.

Catholics believe it did come back again, just as it did the first time it was lost. Originally the Ark of the Covenant contained the word of God etched on stone by God's own hand. The Ark was not the Word itself but it was nevertheless very important. Mary carried the "word made flesh" inside her the same way the Ark carried the 10 commandments which were the Word of God manifest in the real word. (Jn 1:1) The Ark turns up in Revelation 11:19. It is presented as Mary, the mother of Jesus.

19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. 12 :1 A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pangs, in the agony of giving birth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne, 13 So when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly from the serpent . Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus.

Some Evangelicals have suggested that woman crowned with stars in this passage is Israel and that the 12 stars represent the tribes of Israel. They say the woman is not Mary. The problem with this interpretation is that the passage clearly says her children are those who "hold the testimony of Jesus" (Rev 12:17) which the children of Israel clearly have not done, but the children of Mary surely have. Catholics believe this started with John at the foot of the cross when Jesus presented Mary to him as his mother. (Jn 19:26)

Catholics believe this passage of Revelation makes clear several important points:

The Ark of the Covenant has been restored to the temple
The temple is now heaven (See also Heb 9:1-12)
A woman with a crown is there - the new Ark
She gave birth to the son who will rule the nations and is at God's throne
The devil is very interested in destroying her but she is safe
Her children are all faithful Christians.
If Jesus is the Word made flesh, then we could consider Mary as the Ark made flesh.

Let us now compare the Ark of the covenant in the old testament to Mary, who Catholics believe is the new Ark.

The Ark of the Old Testament
Mary - The New Testament
Ark of the New Covenant

The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex 25:10)
The Word became Flesh (John 1)

The Ark carried the Word of God (Deut 10:1) The Ark carried the Old Covenant.
Mary carried the Word of God (Lk 2:38) Mary carried the New Covenant

David says "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam 6:9)
Elizabeth says "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me" (Lk 1:43) (Mary, was pregnant with Jesus)

When the Ark returned "David was leaping and dancing before the Lord" (2 Sam 6:14) The baby leaped for joy in Elizabeth's womb when Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying Jesus in her womb. (Lk 2 38)

There I have set the ark in which is the covenant of the Lord that he made with his people Israel (2Ch 6:11)
Jesus is the new Covenant and he is in Mary's womb, which makes Mary the ark of the New Covenant.
Elizabeth's husband Zachariah said "He has remembered his holy covenant (Lk 1:72) , The cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood (Lk 22:20)

Joshua summoned the twelve men from the Israelite, whom he had appointed, one from each tribe. Joshua said to them "Pass on before the ark of the Lord your God." (Josh 4:4) There were 12 stones like the 12 stars in Rev,
The ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; , 12 :1 A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman , and on her head a crown of twelve stars. (Rev 11:19) representing the tribes of Israel.

In Joshua Chapter 6, the Israelites circle Jericho with the Ark of the Covenant and blowing horns for seven days before their victory. In Revelation Chapter 8-11 before the introduction the Ark of the covenant (Chapter 12) the angels blow seven trumpets to herald the victory over Satan.

The Ark of the Lord is a blessing to the house (2 Sam 6:11) Mary goes into the hills and blesses Elizabeth's house (Lk 2 38)

The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13) Mary is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Mat 2:14)

The Ark disappears (Jer 3:16) never to return until the New Testament Revelation story The Ark reappears as a lady who bears a son who is seated at the right hand of God . Her children are Christians. (Rev 11:19)

It will not be like the covenant that I made, that they broke though I was their husband (Jer 31:31) The Holy Spirit shall overshadow you; therefore the son to be born to you , will be called the Son of God (Lk 1:35) (The Holy Spirit was Mary's spouse)

Catholics believe that their relationship to Mary is very biblical. They feel it would be unbiblical to ignore her place in Scripture. Many Evangelicals say that Mary's ministry and purpose ended with the birth of Christ. If that was so why would the devil be so interested in destroying her after the birth of Jesus. Catholics believe the passage identifies Mary as the rediscovered Ark of the Covenant. Now the Ark is in heaven. It has been found. It is Mary. The passage of Revelation describes the woman in heaven with a crown of 12 stars as the mother of Jesus (not a pagan goddess). She is presented as a very important player, not only because she gave birth to the Saviour but also because she will continue to play an ongoing role in service to him in the spiritual battle with Satan and his evil angels. The passage also says all those who hold the testimony of Jesus are her children. That includes Christians of all denominations. They are all her children. This is why Catholics don't think it would be right to abandon Mary simply for the sake of Christian unity. Mary just too important. Catholics wouldn't give up Mary any more than the ancient Jews would be willing to give up the Ark of the Covenant.

Mary has a very special role in this spiritual war. She is not a "dead person" who faded away into the pages of history. She is a kicking prayer warrior who is alive. Catholics think her ministry did not end with the birth of Jesus. That was only the beginning of her important role.

Although the passage shows Mary with a crown in heaven that does not make her a god. She is a creature. The passage clearly shows that Jesus went to "God's Throne." He is the King. What respectable king does not have a queen. Her entire dignity stems from Jesus, the King, her Son. Catholics have no problem honouring her and asking her to pray to Jesus for us.

I found the above quote and I liked its explanation, I thought it would help.

Well let's also visit something else. Jesus is the new Adam(man) and Mary is the new Eve(woman) you can't have a new Adam without a new Eve. It took a woman to bring sin into the world, and a woman to bring salvation to it. Whether you like it or not, that woman is extremely important and deserves honour. Thank goodness Christ didn't forget his mother and tell her she was not important to bringing salvation to the world.

Catholics see an important link between Mary in the New Testament and Eve in Genesis. (Gen 3:3-24) We believe Mary's "Yes" to God and his plan of redemption, reversed Eve's "No" and reversed Eve's refusal to obey and cooperate with God. Mary's "Yes" and cooperation with Grace blew away Eve's "No" and fall from Grace. (Lk 1:2) Catholics think it is not by accident that Eve (the woman) came out of the body of Adam (the man), and that Jesus (the man/God) came out of the body of Mary (the woman). This view was put forth by St. Justin who lived from about 110 to 165 A.D. and is consistent with Paul's comparison of Jesus to Adam. (1 Col 15:22, 45). Eve wanted to be all knowing, and ate from the "tree of knowledge". Mary did not need to know the entire plan and at times didn't understand what her son was doing (Mk 3:20). A chart of side-by-side Scripture references at the end of this article helps compare Mary to Eve.

Mary was a true servant. She went to Elizabeth's place to do menial chores and housework for 3 months while Elizabeth's pregnancy with John was advancing (Lk 1:56). That was the custom of the day, to do chores for a relative who was coming to term with her pregnancy. I can imagine Mary washing Elizabeth's toilet area, cleaning the floor, and making meals while she knew she was carrying Jesus, the Saviour of the world, in her womb. What humility, what a servant! (Lk 1:39). Catholics think she still is a humble servant who serves Jesus tirelessly.

But let's see more about Mary

The angel thought Mary was important enough to call her full of grace and to even hail her.

When she was worried about the greeting the angel assured her that she has found favour with God. Well let's see maybe she found favour like the prophets in the Old Testament, would that mean that God would accept the prophets but not Mary? Wouldn't that make God sexist?
We already know that it is possible for there to be people in heaven, clearly Moses and Elijah appeared to Christ. Moses proves that it is possible to have "saints" in heaven though they die on earth, while Elijah proves that it is possible for people to be assumed up into heaven just like Enoch.

Now let's visit Elizabeth's greeting of Our Lord's Mother.

Elizabeth filled with the Holy Spirit cried out in a loud voice and said "Most blessed are you amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Most blessed, wait o, Elizabeth herself is carrying a prophecy in her womb too and she is carrying a blessed child, but how come Mary is the one that is most blessed, certainly both women carrying blessed children should be equally "blessed?"
How come Mary is the mother of the Lord? This is the same Lord, Lord which those who prophecy and drive out demons and perfom might deeds in Jesus name call Jesus too o.

maybe we should visit the magnificat, the canticle of Mary.

She herself let us know that every nation will call her blessed, just as Elizabeth called her blessed.
Yup that's right she let us also know that she can never take away the greatness of the Lord, she cannot overshadow his glory, she knows that she has been saved by being full of grace. It wasn't by her power that she was saved, but through her son. But rather than being saved as everyone else who got saved after the saviour came into the world, she was saved, even before te saviour took into ther womb. She was full of grace before he took to her womb.

Luke 2:34-35
Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many Isreal, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed."

Mary herself will not be untouched to the reactions by the role of her Son, her blessedness as mother of the Lord will be challenged by her son who describes true blessedness as "hearing the word of God and observing it"


A form of intercession by Mary was at the wedding at Cana when she asks them to do whatever Jesus tells them. She does the same now.

She does have an impotant role as "queen"


1 Kings 2:19 Bathsheba therefore went to King Solomon, to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her and bowed down to her, and sat down on his throne and had a throne set for the king's mother; so she sat at his right hand.
2:20 Then she said, "I desire one small petition of you; do not refuse me." And the king said to her, "Ask it, my mother, for I will not refuse you."


What does this have to do with Jesus and Mary, like I said the wedding at Cana.
Mary asks the attendants to listen to Jesus. Likewise Jesus instructs them on what to do and there he performed a miracle by turning water into wine. His mother made a request for wine and he fulfilled it.

This is the relationship of a queen to her son the King


Mary as Mother of the Church
In saying "yes" to God, Abraham became the father of all humanity (Gen 22:17). Catholics believe that similarly, Mary's "yes" to God made her the mother of all humanity. (Lk 1:2, Jn 19:26) Mary responded to the Angel of God (Lk 1:2) and so did Abraham (Gen 22:11). The Bible talks about Mary at the foot of the Cross. It says:

When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. (John 19:26),

Most certainly he was saying, as Evangelicals suggest, that John should take care of his mother. But Jesus does not speak on one level alone. His words are multi-layered and rich. I believe in this passage, the greater meaning is that Jesus gives Mary to all people as our mother.

And at the foot of the Cross which was prefigured by the tree in the Garden of Eden, Jesus says to the apostle take her as your mother, and to Mary he says take him as your son. Jesus was not simply just concerned with taking care of his mother. He also told Mary to be John's Mother. John represented all of the Christians, he was the only disciple present, and therefore he was standing in the gap for us.

Jesus could have given that discourse at any time in the days leading up to the crucifixion. He waited until his last breath to do it when every breath wa agonizing and a moment before he died (and conquered sin). Most of the early CHurch fathers say that he waited until that moment because the scenario at the foot of the cross completes the scenario at the foot of the tree in Eden and to leave Mary out of that scenario as the new Eve, is a one legged analysis I would say.

By this point her pilgrimage of faith is maturing. When Jesus was younger, she chastised Jesus when he ran away at twelve year old (Lk 2:51) and when he was not eating properly at thirty years old (Mk 3:34). Now she has accepted Simeon's prophesy (Lk 2:34-35). She has kept the faith, she stands obediently at the foot of the Cross (Jn 19:26). Later she reaped the rewards (Acts 1:14), and now in heaven, she shares the greatest of those rewards with us, her faith in Jesus, King of Kings, Lord of Lords.

Just as Eve was given the title of "mother of all the Living" by Adam, Mary was given the role of mother of the living by Jesus (Jn 19:26). Catholics believe this was confirmed in Revelation 12:17.

The early apostles, the jewish prophets of God, faithful disciples penned those words under the inspiration of God. The catholic church merely compiled it into a book and NOW wish to take false credit for it. But hey . . . i'm just like olabowale isnt it?

Ok here we go. Bible verses and explanations for all the heresy above.

Thanks.

We have never taken credit for the writing of the Words of God. We just don't see how we were good enough to discern between all the books that were written, that which was the Word of God, and now we're evil. Those same evil men handled and decided what was truly the Word of God.
I just cannot seem to understand how we handled the very smae Word of God that you hold to be the Word of God and the center of your belief, yet we are evil and have evil doctrines and evil motives. How come the Books we decided to be your Word of God isn't evil? Why didn't we just put evil books that will contradict what you believe and support all we believe. since you think we have different beliefs?

This is equivalent to the muuslims labeling the Bible as false yet they go to great lengths to prove their authenticity from that very book that they labeled fasle.

~Lady~:

I will only do my best to show you where it is. The word purgatory may not be in the Bible, but the concept of it is.

Matthew 12:32
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

This passage implies that there are some sins which are forgiven in the next world. Where is this next world? (I am seriously asking you here)

Read it properly without catholic lenses. That passage does not say what you read into it.
Hebrews 9:17 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

- There is only one place that man can die physically ONCE - earth.
- Hebrews 9:27 is specific . . . after death there is no longer room for repentance but judgement.

Could the bible be contradicting itself or are you reading your own theology into it?

~Lady~:

Jesus' descent to free those in bondage, where was this?
It couldn't be "hell" as we know it, because as we know when you go to hell there is no way out. If all the sins are "purged" while we're on earth, there wouldn't be need for Christ to descend.

Did Christ descend to purgatory? No because the bible is clear that Abraham and all the other dead old testament fathers went to paradise. But as at that time paradise was on the same plane with hell . . . how do i know? Remember the parable of Lazarus? If paradise = heaven then how did the rich man see Abraham since he could not have been in hell?
Remember the thief on the cross - today thou shalt be with me in paradise.

Why did not the other thief go to purgatory too?

~Lady~:

18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1 peter 3:18-20

8Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things
Ephesians 4:8-10


29Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? 1 Corinthians 15:29

I will be back with more

Simple. My explanation is above.

I'm still waiting for the confession, penance, mary the ark of covenant, mary's ascension to heaven e.t.c.

~Lady~:

19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

i missed this earlier. You have simply behaved like the muuslims, grabbed hold of one verse without reading it in the context of the others.
Read verse 19 AND 20. Who are the spirits in question?

Verse 20 makes it clear it was to those before the flood . . . there were no prophets then to warn them, they had no opportunity for salvation, they had no 10 commandments, these people had nothing.

NOW that we have the opportunity the cross gives us, that chance is no longer available to us. Pls read your bibles very carefully . . . Christ and the new testament apostles were very clear . . . there is no chance for a man who dies a sinner. If they new about purgatory it is shocking that not one mention of it is made in all their writings.

[b][/b]Commencing with the Burgundian Crusades of 1017, the precursors of the more notorious crusades to the east, the Christians began to make significant inroads into the Iberian peninsula. The taking of Barbastro in 1064, in which thousands of Muslims were slaughtered immediately upon a long siege having been lifted after the two sides had signed a peace treaty, set off a grim pattern for the reconquest of Andalusia by the Christians:

@~Lady~: Read the above and know that it is long before 1095 or so that you listed for Crusade to Jerusalem. Look at it again. Burgundy is part of France today. From the text above, you will see that muslims in continental Europe was already feeling the heat from the Christians, before the Middle east Muslims began to feel the same.

I remember the first invasion of Iraq by Bush Senior. It was dubbed desert storm. Then the next invasion was desert Shield. I wonder what was the different between the two: same players and same theater. Can you see the difference? Hardly by any honest heart. Even George Bush Junior called his war Crusade. This is the more popular lingo for any war between the evil muslims and the good christians. The christian god is bigger than the Muslim God, declared a military general (Haden or hegean is his name), to applause of notable audiences in DC metropolitan area.

I guess I may not be a liar afterall. The point is that you had no intention of honest dialogue with me. If you did, you will realize that i never "interpreted" the verses of the Qur'an. It is for all to see as written. If God meant something else, he would not reveal what he revealed. It is convenient for you to interprete some part of the Bible, while you leave others exactly as it is written. That type of convenience will not work with me. Its all to be interpreted because the christian god did not mean what he commission people to write down. Hence the need to interprete everything.

And I do read. I can read the bible and my experience with those who say they are Christians is very extensive. I was nursed by a woman who is now a former christian. I have two sons from another, while my University life roommate is an active pastor in new York city. Just now, a pastor had just left my home in Manhattan. I wonder what i do not know about the Bible.

When the Quran challenges any issue, you complain. And before you had said jesus was the prophet to all nations. But just above, you just got an epiphany that it is Paul that was commisioned to to bring salvation to the gentiles. Well, say what you want, it will not change the truth. I may be a bad presenter of islam to you, for this I ask godto forgive me. One thing you can not deny is that you were not told. My duty is to keep you inform. The acceptance is really based on how your Lord sees your heart. But you have a choice to be humble or not to God.


And by the way we Ijebu people are very clean

Read it properly without catholic lenses. That passage does not say what you read into it.
Hebrews 9:17 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Are you sure about that. Go and check again and make sure that this is what Hebrews9:17 says.

This is what it says in my Bible

17 For a will takes effect only at death; it has no force while the testator is alive

So just to put all conspiracy theories to silence, I checked with the protestant Bible (The King James Version)

17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

This is talking about the sacrifice of Jesus.

Did Christ descend to purgatory? No because the bible is clear that Abraham and all the other dead old testament fathers went to paradise. But as at that time paradise was on the same plane with hell . . . how do i know? Remember the parable of Lazarus? If paradise = heaven then how did the rich man see Abraham since he could not have been in hell?

You have got to be kidding me, you're using parables in the literal sense. The Rich man was not in hell, he was in the netherworld. Maybe we should visit the word that was used in describing "hell" here. It is sheol, the word meaning hades, hades being a place where souls stay until the end time.
So basically what you're saying is that people could go to paradise, but couldn't go to heaven, but could go to hell.
hmmm, that is a very interesting view of it.
The Old testament fathers went to paradise and everybody else went to hell. So then they should be there for all eternity, there's no getting out of hell then. So why did Christ descend to release people if they couldn't be released?
hmmm that is a thought.

Why did not the other thief go to purgatory too?

Who's to say he didn't?

By the way purgatory is for those saved by grace.

i missed this earlier. You have simply behaved like the muuslims, grabbed hold of one verse without reading it in the context of the others.
Read verse 19 AND 20. Who are the spirits in question?

Verse 20 makes it clear it was to those before the flood . . . there were no prophets then to warn them, they had no opportunity for salvation, they had no 10 commandments, these people had nothing.

No sir the interpretation you just gave is the same that I have. I know that these were the ones before the flood and that is exactly my point. That after so many centuries these people were still saved. Now how is it that they could have been saved? If they were in hell they couldn't have been able to get out. Hell is eternal damnation and there's no turning back. According to how you're putting it. But your're also saying that "at that time" hell was on the same plane with paradise. So God wasn't done creating this universe when he was done and rested? He made changes to it? HE made shifts to the planes?

Wow there were no prophets to warn them, yet there was a man who found favour with God. How then could they discern good from bad, I wonder?
What about with Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, how then could they have been favorable in the sight of God?
Abraham didn't have a prophet, neither did Isaac and Jacob, the 10 commandments didn't come in to play until many centuries later. The first"prophet" would then be Moses. How then did those before him find salvation? We know that they did. But judging from your view of how the "planes" were in "that time" It means that these ones that were saved shouldn't have been saved because they went to hell and the fathers went to paradise.
So since they were in a more far off time than Lazarus and the Rich man in the parable, they should have been able to see Abraham too or Adam and not be able to cross over or be "saved" or "purified" or "purged." How then could they have been freed by Christ?

NOW that we have the opportunity the cross gives us, that chance is no longer available to us. Please read your bibles very carefully . . . Christ and the new testament apostles were very clear . . . there is no chance for a man who dies a sinner. If they new about purgatory it is shocking that not one mention of it is made in all their writings.

It is man, you ust choose to interpret it as "planes"

[b][/b]Commencing with the Burgundian Crusades of 1017, the precursors of the more notorious crusades to the east, the Christians began to make significant inroads into the Iberian peninsula. The taking of Barbastro in 1064, in which thousands of Muslims were slaughtered immediately upon a long siege having been lifted after the two sides had signed a peace treaty, set off a grim pattern for the reconquest of Andalusia by the Christians:

1017 is still after muuslims provoked the Christians.

My point still remains the muslims started it all

~Lady~:

Are you sure about that. Go and check again and make sure that this is what Hebrews9:17 says.

This is what it says in my Bible

17 For a will takes effect only at death; it has no force while the testator is alive

So just to put all conspiracy theories to silence, I checked with the protestant Bible (The King James Version)

17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

This is talking about the sacrifice of Jesus.

Sorry its Hebrews 9:27 not verse 17 . . . STILL you COMPLETELY AVOIDED the issue at play.
- Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

How does purgatory come into this? Where is man appointed once to physically die? Earth or the "nether world"?

~Lady~:

You have got to be kidding me, you're using parables in the literal sense. The Rich man was not in hell, he was in the netherworld.

And where is "netherworld" spoken of in the bible? As usual reading your own theology into the bible? Pls show us with verses in the scriptures, this will go no where without scriptural backing.

~Lady~:

Maybe we should visit the word that was used in describing "hell" here. It is sheol, the word meaning hades, hades being a place where souls stay until the end time.

A mere play on words does not solve the issue here - i prefer to go and READ that verse myself and understand what was being said there.

Luke 16: 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Lady . . . are there 2 places of torment? - Hades and Hell?
If these souls are merely staying in hades until the end time then why was the rich man in an unquenchable fire?

Its no use merely hiding behind semantics.

~Lady~:

So basically what you're saying is that people could go to paradise, but couldn't go to heaven, but could go to hell.
hmmm, that is a very interesting view of it.

It is not an interesting "view" it is scripture. The bible mentions Heaven, paradise and hell as 3 (THREE) distinct places.
It has nothing to do with what i think.

~Lady~:

The Old testament fathers went to paradise and everybody else went to hell. So then they should be there for all eternity, there's no getting out of hell then. So why did Christ descend to release people if they couldn't be released?
hmmm that is a thought.

Again you are basically reading your own sentiments and theology into the bible.
When the bible talks of Christ going to release people in hell it basically refers STRICTLY to those destroyed before and by the flood of Noah. Those people had no choice of salvation, no commandments of God to live by, no prophets to direct them in the way of righteousness . . . it is those who had the choice to accept Christ after death. I think i mentioned the relevant scripture earlier.

~Lady~:

Who's to say he didn't?

Dont twist scripture. He clearly did not.

~Lady~:

By the way purgatory is for those saved by grace.

I repeat, all these making of claims without biblical proof should be left to muuslims who dont know their left from their right. Where is purgatory in the bible?

John 14
1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Uh oh . . . so Christ dwells in purgatory?

~Lady~:

No sir the interpretation you just gave is the same that I have. I know that these were the ones before the flood and that is exactly my point. That after so many centuries these people were still saved. Now how is it that they could have been saved? If they were in hell they couldn't have been able to get out. Hell is eternal damnation and there's no turning back. According to how you're putting it. But your're also saying that "at that time" hell was on the same plane with paradise. So God wasn't done creating this universe when he was done and rested? He made changes to it? HE made shifts to the planes?

Too many things at once:
- Before the flood . . . there was no choice of salvation. Would God be partial to deal the same punishment to those people as to us who were recipients of the sacrifice on the cross? No.
- Hell is eternal damnation but to who? Those who rejected Christ. The people of the flood had no such choice because they had no idea who Christ was at all.
- Paradise and Hell were on the same plane up until Christ died and resurrected. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man is clear, i did not put it there myself.

- Genesis 6: 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

You find it unbelievable that God would make shifts to the planes after creation, isnt it even more absurd that God would be grieved for creating man who was made IN HIS OWN IMAGE?

~Lady~:

Wow there were no prophets to warn them, yet there was a man who found favour with God. How then could they discern good from bad, I wonder?
What about with Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, how then could they have been favorable in the sight of God?

There was no salvation before the flood, no opportunity to cleanse sin with the blood of bulls and goats BUT there was knowledge of good and evil and it was that "knowledge" and the conscious choice to do that which was right that made the likes of Enoch, Noah and others stand out.

~Lady~:

I will only do my best to show you where it is. The word purgatory may not be in the Bible, but the concept of it is.

It is not, that is your own unbiblical interpretation.

~Lady~:

1Corinthians 3:13-15
13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each one's work.----fire can destroy and also purify
14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, taht person will receive a wage
15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire
In this Paul talks about the works of each man. each work will be checked by fire. If the work passes the test, the person will be rewarded. If the work does not pass the test, it will be punished, but Paul goes on and offers hope for the person whose work is burned up, that the person will be saved, but only through the fire, the fire here is purgatory.

So in other words - purgatory is mini hell fire?  Has it ever occured to you to wonder why someone who will still eventually go to heaven have to pass through the fiery torment of unquenchable fire and thirst in "purgatory"? Was this Christ's promise of eternal life?

Lets go by your analogy of literal interpretation of fire here - Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

- are we going to pull people out of purgatory ourselves?

Apostle Peter does a good job of explaining the verse you are misinterpreting above - I Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

Peter wasnt talking about dead people in purgatory here but about living christians. The "fire" here refers to trials and tribulations which are meant to test the faith of the christian.

- Now Paul talks about people whose works are burned up being saved by fire - that "fire" is a clear reference to those christians who will miss the rapture but will be saved through the great tribulation.

Verse 10 of 1 Corinthians 3 tells us Paul was refering here to living people not those already dead and in purgatory - 10According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

Paul refered to himself here . . . certainly not as a preacher in purgatory.

~Lady~:

Matthew 5:26
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
In Matt 5:26 Jesus talks about a place from which you wouldn't be released until you paid everything you owe

Lady, salvation is by grace . . . why then should you not be allowed to heaven until you paid everything you owe? Of what purpose then was the sacrifice on the cross? Why did Christ say "it is finished" if you're still going to pay everything you owe?

~Lady~:

Matthew 18:34-35
And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
Jesus, talking about the unforgiving debtor, said he would be tortured until his debt was paid. Jesus then said the Father would do the same to us.

Where is this place we will be in until we have paid our last farthing? A place we must stay until our debt is completely paid. We know it can't be hell because no matter how much we pay there is no escape or pardon. It can't be heaven because Scripture tells us nothing defiled can enter heaven.

Lady - Romans 6:23 The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What are you paying for lady? When are you ever going to finish paying? What was Christ's blood for?
You talk so much theology but certainly you don't understand the basic tenets of salvation.

~Lady~:

Place yourself in the following scenarios. You are a Christian according to any Church's standards. You are walking the Christian walk daily but in a moment of weakness you make a malicious statement against someone. You want to repent and plan to do so at your evening devotions but before you can ask God's forgiveness you are killed in a car accident. Would true justice require an eternity in hell?

If God were to strictly judge us according to our works . . . NONE of us is worthy of heaven. That is why grace abounds. Do you think you merit heaven just because you gave to charity or helped a woman's flat tire?

~Lady~:

For a sin of omission are people doomed to spend eternity in hell? The examples given are sins committed by people who were Christians in every sense of the word. These people are probably guilty of only venial sins. All their lives they had tried to live for God. Don't the Scriptures teach that such people reap eternal life.

Isaiah 64:9 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Without the sacrifice on the cross and God's mercy we were already condemned even before we were born.

~Lady~:

Job 8:3-4
Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice?

Ezekiel 18: 4 . . . the soul that sinneth, it shall die

That is the justice we deserved before we were born.

~Lady~:

Wait a minute I didn't even define purgatory for you. Purgatory is is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.
As in the Catechism: All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal slavation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

this has no basis in the bible.

~Lady~:

I hope you don't have it in mind that the Church teaches that everyone goes through purgatory. That would say that Christ's death is meaningless. It only teaches that those who die through the grace of Christ but still have imperfections from sin will undergo a purification process.

in other words, Christ's blood and grace was not sufficient? If that isnt heresy then please tell me what it is.

~Lady~:

Confession to one another as in James5: 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another
Forgive me for taking my confession very seriously and not just picking a random Emeka from the streets and asking for prayers, just like I won't pick any random Emeka from the street to perform my marital rites or my funeral rites or my baptismal rites. If you feel anyone can do it then so be it for you, but for me confession is very serious.

Again you misquote brother James. He wasnt telling you to go confess to a priest to absolve you of your sins . . . Only Christ can forgive sins, that is not the duty of a priest. What James is talking about is the need for accountability partners within the body of Christ. The bible says iron sharpeneth iron and not to forsake the assembly of the saints - through our interaction with fellow brethren who can pray for us and uphold us in scripture and comfort when we fall . . . we build ourselves up in the faith.

It had NOTHING to do with the present catholic charade.

~Lady~:

I won't make the same mistake twice, so let me first define penance for you.
Penance- consecration of a Christian sinner's personal and ecclesial steps of conversion. Acts of reconciliation. Contrition, showing that you mean your repentance rather than saying I won't do it again, evidence of repentance

Romans 10: 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Where is penance in your own scripture?

You will notice i skipped a whole range of misinterpreted scripture that you posted . . . those scripture do not describe penance (an act of indirectly paying for your salvation with good deeds) which is biblical heresy. As a christian doing good deeds is BECAUSE you have the mind of Christ which strives to do good and help others NOT because u want to make an outward show of the sincerity of your repentance.

~Lady~:

Penance supports repentance just like works supports faith. Basically show evidence of it.

the evidence of your repentance is the Holy Spirit inside of you not your "good" works.

~Lady~:

No I am not. In one instance you mention the crusades as something good but later on you go on to say that the Church's motive for the crusades was to protect herself.

NEVER did i make that statement. The crusades were ORIGINALLY to liberate Jerusalem from the muuslims. End of story, for the upteenth time stop forcing words i never said into my posts.

~Lady~:

You mention the crusades in its original form, the crusades ended in 1291, the protestants didn't "protest" until the 15th century and then Luther bringing out to the open. The Church protected the Bible as you know it today, the doctrines that you have adopted (Trinity) and your Church history.

Including the scrolls at the cave of qumran?

~Lady~:

I need not plant anything, it is very evident what you say and how you contradict yourself.

auntie, i don't contradict myself . . . your posts on the other hand are littered with contradictions and extra-biblical nonsense.

~Lady~:

Yes I do know something that you do not. Jesus the New Covenant, Mary his dwelling, hence Mary the Ark of the covenant. Or do we say that she didn't give birth to him and that he did not dwell in her?
God found her worthy to dwell in her, just as he dwelt in the Wood that made up the ark.

and this is supported by which scripture?

Madam stop cooking up tales . . . the REAL ark of the covenant dwelt in the temple UNTIL Christ's death on the cross when the veil of the temple was torn open and Christ began to dwell in temples made without hands. Which is us through the Holy Ghost.

~Lady~:

You can better understand the Catholic relationship to Mary if you look at the Israelite's relationship to the Ark of the Covenant. The Israelites did not worship the Ark but they treated it with incredible reverence.

What unbiblical twaddle. Tell us please, why did the ancient apostles not carry Mary's coffin around like the old Isrealites did?

~Lady~:

They knew that God used it powerfully and they brought it into battle (Jos. 6:3-4). The Lord punished those who did not have utmost respect for it (1 Chr. 13:10-11) and blessed those who took it into their care (1 Chr. 13:14). We don't think that it is a coincidence that the new Ark of the Covenant, Mary, is introduced into the heavenly battle against Satan in the book of Revelation. It is not because of any power that she gets on her own, but by the power she is given by Jesus her Son.

Revelations 11:19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of the covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, and earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.
Revelations 12:1 A great sing appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars
2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth
3 Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, an don its head were seven didems
4 Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down o the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.
5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne
6 The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care o for twelve hundred and sixty days.

Well let's visit this here. Who was destined to rule all the earth ? oh yes that's right, the messiah. Who's the messiah? Jesus Christ. Who's Christ's mother? Mary.

Oh dear dear. 
When did all these happen to Mary?

Lady, that woman there is the church. Her first born child are those who made the rapture . . . the remnant of her seed are those who will pass through the tribulation for 1260 days - 3.5 years of the 7 yr tribulation.

~Lady~:

The Ark of the Covenant disappears in Jer 3:16. The Ark of the Covenant resurfaces in Revelation 11:19 as the woman who bore the King of the Israelites who is the mother of all those who follow the lamb. The devil makes war on all her children who have the testimony of Jesus (Rev 12:17) God was quite clear about who the woman was in the passage. It was Mary.

Jeremiah 3 was talking about a prophetic event not the physical losing of the ark. The ark was still in the temple while Christ was alive. If there were no ark in the temple there would have been no priests to make the yrly sacrifice that was evidently still going on during Christ's ministry.

~Lady~:

Well let's also visit something else. Jesus is the new Adam(man) and Mary is the new Eve(woman) you can't have a new Adam without a new Eve.

and Jesus and Mary were married? Oluwa o! When people want to get lost you can't help them.

~Lady~:

It took a woman to bring sin into the world, and a woman to bring salvation to it.

How did Mary bring salvation to the world? 

~Lady~:

She does have an impotant role as "queen"

Lord have mercy. Abi e ri nkan bayi?

Infact Chineke . . . my mouth is dry in unbelief!

Open the bible and just point out ONE verse were the early apostles who knew Mary venerated her as the mother of the church and the harbinger of salvation.

All these tale-spinning is absurd.

Hmmm . . . What was it that Jesus said about a house divided against itself?



I wonder if the conquests that built islmaic empires and christian empires were an integral part of the faith or if they were brought about by politicians who just happened to be Moslem.s and Christians. When Charlemagne carved an empire out for himself was he following a christian agenda or was he just doing what other empire builders do. The same with moslem.ss.