₦airaland Forum

StillDtruth:
Exactly.

That definitely is the Angel, the, Warden, I think Chief Warden of the prison of the bottomless pit, who of course is super stronger than Satan moving here.

He definitely sounds stronger than Michael.

And yet, even him is no where near Jesus Christ.

Clearly, Jws are Lying

Gbam!

StillDtruth:
Here is another proof why Jws are Lying.

The Bible shows us that Angel Michael struggles a little bit when fighting with Satan and does not easily overcome him.

But when Satan came against Jesus, you can see he only used talk.

And when Jesus was done with him, He drove him away like a parent drives a little child.

And we can all see, Satan left, even without protest or fight.

So, Jws are Lying.

That's even in Christ's manly body o.

Have the JWs seen the scriptures below or they're feigning blindness?

"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years" (Revelation 20:1-2).


Do JWs think that this angel in this scripture who caught Satan like a fowl is mightier than Jesus? Angel Michael couldn't catch Satan this way.

JWs are liars!

Ohyoudidnt:
https://youtube.com/shorts/T_ihqlYWEhk?si=p0CkdYycYI-mald0

Are you sure the Americans are still the best to deliver Justice?

How can the Americans deliver Justin? Are they God. They can only support the Truth.

You refuse to turn in your assignment, how will you graduate when it's not certain you will make it to the next class.

How does that change the fact that Mohammed was a terrorist and all Muslims support terrorism?

Gabrielshow24:
In the generic usage of the word, Jesus is an "angel" but as an identity "he is not".

But Janosky thinks he's wise and plays dishonestly, refusing to set a boundary and even when I finally got him to settle for "divine messenger"; he's yet to answer whether indeed Jesus as an identity, was a seraph, cherub or other 'ims that might exist in the kingdom which we aren't aware of.

Hence the word angel is actually quite vague.
And even Satan fits right in.

Don't bother with him, he is creating confusion to himself and infact commits fallacy of false equivocation!!!
[sub][/sub]

Exactly bro.

He has seen the truth but has refused to admit it.

Yes, in a sense, Jesus is an angel, but He is not specifically an angel in His make as you said. He is not angel Michael. Everyone God sends on an errand is an angel in a sense. That doesn't make them specifically angels.

Angel Michael is actually a warrior angel. God sends him to fight only. Never has angel Michael been sent just to go deliver a message. He was never made for that. The angel that usually delivery messages is Gabriel. But JWs are so ignorant. It's actually not a Janosky thing. It's a serious problem emanating from the group he frolics with.

Janosky:
Empty rants upandan because you know nothing!
What is the meaning of aggelos in your Bible?
John 10:34-36, Did Jesus Christ teach you himself is the son of God?
@ Revelation 1:1 & John 7:16, whose message did Jesus deliver to John?
Please allow your brain to function nau.

Where are the rants? Or is that a new word you just learnt?

I have already defined angels to you to mean messengers. Repeating what I have said to me again makes you very childish. You are yet to prove how someone would become an angel just because He was sent of God on a mission. There are many humans whom God has sent on assignments, are they angels too? This your logic is very faulty.

God sends His Word on assignments, therefore God's Word is an angel according to Jabisky Lol.

Everything we claim about Jesus are the things the Bible directly said about Him. The Bible said He is the Song of God. He is the Wird of God, and that this Word of God is God. Where did the Bible say that Jesus is an angel? You're the one who should get sense and infact, you must get it by force.

[

b]God sent his apostle,angel /messenger, prophet, Jesus Christ to do it.[/b]

We believe in all that, except that Jesus was never called an angel in the Bible. You should address the scriptures I gave you directly and do not start quoting other scriptures that you don't understand.

JESUS IS THE ONE COMING WITH CLOUDS. Yes or No? The One coming with clouds called Himself the Almighty. Yes or No? Simple!

You'll see while and call it black just because of doctrines stemming from a cult.

Confused Trinitarian, angels are sons of God meaning they are also children of God.

We all are children of God but before we became children of God,JESUS WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. No angel is a begotten son of God. Own your ears wide and listen.

Imperfect sinful Gotham with spiritual gen , this is the height of your self deceit.

Ignorant Jabisky, I am what the Scriptures say I am.

Galatians 3:27

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

1 John 3:9!

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for HIS SEED remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

2 Peter 1:4!

"Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might BE PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."

Should I give you more scriptures? Only God knows what they teach you in that cult of yours. You guys are too ignorant. You do not even know about the transformative work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer.

Did you see ghost in your Matthew1:18 screenshot?
Ghost has no place in the Bible not in your own screenshot evidence.

Oga receive sense..

I have told you the words are used interchangeably. Didn't you go to school?

Who told you that a ghost is a demon? Lol. Are you an illiterate so that I can actually come to your level during discussions.

'Ghost' was simply a spirit in old English but as English evolved, it has taken on some other meanings. So, contemporary English Bibles don't have the word Holy Ghost

Janosky:
Oga, I must not spoon-feed you, pls go and study your Bible.

It's not a matter of spoon-feeding. It's a matter of puncturing your lies or your deliberate lack of knowledge. The world Angel means messenger but it does not mean messenger/son. Angels are called sons of God.jesus is not just a Son of God but the only Begotten Son of God. Check your Bible. Not your fake JW Bible. Wherever Jesus is mentioned as Son of man or Son of God, it's always in capital S. Jesus is the only Begotten Son of God. Not just a son.

Now, tell us where Jesus ever called Himself an Angel or a messenger. He cal

Oga,your Trinitarian mentors say Jesus is second of their triune deities & you moved him to Almighty.
Jesus told you Revelation chapter 1 was given to Jesus, yet you no believe your Bible..

You don't get it. He is everything. He is God. He is also Jesus. He's also the Almighty. God is able to make Himself anything to fulfil whatever purpose He has ini mind. Only God can save man from his sins. No angel can do it. Hence, God had to do it by Himself.

Let me also ask you this:

Who is the Resurrection and the Life? The very source of Life and the giver thereof. An angel? No! That can only be God. But this is what Jesus claimed to be.

Who is the Bread of Life? An angel? No! God forbid! The Bread of Life can only be God.

Who is the Creator? God of course. Both the Adamic creation and the New Creation were created by Him. We are a new creation in Christ Jesus. Bought by His precious blood. We are the generation of Christ. The spiritual gen is in our spiritual bodies. We do not have the gens of angels otherwise we cannot be the children of God.

Ghost nah demon. Ghost is NOT holy.

Ghost is not in any Greek manuscript.[/b]

If you have problems with the Holy Ghost, do you have with the Holy Spirit too? Both terms are used interchangeably for the same Person. The word 'pneumatos' is translated Spirit and Ghost. See Mathew 1:18 in Greek attached below, where we were told that Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

Janosky:
Oga, is John 3:16 & John 5:37,43 & Psalms 103:20 in your Bible?
This is the reason I said you don't know your Bible but pride won't let you calm down and learn something worthwhile.
Psalms 103:20, did you learn that Yahweh sends angels to perform Yahweh's command?
Yes?
John 5:37,43, did Yahweh come to the earth?
No.
Did Jesus come in the name of Yahweh?
Revelation 1:7-8, Yahweh's son obeys his Father Yahweh by coming in the name of Yahweh.
Oga, learn something.



If you put your brain to function, you would understand that Jesus spoke the message (revelation) that God his Father gave Jesus.

Jesus is a servant/angel delivering God's message (@Psalm103:20 & Revelation 1:1- to other servants.

Oga, open your eyes & see the hierarchy in Revelation 1:1-8 & Psalms 103:20.
God the Father OWNS the message, Jesus is his servant, working with other servants.
John 9:4 read it until you understand.

It's a simple question. I've already shown you on this thread that God and Jesus are One.

Who is coming? We have read that the One who is to come, that same One who WAS is the Almighty. Can you dispute that?

Nowj, stop answering questions you were never asked. Who is the One to come ? Who is the One who WAS? God the Father is not the One to come. He is not the One who WAS. If you disagree, give your reasons. It's just as simple as that. Bad mouth cannot suppress the Truth.

If God the Father is the One talking and He is the One who claims that He WAS and He's coming with clouds, then you already have your truth. God the Father is the same as Jesus because we know that Jesus is the One coming with clouds. Dispute this if you can.

Whether you claim that God the Father was the One speaking or that Jesus was the One speaking, you cannot prove that God the Father is not the same as the Son because God the Father is not coming with clouds. Jesus is the One to come with clouds and He's the Almighty. He's the One who was.

Answer the question directly. Stop going to take scriptures that you don't even understand. No one interprets Scriptures by saying angels are mess anders, and because Jesus said He was sent, then, He is an angel. Hilarious. Did Jesus ever call Himself a messenger?

Janosky:

Oga,pity your delusion.

Angel meaning
"Messenger/son of God" in your Bible.

Is John 3:16 in your Bible?


Abeg you stop deceiving yourself.
You no know anything!

Bring your dictionary that says Angel means messenger/son of God

If angels means messenger/son of God, does that mean God cannot have other messages or son apart from angels?

Jesus Christ declared Himself the One to come and the Almighty. Keep deluding yourself. He is the brightness of God's glory and the express image of this person. It seems there's a veil cast on your eyes. Only the Holy Ghost can remove it.

Atheists are the most foolish beings in the whole world!

Janosky:
Read the screenshot evidence and see how your Trinity worshipping devotees twisted the holy scriptures of Revelation 1:1

Correct rendition:
"The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him....."
You deceptively failed to highlight this portion.

God Yahweh owns the Revelation given to Jesus his Son.


LYING miscreants deceiving gullible folks.

Even in your screenshot, it is called
THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST.

Your screenshot didn't show anything different from what I've been quoting dear.

Your deception is very clear. You deliberately left all the scriptures pointed out to post something else.

How does that change the fact that Jesus is the One who WAS and is to come?

Janosky:


Read Revelation 1:1 until it sinks into your brain.

If you give Janosky letter addressed to your employees.
When janosky reads Paragraph 8 to your employees:
" He is coming, says ....'the LORD God, the Almighty."

Will your employees agree that janosky is the LORD God Almighty?
Revelation 1:5-8 refers to the God Almighty who gave Jesus the message of Revelation.

Please,Abeg dey use your brain nau.

So, according to you, God the Father is the One coming? He is the One coming with clouds? Is this the nonsense in your brain you're asking me to allow sink into mine? God the Father is the coming who is coming? Even when the book of Revelation ends with the words "...even so come, Lord Jesus."

So, God the Father was the One who WAS? Tell me exactly at what time God the Father ceased to exist for Him to have become the One who WAS. I pity your soul.

I pity you most because in spite of your nasty errors, you still have a very bad mouth. You obviously don't know God

"The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John",

Can you see the fault in your analogy? God gave Jesus the Revelation, Jesus sent an angel to deliver it to John.

Take a closer look dear. Take away your JW biases and look at this scripture with pure eyes:
Here is the passage:

Revelation 1:7-8
7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen.

Then, the One who is coming spoke:

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

God the Father is. God the Father never was. It was Jesus who WAS when He died on Calvary. He even said "a little while you shall see me no more."

Jesus is the One coming with clouds. He was the One who ascended with the clouds and will return in like manner according to Acts 1.

Janosky:
You are not my enemy, Agreed!
But you don't want to listen to the holy scriptures.

Whatever you read in Revelation chapter 1 was given to Jesus Christ.

Jesus is NOT the Author of the messages revealed.
Read Matthew 12:15-20 where Jesus copied Isaiah's prophecy.


Let this fact sink into your heart & get you freed from Trinity delusion.

I pity you dear.

Jesus directly said that He is coming soon and that He's the Almighty. You ignore that?

And no, Jesus was the one who give John the messages of Revelation direction. He even appeared among burning candlesticks, and John described His appearance.

I pity you o. God gave Himself to us but you're saying God gave us angels when the scriptures never said so. If Jesus was an angel, it will be very clear from scriptures. Jesus is the express image of the Father according to Hebrews 1:3. Go and think about that

So, an angel is your begging and the ending. And angel is the one who is, who was and who is to come, the Almighty?

Or you're saying God is the One who is, who was and who is to come? Tell us how this fits into the description of God

sonmvayina:
See my explanation up there...maybe you will learn a thing or two. Marduk is same as the Jewish God. He is the same creator of the universe. Just with a different name

Which tribe called God Marduk?

If he's the universe, he's not God.

Janosky, take a look at these direct words of Jesus. May God open your eyes!

Revelation 22:12-13

“Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. [b]I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Revelation 1:7-8
“Look, He is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see Him, even those who pierced him”; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, THE ALMIGHTY .”

Can you see? Jesus calls Himself The Almighty. It will shock you on that day!


Compare the passages above with these below where God Himself was speaking.

Isaiah 40:10
See, the Sovereign Lord comes with power, and he rules with a mighty arm. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him.

Jabisky, His recompense accompany Him as He comes with the clouds as the Son of man.

Isaiah 44:6
This is what the Lord says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, [b]the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Compare the above to the Words of Jesus in the verses of Revelation I shared prior.

May your eyes be opened in Jesus name. Your deceivers shall be mightily judged and brought to justice.

Isaiah 41:4
Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? [b]I, the Lord—with the first of them and with the last—I am He.

Just relax yourself, take a deep breath and read without bias and without loyalty to any organization. Read for truth and not for criticism. No one is fighting you. We're just enlightening one another in the scriptures. I'm not your enemy.

Janosky:
"God opened your eyes", pls Answer the questions:

* God the Father came out of whom?

Are you an atheist? He is the Beginning of all things. Himself has no beginning and has no end. He reproduced Himself to give us Jesus His Son.

* Which spirit sent by God did not come from God the Father?

It is different thing to come from, and a different thing to come from within.

Confused Trinitarian deceiving himself and exposing his folly.

If I have not shown you straight from the scriptures, you would have been correct. If you're the one contradicting the scriptures, you're the one deceiving yourself.

It is not even a mistake that Jesus called Himself the Almighty in the Book of revelation. You guys would be shocked on that day for allowing some men to deceive you.

May your eyes opened.

Ohyoudidnt:
Yada Yada Yada, broken records with no new songs

John Bull, is this the song you sing in your terrorist camps?

Ohyoudidnt:
Usual garrulos giberish without addressing the topic directly .
The skewed position where a Christian western world society solely depict violence as terrorism to whoever they define as Muslims but play with nomenclature when it relates to those of the Christian faith.

The usual rants of a defeated opponent. Tell me how many Christian organizations have gone on a beheading spree without a cause attached to it! Why are you so empty of knowledge even when you were advices to consult a dictionary? Killing and and commiting gruesome crimes against people who have no previous grudge or issues with you. I mean people loving peacefully and seeing you as a friend until you came for their heads, that's what make you a terrorist. If you have previous scores to settle as in the case of the crusaders, it's a different thing. You as a person know what the truth is but you're a bloody liar who would never stand on the path of truth.

I

slam clearly upholds the sanctity of every being but you all channel the narrative contrary to the absolute truth and ignore anyone from Christendom that does same.

Which Islam? Lol. Is it Mohammed or Boko Haram or ISIS or who are the very Islam that value human lives? The joke is on you.

You say the crusaders committed genocide but are too emmbarased and insincere to call them terrorists. Is this trying to hide the truth in shame?

Hey, John Bull, am I the one that will call them terrorists of their actions as defined by the dictionary. John Bull, it is your actions as defined by the dictionary that make you a terrorist. I am not the one who designated you a terrorist. A genocide is a genocide and terrorism is terrorism.

On Israel and Gaza, you definitely know it is not Islam vs Christianity or Judaism though it may have had some of that commotion. How old Israel got to where was formerly known as Israel you know and developments till date. Is it the non original native Americans thar usurped the land of the native aborigines that are morally and legally qualified to back Israel up on the lands in contention?

You should as the same question to the Arabs and all Muslims worldwide who back the Palestinians up on the land in question. The land is Israel's ancient land. That's where Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Elijah, Elisha's and all the ancestors of Israel lived and were buried.

How much in dollas was used to expand the armour in very recent times. Alas the trurh is always there but sentiments try to claim otherwise.

Throw whoever is on board your ship off as I and you are too different to even consider sharing a ship.

Illiterate that feels educated yet knows nothing. Keep making noise, I guess it pleases you. I however implore you to get your TS treated.

Lol. John Bull, you make me laugh. You know, you didn't even read what you typed, so, how can you understand? You're even making a position that Americans uprooted the aboriginals of their place, hence, America should allow Israel to be uprooted by the Palestinians and not back them up. Hahaha. You're very entertaining.

John Bull, you can't condemn Boko Haram and ISIS like I did the crusaders. Go and sit down, you bloody terrorist!

Janosky:
Very relevant question exposing your delusion.
Confused Trinitarian, from whom did God the Father come out ?
Answer this question & risks exposure of your false doctrine, because God the Father has no origin.
Therefore, God the Father is the origin of Jesus existence, John 5:26 without the Father, Jesus has no life.



Confused Trinitarian,is there any Greek word "within" @ John chapter 16 you quoted?
Let me ask you this question again:
God the Father came out of whom?

All angels came from God the Father.
You don't want to allow your brain to function.

May God open your eyes. You ignore the Word to cling to doctrines of men. Congratulations to you.

Ohyoudidnt:
I forget what you call off topic is too far above your reasoning and academic training.

The crusaders committed genocide but are not terrorists?


Point clearly to the lie don't just make your common nonsensical statement maybe it can be clearly rephrased to suit your level of comprehension.

You don't even have shame.

You still.have mouth to talk nonesense when your brothers in Islam are currently beheading someone somewhere as we speak!

I know you CAN NEVER CONDEMN THEIR ACTIONS because deep down in your heart, they're doing the service of your demon.god.

John Bull go take a dictionary and learn how to differentiate genocide in war from terrorism! I have condensed the genocides of the crusades nonetheless. Dem no born you well make you condemn Al-qaeda , Boko Haram or ISIS!

Do you want to change topic? I'm open okay? Just truthfully confess that you'll like to move on to another topic, and I'll oblige you. Don't write on a topic we're not discussing and middle it up with some paragraphs relating to what we're discussing making you look incoherent and disorderly. How can you ebb understand ordered conversation when your holy book is so disjointed that no narration runs smoothly together with other narrations within the sane contexts?

I am so well informed on the Gaza-Palestinian conflict that I'll throw you off board if we start looking into the matter historically and concurrently.

Ohyoudidnt:
A very clear example of this though there is no justification for the needless amount and time of violence that has led to numerous loss of lives and wanton destruction is the forming resolution of the Israeli-Garza conflict.

I see a resolve to resettle Gaza in another place and America which is largely pro Israel taking over Gaza region and renaming it Rivera.

Truth be told who originally owns the land? No point getting into it after all who really owns any land.

Off topic!

You talk of characteristics of war without regard to causes? Is this a cheap input or your usual non thought out irritational outburst of ignorance. Is it impossible to resolve land claims without war? Is there any justification for innocent civilians suffering for the egocentric desire of few to control land and wealth?[/quote]On what premise are you asking these questions? Have you asked your murderous brothers these questions already?

I have previously confirmed the actions of the crusaders calling them anti-christian. Have you ever condemned the actions of your murderous religious terrorists? What moral grounds do you have to be asking these questions,?

Your questions are off point. If we're discussing genocide, then your questions are valid. Moreover, I have previously said the crusaders were genocidal in their war campaigns. They detailed totally from the Christian faith. However, their acts do not construct terrorism. Genocide in war is not the same a terrorism. They had a valid reason for the wars humanly speaking but they committed genocide in the process. That's not terrorism okay? That's why I asked you John Bull to go to school.

Move on and away with your poor ability to appreciate plain truth

You've been lying all along. Where the truth? I shouldn't be surprised anyway,, since even your religion calls lies truth and truth, lies. I'll advice you to get a dictionary and lookup the word 'Terrorism'. Your Islamic organizations are terrorist organizations. No doubt. Only God knows how many people Islam has beheaded for the demonic Allah again today worldwide.

May your eyes be opened. A god that cannot judge sinners by himself but needs men to help him behead them is no God.

Ohyoudidnt:
John Bull take your mid term assignment and submit as soon as you resume from break.



Get into the activities of the First Crusade and see that it easily became Acts of Terrorism.

The First Crusade (1096–1099), initiated by Pope Urban II, was presented as a holy mission to reclaim Jerusalem from Muslim rule. However, its brutal tactics align with modern definitions of terrorism, which involve the use of violence to instill fear and achieve ideological or political goals.

John Bull, you better go to school and stop disturbing the world with your illiteracy!

If they went to reclaim lost lands, then they'll go to war. What you've described up there are all characteristics of war.

Your murderous religion go to behead, maim and do all manner of gruesome atrocities to people who owe them nothing. People who have neither harmed nor attacked them. Your head is filled with satanic verses only, how can you see correctly?

The Crusaders waged war and carried out mass killings that deliberately targeted civilians.

Civilians suffer in wars especially in ancient times. Everywhere wars are waged, civilians also suffer. There's no single ear in ancient times where there was no civilian casualty.

Particularly during the siege of Jerusalem in 1099, the Crusaders slaughtered thousands of Muslim and Jewish inhabitants wading through streets ankle-deep in blood.

Expatiate in not less than 800 words how the indiscriminate violence was not merely a military strategy but a terror campaign designed to instill fear and submission.

You are free to credibly write in disagreement to this.

Good luck.

Even the Romans warred against Jerusalem in same manner in AD 37, the streets flowed with blood. That's called a genocide.

The people who never offended Boko Haram, ISIS, AL-QAEDA, ISWAP, etc whom they behead daily for Allah, what are they called? Terrorists! They 21 christians in the OP were killed in like manner to do the will.pf your blood sucking Allah demon. Deborah was killed under same circumstances just because she told them to stop spamming the class Whatsapp group with quranic verses. Are you not ashamed of yourself and of your god?

Ohyoudidnt:
The primary objective of the Crusades, especially the First Crusade (1096–1099), was to reclaim Jerusalem and other sacred Christian sites from Muslim control.

How is this an act of terrorism?

Pope Urban II, who initiated the First Crusade in 1095, framed it as both a religious obligation and a way to support the Byzantine Empire against Turkish advances.

How is this an act of terrorism?

Rather than creating unity, they exacerbated the divide between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, intensified political rivalries, and led to a long-lasting disillusionment with papal authority.

How is this an act of terrorism ?

The assertion that Allah offers virgins (Hoor al-‘Ayn) as a reward for immoral actions or martyrdom in a manner that promotes violence misrepresents Islamic teachings.

Lies!

The Quran outlines the rewards in Jannah (Paradise) for the righteous, which include Hoor al-‘Ayn (pure companions), beautiful gardens, flowing rivers, and everlasting joy. These rewards are intended for those who genuinely follow Allah, perform good deeds, and seek righteousness—not for individuals who engage in wrongdoing.
And they will have [in Paradise] purified spouses, and they will abide therein eternally." (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:25)

Killing for Allah is Righteousness according to Allah. This is the motivation for your terrorist brothers worldwide. The same reason why Deborah was killed and the killers are applauded by all Muslims. The same reason why Pantami said Bin Laden was a better Muslim than himself.

Groups that misinterpret Islamic texts to rationalize violent actions often take Quranic verses out of context. Islam firmly prohibits suicide and the harm of innocent individuals.

Lies! Mohammed himself was a killer till.his death. He even ordered a woman to be tied to two camels and torn apart alive. Such a wicked soul! All because the woman didn't accept his prophethood.

Take your lying mouth away from here!

Ohyoudidnt:
You are unable to keep up. I mentioned Anti-balaka as terrorist. Tell the actions of the crusaders and show how they were unlike actions of terrorism?

Was it truly for religion or greed and desire for position.

You are unable to answer my questions!

Your organizations are terrorist organizations. Agreed?

The crusaders fought to reclaim lost lands and unify Christendom. While they also have a motive for wealth, none of these actions are terror inclined. The flight anti-christian marauders and applied force on fellow Christians whom they consider to be dissidents. They never went out to subjugate people of other faiths or behead head for not accepting Jesus while shouting Hossanah.

While their actions are anti-christian in all ramifications and are a gross departure from the tenets of the Christian faith, your terrorist organizations are the true face of Islam. They're following the paths that their murderous prophet left for them. Their actions are never confirmed by Muslims. The killers of Deborah never even got prosecuted for their bloodshed. They're walking free and being praised in Muslim circles. Boho haram, ISWAP, ISIS, Al-qaeda, etc are all heroes of Islam. Muslims all over the world are happy at what they do because they're acting according to the instructions of Allah. Allah even promised virgins for such despicable acts. Is the difference not clear?

The crusaders clearly ran contrary to the Christian faith even though they did not go about terrorizing people as Islamists do. The Islamic terrorist organizations on the hand are acting true to their religion. Infact, they all consider themselves better Muslims than those who don't kill.

Ohyoudidnt:
Re read your submission.

Crusaders were the Christian warriors who participated in the Crusades


The First Crusade (1096–1099) was driven by a variety of motivations that went beyond its religious pretext. It was officially launched at the request of Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos to defend against the Seljuk Turks, but it also aligned with Pope Urban II's goals of strengthening papal authority and mending the divide between Eastern and Western Christianity. Many participants were also inspired by the promise of heavenly salvation and the chance to have their sins forgiven. Economic interests were significant as well, with younger nobles eager for land and wealth, while Italian merchant states sought new trade routes. This intricate mix of political, economic, and religious factors influenced the direction of the Crusade.

Primcipally the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081–1118) sought to defend against the Seljuk Turks, who had taken control of much of Anatolia, the empire's core region, following their victory at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. This defeat significantly undermined Byzantine authority over its eastern lands, resulting in economic downturn, military instability, and increased threats to Constantinople itself.

Defense after being conquered or ego driven desire for control and greed for wealth.


JOHN BULL please go back to school.

How does an attempt to retake conquered land amount terrorism? Can you now see that you're the John Bull?

Which conquered land are you terrorists retaking? What aggression are you defending against? If that's what you're doing, no one would call you terrorists. You'll be militants at best.

But, you guys wake up in the morning to think of who to kill for your blood sucking god.

Ohyoudidnt:
Birds of a feather. Ottoman jihadists is terribly off point as the Ottoman empire didn't exist at the time Alexios initiated the crusades. Is this too advanced for you to comprehend?

We were talking about the crusaders, you brought in Alexios. It seems you didn't even know the difference between the two. Are you an illiterate?

The term "Crusaders" actually refers to the Western Christian armies that responded to Pope Urban II's call to arms in 1095, with the goal of liberating the Holy Land from Muslim rule.

The Crusaders were primarily composed of:

1. French nobles and knights_: Led by figures like Godfrey of Bouillon, Raymond of Toulouse, and Bohemond of Taranto.
2. German and Italian contingents_: Including forces led by Emperor Henry IV's brother, Conrad, and the Doge of Venice, Vitale Michiel.
3. Other Western European forces_: From regions like England, Flanders, and Normandy.

Alexios I Komnenos, the Byzantine Emperor, did not lead the Crusader army. Instead, he requested military assistance from the West, which ultimately led to the launch of the First Crusade. He himself was not one of the crusaders. The Byzantine army did provide some support to the Crusaders, particularly during the Siege of Antioch by murderous Muslims in 1097-1098.

So, while Alexios played a significant role in initiating the Crusades which were based primarily on self defense and Christian unification, the Crusaders themselves were primarily Western Christian forces defending against Islamic bloodshed.

AntilsIam:
He want to glorify taqqiya not knowing that it will backfire on him

It's their way.

Ohyoudidnt:
You see why I am right that you are uncivil and uncultured and very likely too narrowly educated.

I asked you a simple question regarding Matthew 24 which you deliberately ignore. How did your Jesus ask you to defend yourself?

Your brittanica article discussed numerous reasons for the dispute and you know religion is the least. You cannot comprehend the political cause? Ego and ethnic supremacy?

Whar makes Brittanica more credible than Amnesty international? I see you are still under you British colonial masters; NIGGER literally.



Your church doesn't do it as they are a church in isolation of all others? What about the churches that do? Pathetically irrational submission.

Did you not lie that the crusades were in response to the Ottoman jihadists please when Alexis lied to start the crusades with the pope urban exploiting further? Were Eastern Christians not also killed in these crusades by the crusade army. Be better informed or shut up without exposing your ignorance.

He said the crusades were a response to the Muslim jihadists. He had other motives but the defence against murderous Muslims was still part of the motives.

Was it only the crusades you listed in your false and deceitful claims? You listed other organizations too which I said were created to defend against you murderers. You couldn't counter that, could you?

I read you asking Antiislam about Mathew 24 as a way of countering his stand that the the organizations were founded in response to you murderous lots. Did I read you asking him whether that was how Jesus taught us to respond? Is terrorism determined by how Jesus taught us to respond or by the actual act of terrorism itself? You're terrorists, not because of how mohammed taught you to spread Islam but because of the very act of terrorism you murderers practice. Mohammed was a terrorist, not just because of what he taught but because of what he did.

Ohyoudidnt:
Same garbage of nonsense. Who are you feeding with your legend of lies?

Alexios was primarily focused on regaining lost imperial territories.
The notion that Emperor Alexios I Komnenos sought Western assistance mainly to protect Christians from the Seljuk Turks is a distorted view.

Although Alexios did request military support from the West, his motivations were rooted more in strategic interests than in concerns over religious persecution.

Context of Alexios' Appeal for Aid

By the late 11th century, the Byzantine Empire found itself in a vulnerable state for
1. Loss of Anatolia
Following the Battle of Manzikert (1071), significant portions of Asia Minor were lost to the Seljuk Turks, greatly diminishing Byzantine authority in its core regions.

2. Internal Struggles

The empire was grappling with civil wars, economic decline, and threats from Norman and Pecheneg invaders.

3. Seljuk Expansion

The newly established Sultanate of Rum represented a direct danger to Constantinople and Byzantine territories.

Sometime in 1095, Alexios dispatched envoys to Pope Urban II during the **Council of Piacenza, asking for mercenary reinforcements to reclaim lost Byzantine lands.
- He was in search of professional soldiers not a large-scale religious crusade.

Pope Urban II’s Response motivated by his own objectives (such as bolstering papal authority, reuniting the Eastern and Western Churches, and redirecting the aggression of European knights into a religious conflict), reframed Alexios’ request into a call for a Holy War, which ultimately led to the First Crusade (1096–1099).

Misinterpretation of Religious Oppression
- Some chroniclers from the Crusade era in the West (like Guibert of Nogent and Robert the Monk) portrayed Alexios' appeal as a desperate plea to rescue oppressed Eastern Christians from Muslim domination.
The reality was more complex:

- Byzantium had coexisted with Muslims for centuries, frequently forming alliances with Muslim leaders.
- While certain Christian communities did experience taxation and restrictions, widespread oppression was not the primary concern.
- Alexios was primarily focused on regaining lost imperial territories.

Ma, did you go to school or only the Quran is what you have inside your head?

How does this your post invalidate what i.said? Alexios founded an organization to reclaim lost lands on the pretext that he was defending christians against murderous Muslims. How is it a act of terrorism to reclaim your land or defend against murderers? Which of your murderous terrorist organizations is in the act for such purposes?

They're avowed to kill, maim, imprison, rape, subjugate innocent people who.havr done them no harm. All in a bid to forcefully make them Muslims according to the teachings of your false prophet who now resides in hell as a just punishment for his lies and deceptions.

AntilsIam:
You will just copy link without going through the context..

The Anti-balaka is an alliance of militia groups based in the Central African Republic in the early 21st century said by the Guardian to be composed primarily of Christians, but also some Muslims.

Your fellow slaves are among them so why giving yourself unnecessary headache



FROM THE HISTORY

Some commentators have said that village militias formed in the 1990s to protect against highwaymen were a precursor to the Antibalaka. Unable to provide security throughout the remote areas of the country, President François Bozizé organized, self-protection groups in 2009 to combat crime on the village level; these took the name Antibalaka.

In March 2013, President Bozizé (a Christian) was overthrown by a coup during the Central African Republic Civil War by a mostly Muslim rebel coalition known as Séléka. The leader of the Séléka, Michel Djotodia, became the first Muslim president of the country. With the disbanding of the army by Djotodia, many army members joined the militia, boosting their numbers and helping train them.

Djotodia announced the dissolution of the Séléka in September 2013, but most of the militias refused to disband. The Séléka and the anti-balaka engaged in a cycle of increasing violence.


IN CASE OF NEXT TIME WHEN TALKING ABOUT ANTI-BALAKA, DON'T FORGET TO MENTION YOUR SÉLÉKA. ANTI BALAKA was founded because of SELEKA

While members of Anti-balaka were both Christians and Muslims, members of seleka were ALL MUSLIMS





Muhammad was the first False prophet and an antichrist

The question still stand, go straight to the point I don't want super story


You said I am uncivil bla bla bla because I called you Muslims Idolaters?

The question is, why did your religion copied the ways of hindu paganism if truly you are NOT idolatrous in Islam?




Exodus 20:4–6
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Anyone doing this is an Idolater

I like the way you're answering the guy ohyoudidnt.

He is a typical Muslim, he'll never speak the truth. All those organizations he listed were organizations formed to defend themselves against Islamic terrorist organizations and other attackers. Just like the crusaders who came together to defend themselves against the marauding Ottoman jihadists.

You'll even notice from the names of most of the organizations that they're not offensively organizations that go.out looking for who to kill like the murderous Muslim organizations do.

Janosky:

Confused Trinitarian, from whom did God the Father come out ?

Gotham, from whom did you come out?
Gotham from whom did Jesus come out?

Gotham came out from his parents.
Jesus came out from his Father.

God his Father has no origin.
Gotham, please allow your brain to function nau.
Trinity delusion hold you down real bad.

Irrelevant questions.

Jesus said He came out from within (exelthron tou patros) the Father, and not from among the angels. Just prove that these Greek words don't mean what I said they mean. I have a lot for you, you can go through the thread or better still, engage me.

Janosky:

32. aggelos ►
Strong's Lexicon
aggelos: Angel, messenger
Original Word: ἄγγελος
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: aggelos
Pronunciation: ANG-gel-os
Phonetic Spelling: (ang'-el-os)
Definition: Angel, messenger
Meaning: a messenger, generally a (supernatural) messenger from God, an angel, conveying news or behests from God to men.


Word Origin: Derived from the root ἀγγέλλω (aggellō), meaning "to announce" or "to bring tidings."

Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: - H4397 (מַלְאָךְ, mal'ak): Often translated as "angel" or "messenger," used in the Old Testament to describe both divine and human messengers.

Usage: In the New Testament, "aggelos" primarily refers to a supernatural being sent by God to deliver messages, execute His will, or provide guidance and protection to humans. It can also refer to human messengers in certain contexts
John 7:16 , Jesus Christ is an angel sent to deliver God's messages, execute his Father's will and provide guidance for believers

* Gothamcities, STOP deceiving yourself.
You are TWISTING Isaiah 55:11, "my word that proceeds from my mouth" (@ Isaiah 55:11 is not a being).
Confused Trinitarian, LYING miscreant.
.

John 1 says Jesus is the Word of God. In the Book of Revelation, His name was called The Wird of God.

May God open your inner eyes.

gohf:
see this one, since the day I rejected your invitation to where gothamcities calls a cult, your love hate towards me increase. You remind me of that woman with unclean spirit that kept following Paul

So, you're not a member of that cult. Hahaha.

He holds the same views about Jesus as you do actually. The only difference is that you believe Jesus was a mere man while he believes Jesus is angel Michael. However, both you and Maxindhouse cannot deny that it was Jesus speaking here:

NRevelation 1:8,:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Who is speaking? The One Who is, Who was and Who is to come. The Almighty

1. God the Father is the One Who is. Jesus is also the One who is. That is to say the One who is existing right now. God the Father and Jesus currently exist. Both of them IS.

2. The One Who was, God the Father is not the One Who was. God NEVER was. He never ceased to exist. He always IS. Jesus is the One Who was. He died, and so He ceased to exist for 3 days. "...a little while you will see me no more ." At that time when Jesus died, He became the One Who was. The disciples saw Him no more. They even went a fishing.

3. God the Father is not the One to come. He's always here, we're not expecting Him to come at any time. He always is. GOD THE FATHER IS NEVER TO COME. Jesus is the One to come. The Coming King. The Almighty

So, who.is the Almighty? The One Who IS, Who WAS and Who is to come. The Lord Jesus. The Almighty.

You can see how it's all interwoven between the Father and the Son as it is in all scripture. This is because they're both the same entity who manifests differently.

If you think, Jesus is not God, this verse will definitely confuse you. You won't be able to explain it without errors. If you think otherwise, I challenge you to defend this verse as God the Father speaking and not Jesus.

Jesus is the One coming. And He ended His Revelation to John by saying "I come quickly..." Phew!

"Even so come, Lord Jesus. The Spirit and the Bride say come."