The Secret To Know Why We Are Doomed And Divided And Are Not Ready To Fight ISIS And The Muslim Threat

By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Exclusive)

The most typical response I get after writing articles on the necessity to combat ISIS via warfare is a comment that some coward posts on my blog that usually goes like this: “Jesus never killed anyone or instructed to killing one soul in His life”.

In which I always respond with a Jesus-style question: who then inspired David to kill Goliath? Was it the Father, The Son or The Holy Spirit?

imgfullsize

 

They could never directly answer the simple question but always resort to typical spin. I could also ask; was God against beheadings? If so, just look at David above depicted with Goliath’s head in his hand.

I ask such a question because answering this question alone would refute billions of worthless comments, millions of worthless sermons and thousands of worthless books that permeate the western Church that has become so plagued with heretical teachings and corrupt pastors which ended-up with a western church that is hardly ready for the coming onslaught of militant Islam, ISIS, the rising Caliphate and even the very Antichrist they constantly write about.

They are even unaware that they have even joined a spirit of Antichrist themselves.

How do I know that they are part of Antichrist?

Its simple, just answer the simple question: so who instructed David to kill Goliath: The Father, The Son or The Holy Spirit?

Here, let me help you. It would be difficult to deny that The Son (Jesus) and The Father and The Holy Spirit are all one and that this One God instructed David to kill Goliath.

So to say that Jesus never instructed to kill anyone is the very essence of the denial of the Son which is the spirit of Antichrist (1 John 2:22).

Indeed, denying Jesus is the Son of God is the essence of the spirit of Antichrist, but to deny what the Son did is also of the same spirit.

Didn’t Joshua see Jesus before the Battle of Jericho who promised Joshua victory? Didn’t Jesus visit Abraham before God killed every living soul at Sodom and Gomorrah?

So many are unaware how they slander, blaspheme and follow their own lies. When confronted, they simply consider these an “error”, but they repent not and move on.

Such a simple analogy refutes much of what the modern heretics says these days. You can even know them by their questions. In much of what they analyze they always ask as to how can we conclude this or that from “a New Testament perspective?”, instead of asking how they analyze everything from a “BIBLICAL perspective” or even “a historic perspective” as to how the Church dealt in all its history with any situation. They are unaware on how to even differentiate what is for Jew and what is for Gentile and what is for both to the point that Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Gideon are completely ignored.

Indeed, even the very “falling away” and the “great apostasy” they comment on and always speak about is really about them. They are unaware that they are the very wicked and an adulterous generation that says Jesus never instructed to kill anyone. By this they separate Jesus from the Father and from the Holy Spirit who inspired not just David killing Goliath but even the death penalty so many of them supports; this also becomes obsolete, but they are not even aware of what they say. They teach such heresy that when someone killing in pre-emptive or defensive wars by restricting Scripture to finding only what Jesus said as if the Old Testament was not the words of Jesus.

Of course, such heretics have exceptions that when a pastor wants to instruct someone to pay church tithing, he would resort to finding verses regarding the Old Testament Temple; the tithe of one-tenth. Over there, they see what they can glean from what the Holy Spirit instructed, but when someone or some nation resorts to fighting evil, they instruct them to only resort to one instruction which says that “God is love” and “thou shall not kill”. They do this in order to prevent Christians from fighting evil since “fighting” in-itself is evil. And if “Jesus never instructed to kill a soul” as they say, than we ought to be against Capital punishment and the very death penalty they so much fight the system to uphold.

So how do such heretics suppose we fight ISIS? Do we only send non-Christians to fight them and always protect and prevent Christians from being the Davids who fight the Goliaths of this world? Or perhaps they will go and fight ISIS on our behalf with Bible in hand instructing ISIS to lay down their arms since Jesus never instructed them to kill, behead, rape, pillage and torture?

“TRUE Christianity is NOT militant… Christ taught love and peace…” so says the one lazy servant on my comment section. How then can this lazy servant fulfill “No love is greater than this that a man lay down his life for his friend”? How can such love be accomplished of one does not defend wife, brother or friend? How does one give his life for his brother? This instruction presumes that one is to die defending him, doesn’t it?

Answering the question of who instructed to kill Goliath, the Father, The Son, or The Holy Spirit reveals a sick church that is plagued with the Marcionite heresy. But even telling them this gains little, for they are so lazy to even look up the heresy itself. They go to churches that they say: “we need to go where we are fed”, yet they never glean, research, study or examine their wicked hearts to see indeed if they are truly Christian. These claim that they expose the great apostasy at Rome and you even see them talking how the Church supposedly went apostate after Jesus disciples departed and that in Rome such an apostasy began, when in fact, they simply picked up where Marcion of Sinope left off in 144 A.D., when he taught his heresy called Marcionism. (Tertullian’s reckoning in Adversus Marcionem, xv)

ap-Rick-Warren-Islam-evangelical-pastor-photog-Luis-M.-Alvarez

Millions upon millions of so-called Christians today speak like Marcion who believed Jesus was the savior sent by God, and Paul the Apostle was his chief apostle claiming that Paul did not follow the Old Testament and that he did not follow all the wrath in the Old Testament which is now separated by the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

Sound familiar?

This belief was in some ways similar to Gnostic Christian theology; notably, both are dualistic. Marcionism was denounced by the Church fathers as a heresy, and they have written so much against, notably by Tertullian whom they rarely if ever read his works exposing the early heresies.

The very essence and premise of Marcionism is that many of the teachings of Christ are incompatible with the actions of the God of the Old Testament since now we live in the age of grace and that there is no more wars.

Marcion, like so many millions upon millions of today’s typical western church further regarded the arguments of Paul regarding law and gospel, wrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, death and life, as the essence of Scriptural truth.

Sounds familiar?

Marcion ascribed these aspects and characteristics as two principles, the righteous and wrathful God of the Old Testament, who is at the same time identical with the creator of the world, and a second God of the Gospel, quite unknown before Christ, who is only love and mercy. (Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. 1, ch. 5, p. 269)

Today’s Marcionites have very little difference in which they simply lump the two Gods (Old and New Testament) into one.

Regardless, the Church firmly rejected such error, reminding all that God’s tenderness was already revealed in the Old Testament.

Unfortunately the Marcionite temptation has been working hard in making its appearance again in the last few decades with very little done to expose or fight it. However what occurs most frequently is an ignorance of the deep ties linking the New Testament to the Old, an ignorance that gives some people the impression that Christians have nothing in common with the Jews of the Old Testament. So who in reality is linking to Israel and the Jews more; the Orthodox or the war hating modern Marcionites who deny Old Testament militarism as applicable for today?

They are not even aware that this is what permeated Nazi Germany when Hitler took over. The Church has become Schizophrenics.  Schizophrenics are usually identified when their God flip-flops.

They are unaware that God never changed His mind; all this progressive theology happened only in the last few decades, which even revives an old Waldensian heresy that killing is wrong in all instances. They are not even aware that they honor the Waldensians, the Cathars, the Paulicians, and the Bogomils as “the martyrs of Jesus Christ” when in reality all these were heretics like them who forbade all wars.

Just War was always part of Church doctrine during and even after the New Testament in which they always believed that savage tyrannies were still fought just as they were in the days of Israel and to say otherwise would denounce the very God of Israel whom they espouse to believe in. Yet they always harp on the mistakes that were made in order to advance their heresy. They even do this without reviewing Israel in the Bible and see how many confessed mistakes they also had and how they never even scrubbed such wars out of Scripture. Yet they never can answer, has God condemned David’s wars or David’s murder and adultery? The heretic always focuses only on David’s sins while his battles are now obsolete for the Church, but he is always ready to adapt and is always ready to condemn the very church history which saved his hide from being Islamized by mimicking David at Poitier, Lepanto and Vienna. The heretic is proud that Israel crushed Islam and the Arabs in 1948, 1967 and 1973 while arguing that what is good for the geese (the Jews in 1967) is not good for the ganders (the Christians)!

Today’s heretic is not even aware that the reason he hates the historical Christian wars is that he is the very essence of what he also hates, the liberals who inflate the mistakes done by the church and write manuals on the issues while they elevate the greatest butchers in history.

 

UI-4388805-avatar

The heretic is destroyed for his lack of knowledge and continually says “its not about knowledge, its about Jesus”. The heretic sparks the name “Jesus” as an excuse for all his sins, slanders and his wicked view of God. He is always ready to depart from this world in an inclining of an eye while he produced nothing but comments that are loaded with slandering the innocent hard working servants of Christ.

The heretic boasts of his support for Israel and its recent battles and rightfully so. Only then God becomes the same as He was yesterday, but when it comes to our understanding of a warring God in the Old Testament and after we read about the warring God, The Son, in Revelation, and in light of what we are taught about the new dawning of grace, God all of the sudden is not the same today like He was yesterday. And then for some reason as soon as this Marcionite is snatched away in the Rapture, God will be the same as He was yesterday, warring all over again, but only when He returns and kills the wicked ones who are after his hide.

This is the exact definition of the heresy of dualism.

These do not even know that they will only be snatched into everlasting fire prepared for the wicked who believed that there is no need for works in their lives. These are the very lazy servant whom they study about daily in their Bible during Sunday schools.

The most major discovery of mine when I read the Bible in 1993 was that God is not like the schizophrenic Allah, but when I entered the church, He all of a sudden became schizophrenic, flip-flopping between war and peace!

This interpretation on the nature of God seemed blasphemous the moment I entered the church, especially when we see Jesus’ violence in the Temple before His second coming, and if we are to emulate Him during His first coming, then indeed, at times violence is subscribed. Jesus was not a lunatic or a schizophrenic in that He followed the Wisdom of Solomon that there is “a time for peace” and “a time for war” a “time to speak in the Temple” and a “time to turn the tables in the Temple”.

The heretic always calls for “a time for peace” when its “time for war” and a “time for war” only when their hides are at stake. Such are the wicked cowards whom God already ordained that they will never inherit the Kingdom of Christ. (Revelation 21:8)

crusades221

To them, Christian wars was sort of forbidden for the Christian, while it was ‘expected’ of Muslims, of course! Well, not exactly, it wasn’t completely forbidden for Christians to war, it was rather strange, these would sanction the Israelis fighting during the Six Day War as fulfillment of prophecy, Americans fighting in World War II, were in their view (as well as mine) biblically sanctioned, of course, since these wars had to do with their own survival; but when Christians defend themselves militarily against Muslims, in lets say, Serbia, Mindanao or Africa, they would cry out foul, pass judgments, demand quick peaceful resolutions, and then focus on “love your enemy” the Muslims, since only these Christians ought to “love their enemies”!

When it came to such issues, they would instantly find biblical verses they instantly text on a comment section to go in line with the American conservative thought sanctioning only their wars, and then instantly finding verses to rebuke other Christians overseas from fighting their wars. They don’t even take a moment to think of what they write.

What was ironic in all what I witnessed is that such verses to support American wars were the same verses that the Orthodox and Catholics found during the days they had to fight Islam, heresy and paganism.

Muslims killing Catholics was absent from their thought process because to them, ‘Catholicism’ was a warmongering religion and “the Vatican,” of course, was the greater enemy from Islam. Muslims and Islam represented little but a field for the Christian sower of seed. Such a “field” now includes Catholic nations which so many missionaries are sent to who predominately enjoy visiting in order to undo the centuries of what evil Mary worshipping old Jesuits and Franciscan monks have done while giving their lives for Christ in South America, Mexico and Africa, especially that since these regions, while at times were converted through militancy, are now humble Catholics and would not fight back as the Muslim would when these evangelists begin to machinegun 45 caliber clips shooting forth “Mariology,” “idol worship,” “icons,” “incense” and all sorts of supposedly God given warnings claiming that such arguments to be right out of the very Word of God and Scripture that was canonized by the very Catholics they so much hated.

But when it comes to Muslim territory, finding such missionaries in these geographic areas is rare. This is the “unreached by the Gospel 10-40 Window,” which such missionaries refrain from entering since it is virtually hostile territory, a territory that was all Christianized once-upon-a-time by evil Catholics of all people. Ironically, this was pretty much Catholic/Orthodox lost territory which has become the territory of Antichrist after it was conquered from Christians. Yet they want to only evangelize Catholic-Orthodox lands while avoiding re-occupying and taking from the Antichrist, the 10-40 window Christian Islamized territories through warfare?

 

1040Window.gmms07.jpg-4200×2550-

The only Christians who dared to face death and still do to shed the light of Christ in the “10-40 window” are not predominately these missionaries, but are what little remnants that still exist from Copts in Egypt, Assyrians in Iraq and Maronites in Lebanon. These are holding down the fort who are still even giving their lives by the droves without much notice; who the grace movement giants bewails over 1,200 documented slain Christians so far, and almost 500,000 forced to flee their homes to escape.(1)

I would tell these that Islam had conquered the once-upon-a-time Christianized 10-40 Window and even wanted more, Europe itself, the centre of their heritage they slandered so much proclaiming it as the future Antichrist and that Rome is “harlot” and that Russian Orthodox are (Gog and Magog). They say such things without the backing of any sound historians and use theologians proclaiming themselves as historians. By this only they remain as the true pure, unadulterated Church, the very essence of Christianity that remained faithful and true after the so-called great apostasy which can never be found historically. Ask them to give a historic unbroken timeline from the disciples onward and they cannot give a lick of any documentation to such a false claim. All they can show for their movements are schisms after schisms, grand heresies after smaller heresies …

They knew nothing about the Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Tours, The Battle of Vienna, and The Battle of Malta—wars to defend Europe from Islam—they are combatant against such wars since all these were Catholic-Islamic wars. The Vatican was after all an enemy of Christianity.

The absence of Muslim-Catholic wars from their awkward interpretations was simple to explain; such struggle was described as the suffering of a “whore” who drinks the blood of Cathari saints, while the Muslim killing them was simply “doing God a service”, not realizing that Arabia’s Islam was the vampire who hadn’t had its fill of sanguine Christian blood. I was always astonished; how can killing Catholics serve Allah, the false God of Islam, and also serve the true God of the Bible, unless that such god is Lucifer in disguise.

To these Islam was not even on their radar. It mattered little prophetically when I explained how the Bible in Revelation 13:2 was speaking of the greatest threat to Christianity. It was Islam that became this threat (beastly nation) as predicted in Scripture that occupied the region that was prophesied by John; Lion (Iraq/Arabia), Bear (Persia) and Leopard (Asia Minor), all Muslim today, the very essence of the 10-40 window.

Writing such truths doesn’t even help such heretics who simply bombarded me with no challenges or well-written refutations, but with questions as if to know if I am one of them or not. They do this by asking; Walid, are you Catholic? Not all who ask are heretics, some are simply curious. 

And I always counter with; I am Christian, but how about you, are you Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant Adventists, Anabaptists, Baptists, Binitarians, Charismatics, Congregationalists, Evangelicals, Holiness churches, Lutherans, Methodists, Moravians, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Reformed?

What if I said I was Copt? The very church that was founded by the Apostle Mark in Egypt? O how would that throw a monkey wrench in such arguments, especially that Christ comes to rescue the Copts in the Tribulation. So to play it safe perhaps I should join the Copts.

Listen to Coptic Father Makarious (start at 00:50). No, he is not doing a tele evangelist healing service. He is calling upon Christ to rescue his flock from the thousands of Muslim wolves surrounding his church preparing to kill his sheep inside the church.

He cries out “We have none but you [Christ]”. His cries pierce the heart. Indeed, the marrow and the bone. “Everyone cry to the Lord to rescue the Copts of Egypt”, he cried to all the saints to pray for him in heaven and on earth while he is accused and slandered of praying and worshipping saints.

So to all who ask, what am I?

I am a Copt when we see Copts suffer.
I am a Catholic when I read Charles Martel’s victory over Abdul Rahman Al-Ghafiqi.
I am an Orthodox when I yearn for the liberation of Hagia Sohpia by war.
I am an Evangelical when I sit in a plane to witness to my poor neighbor.
And I am a Samaritan when I see a wounded slave in Pakistan who suffered 25 years working in a kiln.

Learning-in-college-extends-beyond-the-classroom.-Many-students-find-a-religious-awakening-while-others-fall-into-apostasy

But would all this matter when you are all collected under ISIS?

Ask not whether you are of this or of that.

Who would take me to heaven or to hell is Jesus Christ and the moment you can judge if I will enter heaven or hell is when you have proclaimed yourself God while in reality you are of lucifer who thinks that he is God which is the very thing that sends one to hell.

Repent and know that God is forgiving.

SOURCES
(1) New American, World Turns Away as Rebel Massacres of Syrian Christians Intensify, Friday, 20 December 2013

print
  • Pingback: The Secret To Know Why We Are Doomed And Divided And Are Not Ready To Fight ISIS And The Muslim Threat - The Next Stage()

  • oblique

    Such a great article!

    • shoebat

      Just for you oblique 😉

  • Owen Schumacher

    “I am a Copt when we see Copts suffer. I am a Catholic when I read Charles Martel’s victory over Abdul Rahman Al-Ghafiqi. I am an Orthodox when I yearn for the liberation of Hagia Sohpia by war. I am an Evangelical when I sit in a plane to witness to my poor neighbor. And I am a Samaritan when I see a wounded slave in Pakistan who suffered 25 years working in a kiln.”

    Very beautiful, Walid. I’m with you!

  • Mitch

    Walid, you’re the one with schizophrenia; you’re living under the blessing of the New Covenant and arguing in the mindset of the Old. We’re not OT Israel whom God said He would be jealous for, and the Messiah through them has already come. We’re not Lions, we’re lambs, just as the Christian martyrs of old. We conquer through the Spirit, not with artillery. We’re to take up our cross, not clobber someone with it and call it Christian.

    • shoebat

      Ahhhh shut your mouth, your neither lion nor lamb, your the the type who cannot find any original church that would support your poor interpretations.

      So tell us, when someone breaks in to rape your wife, will you become a lion,
      Or a lamb?

      And please, no spin. Just answer the question.

      As the Good Book says,

      “Heal us, O Lord, and we shall be healed. ”

      In other words,

      send us the cure.

      We’ve got the sickness (you) already.

  • forest

    Lots of twistiness in this article. I find it a twist now you are claiming christian when in all arguments on here you spout catholicism to back all your beliefs. Spirit of antichrist is only those who follow after Satan (in whatever form) The division in this country is between the races and the faiths and the lost.. There is one narrow path and unless people have been on the true narrow road they will not know what persecution looks like, hence they go on eating their lunch and thinking they serve the king. The road is narrow and DIFFICULT is the way that leads to life, each person should ask how difficult is their life..its a very true berometer. Evil has been embarking on us more and more.. obeying Jesus and living it wakes the mind and heart.. and he shows us all the things coming down the pike. I find this article to be off base. Some are warriors and some most are not. God will not cast into the fire those who are afraid, he will cast those away who do not love him and serve him. You get caught alot on heady things. The spirit of the kingdom is of the heart and Jesus will save all who truly in their heart serve him and those he truly knows that have called on him. I know there is a time for love and a time for war. I am also praying that the Lord will have mercy on his beloveds and stop the terror.

    • shoebat

      As the Good Book says,

      “Heal us, O Lord, and we shall be healed. ”

      In other words,

      send us the cure.

      We’ve got the sickness already.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      What do you have against Catholicism?

      • shoebat

        he doesn’t say, its just a label he applies as a refutation to everything he finds logical but goes against his pre-conceived theology. Than you goes on to rant about a different issue writing his own lecture.

        • Julie LaBrecque

          He is probably digging through mountains of false allegations before he responds.

  • Tekla

    Yes ,Sir. We are soft .I among lots of others need to repent of this.Humbling.

  • Ryan

    “I am a Copt when we see Copts suffer.
    I am a Catholic when I read Charles Martel’s victory over Abdul Rahman Al-Ghafiqi.
    I am an Orthodox when I yearn for the liberation of Hagia Sohpia by war.
    I am an Evangelical when I sit in a plane to witness to my poor neighbor.
    And I am a Samaritan when I see a wounded slave in Pakistan who suffered 25 years working in a kiln.”

    Awesome

  • IsaacS2010 .

    I love this article. Many Christians haven’t even read the passage in Joshua just before they take Jericho. This must be Jesus. And He stands with His sword drawn as the Captain of the Host of the Lord. And what was it God told Joshua? “Be strong and courageous!” I don’t ever remember Him saying, “Be quiet and let the enemy behead you!”

    • shoebat

      Thank you Isaac.

    • royal

      Bravo

  • Pingback: The Secret To Know Why We Are Doomed And Divided And Are Not Ready To Fight ISIS | D.C. Watchdog()

  • veryunclear .

    Great article with lots of rich history. I’m not trying to throw a fly in the ointment, but Jesus did say:
    Matthew 26:52 – “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw
    the sword will die by the sword.”
    And, this concept reaches as far back as the beginning of the Bible:
    Genesis 9:6 – “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.”

    Was this simply the outlining of a universal law, namely action-reaction?

    • shoebat

      The verses you use does not pertain to self-defense.Example: Was the U.S. wrong to fight the Nazis?

  • gary forsythe

    God sent me here to England from Zimbabwe to heal my racism and negative belief systems.

    I’m still here doing that and will finish the job.

  • shoebat

    No, we are not advocating war against the government. Absolutely not! we just advocate that we honer and try to change our government to emulate church history.

  • shoebat

    Indeed, Ryan, as you put it best, praise Adonai.

  • shoebat

    What can I say, they come in all sorts of colors. I just wonder what would General Patton do with him.

  • shoebat

    “Killing
    is not wrong because self defense is sanctioned.”

    Well said, but then you should have ended, instead you wrote:

    “David was acting in self defense for the nation of Israel”

    Sure.

    “but picking up weapons to go enforce the kingdom of Christ and especially to go and fight the beast kingdom in the end won’t work.”

    Nonsense.

    Ezekiel 28:7-8 God raises nations to destroy Antichrist. Except you do not read
    these verses but apt only for the common NT verses:

    “Nothing we do can thwart or change that.”

    Be careful,
    you are sounding a little lazy. There is much to do to defeat it. In the end
    the saints win.

    “Self
    defense is one thing, but”

    Be careful of “butts” for they intend to always say the opposite of what is
    correctly said before it.

    “I wanted to respectfully ask you to please be careful about provoking a spirit of
    fighting in others when the tribulation period does come around because the
    antichrist has been prophesied to have the power given to him to crush the
    saints.”

    Now that is the language of cowards. I am not saying you are, but you need to be careful to be a surrendering spirit.

    “In the book of Revelation we overcome the beast by not loving our lives unto death, by our testimony and by the blood of the Lamb.”

    Listen, Revelation says he overcomes the saints, but why did you forget that Christ said that many will do great endeavors? Have you done great endeavors lately?

    “We overcome him by our faith, which Satan wants to destroy, not by picking up a sword and fighting the beast.”

    Perhaps you should read then what “faith” is since apparently you do not know it. So many create combination verses to argue almost anything they want. It was By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the army had marched around them for seven days.

    31 By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.[d]

    32 And what more shall I say? I do not have
    time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms,
    administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of
    lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.

    “Walid, if you hold to catholic doctrine, then you know they have a different concept of end times eschatology specifically regarding the Catholic Church itself. It is not what the scriptures teach and just as the church itself preaches a
    different doctrine of salvation according to the Council of Trent, in the same
    way it also has a different doctrine of eschatology.”

    What does that have to do with the article?

    “You have wonderful information that I believe is helping many come to a correct prophetic biblical perspective regarding the kingdom of Islam, but in regards to some of the catholic theology that the early church prior to Catholicism didn’t teach, it is incorrect.”

    Then if what you say above is correct, then hail the greatest theologian, you. The Church was in darkness until you showed up and interpreted it all for us? This would be utter pride, wouldn’t it? We learn nothing from the first fathers?

  • shoebat

    No Trevor, I never thought you were one of those heretics who visit my site 😉

  • shoebat

    more easy to write, self-compleneting comments.

    • forest

      Easy to write the truth. I dont need to be affirmed by you, I am affirmed by Jesus and i know myself well and all i do 24 hours a day. You should try complimenting a soldier sometime shoebat!

      • shoebat

        I never demanded you be affirmed by me, it was you who wrote me in the first place accusing me of “twisting” demanding I get affirmed and get straightened out by your abbreviated fragmented opinion.

        Now you talk of cpmplementing a soldier. Well, a soldier agrees with me, not you. A soldier knows what its like to give ones life for a friend.

        Enough taking ok? Just be silent.

  • Karen Honick Ortwein

    SO MUCH to research! Walid, I was born in 1956 but was never taught ANY world history–zip, nothing. America was just getting it’s rebellion going when I entered school, so that played a large part in why world history, latin, 2 world wars, Korean war–loads of things were not even mentioned. Also many of these things were so painful the parents just wanted to forget. When I entered college I had world history pre-1865 & next semester world history after 1865. So 2 RUSHED semesters covering nearly 7000 years. This got worse as my children, in their mid 30s now, will testify. No one is teaching it. Lest I seem to be making up excuses for being ill-informed, I believe a poll would show Americans in the same boat (exception history majors).
    I say all this to tell you how ignorant I am when it comes to knowing about the items you mentioned in this piece. BUT, I don’t like being ignorant. Hence, I have much “learnin'” to do! I’m working on early church history (thank you) & now this. May God help me as I go on my pilgrimage. God bless you & yours.

    • shoebat

      Its always encouraging to read your comments Karen. The Church and the Bible are both historic and without history we are left in the dark as to how to interpret life and destiny.

  • koolmom21

    “Blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.”
    The mother of our Lord was blessed for doing God’s will more than being His mother. Anyone who can say they are a Copt, Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical and a Samaritan is striving to do the will Of God. I wonder how many people can honestly say they do. It’s not what religion puts in your head but what it puts in your heart that judges if it is from God. God is love in Him there is no hate. I am sure God is very proud of you Walid.
    I do believe it’s God’s will for us to fight evil. How could anyone think otherwise is beyond me. God’s blessings

  • koolmom21

    A smart person knows they have a lot to learn; a dumb person thinks they know it all. 🙂

  • koolmom21

    You are so mislead and you are trying to tell Walid he is. Sorry but you do not have a clue how big the blank is in your own eye.

  • Pingback: ONE WORLD RELIGION: The Secret To Know Why We Are Doomed And Divided And Are Not Ready To Fight ISIS And The Muslim Threat | Information 360()

  • shoebat

    “I read The Islamic Antichrist, which honoured you, and as a result my opinion was also favourable to you. No more.”

    I find this to be the very compliment Jesus spoke about. Keep it up. Also keep up quoting me with quotes I never said.

    I never said this “organize a “Christian” team to go searching for people to kill in Christ’s name”.

    If I say that we need to fight ISIS militarily is in agreement with most western governments. Although I am a bit surprised that all of the sudden that such efforts to kill ISIS is now of “the Antichrist” whom you accuse as being now me.

    You see, it doesn’t matter what I do, people will hate for they purely are filled with hate, as you demonstrate yourself to be.

  • shoebat

    Then lets all be lawless?

  • shoebat

    Thank you Robert. I even like your last name Paton. God bless you.

  • shoebat

    You make a good point Rick. Point well taken.

  • shoebat

    Dan,

    Everything you claim that I said, please put them in quotes showing I said them. Until then, good luck finding a job.

  • shoebat

    Not true forest, I welcomed your posts and in fact tried to reply to all of them. just take a chill-pill. You are either misunderstanding me or we just don’t agree, thats all, so you either make a statement with evidence to lets just move on. Okay?

  • shoebat

    “I have no argument with defending oneself,only in justifying organized war in Christ’s name.”

    Why then are you arguing?

    You even say “Would I go to war against Islam? Of course I would”

    Again, you agree with me. But your caveat is this:

    “Would I go to war against Islam? Of course I would, but not as a Christian Crusader, as a Christian soldier serving my country.”

    Ok then. In my example I used Lepanto and Poitier as defensive wars against Islam. Is that too a problem for you?

    Than you say:

    “Again, please don’t use Old Covenant mind to justify New Covenant action.”

    But again, you yourself stated: “I Would I go to war against Islam? Of course I would”.

    Yet you seem to justify this, so regardless how you look at it, you go in circles.

    Its obvious that your problem is that you are anti-Catholic. Thats all. The word “crusaders” seem to upset you.

    Like I told Forest, just take a chill-pill.

  • shoebat

    Would love to hear your “discernment” of “great things”, please enlighten us of “the deep things of the Lord”.

    As far as “He will call you a heretic or an evil doer, lazy or worse.” Please provide exact quotes. I do recall saying that you were lazy in writing a refutation.

    So let me see now if you will be energetic and do what you stated that you have “”discernment” and “great things”, and “the deep things of the Lord”. I will be waiting Forest as I am sure that you will edify everyone else on this board.

  • shoebat

    Its thou shall not murder. Keep up the good work and thank you for your service.

  • shoebat

    Do you find any of what you said in my article? I am surprised at this. Where do you see us “buying weapons”? The article is obviously supporting from a theological perspective that we as a nation ought to fight ISIS but that the Church needs to look at our historic victories against Islam. Why do people see things we never say behooves me. Why do people read into what we write things we never said is shocking.

  • shoebat

    Then wait until you get slaughtered. In the meanwhile, allow others to defend themselves. Or do you wish everyone gets slaughtered with you?

  • shoebat

    Is this the example of the “great insights” you said you want to offer us? Again, please provide exact quotes, especially when you accuse. The spirit of accusations never stemmed from God.

    • richinnameonly

      I’m seeing this the other way around. I think you have a good amount of patience. Some will not give you the light of day unless you agree with them. You could just not reply to them, but they wouldn’t like that either. You should post comments on articles on their websites. Oh, they don’t have websites?

  • shoebat

    Great, now you found a buddy system. See how my website helps folks to hook-up in the pecking process? If you notice, I never resort to telling anyone on this blog to gang up against you for this has never been my tactic. Glad to match folks of the same feather 😉

  • shoebat

    Thank you Tom. Perhaps you can share some of these miracles?

    • Julie LaBrecque

      They would respond that these miracles are the workings of Satan, just as the Jews accused Jesus. The many Eucharistic miracles are absolutely our best proof and testament to prove Darwin’s theory regarding the origins of life as absolutely false, yet, Protestants, in their zeal to prove the Catholic Church false, refrain from examining and believing these miracles lest their own beliefs be proven wrong. A piece of bread becomes human flesh; wine becomes human blood, but the protestant ignores or refutes it and claims it to be the working of Satan.

      • shoebat

        Strange, the Bible always said to “test the spirits” to see if they are from God. So I went on a journey to “test the spirits” regarding Fatima. It busted the myth about Gog being Russia and the evidence from the accounts of what the three said, what the Pope did to consecrate Russia is very well documented and then walla Russia redeemed. How could Satan be making such a prediction is impossible.

        Scripture says to “test the spirits”, yet they do not test, but instantly accuse. The more I get involved with dialogues with the so many ignorant folks who come on this blog, the more I am learning that it is there spirits that need testing. But again, many see the truth, so we sow seeds.

        • Julie LaBrecque

          The ‘mountain’ was moved, just as scripture tells us they can be.

  • shoebat

    Strange, I also agree with you. So I am at a loss as to why we are even arguing.

    • Justin Coone

      “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
      groups like ISIS are the reason why our founders gave us the 2nd amendment….

      • wordfromthewise

        Remember the Minute Men, who could be mustered in a very short time during the War of Independence, 1770s? We have to be just as fearless if and when the time comes.

  • shoebat

    Then everyone would accuse me for the shooting saying that Paton must have read my article.

  • shoebat

  • shoebat

    You are going in a spin and go in a circle, again, without addressing how to explain your circular argument above in the previous comment.

    Now, until you show a quote from the article and refute, all you say here is opinion and conclusion that is manufactured within your own mind.

    This is not how we ought to reason together. So the least you can admit is that your method of dialogue is not proper, but of course, you will even deny that.

    For example, you will not even find the word “crusader” in my article, yet you used it for your comments. This is a spin and sophist tactic and nothing more.

    Today we have the “Crusader” word and the “Catholic” word as simple tactics to label and dismiss. Remember Mitch, I was not born yesterday and the comments you posted are the most basic type of tactic I get, so please, next time you might want to do better than this. To not quote someone and accuse constitutes error and is never admissible in any sound dialogue.

    Good day sir.

    I said good day.

    • Mitch

      You’ll notice the quotation marks are only surrounding the single word “Christian”, which would make your quote of me the one which is incorrect and misleading. And yes, what I’ve been saying is manufactured in my mind, but what is manufactured in my mind results from studying and believing the scriptures. Admittedly the term “crusader” is not in your writings, but the spirit is there, and it’s supported by your art.

      • shoebat

        See what I mean? A dialogue where one posts several quotes and asks several question neither of which is answered, then to use “I go by Scripture” as a cop-out, is a useless dialogue.

        You never made any useful representation.

        You truly were a waste of time.

  • Andrew

    Paper napkin-

    I believe that God is calling you to do exactly what you’re
    doing, speaking the truth notwithstanding the fact that you have no “job”.

    I haven’t read too many posts recently, but this thread
    caught my attention. I truly love Walid in the Lord, but I also truly believe that if he has given his thinking over to be formed by what Catholicism clearly teaches, he’s in for more trouble than just a fellow poster taking him to task over basic scriptural interpretations.

    In the not to distant past, I posted VERY pertinent comments
    only to have those posts deleted. I think that he stated my posts weren’t relative to what he was trying to convey.

    I’m not a theologian either, but I was a pastor for a few
    years and share the same irreverence (like Walid) for “other” so-called pastors/teachers/theologians who do not hold to the Word of God nor pay attention to their teaching.

    I, too often, see on this board the idea that there is a
    continual struggle with strong “Dualistic” overtones ruling the day. The proponents of this thinking tend to purposely ignore or absentmindedly neglect the truth that Christ/God is already
    victorious over the enemy. The battle has been won and it would never have been lost, because God is Omnipotent,
    period.

    I could type for hours and debate in kind, but this back and
    forth never ends until we give God the glory for all that He’s already done and submit to him in faith knowing that He who has begun a work in us is faithful to complete it.

    I don’t need to be a historian to see God’s hand in what’s
    going in this world today, it’s OBVIOUS. I don’t need to be a historian or a theologian to know that I’m commanded by God to protect my family including my eight grandsons’. It’s almost like arguing about eating food offered up to idols, like bickering over matters so easily understood, we don’t need to cite so-and-so to give credence to our position, we need to just
    accurately handle the word of truth. Remember, “Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up.

    Keep trusting in God my friend and remember as Jesus
    proclaimed, John 14:1 “Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.”

    BTW, Jesus said the “greatest’ man that ever lived was? That’s right, a man who was considered to be a raving lunatic living in the wilderness wearing a modified Tarzan outfit eating bugs. They also said he had a demon! And what was his whirlwind message that stunned the countryside based on his brilliance? Yes, it was repent! How’s that for brevity?

  • shoebat

    “Nevertheless, I do believe in self-defence and more importantly defending others.”

    The rest of what you wrote, I simply ignored. But perhaps you might want to join the group that is forming against me up there, you have Forest, Mitch and Dan preparing for the pecking. I doubt that you can rip anyone’s heart out and I am not sure where did I call you coward especially since I have not talked to you before, unless of course, you found my article and whom I was critiquing to match you. You simply did this to yourself. Also, next time you address anything, please show my quote, you failed to do so, which is typical of people with opinions. There are plenty of these.

    P.S, your hear ripping nonsense does not terrify me a single iota.

    Good day sir,

    I said good day

  • shoebat

    You answer with a verse what you started off with complete error “our freedom from being ruled by Law”

    Go to the start and see how many times you contradict yourself.

    When someone writes something as foolish as that Christ died for “our freedom from being ruled by Law” …

    Yet they fail to continue “What then? Are we to sin because we are NOT under the Law but under grace? By no means!” (Romans 6:15)

    And who is here arguing law vs. grace?

    Do you folks ever find other things to discuss? Where in my article do I discuss law vs. grace?

    Or are you people like a broken record, keep scratching and scratching until you wear out everyone?

    Do me a favor, STOP writing me unless you show a quote I made which you have an intelligent rebuttal to write about.

    This is the last time I will address foolishness. Your wasting my time.

    Good day

    I said good day.

    • Mitch

      I’ve been discussing intelligently from the beginning and all through this discourse. You defend yourself like a child…

    • Mitch

      W: When someone writes something as foolish as that Christ died for “our freedom from being ruled by Law” …

      M: For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:2-4)

      According to this passage Christ died to fulfill the Law, and having done so, that fulfillment is given to us. We simply walk in the Spirit, who is the Spirit of grace. Would that not mean that Christ died to accomplish our freedom from being ruled by Law?

      W: And who is here arguing law vs. grace?

      M: You are when you said, Then lets all be lawless? in response to me saying Christ died to free us from the Law.

      W: Do you folks ever find other things to discuss? Where in my article do I discuss law vs. grace?

      M: In your comments within the context of the subject of this post. Start back at Jennifer and follow the conversation along in its development.

      Cheers.

  • shoebat

    What you will find interesting is that the very ones who criticize you would themselves call 911 and beg the police to come with guns.

  • shoebat

    Now you are really wasting my time. I had asked you point blank to show me quotes of what you accused me of. Instead of doing that, now you go on a rant. Do me a favor, and as I told others who are hard of hearing: Exact Quotes please, or else put a lid on your slanders like saying that I am “instigating chrisitan to take up arms and shoot Islamia”.

    First of all, learn how to do some spelling. I mean one doesn’t mind misspelling, but every other word I have to decipher what you write. If you don’t like what I am saying, bring the exact quote of what I said. Do me a favor, stop telling me that you contribute to Rescue Christians. Did you ever read in Scripture “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing …”

    Do you think your money goes to my pocket? I could care less who contributes and who doesn’t.

    What you do when you accuse and when you say that you are “giving” is hypocritical. I would not mind taking your name out of the list of contributors.

  • shoebat

    Who addressed who? Did I ever in my life address you? Who then attacked who?

    Here are your rants:

    “And by the way i am a strong financial supporter of ur ministry. .. when it comes to savings Christians from their foes …however i will jot give a single penny for u or others to buy weapons in the name of Christ.

    Whalid when wad the lasttime you fasted and prayed eearnestly for the salvation of the Muslim community ? Rather than instigating chrisitan to take up arms and shoot Islamia shouldn’t you rely trust and ask the Lord for their salvation? I admire your insight in prophecy bit when it comes to the fruits of the spirit i question your motives… We are to b like jesus like sheep to the slaughter yhe time wil come when revenge belongs to Him … Unfortunately whalid will attack mercy less any one who disagrees w him..”

    Perhaps you should look up the word tares.

  • shoebat

    “No, David killing Goliath is a picture of Christ fighting the antichrist, not the church fighting the antichrist.”

    “David killing Goliath is a picture of Christ fighting the antichrist”, is correct, but “not the church fighting the antichrist” is utter nonsense. Zechariah 14 “and all the saints with you” the Church are with Christ in the battle of Armageddon fighting Christ.

    You see, so many like you refuse to believe that God wants to partner with us to complete His work. We think that “pooof” Christ will do it all.

    As to the rest, read Romans regarding homosexuals “are worthy of death” (Romans 1:32). Indeed, within a framework of a Christian governance this was true throughout Christian governing until your type showed up. I guess you might want to pick on the Orthodox next in Russia and their war with homosexuals.

    See how fast you turn liberal?

    It seems that my article fits the profile.

    Side advise, don’t waste your time commenting and spend more time looking for work. I am sure you will easily find that one in Scripture. Okay?

    Good day

    • Paper napkin

      Riiiiight. So until Christ returns to fight the antichrist, have fun killing gays. By the way, how many have you killed today or are you just a hypocrite? Good day to you.

      • shoebat

        See what happens? You can’t simply have a discussion unless you add words like “hypocrite” and “have fun killing gays” as if I said that “I am going to kill gays” ignoring that this is an issue of legislation. This is strictly the slanderous nature of this movement. If Russia chose to prosecute gays, I am all for it, you have a problem with it. But to paint me as going around “murdering people” is when the buck stops and its sayonara, your banned forever from posting here. Now I suppose you go look for a job instead of me having to babysit your stinking comments:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bl32n6-JXc

  • shoebat

    “I do have a problem with Catholicism”.

    I don’t.

    How about the Copts? Do you have a problem with them too?

    The eastern Orthodox?

    Anyone who is not Protestant you have a problem with?

    Can you be specific as to including all you have a problem with?

    Who exactly in all denominations you have a problem with?

    You don’t have a problem with Luther who wrote “The Jews and Their Lies”? Who said “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly … as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin … No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” (1)

    I hated reading Luther’s interpretations; to me they were the tradition of men. He had convoluted ideas that stemmed from his hatred of Jews, works, and obedience to God. He introduced easy believism and promoted sin. He is sort of like you when it comes to hatred of Catholic theology.

    To Luther the matrimonial act is:

    “a sin differing in nothing from adultery and fornication.”

    You believe that?

    Even when it comes to Christ, Luther blasphemed Him:

    “Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (11)

    Luther was a liberal. If Luther was here today, he would probably have written The Da Vinci Code. Even when it came to Christ, Luther himself would not throw Jesus with the non-existing bathwater:

    “It does not matter how Christ behaved—what He taught is all that matters.” (12)

    P.S., let me know if you want references, be glad to provide them.

  • shoebat

    “Does Bible prophecy indicate the national or spiritual powers that will rise up to combat ISIS? The answer to that question would go a long way toward knowing who to look to and who to help in that battle.”

    Why have an “or”, its both, the spirit of Antichrist is not only in the ends of days, it was from the inception of the Church. Please look up how the Church fought the Arian heresy by using both, physical and spiritual.

    • Nathan

      No disagreement there. The purpose of the “or” was not to imply that the two are distinct, but rather to distinguish between those powers that are specifically mentioned by name (nation or ruler) versus those that are not (Eg: the LORD will raise His hand against (X)).

  • shoebat

    Much appreciated Christopher. Too bad I end up paying more attention to what the tares write instead of paying more attention to the wheat. God bless you.

  • Pingback: VIDEO Why We Are Doomed And Divided And Not Ready To Fight ISIS And The Muslim Threat | Reclaim Our Republic()

  • shoebat

    don’t know, your comment seems to show fine here.

    • Infidel72

      Its crazy anyway God bless you

  • shoebat

    Mitch, you haven’t responded to the below. What happened?

    • Mitch

      It’s been waiting for your approval for the better part of an hour currently.

  • shoebat

    Your playing slippery, Orthodox theology, Coptic theology … is a problem for you? The way you treat Luther is as if Muslims treats Muhammad who had the greatest impact on his movement, Luther had the greatest impact on yours. Would you then accept the Muslim argument who says “Yes, I have problems with things Muhammad said. I recognize him as only a man, and don’t idolize him or consider anything he wrote as inspired writ. Do you think Muslims worship Muhammad for some reason because Roman Catholics venerate their saints? We recognize the oneness of Allah, and tradition takes a back seat.”

    Now, had the Catholic church fathers came even remotely close to anything Luther said, you would be quoting them left right and center. But this is part of this whole hypocrisy I see everywhere. Its rare that you would find a pastor expose the extend of Luther’s sickness. Yet you don’t have a problem gleaning from his theological concepts utterly amazes me on how far people go to cover up everything under the guise of “I follow Scripture alone”.

    Now I wanted your comment, no slippery fish style responses or else as might as we cut this dialogue.

    Now lets start all over again, do you have problems with Coptic theology, Orthodox theology etc… any other theology besides the Protestant reformation?

    No lets start over:

    Who exactly in all denominations you have a problem with?

    You don’t have a problem gleaning theology from Luther who wrote “The Jews and Their Lies”? Who said “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly … as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin … No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” (1)

    You have no problems gleaning from Luther’s theological concepts regardless that Christ, Luther blasphemed Him:

    “Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (11)

    I want your view on each of these statements Luther said. What do you feel Luther was having said what he said:

    A) A Christian?
    B) A heretic?
    C) Just a sinner?

    Luther also said:

    “It does not matter how Christ behaved—what He taught is all that matters.” (12)

    But you see, this is exactly the problem with the theology of today, its almost nothing really matters.

    Now, please give me a cohesive answer that is somewhat intelligent, or else, lets just move on, I don’t like to waste time.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    What scripture were the early Church studying?

    • Andrew

      Julie-

      Answer, the same scriptures that the “moral” Pharisees were
      reading. The scrolls, which contained the “Old Testament”, those scriptures Julie. The scriptures that Jesus said pointed to Him, yet the religious groups of those days COULDN’T understand them. So if you go to John 5: 37; “He has testified of Me,” then go to verse 39, referring to Scripture, “It is these that testify about Me.” So the means the Father is using here is the Old Testament, the only Bible Jesus ever had, the only Bible the disciples ever had, the only Bible anybody in the New Testament ever had was an Old Testament. And the Father in the Old Testament gives testimony to Jesus Christ. The
      scriptures that they didn’t truly believe even though they had sufficient proof, they had them right in front of them.
      This is basic stuff, those Scriptures Julie, full of perfect history.

      Look, the world is full of Bibles, would you agree? It’s not about having a Bible; it’s about having the Word in the Scriptures IN you. “If My Word abides in you, then you’re My
      real disciple.” “If you continue in My Word, then you’re My real
      disciple”, John 8. It’s an infuriating condemnation of the religiously elite Jews. As far as God is concerned, they’re deaf and blind, they’re all a nation of “Helen Kellers” without a sign language, hopeless gropers, and the world was and is full of those kinds of people. People who have Bibles and don’t know the truth, cults, all the false religions, all the false prophets, and all the corrupt forms of Christianity. God is inaccessible
      to most. Why is God inaccessible? Why don’t they know God? Why can’t people discern what God is saying? What He’s doing, even though they have an Old Testament? His Word is not in them. How do we know His Word is not in them? “For they don’t believe Him whom He sent. They search the Scriptures because they think in them they have eternal life
      and yet they’re talking about the only one who can save! So if you don’t see Christ there, then you don’t have the Word in you. It’s that simple.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        You seem to think that the early Christians all had copies of the scriptures to read themselves: they didn’t. They believed and followed the teachings of the Apostles, and those teachings of the Apostles were handed down to and through their successors. On that point, the early Church would not agree with you. God still speaks through His Church.

        • Andrew

          That’s not true, the early church believed in God’s word
          despite the fact that it was the “Old testament”. Actually, I’m like Walid, I dislike the term “Old Testament”. The Apostles read the Word, the disciples read the Word, Jesus quoted and explained the Word even confounding those who were lost/foolish. God did do amazing things throughout the early church and we know that because it says so in His Word. The
          Word also says that there were enumerable events in which Jesus spoke and did miracles, but we don’t know what they were. How do we know that, because the Word says so. Again Julie, “give yourself to the scripture which is able to
          make you wise unto salvation”. Give yourself to the scripture, which is able to “build” you up. “It’s the Word of God that is able to make up perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

          We’re warned many times NOT to add to or take away ANYTHING from the Word. Jesus IS the Word and He
          became flesh and dwelt among us (the early Church) and we beheld His glory, as it were. NOW, Jesus lives IN us and
          makes the Word clear by the Holy Spirit who is God. This is a good thing, not bad. Maybe we don’t really differ here. It may be that we’re making a distinction with/out a difference?

          Jude 1:3; ”Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write
          unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was ONCE delivered unto the saints.”

          The problem with most “Christians” is that they’re waiting
          for some special revelation instead of learning from the Holy Spirit as He speaks through the Word. Scripture validates Scripture. It also gives us perfect HISTORY and science. By trade I am a Biochemist and as such, I look at the detail that God gives to us through His word. Very simple I would say, how about you? Would you say that?

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Are you contending for the faith that was delivered to the saints? Can you show any continuity in your beliefs as opposed to the writings of the early Church Fathers? Do you believe that the bread becomes His body? Are you eating from an altar?

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Since you are a biochemist, will you provide a scientific explanation for all the miracles of the Eucharist?

          • Andrew

            There’s no need to explain the Communion/Passover meal in
            Biochemical terminology, as there is no connection to be noted. They are symbolic unlike miracles, which are by nature the intervention, and/or contravention of Natural/Biochemical
            phenomena put into place by God Himself.

            Julie, when Christ says, “This is My body,” He does not mean this is actually His body as the Roman Catholic Church has said for centuries. That is ridiculous. In the first place, His body was there fully in tact. And the bread was in His hand. Look, Jesus said, “I am the vine,” we know what He meant by that. We don’t think He’s a plant. When Scripture says, He’s the rock, He’s the cornerstone, and He’s the head. When He says He’s the head of the body, we understand that He is meaning that figuratively. “This is,” is a symbol, it’s a picture. We reject the foolishness of transubstantiation, that bizarre idea that when the priest blesses a piece of bread it literally becomes the actual physical body of Jesus, which you eat. That’s bizarre nonsense. The Lutherans came along and tried to do a little better variation of that, came up with consubstantiation, and they said, well it isn’t the literal physical body of Christ, but it’s His spiritual body, It’s not that either. It’s simply a remembrance. It’s simply a symbol. Bread, earthly, fragile, speaks of His body, earthly, fragile, subject to death as bread has the same declining properties of all things in the physical world. Christ took on human form, became subject to death. The bread reminds us that His body is given for you and I. For time sake, I won’t go into the heresy of believing that the Catholic religion teaches that Christ is ACTUALLY being sacrificed each time the “Holy Communion” is done. Christ died once for all of man’s sins, period.

            That phrase, “Which is given for you,” is the most important concept in the entire Bible, it is the concept of
            substitutionary death. That’s the truth of the Gospel! Christ being perfect can be the ONLY subtitutionary sacrifice for anyone; NO animal could do what Jesus did! Read your bible and ask the Holy Spirit to help you understand what He clearly is conveying.

  • shoebat

    You know Saimah, your right. Where are you from? Your name is not western. Are you Copt?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    I suppose you have a problem with the crusades then.

  • shoebat

    Mitch,

    You know zip about what is “hateful and violent heritage” here let me help you as to what constitutes violence:

    “It were better that every bishop were murdered . . . And we would smile did it happen. All who contribute body, goods . . . that the rule of the bishops may be destroyed are God’s dear children and true Christians.” (Werke, Weimar, v.28, pp.142-201 Against the Falsely Called Spiritual Order of the Pope and the Bishops)

    Do you know who said that?

    Here, I will help you: Martin Luther, the Greatest of All Reformers.

    “…these Cardinals, these Popes, and that whole abomination of the Romish Sodom . . . why do we not wash our hands in their blood?” (Werke, Erl., v.2, p.107 On the Pope as an Infallible Teacher).

    1524
    See also: Martin Luther’s Violent, Inflammatory Rhetoric and its Relationship to the German Peasants’ Revolt (1524-1525)

    1525
    Zwingli’s Zurich was definitely not a haven of Christian freedom:
    The presence at sermons . . . was enjoined under pain of punishment; all teaching and church worship that deviated from the prescribed regulations was punishable. Even outside the district of Zurich the clergy were not allowed to read Mass or the laity to attend. (Janssen, V, 134-135)

    The Mass was abolished in Zurich. (Dickens, 117).

    In Zurich the reformers demolished churches and burned monsteries. Bishops of Constance, Basle, Lausanne and Geneva were forced to abandon their sees. (Daniel-Rops, 81-82)

    Young Bible students he once mentored were now advocating more radical reform . . . refusing to have their babies baptized, citing his own earlier ideas . . . In January, 1525, Zwingli agreed that they deserved capital punishment . . . for tearing the fabric of a seamless Christian society. (John L Ruth., “America’s Anabaptists: Who They Are,” Christianity Today, October 22, 1990)

    The penalties enjoined by the Town Council of Zurich [for Anabaptists] were ‘drowning, burning, or beheading,’ according as it seemed advisable . . . ‘It is our will,’ the Council proclaimed, ‘that wherever they be found, whether singly or in companies, they shall be drowned to death, and that none of them shall be spared. (Janssen, V, 153-157)

    1527
    Luther’s home territory of Saxony had instituted banishment for Catholics. (Grisar, VI, 241-242).
    Inquisitor General: Martin Luther. Heretics? Catholics. “It is the duty of the authorities to resist and punish such public blasphemy.” (Grisar, VI, 240)

    1528
    At Constance, on March 10, the Catholic faith was banned. “There are no rights whatever beyond those laid down in the Gospel as it is now understood” So then they went about following what they interpreted the Bible to command by smashing altars, organs, and everything inside the Catholic churches were considered idolatrous. (Janssen, V, 146)

    Zwingli declared the massacre of the bishops for the sake of the gospel. (Janssen, V, 180; Zwingli’s Works, VII, 174-184) Zwingli’s treatment of Anabaptists hadn’t improved for his town council ordered 170 heretics burnt through the cheeks with hot irons; many were beheaded; some had their tongues cut out. (Janssen, V, 160)

    Protestant theologian Meyfart (on tortures of Catholics he personally witnessed): “Rome it is not customary to subject a murderer . . . an incestuous person, or an adulterer to torture for the space of more than an hour; but in Germany . . .the torture is kept up for a whole day, for a day and a night, for two days . . . even also for four days . . . after which it begins again . . . There are stories extant so horrible and revolting that no true man can hear of them without a shudder.” (Janssen, XVI, 516-518, 521)

    1529
    Back in Luthersville and Calvinsville: the Council of Strassburg ordered the total destruction of several Catholic churches and convents. (Janssen, V, 143-144). AND in Frankfurt-am-Main (Durant, 424). AND in Basle, Switzerland. (Stoddard, 94)

    1530
    Luther advocates death by hanging for heretics and traitors.

    1531
    Luther’s bosom reformer, Melanchthon, insisted on capital punishment for the rejection of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (after putting some to death for this he changed his mind later on in life and himself rejected the real presence), the denial of infant baptism (Smith, 177), and the belief that some heathen might be saved (Janssen, IV, 140-141). He demanded the suppression of all books that opposed or hindered Lutheran teaching (Janssen, XIV, 503).

    The Protestant states suppressed or forbade Catholic worship, and seized Catholic properties (Janssen, VI, 46-63, 181, 190, 208-214, 348-349). Censorship of the press was adopted (Janssen, IV, 232 ff.), along with excommunication (e.g., in the Augsburg Confession of 1530).

    (note: I’m pretty sure these last two paragraphs were copied and pasted directly from Dave Armstrong’s website.)

    Inquisitor General: Melanchthon Heretics: Anabaptists

    After scores being sentence to death or life imprisonment, Melanchthon responded: “Why should we pity such men more than God does?” (Durant, 423) When Luther read of what his old friend was doing he replied that it please him and about all the cruelty his response was, “it is even more cruel of them . . . not to teach any certain doctrine — to persecute the true doctrine . . .(Grisar, VI, 251)

    In Strasburg not only the Catholic heretics were put to death, their entire families were executed with them. (Bax, 352).

    1533
    Luther began what he called “frightening” citizens to attend Lutheran preaching under excommunication and threats of civil punishment. (Grisar, VI, 365; letter to Leonard Beyer,)

    1534
    Anglican England began slaughtering the Irish monks, almost 800 a year.

    1535
    Catholic mass abolished in Geneva. All Catholic churches, monasteries and convents seized and closed. (Harkness, 8)
    Several Lutheran towns voted to hang or banish Anabaptists, Catholics or Zwinglians. (Janssen, V, 481).

    King Henry burned or beheaded or disemboweled Anabaptists, monks and bishops. (Hughes, 181-182) Let’s hear some more gruesome details by one who saw it. These heretics were, “hanged until partially conscious. Then their bellies were cut open, their intestines wrenched out and tossed on a fire, and their hearts ripped out by hand. The bodies were beheaded and quartered, and the pieces were posted at various locations throughout England. As the executioner slit open his belly, John Houghton, prior of the London Carthusian monastery, said, “O most holy Jesus, have mercy upon me in this hour.” This was the punishment for treason in sixteenth-century England. Their crime? Refusal to recognize “the king, our sovereign, to be the supreme head of the Church of England afore the Apostles of Christ’s Church.” Oh about 318 of them…. During England’s “Pilgrimage of Grace” the King suppressed those darned Catholic revolts, killing as many as 4000.

    1536
    Luther: “That seditious articles of doctrine [Catholics and Anabaptist’s] should be punished by the sword …when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death.” (Janssen, X, 222-223; pamphlet of 1536)
    “Zwingli complained of Luther’s intolerance when he was the victim . . . but he and his followers threw the poor Anabaptists into the Lake of Zurich, enclosed in sacks.” (Patrick O’Hare, 50:293)

    1530-40 Northern Europe
    [There came a change . . .] The temptation to loot Church property and the habit of doing so had appeared and was growing; and this rapidly created a vested interest in promoting the change of religion. Those who attacked Catholic doctrine, as, for instance, in the matters of celibacy in the monastic orders . . . opened the door for the seizure of the enormous clerical endowments . . . by the Princes . . . The property of convents and monasteries passed wholesale to the looters over great areas of Christendom: Scandinavia, the British Isles, the Northern Netherlands, much of the Germanies and many of the Swiss Cantons. The endowments of hospitals, colleges, schools, guilds, were largely though not wholly seized . . . Such an economic change in so short a time our civilization had never seen . . . The new adventurers and the older gentry who had so suddenly enriched themselves, saw, in the return of Catholicism, peril to their immense new fortunes. (Hilaire Belloc, 9-l0)
    [This is getting too long so I am going to skip some dates… just more of the same…. and I don’t want to be too redundant.]

    1538
    Henry made sure the Bible was made available to the English people.

    1539
    Henry regrets giving Bible to people because of theological riots in home, churches and taverns and forbids anyone but licensed theologians from preaching from scripture.

    Catholic friar, John Forest, roasted alive over a fire made of a wooden statue of a saint.

    1545 Switzerland
    John Calvin wrote, “If he [Michael Servetus] comes to Geneva, I will never allow him to depart alive.” A few years later: Michael came. He did not conquer, and Michael burned.

    Calvin recalls his martyrdom: “showed the dumb stupidity of a beast . . . He went on bellowing . . . in the Spanish fashion: “Misericordias!” . . .(Daniel-Rops, 190-191)

    1554 Switzerland
    Reformer Theodore of Beza wrote: “What crime can be greater or more heinous than heresy… Christian magistrates [Geneva], do your duty to God, who has put the sword into your hands for the honor of His majesty; strike valiantly these monsters in the guise of men.” Later he characterized those who demanded freedom of conscience “worse than the tyranny of the pope. It is better to have a tyrant, no matter how cruel he may be, than to let everyone do as he pleases.”

    1558
    When in England’s Protestant Queen Elizabeth I gained the throne, Ireland “ran red with the blood of innocent victims.” This icy butcheress starved to death or slaughtered around 1.5 million Catholics and seized their land. ( J. M., The Way of the Aggressor, p. 20.)

    For just a break in the horror I thought I would pause here and tell you that:
    Zwingli called Luther “the devil” among other things many times.
    Lesser known Reformer, Oecolampadius believed Luther to be seduced by Satan and arrogant.
    Luther called other reformers “miscreants” who have “in-deviled, through-deviled, over-deviled, corrupt hearts and lying mouths.” He considered them damned.
    Calvin called Luther ignorant and wrote that “people ought not to let themselves be duped by following his steps.” He also wrote, “I am carefully on the watch that Lutheranism gain no ground, nor be introduced into France. The best means . . . for checking the evil would be that the confession written by me.” And he couldn’t stand Zwingli either.

    1615
    pastedGraphic.pdf
    A Jesuit Disemboweled
    Jesuits mutilated in England and Scotland.
    Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress

    1652
    British Parliament signs act that every Irish Catholic priest be hanged, beheaded, quartered, his bowels drawn out and burned, his head thrust upon public poles. Dissenters fingers were twisted off, they were seared with hot iron, whipped or beaten till bones were broken. The edict added, “If any one shall know where a priest remains concealed, in caves, woods, or caverns, or if by any chance he should meet a priest on the highway, and not immediately take him into custody and present him before the next magistrate, such person is to be considered a traitor and an enemy of the Republic… any correspondence or friendship with a priest, he is to suffer death.”

    British Protestant historian, Professor Lecky recorded in his History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century, “the slaughter of the Catholic Irishmen was looked upon as literally the slaughter of wild beasts. Not only men, but even women and children who fell into the hands of the English, were deliberately and systematically butchered. Bands of soldiers traversed great tracts of country, slaying every living thing they met.”
    Scottish Protestant Dr. Smiles agrees, “Men, women and children wherever found were put indiscriminately to death. The soldiery was mad for blood. Priests were murdered at the altar, children at their mother’s breast. The beauty of woman, the venerableness of age, the innocence of youth was no protection against these sanguinary demons in human form.”

    1586
    British citizen, Protestant Margaret Clitherow, converted to Catholicism and was arrested for harboring a Catholic priest. Her sentence? The same as all who converted, she was to be crushed to death beneath a half tone of weights. She is recorded as stating, “I am fully resolved in all things touching my faith, which I ground upon Jesus Christ, and by him I steadfastly believe to be saved, which faith I acknowledge to be the same that he left to his apostles, and they to their successors from time to time, and is taught in the Catholic Church through all Christendom, and promised to remain with her unto the world’s end, and hell-gates shall not prevail against the same faith; for if an angel come from heaven, and preach any other doctrine than we have received, the Apostle biddeth us not believe him.” As her ribs cracked, Margaret whimpered, “Jesus! Jesus! Jesus! Have mercy on me.” Her body was left under the door and weights from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., then stuffed secretly in a rubbish heap. Queen Elizabeth who ordered this execution, was responsible for murdering more Catholic in one year that the Inquisition did in all its over three hundred years. Anglican bishops were accomplices if not directly but for their silence.

    1649
    Oliver Cromwell sent to their deaths over 5500 Irish specifically as punishment for their Catholic faith. Including the entire population of the town of Drogheda. When reporting to the House of Commons, Cromwell announced, “It has pleased God to bless our endeavor at Drogheda. . . we put to the sword the whole number. . . . I wish that all honest hearts may give the glory of this to God alone, to whom indeed the praise of this mercy belongs.” (Seumas MacManus,The Story of the Irish Race, 1920)

    The infamous “Cromwellian Settlements” followed his conquest of Ireland. Millions of acres of land were allocated to English Protestant settlers. The landowners of Irish birth were either killed, banished or forced out to Connaught in the west of Ireland, where it was hoped “they would starve to death.” (J. M., The Way of the Aggressor, p. 20.)

    From 1649 to 1652, one-third of Catholic Ireland, about 660,000 people were killed. Twenty thousand Irish boys and girls also were sold into slavery to the West Indies. (F. H., Cromwell, p. 149.) It was a deliberate Protestant attempt at Catholic genocide. Many scholars today call it an attempt at ethnic cleansing.

    In Sweden, Catholic land and churches were seized by the crown. In many countries Catholic Bibles were taken and burned. Huguenots butchered Catholics by tearing out their bowels, burning them, hacking up children, priests’ genitals were cut off, grilled and fed to them.

    pastedGraphic_1.pdf
    Persecution of Catholics by Huguenots

    Frightful Outrages perpetrated by the Huguenots in France
    Engraving from Richard Verstegen, Théâtre des Cruautez des
    Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, D.C. (3)

    Rousseau says truly:
    “The Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, and its authors were universal persecutors . . .”

    Auguste Comte also writes:

    “The intolerance of Protestantism was certainly not less tyrannical than that with which Catholicism is so much reproached.” (Philosophie Positive, IV, 51)

    1789 French Revolution
    One of the aims of the revolution was the destruction of the Catholic Church. The persecution and death was vicious. Some French historians call it French Catholic genocide.

    Austria and America had strong anti-Catholic laws and sentiments but no persecution.

    1845
    Irish Catholic Holocaust — 5-8 Million died because of anti-catholic bigotry. Starved to death by Anglican England.

  • shoebat

    Alright, I will look for your response tomorrow as you promised.

  • qbertqbertqbert

    Another eyeopener, thank you Walid.

  • wordfromthewise

    Christians had to fight the first 8 crusades in the 11th century because the Pope in Byzantium asked for their help in trying to defeat the hordes of moslems, who were destroying everything in their path. Christ was no wimp, as you and half the world likes to suggest. He soon made a whip to drive the sellers and beggars out of the Temple and like any one of His followers, he was not afraid to take up arms to fight in the name of Right.

  • wordfromthewise

    The directive “Thou shalt not kill” should read, “Thou shalt not murder”, which is subtly different.

    • redleg

      When I was in Catholic School it was thou shalt not kill. I was quoting Ecclesiastes 3. Something that I learned about from a song. It created a moral dilemma for me until I became a born-again believer and started studying the Bible on my own. Moral dilemma solved, thanks to the Word of God.

  • shoebat

    Mitch, STOP IT.

    I know you say that you do not care about what Luther said.

    This is NOT what I asked of you. I asked you to simply answer the questions to the best of your ability. Now, you can either answer them or you can’t.

    Truth is you can, but you DO NOT WANT TO.

    You know why?

    Because answering them (actually it doesn’t matter now) blows all your theology out of the water. Here is why, let me help you:

    1) The way you treat Luther is as if Muslims treats Muhammad who had the greatest impact on his movement, Luther had the greatest impact on yours.

    You can never say no he didn’t since if he didn’t then you would need to interpret Scripture from the prism of what was written pre-Luther and you refuse to.

    2) You would NEVER accept the Muslim argument who says “Yes, I have problems with things Muhammad said. I recognize him as only a man, and don’t idolize him or consider anything he wrote as inspired writ.”

    And in the same rate you would reject your own interpretation of your own theology.

    You can’t argue “I use Scripture alone” unless you adhere to Luther because ONLY Luther used “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone). No others before did and in essence that would mean that entire Christianity was taught falsely until Luther showed up. Christians did not personally use Scripture without adhering to Church authority to interpret major theological issues. This is Christian history.

    Now, had the Catholic church fathers came even remotely close to anything Luther said, you would be quoting them left right and center. But this is part of this whole hypocrisy I see everywhere including the cork that is plugging your mouth in which you are unable to respond.

    Its rare that you would find a pastor expose the extend of Luther’s sickness. This would include you.

    Yet you don’t have a problem gleaning from his theological concepts utterly amazes me on how far people go to cover up everything under the guise of “I follow Scripture alone”.

    “do you have problems with Coptic theology?”

    Yes you do. You completely reject Coptic theology.

    “Eastern Christian Orthodox theology?”

    Indeed you do reject these as well.

    “Any other of the mainstream Christian theology besides the Protestant reformation?”

    Indeed, all of them except Luther’s and Zwingli. And it matters not that you might not even know Zwingli. Your tradition of iconoclasm stems from him whether you know this or not.

    “Who exactly in all denominations you have a problem with?”

    EVERYONE but LUTHER.

    “Also, Please show references from the True Church that was not Catholic or Orthodox prior to Luther? Name them?”

    You can’t and you won’t. This I guarantee 100%

    “You don’t have a problem gleaning theology from Luther who wrote: “The Jews and Their Lies”?”

    You actually don’t

    “Luther said “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly … as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin … No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” Is Luther correct or incorrect on this theological concept and why?”

    In your view HE IS 100% CORRECT. ONE CAN SIN ALL DAY LONG BECAUSE HE IS SAVED.

    “Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”

    This actually matters lithe to you since you would say that Peter denied Christ.

    “I want your view on each of these statements Luther said. What do you feel Luther was having said what he said:

    A) A Christian?
    B) A heretic?
    C) Just a sinner who was “sinning boldly”?”

    Your answer would obviously be C since A would destroy your own base of the reformation. B would means that this reformation was founded by a heretic.

    “Can one who is saved sin a million times over? Yes/No?”

    You answer has to be YES because your whole theology is flawed.

    “Now, please give me a cohesive answer that is somewhat intelligent, or else, lets just move on, I don’t like to waste time.”

    You can’t and the cat swallowed your tongue sir.

    I wasn’t born yesterday Mitch. I have seen you commenting for a while and to be frank, your not seeking truth, your seeking nonsense.

    Good day.

    I said Good Day.

  • shoebat

    Mitch, STOP IT.

    I know you say that you do not care about what Luther said.

    This is NOT what I asked of you. I asked you to simply answer the questions to the best of your ability. Now, you can either answer them or you can’t.

    Truth is you can, but you DO NOT WANT TO.

    You know why?

    Because answering them (actually it doesn’t matter now) blows all your theology out of the water. Here is why, let me help you:

    1) The way you treat Luther is as if Muslims treats Muhammad who had the greatest impact on his movement, Luther had the greatest impact on yours.

    You can never say no he didn’t since if he didn’t then you would need to interpret Scripture from the prism of what was written pre-Luther and you refuse to.

    2) You would NEVER accept the Muslim argument who says “Yes, I have problems with things Muhammad said. I recognize him as only a man, and don’t idolize him or consider anything he wrote as inspired writ.”

    And in the same rate you would reject your own interpretation of your own theology.

    You can’t argue “I use Scripture alone” unless you adhere to Luther because ONLY Luther used “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone). No others before did and in essence that would mean that entire Christianity was taught falsely until Luther showed up. Christians did not personally use Scripture without adhering to Church authority to interpret major theological issues. This is Christian history.

    Now, had the Catholic church fathers came even remotely close to anything Luther said, you would be quoting them left right and center. But this is part of this whole hypocrisy I see everywhere including the cork that is plugging your mouth in which you are unable to respond.

    Its rare that you would find a pastor expose the extend of Luther’s sickness. This would include you.

    Yet you don’t have a problem gleaning from his theological concepts utterly amazes me on how far people go to cover up everything under the guise of “I follow Scripture alone”.

    “do you have problems with Coptic theology?”

    Yes you do. You completely reject Coptic theology.

    “Eastern Christian Orthodox theology?”

    Indeed you do reject these as well.

    “Any other of the mainstream Christian theology besides the Protestant reformation?”

    Indeed, all of them except Luther’s and Zwingli. And it matters not that you might not even know Zwingli. Your tradition of iconoclasm stems from him whether you know this or not.

    “Who exactly in all denominations you have a problem with?”

    EVERYONE but LUTHER.

    “Also, Please show references from the True Church that was not Catholic or Orthodox prior to Luther? Name them?”

    You can’t and you won’t. This I guarantee 100%

    “You don’t have a problem gleaning theology from Luther who wrote: “The Jews and Their Lies”?”

    You actually don’t

    “Luther said “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly … as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin … No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” Is Luther correct or incorrect on this theological concept and why?”

    In your view HE IS 100% CORRECT. ONE CAN SIN ALL DAY LONG BECAUSE HE IS SAVED.

    “Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”

    This actually matters lithe to you since you would say that Peter denied Christ.

    “I want your view on each of these statements Luther said. What do you feel Luther was having said what he said:

    A) A Christian?
    B) A heretic?
    C) Just a sinner who was “sinning boldly”?”

    Your answer would obviously be C since A would destroy your own base of the reformation. B would means that this reformation was founded by a heretic.

    “Can one who is saved sin a million times over? Yes/No?”

    You answer has to be YES because your whole theology is flawed.

    “Now, please give me a cohesive answer that is somewhat intelligent, or else, lets just move on, I don’t like to waste time.”

    You can’t and the cat swallowed your tongue sir.

    I wasn’t born yesterday Mitch. I have seen you commenting for a while and to be frank, your not seeking truth, your seeking nonsense.

    Good day.

    I said Good Day.

    • Mitch

      W: Truth is you can, but you DO NOT WANT TO.

      Yes, because it’s a lot of work based on a false concept. Do you think that in the future you could make your responses a little shorter and to the point, please?

      W: You know why?

      Because answering them (actually it doesn’t matter now) blows all your theology out of the water. Here is why, let me help you:

      M: No, it doesn’t.

      1) The way you treat Luther is as if Muslims treats Muhammad who had the greatest impact on his movement, Luther had the greatest impact on yours.

      You can never say no he didn’t since if he didn’t then you would need to interpret Scripture from the prism of what was written pre-Luther and you refuse to.

      M: Muhammad was THE final prophet of Islam and the transcriber of their Qur’an; the one whose actions were considered the perfect pattern for followers of Islam. Luther, on the other hand, was one among many Reformers to whom God revealed error in the Roman Church, and sought correction.

      W: You can’t argue “I use Scripture alone” unless you adhere to Luther because ONLY Luther used “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone). No others before did…

      M: It’s a concept, not a person; I adhere to the concept and recognize the person who espoused it, but nothing more. Does it matter if Sola Scriptura was believed and taught before Luther if it is true?

      W: …and in essence that would mean that entire Christianity was taught falsely until Luther showed up. Christians did not personally use Scripture without adhering to Church authority to interpret major theological issues. This is Christian history.

      M: The Church did teach the deity of Christ, His death and resurrection, and faith in those facts. That in itself is enough for the Holy Spirit to work salvation in people, so I believe there have always been believers within the dormant church through the centuries. As I’ve said many times, there are regenerate Christians within the Roman Church in spite of what it teaches.

      Now, had the Catholic church fathers came even remotely close to anything Luther said, you would be quoting them left right and center. But this is part of this whole hypocrisy I see everywhere including the cork that is plugging your mouth in which you are unable to respond.

      M: Augustine

      W: Its rare that you would find a pastor expose the extend of Luther’s sickness.

      M: He became a grumpy old man in the end, but it doesn’t matter, as I’ve said before.

      W: “do you have problems with Coptic theology?”
      Yes you do. You completely reject Coptic theology.
      “Eastern Christian Orthodox theology?”
      Indeed you do reject these as well.

      M: My theology comes from the scriptures, so I’m not really all that concerned about theological schisms that happened many centuries ago.

      W: “Who exactly in all denominations you have a problem with?”
      EVERYONE but LUTHER.

      M: I don’t have any problems with any denominations that uphold the essentials of Christianity. Honest…I really don’t.

      W: “Can one who is saved sin a million times over? Yes/No?”

      M: Yes, because the sinner is “saved to the uttermost”, but regenerate Christians desire to live in the Spirit and reject the sins of the flesh.

      You have a good day too, my friend.

      • shoebat

        ” I believe there have always been believers within the dormant church through the centuries. ”

        Name them? Name one movement with references.

        You see, this statement you made? It destroys your argumentations, completely. I am not saying this to put you down, I am saying this to set your issues straight. You brought several issues within your comments the last few weeks, but the root of all these issues lays in your wrong foundation. And to even make things worse, you agreed with Luther’s “sin boldly” because you really had no choice, since such false theology stems from Luther and NOT Scripture.

        “He became a grumpy old man in the end, but it doesn’t matter, as I’ve said before.”

        Luther simply “became grumpy” while the Catholic, Orthodox and Copt all became heretical, is that what you believe? So you got your theology from some “grumpy” guy and that you weeded these theological concepts.

        You also said “Augustine” is close to Luther in heresy, yet you never pointed out any heresy. I did with Luther.

        “It’s a concept, not a person; I adhere to”

        Can one make that an argument without showing such concepts from the inception of the Church?

        Here, I will make it simple since you complained about long responses, point a single group that you consider to follow these “concepts” from 100 AD to 1500 AD? Just one group or names? Again, I guarantee you can’t and you won’t. This I am confident about.

  • shoebat

    I am at a puzzle here gabe and I am not sure what this is all about.

  • shoebat

    1) “M: Believers, Walid, just people who are regenerate through faith in Christ. I’m not talking about movements, I’m talking about discrete individuals because that is what the Church is made of; not movements or religious organizations as in your seemingly inescapable mindset. People whom God has chosen, WITHIN the Roman Church AND the Orthodox Church, to regenerate by faith through grace…many whom undoubtedly did not know they were saved, nor saw any need to correct doctrine or start a movement, and kept on following the doctrines and practices they had been taught.”

    Now come on Mitch, I mean, lets be real, seriously. So from the Apostles who required the Church to be a “Lighthouse to the nations” unhidden, on the open for the whole world to see as Scripture demanded them, which they did even in the colosseum and we can easily document their theology from history which doesn’t quite match yours (care to go that route for me to prove this?)

    And now you have all of the sudden, and just to win an argument, put the “church” and its “theology” to have been “secret” and “scattered” by individuals whom no one can document would very much sound exactly as what Mormons and other cults claim about their faith.

    And no Mitch, Christians came in movements. There were no Bibles at hand and interpret as you will. There was church authority and all this was easily documented.

    Now we can be honest and confront the issues, or go in circles with all sorts of unproven claims like you make here, which one is it?

    2) “Besides, how could Christ say we should forgive 70 times 7 times, which is obviously meant to mean without limit, when God Himself is unwilling to do the same?”

    So then, you would agree that one should “sin and sin boldly”, right? wrong? which is it? there are only two choices to that question, eeeneee meeeneee miny mo …. or should that too be stroked as “irrelevant” by your mighty pen?

    “For instance the Berean church was evangelized by Paul, yet they weren’t simply following Paul, they were following the concept of Sola Scriptura; that the Bible must be consulted as the ultimate authority. You’ll notice that they were commended for this.”

    FALSE again. And let me give you some advice, NEVER write a claim without proving it and showing the text:

    “Now the Bereans… Received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

    Luke compliments the Bereans for being more noble than the Thessalonians because they received “the word.” They also “examined the scriptures” to see if “the word” that they were told was true. So what was “the word” they received and what scriptures did they examine?

    These were mainly Jews and the “Scripture” they examined was the Old Testament. What we see here is a group of people being taught about Christianity by Paul PRIOR to the existence of the New Testament. They eagerly listened to Paul while examining the Old Testament Scripture.

    The NT came way later, so everything that Paul told them was not ALL in the NT and these were handed down many things that are traditional Christianity.

    In fact, you will NEVER find anything in Scripture that explicitly condemn Sacred Tradition,on the contrary:

    “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

    Do you see the word “traditions”? If you want to be Sola Scriptura than what do you do with this? It would be a complete contradiction just with this one verse and so to follow Scripture (as you suggest) we would have to say “Scripture and Church Tradition Alone”. There is no way around this.

    But this is not simply one isolate verse:

    “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

    “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

    Now we even have Jesus saying:

    “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matt. 28:19-20)”

    Is ALL what Jesus commanded in Scripture which even Scripture says its not? Jesus as well as the apostles passed down to the Church things the are not in Scripture, nevertheless, they do not in no way go against Scripture either.

    So to conclude your question, you must differentiate between what is God’s tradition and what is man’s.

    “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition …”

    See the word “human”? Is this the same as “traditions which you were taught by us [Paul]” and “the tradition that you received from us” and “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter”?

    Its obvious that you are disagreeing because of one reason: The tradition of men. You have been taught and so many millions believe what you believe from man’s traditional teachings that your mind is made up and its etched on your soul as I can clearly see. I suggest you do away with the traditions of men and follow the traditions of God. But are you willing Mitch?

  • shoebat

    But you make logical sense when you state:

    “Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic theology would have been in error if Luther had never been born, and I didn’t get my theology from Luther. For example, I also believe in the five points of Calvinism, but I don’t follow Calvin,”

    By your own admission it was Luther who showed you the errors and now you didn’t get your theology from Luther?

    “I also believe in the five points of Calvinism, but I don’t follow Calvin”??????

    This is like saying while I believe and I do follow my wife’s 3 demands (take out trash, mow grass and pay bills) but then conclude “I don’t listen to my wife” !!!!

    Mitch, That makes absolutely no logical sense.