COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]    DISCOURSE ON PURGATORY – PART 2

[1]     SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [417B]

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;  2  Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:   Ephesians 2:1 – 2, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

As the Bible shows at 1 Timothy 5:6, [AV] “But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.” Clearly showing that those who seek to live a hedonistic way of life are NOT winning Almighty God’s (YHWH’s) pleasure.  Yes, we must be careful not to become overcome with evil and false doctrine per Romans 12:21, [AV] “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”  Yes, the judgment of this world is near at hand, and as revealed at John 12:31, [AV] “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.’  Please give heed to James 4:5, [AV] “Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?”   



[2]     DISCOURSE ON PURGATORY – PART 2

ALL OF THE BIBLE IS VALUABLE:

That all of the Bible is beneficial and NOT outdated is brought out at Romans 15:4, "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope." (ASV); and John 20:31, "but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." (ASV).

JESUS (YESHUA) AND THE APOSTLES FREELY QUOTED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT:

Jesus (Yeshua) and his apostles clearly quoted from the Old Testament [Hebrew Testament] clearly showing that they considered all of it as the inspired word of God (YHWH) as it truly is.  This is clearly shown at Luke 4:17-21, "And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears." (ASV); and at Luke 24:27 & 44-45, "And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." And "And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me. 45    Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures;" (ASV).  Also, there many more scriptures showing that Jesus (Yeshua) and his apostles clearly quoted from the Old Testament.

In fact, many of these scriptures contain examples for our benefit today, one example being shown in Luke 17:26-30, "And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: 30 after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed." (ASV).

BIBLE TO BE VIEWED AS A UNIFORM WHOLE:

The Bible is shown to be clearly a uniform whole at 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is Inspired of God and beneficial." (NWT); therefore, the reading of it on a regular basis is important.  This is testified to at Matthew 4:4, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (ASV); and Deuteronomy 6:4-7, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, one Lord, and you must love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength.   These commandments which I give you this day are to be kept in your heart; you shall repeat them to your sons, and speak of them indoors and out of doors, when you lie down and when you rise." (The New English Bible; NEB); and 2 Timothy 3:15, "You know how, when you were a small child, you were taught the holy Scriptures; and it is these that make you wise to accept God's salvation by trusting in Christ Jesus." (Living New Testament; LNT); and Acts 17:11, "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

FOR THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE, WE MUST LOOK TO GOD (YHWH):

We must look to God (YHWH) for the correct interpretation of the Bible and not to men as testified to at Genesis 40:8, "They replied, 'We have each had a dream and there is no one to interpret it for us.'" (NWT); and Daniel 2:28, "but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he discloses to king Nebuchadnezzar what is to happen in the latter days.  Your dream and the visions of your brain in bed are these:" (The Bible, A New Translation, by James Moffatt, D.D., D.Litt., M.A.; ANT); and Matthew 11:25, "And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall war in battle with an exceeding great and mighty army; but he shall not stand; for they shall devise devices against him." (ASV).

Remember that the 'RIGHT' explanation is always harmonious with the rest of God's (YHWH's) word as brought out at 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of maners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind." (NET); and Acts 15:14-15, "Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written," (ASV).  Also, as brought out by Matthew 16:4, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonah. And he left them, and departed." (ASV); and Matthew 24:35, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (ASV).

EVENTS IN FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY POINT OUT MEANING:

Actually, events in fulfillment of prophecy point out Bible meaning as shown by Matthew 1:18 & 22-23, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit." And "22    Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us." (ASV); and Acts 2:4 & 14-21, "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." And "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, `saying', Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words. 15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is `but' the third hour of the day. 16 but this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel: 17 And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams: 18 Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heaven above, And signs on the earth beneath; Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the day of the Lord come, That great and notable `day'. 21 And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (ASV).

Remember, personal interpretation may lead to twisting of scriptures as shown by 2 Peter 3:15-16, "and the long-suffering of our Lord count ye salvation, according as also our beloved brother Paul -- according to the wisdom given to him -- did write to you  16 as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, among which things are certain hard to be understood, which the untaught and unstable do wrest, as also the other Writings, unto their own destruction." (ASV).  Also, adding to or taking away from the words of the Bible is wrong as shown at Revelation 22:18-19, "I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book:
19 and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book." (ASV).

CONCLUSION:

As can be seen from the foregoing, the Bible is truly the word of God (YHWH) and NOT of man as are all the other books in existence.  It is the only book God (YHWH) has ever inspired to be written and that God (YHWH) used divinely inspired men to record his thoughts in the words of men.  So as we can see, the proposition stated in the introduction has been proved past any reasonable doubt to all individuals who are honest with themselves.  Of course there will be many individuals who will not accept this, and this is to be expected; and that is why we have the saying you can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink.  These are the ones who want to believe myths and legends and figuratively say, 'my mind is made up, please do NOT confuse me with facts.'

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Many have asked questions on when will be the culmination of the end times, but the Bible clearly says as Matthew 24:36, "'But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the Son; only the Father." (The New English Bible; NEB).   Clearly if even Jesus (Yeshua) does not know, but only his Father (YHWH), NO human knows; therefore, listen not if someone, even a church leader, puts forth a date for the culmination of the end times.   Anyone doing so, no matter his rank or prominence, is simply a false prophet.  Note, this does NOT apply to those giving possible periods of time as probabilities, but to those only who put forth dates.  The fact is, we are living deep into the final period, or end times, before the culmination of the end times.

The Bible actually mentions what the signs will be showing this system is drawing close to its end.   However, it list four (4) specific things that must pass and/or occur before the culmination of the end times.  Three of these are detailed below and were written by others and not myself.

Four Items
1. Who will prove to be the King of the North?
2. They will say peace and security
3. The governments will turn on religion
4. They will turn on the JW and then his rath and the end comes.

# 2
In an article entitled, "The Nuclear Threat-Removed for Good!"


"Peace and Security"-A Counterfeit
It should be obvious that the nuclear threat is far from gone. Still, despite political, economic, and social unrest, the nations seem in the main to be optimistic. A steady endeavor to defuse the danger has been apparent since the UN International Year of Peace in 1986.


The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has in the last decade turned its doomsday clock-its method of indicating the probability of nuclear war-from 3 minutes before midnight back to 17 minutes before midnight. In 1989 the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute noted that "hope for peaceful conflict resolution is better founded than in any other year since the end of World War II."


In recent years the United Nations has been strengthened to deal with international trouble spots. Its success, while not total, has been sufficient to contribute to a general spirit of optimism. The future will likely bring additional breakthroughs. Cries of "peace and security" will probably become louder and more intense. They may even gain in credibility.


But beware! "Whenever it is that they are saying: 'Peace and security,'" warns the Bible, "then sudden destruction is to be instantly upon them just as the pang of distress upon a pregnant woman; and they will by no means escape." Thus, cries of "peace and security" will signal God's time "to bring to ruin those [who through pollution, nuclear and otherwise, are] ruining the earth."-1 Thessalonians 5:3, 4; Revelation 11:18.


Note that the Bible does not say that the nations will achieve "peace and security." They will apparently be talking about it in a unique way, expressing an optimism and a conviction not hitherto felt. The chances of achieving peace and security will appear to be closer than ever before. Despite a continuing nuclear threat, the nations will be lulled into a false sense of security.
True Christians, however, will not be deceived. With keen interest they will look beyond human peace and security to something better!

# 3
In an article entitled, "Peace for the False Messengers!"


Shortly, "crazed" members of the UN will be maneuvered by Jehovah to turn on false religion, as described at Revelation 17:16: "These will hate the harlot and will make her devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and will completely burn her with fire." This will mark the start of the great tribulation that is referred to at Matthew 24:21 and that will climax at Armageddon, the war of the great day of God the Almighty. Like ancient Babylon, Babylon the Great will meet up with the judgment pronounced at Jeremiah 51:13, 25: "'O woman residing on abounding waters, abundant in treasures, your end has come, the measure of your profit making. Here I am against you, O ruinous mountain,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'you ruiner of the whole earth; and I will stretch out my hand against you and roll you away from the crags and make you a burnt-out mountain.'" Corrupt, warmongering nations will follow false religion into destruction as Jehovah's day of vengeance catches up with them also.

In an article entitled, "Executing Babylon the Great"


Again Jehovah uses human rulers in executing judgment. "For God put it into their hearts to carry out his thought, even to carry out their one thought by giving their kingdom to the wild beast, until the words of God will have been accomplished." (Revelation 17:17) What is God's "thought"? To arrange for the executioners of Babylon the Great to band together, in order to destroy her completely. Of course, the rulers' motive in attacking her will be to carry out their own "one thought." They will feel that it is in their nationalistic interests to turn upon the great harlot. They may come to view the continued existence of organized religion within their boundaries as a threat to their sovereignty. But Jehovah will actually be maneuvering matters; they will carry out his thought by destroying his age-old, adulterous enemy at one stroke!-Compare Jeremiah 7:8-11, 34.


Yes, the nations will use the scarlet-colored wild beast, the United Nations, in destroying Babylon the Great. They do not act on their own initiative, for Jehovah puts it into their hearts "even to carry out their one thought by giving their kingdom to the wild beast." When the time comes, the nations will evidently see the need to strengthen the United Nations. They will give it teeth, as it were, lending it whatever authority and power they possess so that it can turn upon false religion and fight successfully against her "until the words of God will have been accomplished." Thus, the ancient harlot will come to her complete end. And good riddance to her!

# 4
In an article entitled, "Stand Still and See the Salvation of Jehovah!"


Who Will Lead Gog's Attack?
Gog of Magog is identified as Satan the Devil in his debased position since 1914. As a spirit creature, he cannot carry out his attack directly, but he will use human agencies to do his deeds. Who will these human agencies be? The Bible does not give us details, yet it does give us certain indications that can help us to identify who they will be. As world events unfold in fulfillment of Bible prophecies, we will gradually get an ever clearer picture. Jehovah's people avoid speculation but remain spiritually alert, fully aware of political and religious developments that fit into the framework of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy.


The prophet Daniel sheds light upon a final attack against God's people, writing: "He [the king of the north] will certainly go forth in a great rage in order to annihilate and to devote many to destruction. And he will plant his palatial tents between the grand sea and the holy mountain of Decoration."-Daniel 11:44, 45.


In the context of the Bible, "the grand sea" was the Great Sea, or the Mediterranean, and "the holy mountain" was Zion, of which Jehovah said: "I, even I, have installed my king upon Zion, my holy mountain." (Psalm 2:6; Joshua 1:4) Thus, in a spiritual sense, the land "between the grand sea and the holy mountain" represents the prosperous spiritual estate of anointed Christians. They are no longer identified with the sea of humanity alienated from God, and they are looking forward to ruling with Christ Jesus in the heavenly Kingdom. Clearly, God's anointed servants, along with their loyal companions of the great crowd, will be the target of the king of the north when he launches his vicious attack in fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy.-Isaiah 57:20; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 14:1.


In an article entitled, "How Will God's Servants React?"
What will servants of God be expected to do once they come under attack? Again, the reaction of God's typical nation in the days of Jehoshaphat sets the pattern. Note that its citizens were commanded to do three things: (1) take their position, (2) stand still, and (3) see the salvation of Jehovah. How will God's people today act in harmony with these words?-2 Chronicles 20:17.
15 Take their position: Without wavering, God's people will continue to hold to their position of active support for God's Kingdom. They will continue to maintain their position of Christian neutrality. They will be "steadfast, unmovable" in their loyal service to Jehovah and will continue publicly to praise Jehovah for his loving-kindness. (1 Corinthians 15:58; Psalm 118:28, 29) No present or future pressure can shake them from this divinely approved position.


Stand still: Jehovah's servants will not try to save themselves but will place their implicit trust in Jehovah. Only he is capable of rescuing his servants out of world chaos, and he has promised to do so. (Isaiah 43:10, 11; 54:15; Lamentations 3:26) Trusting in Jehovah will include trusting the modern visible channel that he has clearly been using for decades to serve his purposes. As never before, true Christians will then need to place their confidence in fellow worshipers authorized by Jehovah and his reigning King to take the lead. These faithful men will direct God's people. Ignoring their direction could end in disaster.-Matthew 24:45-47; Hebrews 13:7, 17.


See the salvation of Jehovah: Salvation will be the reward for all those who hold to their position of Christian integrity and who trust in Jehovah for deliverance. Until the final hour-and to the extent they can-they will announce the arrival of the day of Jehovah's judgment. All creation must know that Jehovah is the true God and that he has faithful servants on earth. Never again will there be the need for a prolonged controversy over the rightfulness of Jehovah's sovereignty.-Ezekiel 33:33; 36:23.


With renewed energy, God's people will enter into the new world, eager to sing a victory song, even as did the Israelites of old after their deliverance through the Red Sea. Forever grateful to Jehovah for his protection, individually and collectively, they will echo words of long ago: "Let me sing to Jehovah, for he has become highly exalted. . . . Jehovah is a manly person of war. Jehovah is his name. . . . Your right hand, O Jehovah, can shatter an enemy. And in the abundance of your superiority you can throw down those who rise up against you; you send out your burning anger, it eats them up like stubble. . . . You in your loving-kindness have led the people whom you have recovered; you in your strength will certainly conduct them to your holy abiding place. . . . You will bring them and plant them in the mountain of your inheritance, an established place that you have made ready for you to inhabit, O Jehovah, a sanctuary, O Jehovah, that your hands have established. Jehovah will rule as king to time indefinite, even forever."-Exodus 15:1-19.


#'s 1, 3, 4
In an article entitled, "The Final Victory of Michael, the Great Prince"
The Final Victory of Michael, the Great Prince
"During that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people."-DANIEL 12:1.
"WHO is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice to send Israel away?" (Exodus 5:2) These were Pharaoh's challenging words to Moses. Refusing to acknowledge the supreme Godship of Jehovah, Pharaoh was determined to keep Israel in slavery. Other rulers have shown a similar disdain for Jehovah, and the kings of Daniel's prophecy are no exception. (Isaiah 36:13-20) Indeed, the king of the north has gone further. The angel says: "He will exalt himself and magnify himself above every god; and against the God of gods he will speak marvelous things. . . . And to the God of his fathers he will give no consideration; and to the desire of women and to every other god he will give no consideration, but over everyone he will magnify himself."-Daniel 11:36, 37.


2 Fulfilling these prophetic words, the king of the north rejected "the God of his fathers" (or, "his ancestral gods," The New English Bible), be it the pagan gods of Rome or the Trinitarian divinity of Christendom. Hitler used Christendom for his own ends but evidently planned to replace her with a new, Germanic church. His successor promoted outright atheism. Thus the king of the north has made a god of himself, 'magnifying himself over everyone.'


3 The prophecy continues: "To the god of fortresses, in his position he will give glory; and to a god that his fathers did not know he will give glory by means of gold and by means of silver and by means of precious stone and by means of desirable things." (Daniel 11:38) In fact, the king of the north placed his trust in modern scientific militarism, "the god of fortresses." All through the time of the end, he has sought salvation through this "god," sacrificing enormous wealth on its altar.


4 "He will act effectively against the most fortified strongholds, along with a foreign god. Whoever has given him recognition he will make abound with glory, and he will actually make them rule among many; and the ground he will apportion out for a price." (Daniel 11:39) Trusting in his militaristic "foreign god," the king of the north has acted most "effectively," proving to be a formidable military power in "the last days." (2 Timothy 3:1) Those who supported his ideology were rewarded with political, financial, and sometimes military support.


"In the Time of the End"
5 Daniel 11:40a reads: "In the time of the end the king of the south will engage with him in a pushing." This and the following verses have been viewed as having a fulfillment in our future. However, if "the time of the end" here means the same as it does at Daniel 12:4, 9, we should look for the fulfillment of these words throughout the last days. Has the king of the south 'pushed' the king of the north during this time? Yes, indeed. After the first world war, the punitive peace treaty was surely a 'pushing,' an incitement to retaliation. After his victory in the second world war, the king of the south targeted fearsome nuclear weapons on his rival and organized against him a powerful military alliance, NATO. As the years went by, his "pushing" included high-tech espionage as well as diplomatic and military offensives.


6 How did the king of the north react? "Against him the king of the north will storm with chariots and with horsemen and with many ships; and he will certainly enter into the lands and flood over and pass through." (Daniel 11:40b) The history of the last days has featured the expansionism of the king of the north. During the second world war, the Nazi "king" flooded over his borders into the surrounding lands. At the end of that war, the successor "king" built a powerful empire outside his own boundaries. During the Cold War, the king of the north fought his rival in proxy wars and insurgencies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. He persecuted genuine Christians, limiting (but by no means stopping) their activity. And his military and political offensives brought a number of lands under his control. This is exactly as the angel prophesied: "He will also actually enter into the land of the Decoration [the spiritual estate of God's people], and there will be many lands that will be made to stumble."-Daniel 11:41a.


7 Nevertheless, even though-from the viewpoint of his rival-the king of the north has loomed as a menacing presence, he has not achieved world conquest. "These are the ones that will escape out of his hand, Edom and Moab and the main part of the sons of Ammon." (Daniel 11:41b) In ancient times, Edom, Moab, and Ammon were situated roughly between Egypt and Syria. They can be taken to represent nations and organizations today that the king of the north targeted but was unable to bring under his influence.
'Egypt Will Not Escape'


8 The angel goes on to say: "He will keep thrusting out his hand against the lands; and as regards the land of Egypt, she will not prove to be an escapee. And he will actually rule over the hidden treasures of the gold and the silver and over all the desirable things of Egypt. And the Libyans and the Ethiopians will be at his steps." (Daniel 11:42, 43) Even the king of the south, "Egypt," did not escape the effects of the expansionist policies of the king of the north. He suffered, for example, a notable defeat in Vietnam. And what of "the Libyans and the Ethiopians"? These neighbors of ancient Egypt might well foreshadow nations that are, geographically speaking, neighbors of modern "Egypt" and that at times have been followers of, 'at the steps of,' the king of the north.


9 Has the king of the north ruled over 'the hidden treasures of Egypt'? Well, he has certainly not conquered the king of the south, and up until 1993 the world situation made it seem unlikely that he will. But he has had a powerful influence on the way the king of the south used his financial resources. Because of fear of his rival, the king of the south has devoted huge sums each year to maintaining a formidable army, navy, and air force. To this extent the king of the north could be said to have 'ruled over,' controlled, the disposition of the wealth of the king of the south.


Final Campaign of the Northern King
10 Does the rivalry between the two kings continue indefinitely? No. The angel told Daniel: "There will be reports that will disturb him [the king of the north], out of the sunrising and out of the north, and he will certainly go forth in a great rage in order to annihilate and to devote many to destruction. And he will plant his palatial tents between the grand sea and the holy mountain of Decoration; and he will have to come all the way to his end, and there will be no helper for him."-Daniel 11:44, 45.


11 These events are yet future, so we cannot say in detail how the prophecy will be fulfilled. Recently, the political situation regarding the two kings has changed. The bitter rivalry between the United States and Eastern European countries has cooled. Further, the Soviet Union was disbanded in 1991 and no longer exists.-

12 So who is the king of the north now? Is he to be identified with one of the countries that were part of the old Soviet Union? Or is he changing identity completely, as he has a number of times before? We cannot say. Who will be the king of the north when Daniel 11:44, 45 is fulfilled? Will the rivalry between the two kings flare up again? And what of the huge nuclear stockpiles that still exist in a number of lands? Only time will provide the answers to these questions.


13 One thing we do know. Soon, the king of the north will conduct an offensive campaign that will be triggered by "reports that will disturb him, out of the sunrising and out of the north." This campaign will immediately precede his "end." We can learn more about these "reports" if we consider other Bible prophecies.


14 First, though, notice that these acts of the king of the north are not said to be against the king of the south. He does not come to his end at the hands of his great rival. Similarly, the king of the south is not destroyed by the king of the north. The southern king (represented in other prophecies as the final horn to appear on a wild beast) is destroyed "without [human] hand" by God's Kingdom. (Daniel 7:26; 8:25) In fact, all earthly kings are finally destroyed by God's Kingdom at the battle of Armageddon, and this evidently is what happens to the king of the north. (Daniel 2:44; 12:1; Revelation 16:14, 16) Daniel 11:44, 45 describes events leading up to that final battle. No wonder "there will be no helper" when the king of the north meets his end!
15 What, then, are the other prophecies that shed light on the "reports" that move the king of the north to set out to "devote many to destruction." And who are the "many" that he will want to destroy?
A Report Out Of the Sunrising

16 Before the final battle, Armageddon, a great enemy of true worship must be destroyed-harlotlike Babylon the Great, the worldwide empire of false religion. (Revelation 18:3-8) Her destruction is foreshadowed by the pouring out of the sixth bowl of God's wrath on the symbolic river Euphrates. The river dries up "that the way might be prepared for the kings from the rising of the sun." (Revelation 16:12) Who are these kings? None other than Jehovah God and Jesus Christ!

17 The destruction of Babylon the Great is graphically described in the book of Revelation: "The ten horns that you saw [the 'kings' ruling in the time of the end], and the wild beast [the scarlet-colored wild beast, representing the United Nations organization], these will hate the harlot and will make her devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and will completely burn her with fire." (Revelation 17:16) Truly, the nations 'destroy much flesh'! (Daniel 7:5) But why will the rulers, including the king of the north, destroy Babylon the Great? Because 'God puts it into their hearts to carry out his thought.' (Revelation 17:17) The report "out of the sunrising" may well refer to this act of Jehovah, when, in a way that he chooses, he puts it into the hearts of human leaders to annihilate the great religious harlot.-Daniel 11:44.
A Report Out Of the North

18 But there is another target for the wrath of the king of the north. The angel says that he will "plant his palatial tents between the grand sea and the holy mountain of Decoration." (Daniel 11:45) In Daniel's time, the grand sea was the Mediterranean, and the holy mountain was Zion, once the site of God's temple. Hence, in the prophecy's fulfillment, the enraged king of the north conducts a military campaign against God's people! In a spiritual sense today, "between the grand sea and the holy mountain" locates him in the spiritual estate of God's anointed servants, who have come out of "the sea" of alienated mankind and have the hope of ruling on heavenly Mount Zion with Jesus Christ.-Isaiah 57:20; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 14:1.

19 Ezekiel, a contemporary of Daniel, also prophesied an attack on God's people "in the final part of the days." He said the hostilities would be initiated by Gog of Magog, representing Satan the Devil. (Ezekiel 38:16) From which direction, symbolically, does Gog come? Jehovah, through Ezekiel, says: "You will certainly come from your place, from the remotest parts of the north." (Ezekiel 38:15) Hence, the report "out of the north" may well be Satan's propaganda inciting the king of the north and all the other kings to attack Jehovah's people.-Compare Revelation 16:13, 14; 17:14.

20 Gog organizes this all-out assault because of the prosperity of "the Israel of God," who, with the great crowd of other sheep, are no longer part of his world. (Galatians 6:16; John 10:16; 17:15, 16; 1 John 5:19) Gog looks askance upon "a people gathered together out of the nations, one that is accumulating [spiritual] wealth and property." (Ezekiel 38:12; Revelation 5:9; 7:9) In fulfillment of these words, Jehovah's people are prospering today as never before. In many lands in Europe, Africa, and Asia where they were once banned, they now worship freely. Between 1987 and 1992, well over one million "desirable things" came out of the nations to Jehovah's house of true worship. Spiritually, they are wealthy and peaceful.-Haggai 2:7; Isaiah 2:2-4; 2 Corinthians 8:9.

21 Viewing the Christian spiritual estate as "open rural country" ripe for the taking, Gog makes a supreme effort to wipe out this obstacle to his total control of mankind. (Ezekiel 38:11) But he fails. When the kings of the earth attack Jehovah's people, they will 'come all the way to their end.' How?
A Third King

22 Ezekiel says that Gog's attack is the signal for Jehovah God to rise up in behalf of his people and destroy Gog's forces "on the mountains of Israel." (Ezekiel 38:18; 39:4) This reminds us of what the angel tells Daniel: "During that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book."-Daniel 12:1.

23 In 1914, Jesus-the heavenly warrior Michael-became King of God's heavenly Kingdom. (Revelation 11:15; 12:7-9) Since then, he has been standing 'in behalf of the sons of Daniel's people.' Soon, though, he will "stand up" in Jehovah's name as an invincible Warrior-King, bringing "vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus." (2 Thessalonians 1:8) All nations of the earth, including the kings of Daniel's prophecy, will "beat themselves in lamentation." (Matthew 24:30) With evil thoughts still in their hearts toward 'Daniel's people,' they will perish forever at the hands of 'Michael, the great prince.'-Revelation 19:11-21.
24 Do we not long to see that grand triumph of Michael and of his God, Jehovah? For that victory will mean "escape," survival, for true Christians. (Compare Malachi 4:1-3.) Hence, looking to the future with eager anticipation, we bear in mind the words of the apostle Paul: "Preach the word, be at it urgently in favorable season, in troublesome season." (2 Timothy 4:2) Let us keep a firm hold on the Word of life and diligently seek Jehovah's sheep while the favorable season continues. We are on the homestretch in the race for life. The reward is in sight. May all be determined to endure to the end and thus be among those who will be saved.-Matthew 24:13; Hebrews 12:1. [source = another Bible scholar who got the information from various publications of the Watchtower Bible and Track Society]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Discourse on Keeping Oneself Apart From The World

INTRODUCTION:

Now is a very critical time and it is imperative that all footstep followers of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ keep themselves apart from the things of the world, i.e., the worldly system of wrong doing and sin.  Or as Jesus (Yeshua) stated it at Mark 12:17, "And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. And they marvelled greatly at him." (American Standard Version; ASV).  Now just what are the world's or Caesar's things and what are the things owing to God (YHWH)?   Let's find out:

THE WORLD RULERS SHOULD BE SHOWN RESPECT, BUT NOT WORSHIP:

Clearly in Romans 13:1-7 it is shown what is owed to worldly rulers, "Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the `powers' that be are ordained of God. 2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: 4 for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore `ye' must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God's service, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute `is due'; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." (ASV); and Titus 3:1, "Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready unto every good work," (ASV); and 1 Timothy 2:1-3, "I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; 2 for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;" (ASV); and Acts 26:1-3, "And Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth his hand, and made his defence: 2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa, that I am to make my defense before thee this day touching all the things whereof I am accused by the Jews: 3 especially because thou art expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently." (ASV).

WE SHOULD PAY OUR TAXES FOR SERVICES RENDERED:

The Bible clearly shows we should pay taxes for services rendered which of course are many, and this is made clear at Luke 20:21-25, "And they asked him, saying, Teacher, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, and acceptest not the person `of any', but of a truth teachest the way of God: 22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, 24 Show me a denarius. Whose image and superscription hath it? And they said, Caesar's. 25 And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." (ASV); and highlighted by Romans 13:7, "Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute `is due'; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." (ASV).

TRUE CHRISTIANS SHOULD OBEY THE WORLD'S LAWS FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE IF THEY DO NOT TRANSGRESS THE WORD OF GOD (YHWH):

This is clearly shown in Romans 13:5-6, previously quoted and in 1 Peter 3:16-17, "having a good conscience; that, wherein ye are spoken against, they may be put to shame who revile your good manner of life in Christ. 17 For it is better, if the will of God should so will, that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing." (ASV); and at Acts 24:16, "Herein I also exercise myself to have a conscience void of offence toward God and men always." (ASV).

TRUE CHRISTIAN SUBJECTION TO POLITICAL AUTHORITIES DOES NOT IGNORE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF GOD (YHWH):

As was highlighted in the introduction by a quote from Jesus (Yeshua) at Mark 12:17, "And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. And they marvelled greatly at him." (ASV) we are to render our obedience first to God (YHWH), and only to worldly rulers when they do NOT demand what is only due God (YHWH).  This fact was even recognized by Caliph Saladin who was a Muslim as being a fact, and reinforced by Matthew 22:21, "'Then pay Caesar what is due to Caesar, and pay God what is due to God.'" (the New English Bible; NEB); and at 1 Peter 2:13-15, "Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to the king, as supreme; 14 or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that do well. 15 For so is the will of God, that by well-doing ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:" (ASV).

OUR WORSHIP AND DEVOTION IS TO GOD (YHWH) AND NOT TO CAESAR:

Our worship and devotion belong to God (YHWH) and not to Caesar as shown at Psalms 66:8-9, "Bless our God, all nations; let his praise be heard far and near.  He sets us in the land of the living; he keeps our feet from stumbling." (NEB); and at Revelation 7:9-10, "After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of `all' tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 and they cry with a great voice, saying, Salvation unto our God who sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb." (ASV); and at Revelation 14:6-7, "And I saw another angel flying in mid heaven, having eternal good tidings to proclaim unto them that dwell on the earth, and unto every nation and tribe and tongue and people; 7 and he saith with a great voice, Fear God, and give him glory; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made the heaven and the earth and sea and fountains of waters." (ASV).

CONCLUSION, WHEN CAESAR'S LAWS CONFLICT WITH GOD'S (YHWH'S) LAWS:

Now when the laws of the land conflict with God's (YHWH's) laws, we must obey the laws of God (YHWH) as they take precedence over all others.  This is clearly shown by the example of several of the Apostles at Acts 5:27:29, "And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28    saying, We strictly charged you not to teach in this name: and behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. 29 But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men." (ASV); and reaffirmed at Acts 5:19-20, "But an angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them out, and said, 20 Go ye, and stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this Life." (ASV); and by Acts 4:18-20, "And they called them, and charged them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: 20 for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard." (ASV).

This was also testified to in the Old Testament [Hebrew Testament] at Daniel 3:16-17 by example, "Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego have answered, yea, they are saying to the king Nebuchadnezzar, `We have no need concerning this matter to answer thee  17 Lo, it is; our God whom we are serving, is able to deliver us from a burning fiery furnace; and from thy hand, O king, He doth deliver  18 And lo -- not! be it known to thee, O king, that thy gods we are not serving, and to the golden image thou hast raised up we do no obeisance.'" (Young's Literal Translation; YLT); and at Exodus 1:17-20, "And the midwives fear God, and have not done as the king of Egypt hath spoken unto them, and keep the lads alive; 18 and the king of Egypt calleth for the midwives, and saith to them, `Wherefore have ye done this thing, and keep the lads alive?' 19 And the midwives say unto Pharaoh, `Because the Hebrew women `are' not as the Egyptian women, for they `are' lively; before the midwife cometh in unto them -- they have borne!' 20 And God doth good to the midwives, and the people multiply, and are very mighty; 21 and it cometh to pass, because the midwives have feared God, that He maketh for them households;" (YLT).


LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION - BOTH TRUE AND FALSE - AT    WWW.JW.ORG

COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2] DISCOURSE ON THE FALSE DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION CLAIMED BY SOME:

[1]     SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [420B]

Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.   James 4:4,  [authorized King James Bible; AV]

The world hates the genuine true followers of the Prince of Peace, Jesus (Yeshua), and this is amplified at John 15:18 – 20, [AV] “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.  19  If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.  20  Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.”  And 1 John 5:18 affirms, [AV] “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.”  Yes, we must be on guard when all in the world speak well of you per Luke 6:26, [AV] “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.”   


[2]      DISCOURSE ON THE FALSE DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION CLAIMED BY SOME:

Introduction to a discourse on the Apostolic Succession which Is a false tradition:

Now the Apostolic Succession false doctrine is that the 12 apostles have successors to whom authority has been passed by divine appointment.   In the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), the bishops as a group are said to be the successors of the apostles, and the bishop of Rome, the Pope, is claimed to be the successor of Peter.  It is maintained that the Roman pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position and perform the functions of Peter, to whom Christ is said to have given primacy of authority over the whole church, but this is really not the case, and is NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BIBLE.

Let's take the first argument of the RCC that Peter was the 'rock' on which the church was built when in reality the 'rock' was Jesus (Yeshua) Christ.  Let's now consider whom the Apostles Peter and Paul understood to be the 'rock,' the 'cornerstone as shown at Acts 4:8-12, " Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them: Ye princes of the people and ancients, hear. 9 If we this day are examined concerning the good deed done to the infirm man, by what means he hath been made whole: 10 Be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him, this man standeth here before you, whole. 11 This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved."(Douay Rheims Catholic Bible).  And this is further testified to at 1 Peter 2:4-8, "  Unto whom coming, as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men but chosen and made honourable by God: 5 Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him shall not be confounded. 7 To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: 8 And a stone of stumbling and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set."(DRCB); And further affirmed that Jesus (Yeshua) is the 'rock' at Ephesians 2:20, " Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:"(DRCB).

Last we look at Matthew 16:18 which the RCC tries to twist its meaning to be that Peter is the 'rock,' but as we have seen already, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is the 'rock,' " And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."(DRCB) clearly affirming that he, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ was the 'rock' to Peter, so no apostolic succession here.

Let's see what Augustine had to say on it as reported in a Catholic source:

With respect the false doctrine of Apostolic Succession, Augustine had this to say per,   "In this same period of my priestthood< I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus...In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said; 'Thou art Peter, and upo9n this rock I will build my Church," that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying; "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven." For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him.  But 'the rock was Christ," in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter." [source="The Fathers of the Church--Saint Augustine, The Retraction," (Washington, D.C.; 1968), translation by Mary I Bogan, Booi I, p. 90. }

The Bible clearly states that Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is the head of the congregation, that he is alive, so why would he need a successor(s)?

Hebrews 7:22-25 clearly says in the Douay Rheims Catholic Bible, "By so much is Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And the others indeed were made many priests, because by reason of death they were not suffered to continue: 24 But this, for that he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood: 25 Whereby he is able also to save for ever them that come to God by him; always living to make intercession for us. 26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens: 27 Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, in offering himself. 28 For the law maketh men priests, who have infirmity: but the word of the oath (which was since the law) the Son who is perfected for evermore."(Douay Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).

This is ratified at Romans 6:8-10, "Now, if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ. 9 Knowing that Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more. Death shall no more have dominion over him. 10 For in that he died to sin, he died once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. "(DRCB); and further testified to at Ephesians 5:23-24, "Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things."(DRCB).   So the Bible shows that no successor is necessary as Jesus (Yeshua) is alive and needs no successor.

Now, if a group really were as the RCC claims the successors to the apostles you would expect they would be adhering to the teachings and practices of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ and his apostles.  A Catholic Dictionary clearly states: "The Roman Church is Apostolic, because her doctrine is the faith once revealed to the Apostles, which faith she guards and explains, without adding to it or taking from it." [source = A Catholic Dictionary," by W.E. Addis and T. Arnold, page 176, published in London in 1957].  Now the question is one of fact, is this group really not adding to or taking from the faith as revealed by Jesus (Yeshua)and the Apostles, let's see:

Commentary on the Apostolic Succession which s a false tradition:

Now the Apostolic Succession false doctrine is that the 12 apostles have successors to whom authority has been passed by divine appointment.   In the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), the bishops as a group are said to be the successors of the apostles, and the bishop of Rome, the Pope, is claimed to be the successor of Peter.  It is maintained that the Roman pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position and perform the functions of Peter, to whom Christ is said to have given primacy of authority over the whole church, but this is really not the case.

Let's take the first argument of the RCC that Peter was the 'rock' on which the church was built when in reality the 'rock' was Jesus (Yeshua) Christ.  Let's now consider whom the Apostles Peter and Paul understood to be the 'rock,' the 'cornerstone as shown at Acts 4:8-12, " Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them: Ye princes of the people and ancients, hear. 9 If we this day are examined concerning the good deed done to the infirm man, by what means he hath been made whole: 10 Be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him, this man standeth here before you, whole. 11 This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved."(Douay Rheims Catholic Bible).  And this is further testified to at 1 Peter 2:4-8, "  Unto whom coming, as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men but chosen and made honourable by God: 5 Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him shall not be confounded. 7 To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: 8 And a stone of stumbling and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set."(DRCB); And further affirmed that Jesus (Yeshua) is the 'rock' at Ephesians 2:20, " Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:"(DRCB).

Last we look at Matthew 16:18 which the RCC tries to twist its meaning to be that Peter is the 'rock,' but as we have seen already, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is the 'rock,' " And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."(DRCB) clearly affirming that he, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ was the 'rock' to Peter, so no apostolic succession here.

Let's see what Augustine had to say on it as reported in a Catholic source:

With respect the false doctrine of Apostolic Succession, Augustine had this to say per,   "In this same period of my priestthood< I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus...In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said; 'Thou art Peter, and upo9n this rock I will build my Church," that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying; "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven." For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him.  But 'the rock was Christ," in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter." [source="The Fathers of the Church--Saint Augustine, The Retraction," (Washington, D.C.; 1968), translation by Mary I Bogan, Booi I, p. 90. }

The Bible clearly states that Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is the head of the congregation, that he is alive, so why would he need a successor(s)?

Hebrews 7:22-25 clearly says in the Douay Rheims Catholic Bible, "By so much is Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And the others indeed were made many priests, because by reason of death they were not suffered to continue: 24 But this, for that he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood: 25 Whereby he is able also to save for ever them that come to God by him; always living to make intercession for us. 26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens: 27 Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, in offering himself. 28 For the law maketh men priests, who have infirmity: but the word of the oath (which was since the law) the Son who is perfected for evermore."(Douay Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).

This is ratified at Romans 6:8-10, "Now, if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ. 9 Knowing that Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more. Death shall no more have dominion over him. 10 For in that he died to sin, he died once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. "(DRCB); and further testified to at Ephesians 5:23-24, "Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things."(DRCB).   So the Bible shows that no successor is necessary as Jesus (Yeshua) is alive and needs no successor.

Have you ever wondered or considered whether the Apostle Peter was ever actually in Rome, and what the facts indicate? Rome is referred to in nine verses of the Word of God, and interestingly NOT one of these says that the Apostle Peter was there. In fact, 1 Peter 5:10-14 shows he was NOT in Rome, but in Babylon, " But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory in Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a little, will himself perfect you and confirm you and establish you. 11 To him be glory and empire, for ever and ever. Amen. 12 By Sylvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I think, I have written briefly: beseeching and testifying that this is the true grace of God, wherein you stand. 13 The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you. And so doth my son, Mark. 14 Salute one another with a holy kiss. Grace be to all you who are in Christ Jesus. Amen."(Douay Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB). Now some claim this was a cryptic reference to Rome, but would this be consistent with his assignment to preach to the Jews as indicated at Galatians 2:9, " And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:"(DRCB), since there was a large Jewish population in Babylon. The "Encyclopaedia Judaica," Jerusalem, 1971, Volume 15, Column 755, when discussing production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers clearly to Judaism's 'great academies of Babylon' during the first part of the Common Era.

Now, if a group really were as the RCC claims the successors to the apostles you would expect they would be adhering to the teachings and practices of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ and his apostles.  A Catholic Dictionary clearly states: "The Roman Church is Apostolic, because her doctrine is the faith once revealed to the Apostles, which faith she guards and explains, without adding to it or taking from it." [source = A Catholic Dictionary," by W.E. Addis and T. Arnold, page 176, published in London in 1957].  Now the question is one of fact, is this group really not adding to or taking from the faith as revealed by Jesus (Yeshua)and the Apostles, let's see:

The Identity of God (YHWH):

The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly says, "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion." [source = "The Catholic Encyclopedia," 1912 edition, Volume XV, page 47.  However the New Encyclopedia Britannica clearly states, "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament....The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies." [source = " the New Encyclopedia Britannica," 1976, Micropaedia, Volume X, Page 126].

The New Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states, "There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarinism in the New Testament without serious qualification.   There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4 th. Century." [source = "The New Catholic Encyclopedia," 1967, Volume XIV, page 295].

Also, the very concept of the Trinity, is shown to be just a myth in the New Testament (NT) at many places such as at many places, for example at John 17:3-5, " Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.   4  I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.   5  And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee." (Douay Rheims Catholic Bible: DRCB), etc. clearly showing Jesus (Yeshua) as a distinct individual separate and apart from his Father (YHWH) and subject to his Father (YHWH) and carrying out his Father's (YHWH's) will.   Also, there are countless other scriptures clearly showing that the Trinity is nothing more than an impossible myth.

Celibacy of the Clergy of the Roman Church:

Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical, "Sacerdotalis Caelibatus," (Priestly Celibacy, 1967 in English), endorsed celibacy as a requirement for the clergy, but he admitted that 'the New Testament which preserves the teaching of Christ and the Apostles...does not openly demand celibacy of sacred ministers...Jesus Himself did not make it a prerequisite in His choice of the Twelve, nor did the Apostles for those who presided over the first Christian communities." [source = "The papal Encyclicals 1958-1981, published at Falls Church, Virginia, 1981, page 204].   The scriptures clearly show this NOT TO BE A RECOGNIZED PRACTICE AMONG THE APOSTLES in the 1 st. Century at 1 Corinthians 9:5, " Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas"; and at John 1:42, " And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone."(DRCB).  And at Mark 1:29-31 where reference is made to the mother-in-law of Simon, " And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.  30  But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.  31  And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them. "(DRCB).

And the specific instructions with respect to qualifications of those seeking responsible positions in the congregation at 1 Timothy 3:2, " It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, color](DRCB).

In fact, the requirement for Celibacy for priests, bishops, etc. is of pagan origin with the Buddist requiring it of their priest and monks before the Christian era per "History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church, by Henry C. Lea, London, 1932, fourth edition, page 6.  Even earlier, the higher orders of the Babylonian priesthood were required to practice celibacy, according to "The Two Babylons," by Alexander Hislop of the Scottish church, New York, 1943, page 219.

Interestingly 1 Timothy 4:1-3 says, " Now the Spirit manifestly saith that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of devils,
2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy and having their conscience seared, 3  Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful and by them that have known the truth."(DRCB).

The Bible Shows Separateness from the World not Attachment to It:

Pope Paul VI, when addressing the United Nations in 1965, said: "The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace;  We presume to present here, together with Our own, their tribute of honor and of hope." [source = "The Pope's Visit," New York, 1965, Time-Life Special Report, page 26.   

But John 15:18-19 clearly shows true Christians do NOT belong to the world, " If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.  19  If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (DRCB); and James 4:4 says, " Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world becometh an enemy of God."(DRCB) clearly showing if the Pope was truly the successor of the Apostles he would not be saying, " the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace," but would recognize Jesus (yeshua) Christ was the actual last hope as clearly shown in the Douay Rheims Catholic Bible and in The New American Bible (Catholic).

Jesus (Yeshua) Clearly Showed That Christians Do Not Resort To Cardinal Weapons in Their Warfare:

Catholic historian E.I. Watkin writes: "Painful as the admission must be, we cannot in the interest of a false edification or dishonest loyalty deny or ignore the historical fact that Bishops have consistently supported all wars waged by the government of their country.  I do not know in fact of a single instance in which a national hierarchy has condemned as unjust any war...Whatever the official theory, in practice 'my country always right' has been the maxim followed in wartime by Catholic Bishops." [source = "Morals and Missiles," London, 1959, edited by Charles S. Thompson, pages 57 and 58].

Now, let's consider what the Bible clearly says at Matthew 26:52, " Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword."(DRCB); and 1 John 3:10-12, " In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. Whosoever is not just is not of God, or he that loveth not his brother.
11 ¶ For this is the declaration which you have heard from the beginning, that you should love one another.   12  Not as Cain, who was of the wicked one and killed his brother. And wherefore did he kill him? Because his own works were wicked: and his brother's just."(DRCB).   

Therefore, in the light of the foregoing, it is readily apparent that those who claim to be the successors to the Apostles are NOT because they are neither practicing what Jesus (Yeshua) and his Apostles did, NOR are they teaching what Jesus (Yeshua) and his Apostles were.

Now, the Catholic church claims "the keys" were entrusted to the Apostle Peter, but what does the Bible show with respect to the "the keys" and what they were?  Let's go look at the Bible evidence on this subject.  First, the Biblical verse in question so all will know what is being referenced to, Matthew 16:18-20," And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  19  And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.  20  Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ."(DRCB).   The Catholic church claims that when Jesus (Yeshua) said, "thou art Peter," and he was the 'rock' on which the church was to be built, but as previously shown, the 'rock' was Christ himself, and the expression 'thou art' was a common method of expression, then, as shown at John 1:49 and many other places, " Nathanael answered him and said: Rabbi: Thou art the Son of God. Thou art the King of Israel"(DRCB).

Revelation 3:5-8 actually makes certain just who "the key" is when Jesus (Yeshua) is shown as referring to the symbolic key used to open up privileges and opportunities to humans as himself, Jesus (Yeshua), and he only used the Apostle Peter as his agent to open up the way for the Gentiles, " He that shall overcome shall thus be clothed in white garments: and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life. And I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.  6  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.  7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth: 8  I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name."(DRCB).  [Brief detail on the Law of Agencies which is basically as follows, "Jesus (Yeshua) was God's (YHWH's) appointed agent in accordance with the 'Biblical law of agency' described as, "Scripture mentions something being done by Person A, whilst another mentions it being done by Person B. This is best understood when we grasp the Schaliach Principle, or the Jewish Law of Agency, which is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." (The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder)].

Now, the Apostle peter was entrusted by Jesus (Yeshua) to open up to the Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, the opportunity to receive God's (YHWH's) spirit with a view to their entering the heavenly Kingdom as shown by Acts 21:14-39, " But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you and with your ears receive my words.  15  For these are not drunk, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day: 16  But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel: 17  And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord), I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy: and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.  18  And upon my servants indeed and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit: and they shall prophesy.  19  And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire, and vapour of smoke.  20  The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord to come.  21  And it shalt come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.  22  Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: 23  This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain.  24  Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it.  25  For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved.  26  For this my heart hath been glad, and my tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope.  27  Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell: nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.  28  Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.  29  Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David: that he died and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present say.  30  Whereas therefore he was a prophet and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne.  31  Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell: neither did his flesh see corruption.
32  This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses.  33  Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear.  34  For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou on my right hand, 35  Until I make thy enemies thy footstool.  36  Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified.  37 ¶ Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren?  38  But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  39  For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call."(DRCB); and Acts 8:14-17, " Now, when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.  15  Who, when they were come, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost.  16  For he was not as yet come upon any of them: but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.  17  Then they laid their hands upon them: and they received the Holy Ghost."(DRCB).

And Acts 10:24-48 highlights this, " And the morrow after, he entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, having called together his kinsmen and special friends.  25  And it came to pass that when Peter was come in, Cornelius came to meet him and falling at his feet adored.  26  But Peter lifted him up, saying: Arise: I myself also am a man.  27  And talking with him, he went in and found many that were come together.  28  And he said to them: you know how abominable it is for a man that is a Jew to keep company or to come unto one of another nation: but God hath shewed to me, to call no man common or unclean.  29  For which cause, making no doubt, I came when I was sent for. I ask, therefore, for what cause you have sent for me?  30  And Cornelius said: Four days ago, unto this hour, I was praying in my house, at the ninth hour and behold a man stood before me in white apparel and said: 31  Cornelius, thy prayer is heard and thy alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.  32  Send therefore to Joppe: and call hither Simon, who is surnamed Peter. He lodgeth in the house of Simon a tanner, by the sea side.
33  Immediately therefore I sent to thee: and thou hast done well in coming. Now, therefore, all we are present in thy sight to hear all things whatsoever are commanded thee by the Lord.  34 And Peter opening his mouth, said: in very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons.
35  But in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him.  36  God sent the word to the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all).  37  You know the word which hath been published through all Judea: for it began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached.  38  Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with power, who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.  39  And we are witnesses of all things that he did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem: whom they killed, hanging him upon a tree.  40  Him God raised up the third day and gave him to be made manifest,  41  Not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him, after he arose again from the dead.
42  And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God to be judge of the living and of the dead.  43  To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him.  44 ¶ While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.  45  And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.  46  For they heard them speaking with tongues and magnifying God.  47  Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?  48  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days."(DRCB).

Now did heaven wait on Peter to make decisions and then follow his lead?  Not hardly as clearly shown by Acts 2:4, " And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost: and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak." And Acts 2:14, " But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you and with your ears receive my words."(DRCB).   And Acts 10:19-20 follows up with, " And as Peter was thinking of the vision, the Spirit said to him: Behold three men seek thee.  20  Arise, therefore: get thee down and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them."(DRCB); and Matthew 18:18-19, " Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.  19  Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven."(DRCB).

Now, is Peter the judge as to who is worthy to enter the Kingdom as claimed?   Well 2 Timothy 4:1-2, explains that the judge is NOT the Apostle Peter, but Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, himself, " I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming and his kingdom: 2  Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine."(DRCB).   This Biblical fact that Jesus (Yeshua) is the judge and not the Apostle Peter is highlighted even further at 2 Timothy 4:8, " As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming. Make haste to come to me quickly."(DRCB).

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION - BOTH TRUE AND FALSE - AT    WWW.JW.ORG

COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]  RELIGIOUS RESEARCH AND ITS PRODUCTS

[1]    SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [422B]

For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars.   2 Chronicals 16:9,  [authorized King James Bible; AV]

Yes Almighty God (YHWH) observes all that is transpiring on earth as shown at Proverbs 5:21, [AV] “For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he pondereth all his goings.”  And this reality is echoed at Hebrews 4:13, [AV] Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.“  And at Zechariah 4:10, [AV] “For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.” 


[2]     RELIGIOUS RESEARCH AND ITS PRODUCTS

INTRODUCTION:

First, the purpose of research can be any of the following four and/or a combination of them:

[1] To Explain or Instruct, i.e., requires providing further information to make a matter clear.

[2] To Convince, i.e., calls for giving reasons showing why a thing is so along with evidence presentation.

[3] To Refute or Show Error, i.e., involves a knowledge of both sides of the issue along with a careful analysis of evidence.

[4] To Motivate. i.e., involves moving others to action and/or an attempt to do so.

Usually the purpose of research is a combination of these.

Usually religious research involves first examining the context such as what do the items put forth or statement put forth conjure up, and the development of a hypothesis to be either proven correct and/or incorrect.

A STATEMENT IS MADE BY ANOTHER AND WILL BE TESTED:

In this case one member of Islam quotes Sura 19:33 which is per three different versions/translations of the Quran is as follows;

017.033 AL-ISRA (ISRA', THE NIGHT JOURNEY, CHILDREN OF ISRAEL)

Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law). [YUSUFALI]

PICKTHAL: And slay not the life which Allah hath forbidden save with right. Whoso is slain wrongfully, We have given power unto his heir, but let him not commit excess in slaying. Lo! he will be helped. [PICKTHAL]

And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided. [SHAKIR]

He also said, from a Hadith [he failed to mention which Hadith, but was from Muslim b. al-Hajjaj] as follows:

Book 019, Number 4294: [ Muslim b. al-Hajjaj]
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.

Now let's examine both of these with respect their intent or purpose:
First, the Quran is saying in effect that wrongful slaying is wrong, and the heir has the right to go kill the one committing the slaying.

Second, The Muslim b. al-Hajjaj [Hadith] is saying when boiled down to its essence, that a military commander [Muslim] should be good to those with him, and fight against those who do not believe in Allah.   Also, to make 'holy war' and to pillage, but not to mutilate or break pledges or to kill children.   But to take spoil.

NOW WHAT IS TO BE TESTED?   THE HYPOTHESIS:

First, The validity of the two sources, i.e., the Quran and the concept of Hadith.

Second, Adherence of Muhammad (pbuh) and members of Islam to either and/or both of these.

VALIDITY OF THE QURAN AND THE VARIOUS HADITHS:

First, Let's check the real source of much of the Quran and not the legend that it came from an Angel.  The Bible which is NOT the product of one committee or strongman is the source of much of the data used by Muhammad (pbuh) in writing the Quran.

The Bible has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance putting the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.

To wit, the Bible is the ONLY book God (YHWH) ever inspired men to write as his scribes. In other words, God is its author and men only put his thoughts given to them by divine inspiration into their own words, the words of men. Not only that, all the other writers of later so called religious guidance books borrowed from it and made changes in accord with their strong man or so called prophet. Take the example of Joseph Smith who borrowed from it to write the Book of Mormon, but failed to give credit or source to the Bible and twisted some borrowed things into bizarre distortions. Other examples are of course the bizarre writings of David Koresh the Prophet of the Branch Dividians of Waco, Texas; and the Quran, etc.

So as can be seen, the Quran is nothing but a distorted knockoff of the Bible and can only be correct when its author, Muhammad (pbuh) correctly copied which in many cases he failed to do so.

Second, Let's consider the Hadith, or more correctly the many Hadith's, and what it is.   An encyclopedia says, <<" Hadith (Arabic: ??????? ? translit: al-h?adith) are traditions relating to the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad. Hadith collections are regarded as important tools for determining the Sunnah, or Muslim way of life, by all traditional schools of jurisprudence.
The Arabic plural is ah?adith (Arabic: ??????? ?). In English academic usage, hadith is often both singular and plural.
Muslim scholars classify hadith relating to Muhammad as follows:
* What Muhammad said (???) (qawl)
* What Muhammad did (???) (fi'l)
* What Muhammad approved (?????) (taqrir) in others' actions
There are also hadith relating to the words and deeds of the companions, but they may not have the same weight as those about Muhammad.
Western scholars note that there is a great overlap between the records of early Islamic traditions. Accounts of early Islam are also to be found in:
* sira (stories, especially biographies of Muhammad)
* tafsir (commentary on the Qur'an)
* fiqh (juristic reasoning)
Some of these accounts are also found as hadith; some aren't. For a Western historian, these are all simply historical sources; for the Muslim scholar, hadith have a special status. They cite sura 7:157:
Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the Law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper. (Yusuf Ali translation)
They take this and other Qur'anic verses to require Muslims to follow authentic hadith. However, a small number of "Quran-only" Muslims disagree with this view and interpret these verses differently; they argue that the hadith are of human creation and have no authority." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>.

So we can see the Hadith consist of tradition and the purported words of Muhammad (pbuh), and lack fact.   This is further shown by the fact that there is NOT one Hadith, but many used by various flavors of Islam.   Let's look at the principle ones in brief:

Sunni's use the following:

Six major Hadith collections, used by Sunni's includes:
[1] Sahih Bukhari, collected by al-Bukhari (d. 870), included 7275 hadiths
[2] Sahih Muslim, collected by Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875), included 9200
[3] Sunan Abi Da'ud, collected by Abu Da'ud (d. 888)
[4] Sunan al-Tirmidhi, collected by al-Tirmidhi (d. 892)
[5] Sunan al-Sughra, collected by al-Nasa'i (d. 915)
[6] Sunan Ibn Maja, collected by Ibn Maja (d. 886).

Shia's use the following:

[1] Usul al-Kafi
[2] Al-Istibsaar
[3] Al-Tahzeeb
[4] Mun La YahDuruHu al-Faqeeh

Ibadi Islam uses the following:

Ibadi Islam (found mainly in the Arabian kingdom of Oman) accepts many Sunni hadith, while rejecting others, and accepts some hadith not accepted by Sunnis.

Ibadis is al-Jami'i al-Sahih, also called Musnad al-Rabi ibn Habib, as rearranged by Abu Ya'qub Yusuf b. Ibrahim al-Warijlani. A large proportion of its narrations are via Jabir ibn Zaid or Abu Yaqub; most are reported by Sunnis, while several are not. [resource - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].

Now the validity of the various Hadiths which are completely different writings and NOT mere versions/ translations must be questioned.   Why?
[1] The various Hadiths are NOT in agreement with each other, and the various flavors of Islam recognize different ones as being valid.   For example, the Shi'a Hadiths actually contradict much contained in the Hadiths recognized by the Sunni so how can any reasonable person believe these writings that sometimes contradict each other and which various flavors of Islam recognize different ones?

[2] The Bible clearly shows that the traditions of man stand in the way of true godly devotion.   Let's look at some scriptural evidence:

Mark 7:8-13, "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.  9  And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.  10  For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:  11  But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.  12  And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;  13  Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (AV).

Matthew 15:2, "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.  Mt 15:3  But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?  Mt 15:6  And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.(AV).

From these scriptures and Hadith contradictions, Hadith to Hadith, we can see tradition is NOT a reason to transgress the word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, and of course should not be relied on.   We all know men over time do NOT accurately remember what was originally said, so anything in any Hadith is of course NOT an accurate reproduction.

So the two sources used have been shown to lack validity and NOT to even have harmony within.   Now let's deal with the other hypothesis, the adherence of Muhammad (pbuh) and members of Islam to either and/or both of these.

THE ADHERENCE OF MUHAMMAD (pbuh) AND MEMBERS OF ISLAM TO EITHER AND/OR BOTH OF THESE:

As previously stated with respect to the Sura 19:33 and Book 19, Number 4294: of the Muslim b. al-Hajjah (Hadith).

Now let's examine both of these with respect their intent or purpose:
First, the Quran is saying in effect that wrongful slaying is wrong, and the heir has the right to go kill the one committing the slaying.

Second, The Muslim b. al-Hajjaj [Hadith] is saying when boiled down to its essence, that a military commander [Muslim] should be good to those with him, and fight against those who do not believe in Allah.   Also, to make 'holy war' and to pillage, but not to mutilate or break pledges or to kill children.   But to take spoil.

First proposition, did Muhammad (pbuh) violate either and/or both of these?   Let's look at history that clearly shows he raided a camel caravan.

<<" The Battle of Badr (Arabic: ???? ????), fought March 17, 624 CE (17 Ramadan 2 AH in the Islamic calendar) in the Hejaz of western Arabia (present-day Saudi Arabia), was a key battle in the early days of Islam and a turning point in Muhammad's struggle with the Meccan Quraish[1]. The battle has been passed down in Islamic history as a decisive victory attributable to divine intervention or the genius of Muhammad. Although it is one of the few battles specifically mentioned in the Muslim holy book, the Qur'an, virtually all contemporary knowledge of the battle at Badr comes from traditional Islamic accounts, both hadiths and biographies of Muhammad, written decades after the battle.

Prior to the battle, the Muslims and Meccans had been engaging in several smaller skirmishes and by late 623 and early 624 the Muslim ghazawat had become more frequent. Badr, however was the first large-scale engagement between the two forces. Muhammad was leading a raiding party against a caravan when he was surprised by a much larger Quraishi army. Advancing to a strong defensive position, Muhammad's well-disciplined men managed to shatter the Meccan lines, killing several important Quraishi leaders including Muhammad's chief antagonist, Amr ibn Hisham. For the early Muslims the battle was extremely significant because it was the first sign that they might eventually overcome their persecutors in Mecca. Mecca at this time was one of the richest and most powerful pagan cities in Arabia, fielding an army three times larger than that of the Muslims.

Following the hijra, tensions between Mecca and Medina escalated and hostilities broke out in 623 when the Muslims began a series of raids (called ghazawat in Arabic) on Quraishi caravans. Ghazawat (s. ghazw) were plundering raids organized by nomadic Bedouin warriors against either rival tribes or wealthier, sedentary neighbors. Since Medina was located just off Mecca's main trade route, the Muslims were in an ideal position to do this. Even though many Muslims were Quraish themselves, they believed that they were entitled to steal from them because the Meccans had expelled them from their homes and tribes, a serious offense in hospitality-oriented Arabia.[3] Also, there was a tradition in Arabia of poor tribes raiding richer tribes. It also provided a means for the Muslim community to carve out an independent economic position at Medina, where their political position was far from secure. The Meccans obviously took a different view, seeing the Muslim raids as banditry at best, as well as a potential threat to their livelihood and prestige.[4]

In late 623 and early 624, the Muslim ghazawat grew increasingly brazen and commonplace. In September 623, Muhammad himself led a force of 200 in an unsuccessful raid against a large caravan. Shortly thereafter, the Meccans launched their own "raid" against Medina, although its purpose was just to steal some Muslim livestock.[5] In January 624, the Muslims ambushed a Meccan caravan near Nakhlah, only forty kilometers outside of Mecca, killing one of the guards and formally inaugurating a blood feud with the Meccans.[6] Worse, from a Meccan standpoint, the raid occurred in the month of Rajab, a truce month sacred to the Meccans in which fighting was prohibited and a clear affront to their pagan traditions.[4] It was in this context that the Battle of Badr took place." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].

Second, with respect that Muslims shall not mutilate, let's look at recent occurrences, <<" The New York Times published an article titled New Violence, Old Problem. By Neil MacFarquhar. (June 6, 2004)
He wrote:

"KHOBAR, Saudi Arabia - A recent fatwa posted on a popular Islamic Web site in Saudi Arabia explains when a Muslim may mutilate the corpse of an infidel.

The ruling, written by a Saudi religious sheik named Omar Abdullah Hassan al-Shehabi, decrees that the dead can be mutilated as a reciprocal act when the enemy is disfiguring Muslim corpses, or when it otherwise serves the Islamic nation. In the second category, the reasons include "to terrorize the enemy" or to gladden the heart of a Muslim warrior.

The religious ruling was evidently posted to address questions about the conflict in Iraq , but is not limited by geography. In fact, in each of two gruesome attacks in Saudi Arabia last month that left 25 foreigners and 5 Saudis dead, a Western corpse was dragged for some distance behind a car. One was the body of an American engineer in Yanbu on May 1, the other a British businessman in Khobar last weekend."

The above was posted by a cleric, which explains how the most radical interpretations of the Quran flourish in Saudi Arabia .
With ruling such as "To terrorize the enemy or to gladden the heart of a Muslim warrior" it is hard to imagine when mutilation can not be justified.
In the "Ask the Scholar" section of the popular Islamic site (www.islamonline.net) it was asked: - "How Islam views the issue of mutilating dead bodies of enemies." Sheik Faysal Mawlawi, the deputy chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research answered by declaring that mutilation is "not allowable" under Islam. But then came the loophole:

"It is possible to mutilate the dead only in case of retaliation. . . . If he inflicts any physical damage on anyone, he should be retaliated against in the same manner. In case of war, Muslims are allowed to take vengeance for their mutilated dead mujahids (fighters) in the same way it was done to them." This, then he explained, is the teaching of the Koran (16:126), which recommends patience but authorizes revenge.
June 19 2004 Saudi Arabia: Paul Johnson an American Engineer was behead and the gory picture of his severed head was posted on the Internet.
May 2004, Iraq: Nicholas Berg an American citizen in Iraq was caught and beheaded. The gruesome act was shown in Arab television Al Jazeerah.

February 2002, Pakistan: Daniel Pearls suffered the same end. His assassins, video taped their grim crime proudly and showed to the world the level of savagery to which they can stoop.

Mutilations, decapitations and other horrendous acts of barbarity have become the hallmark of Islamic terrorism. But where these Muslims "fighters" get their inspiration from?

To answer this question we have to look into the history of Islam and more importantly the examples set by Muhammad, the founder of Islam who repeatedly urged his cohorts to follow his examples and do as he did. "
[source - "A World Apart" by Ali Sina http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sinaawa40621.htm ]>>.    Really says it all with respect the fact that members of Islam do not act in accordance with the Quran which they claim to believe, nor with the Hadiths.

Third, more ancient wrongs in violation of Quran 19:33 and Book 19, Number 4294: of the Muslim b. al-Hajjah,
<<" THE FRUITS OF PLUNDER: WEALTH AND WOMEN
By now, though Muhammad had two women in his harem, he was not yet content. From his new base in Medina he began a series of forays in which he ambushed passing caravans. In one successful raid he gained possession of stolen commodities valued at more than one hundred thousand dirhams (the unit of money in Arabia in those days). He took one-fifth of the booty for himself, according to Allah's ordinance in the Koran, and divided the rest among his followers: "... whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger...." (Koran 8: 41)

As chief of this marauding band Muhammad suddenly found himself financially in a better position. From the wealth of the plunder, he was able to acquire another wife. 'Umar, his close friend and companion, had a proud widowed daughter, Hafsa, a charming but temperamental eighteen-year-old woman. 'Umar was delighted to hear that Allah's apostle was interested in her; therefore, the marriage contract was drawn up between the father and the bridegroom, who once again was some years older than his father-in-law. The wedding was not elaborate, but he spent three nights on a honeymoon with his new wife.

In the fourth year after his emigration to Medina, Muhammad found a poor excuse to raid a Jewish tribe in the same town, known as the Banu Nadir. He besieged their quarters and let no water or food reach them. Then he set their crops on fire and ordered their fruit trees to be cut down, which was against all the prevailing customs of the Arabs at that time. When his followers objected and reminded him that felling trees and burning crops in that part of the world, where only a few inches of rain fall each year, is an unforgivable crime, he immediately invented the following passage: "Whatsoever palm trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah's leave, in order that He might confound the evil-doers (the Jews)." (Koran 59: 5)

The Jews of the besieged tribe sent someone to negotiate peace, but Muhammad would not accept unless they left all their property behind and moved out. Each family or household was permitted to take along only a camel-load of their necessities excluding silver or gold wares. After they were forcibly banished from Medina, the Muslims, on direct order of Muhammad, took over the homes, farms, orchards, and gardens of the ill-fated people, plus their goats, sheep, camels, mules, and whatever was left in their homes.

This may be the first time in history that a man claiming to be a prophet, saint, and teacher of ethics was also a lawless marauder.

As a result of such a quick and easy victory, Muhammad was no longer willing to divide the rich booty among his followers; he therefore revealed the following verse: "That which Allah gave as spoil unto His messenger from the people of the townships, it is for Allah and his messenger and for the next of kin." (Koran 59: 7) By this simple device of revelation he was able to deny all of his followers the benefit of the foray and keep as much booty for himself and his relatives as he wished.
The rich fortune of the Jewish people of Banu Nadir provided Muhammad with enough means to contemplate expanding his harem once more. In less than six months after this episode, he married two women from his clan, the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, both of them younger than thirty years old. His harem now included five young women.
In the fifth year after the Hegira, Muhammad decided to destroy the remaining Jewish population of the town (known as the Banu Qurayza) and take over their property. He therefore surrounded their quarters and began a siege that continued for some time until the elderly people of the tribe finally decided to surrender in order to save their lives from his dreadful vengeance. Muhammad, however, did not want them to go unpunished. He therefore demanded that they be judged by an arbitrator, a man whom he knew, deep in his heart, was not very amiable to the Jews. The man who was nominated by Muhammad to act as an arbitrator was Sa'd ibn Mu'az, who happened to be suffering from a wound inflicted by the enemy's arrow in a previous battle and was really on the verge of dying. Aware of the enmity between the man and the ill-fated tribe of the Banu Qurayza, Muhammad could easily guess what the sentence of the dying man would be, especially since Sa'd ibn Mu'az was led to believe by some Muslims that his fatal wound was the result of the Jews, who had been secretly in touch with the enemy.
Muhammad ordered the dying man to be carried over in a stretcher from his house to a meeting in which the representatives of the besieged tribe were present. The arbitrator, Sa'd, gave his verdict as follows:
1. All the adult males of the defeated Jewish tribe must be slain.
2. Their women and children must be sold as slaves to the highest bidder.
3. All their property (camels, goats, horses, farms, orchards, household furniture, etc.) must be divided among the Muslims.

After Muhammad heard this barbaric verdict, he cried out in jubilant words: "You have judged according to the very sentence of Allah above the seven skies."
According to the above statement, which has been affirmed by the early biographers and chronologists, Muhammad's Allah is seemingly as cruel and ferocious as his Prophet. "The women and children, torn from their protectors, were placed under the charge of renegade Jews."
The arbitrator did not live long enough to see the outcome of his judgment; he died that very day. Muhammad ordered his men to dig deep trenches in the marketplace of the town, to be used as "common graves" for the slain Jews. The captured Jews, with their hands tied behind their backs, were led to the edge of the trench in groups of ten.They were forced to kneel down and, with unprecedented savagery, were beheaded one by one while their kinfolk watched in horror and wailed in agony.

The dreadful show continued the whole day in the presence of Allah's apostle, who seemed to be delighted. His close male relatives,' Ali, Zubayr, and others, acted as executioners in this barbaric pageantry. The butchery started in the morning and continued until the evening under torchlight.
The number of murdered men, according to various accounts, was between six hundred fifty and nine hundred; most Islamic sources agree on seven hundred and fifty. Among the captured was a young smiling woman who had thrown a stone from the roof of her home onto the Muslim soldiers. Muhammad ordered his followers to bring the woman to the trench and decapitate her, which they did. The chivalry of the pre-Islamic Arabs was lost forever after the advent of Islam.

After the trenches were filled with the heads and bodies of the victims, he instructed his men to fill them. The ditches were quickly smoothed over the remains and the carnage was thus trampled underfoot by the steps of the devotees. The captive women and children were paraded before Allah's apostle, who with the vainglory of a victorious bedouin chieftain, reviewed them with contempt. To him they were merely the booty of war.
There was a charming young girl among them by the name of Rayhana, who had lost her husband and all of her male relatives in the massacre. As soon as Muhammad's eyes caught sight of the wretched Jewess in the long line of women and children, an irresistible passion to possess her came over him. He signaled his soldiers to bring her as his share of the booty. "As they passed before the conqueror, his eyes marked the lovely Raihana, and he destined her for himself."

The girl is reported to have been around nineteen and as she refused to embrace Islam, she was sent to his harem as a concubine: the honeymoon started the very night of the massacre and lasted three days.

The women and children were distributed among the male believers and some were sold in the slave market. The property of the ill-fated people consisted of camels, goats, sheep, armor, clothes, and household furniture.

The massacre of the Banu Qurayza tribe proved that Allah's apostle was a bandit, a vengeful political leader, a merciless executioner, and a slave merchant. It also cast a long shadow over Islam. If this new religion was dedicated to advancing the cause of one god, as its founder claimed, against the idolatry and polytheism of the desert Arabs, why did Muhammad so relentlessly persecute first Judaism and later on Christianity and Zoroastrianism, all of which were monotheistic religions? With his increase in power, the real character of Allah's messenger began to manifest itself. One suspects that his underlying motive was power, not religion. As the leader of a gang of robbers, he sent his followers on numerous expeditions to raid caravans, ambush the different tribes of the desert, slay innocent people, seize their property, and enslave their women and children. The booty in these forays was enough motive for the greedy desert Arabs to join him.

In order to become a shareholder in the spoils bestowed by Allah, one needed only to affirm that Allah is the only deity and Muhammad is his messenger. By this simple formula the robber chief of Medina was able to gather more men around him and keep his little force in high spirits by giving them more share of the booty. He promised them both paradise after death and wealth and women in this world. With these incentives the desert Arabs who followed him had nothing to lose.

Gradually, as he got more powerful in his new headquarters of Medina, the peace-loving preacher of Mecca disappeared and in his stead the party leader and authoritarian ruler of Medina came to light. His former themes of mercy and compassion are replaced with the unyielding decrees of the tyrant. Among the deeds of the great founders of religions, such as Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Moses, and Christ, one can find nothing comparable with Muhammad's plundering of caravans, ambushing of tribes, massacring of prisoners of wars, and enslaving of the women and children. Nor did any of these religious leaders have as many wives as Muhammad. In these and similar performances, Muhammad is unique and unparalleled. No man of God was changed so much in so few years and in such a barbaric way. "  [source - "Women and the Koran: The Status of Women in Islam. Contributors" by Anwar Hekmat, published by Prometheus Books, 1997] >>.

Hypothesis has been proved correct that neither Muhammad (pbuh) nor his present day followers are in compliance with either Quran 19:33 and Book 19, Number 4294: of the Muslim b. al-Hajjah,.

CONCLUSION:

Both hypothesis,

First, The validity of the two sources, i.e., the Quran and the concept of Hadith.

Second, Adherence of Muhammad (pbuh) and members of Islam to either and/or both of these.

Have been researched and the findings were:

[1] Neither the Quran nor the Hadiths have validity.

[2] Neither Muhammad (pbuh) nor his modern day followers has adhered to either Quran 19:33 and Book 19, Number 4294: of the Muslim b. al-Hajjah,.   Or as 'Fruits of Plunder' put it, <<" Among the deeds of the great founders of religions, such as Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Moses, and Christ, one can find nothing comparable with Muhammad's plundering of caravans, ambushing of tribes, massacring of prisoners of wars, and enslaving of the women and children. Nor did any of these religious leaders have as many wives as Muhammad. In these and similar performances, Muhammad is unique and unparalleled.[source - "Fruits of Plunder" http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/index.php/FruitsOfPlunder]>>.

Why such a lack of regard for others?   Because Muhammad (pbuh) and his modern day followers failed to head something written over 500 years before Muhammad (pbuh); to with, Matthew 22:37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  38  This is the first and great commandment.
39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  40  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (AV).   But were led away from truth by vain deceit and traditions of men per Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (AV).

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION - BOTH TRUE AND FALSE - AT    WWW.JW.ORG

COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2] ISLAM HATES TO HEAR THE TRUTH:

[1]     SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [423B]

Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.  2  Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)  Ephesians 6:1 – 2, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

And as Proverbs 1:7 – 8, [AV] testifies to, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.  8  My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:”  Jesus (Yeshua) showing that we should all be obedient to our parents as he is obedient to his Father at John 17:1 – 2, [AV] “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”  And Matthew 15:4, [AV] testifies to this truth, “For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”   

[2]     ISLAM HATES TO HEAR THE TRUTH:

INTRODUCTION:

Pope Benedict XVI made remarks on 09/14/2006 that angered many members of Islam.   He quoted Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire whom members of Islam later took by sword and forced all to convert and/or leave their own land which members of Islam stole.   Of course, members of Islam do not want to hear these facts, i.e., that they stole the land of the Byzantine Empire and forced all in Jihad to convert at the edge of the sword or leave, but truth should be made known even if it is by the leader of another group which also has committed many wrongs in the name of religion - its really the kettle calling the pot black situation.

Also, members of Islam incorrectly blame the Catholic church for the Crusades, but conveniently overlook the fact that they, members of Islam actually lit the fuse for the Crusades, i.e., they conveniently ignore cause and effect.

But first a definition of terms to assist the understanding of all.

Cause = Something that brings about an effect or result [source - Webster New Collegiate Dictionary].

Effect = 1. To cause to come into being, 2. To bring about often by surmounting obstacles: accomplish, b. to put into effect. [source - Webster New Collegiate Dictionary].

Result = 1. Something that results as a consequence, issue, or conclusion, [from a cause or action] [source - Webster New Collegiate Dictionary].

Therefor a cause is something that gives rise to effects or results as a consequence.    For example, if you light the fuse leading to sticks of dynamite the effect or consequence will be an explosion.   How big or destructive the explosion depends on the placement of the dynamite.   In an open field, the effect or consequences will be minimal, but in a crowded building the, the effect or consequences could be very significant.

THE TRUTH WITH RESPECT WRONGS OF THE OTTOMANS AND THEIR SUCESSORS:

A Muslim source gives this account, but neglects all was done by force of the sword, <<" The Caucasus region lies outside central Asia, but it too was absorbed ...by Russia in the late eighteenth century, and its Muslim populations once, attached to those of the Ottoman and Safavid empires, have become linked to those of central Asia. Islam was first introduced to Azabayjan and the surrounding areas by the Arab conquests in the seventh century. It was reinforced by the Seljuk migrations in the eleventh century. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Golden Horde introduced Islam to the northern Caucusus, and the influence of the Crimean Khans and the Ottoman empire helped spread Islam among Caucasian peoples in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The hold of Islam on the local people prepared the way for later preachers who would make the Caucusus the bastion of Islamic Resistance to the Russians which it has remained till this day." [ source - http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0075.htm]>>.

Now forced conversion has always been the order of the day for Islam as shown in an article by Michelle Malkin, <<"Forced conversions in Islamic history are not exceptional-they have been the norm, across three continents-Asia, Africa, and Europe-for over 13 centuries. Orders for conversion were decreed under all the early Islamic dynasties-Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Mamluks. Additional extensive examples of forced conversion were recorded under both Seljuk and Ottoman Turkish rule (the latter until its collapse in the 20th century), the Shi'ite Safavid and Qajar dynasties of Persia/Iran, and during the jihad ravages on the Indian subcontinent, beginning with the early 11th century campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni, and recurring under the Delhi Sultanate, and Moghul dynasty until the collapse of Muslim suzerainty in the 18th century following the British conquest of India.
Moreover, during jihad-even the jihad campaigns of the 20th century ...the (dubious) concept of "no compulsion" (Koran 2:256; which was cited with tragic irony during the Fox reporters "confessional"!), has always been meaningless. A consistent practice was to enslave populations taken from outside the boundaries of the "Dar al Islam", where Islamic rule (and Law) prevailed. Inevitably fresh non-Muslim slaves, including children, were Islamized within a generation, their ethnic and linguistic origins erased. Two enduring and important mechanisms for this conversion were concubinage and the slave militias-practices still evident in the contemporary jihad waged by the Arab Muslim Khartoum government against the southern Sudanese Christians and Animists." [source - Islam's long history of forced conversions by Michelle Malkin], and Front Page Magazine of Andrew G. Bostom of August 29, 2006 in relating the kidnapping of two reporters said, <<" Fox News journalists Steve Centanni and his accompanying cameraman Olaf Wiig were released on Sunday, August 27, 2006, following almost two weeks of captivity. ..As depicted in this disturbing video, Centanni and Wiig were forced to convert to Islam, and recite an anti-Western diatribe, complemented by treacly Islamic apologetics.

During the brief press conference...both men preferred to focus on the plight of the kind and benevolent denizens of Gaza. Momentarily acknowledging the coercive nature of their "conversion", Centanni admitted off camera, "We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint". .."[source - Front Page Magazine of Andrew G. Bostom of August 29, 2006]>>, clearly shows Islam's standard operating practice has not changed from its inception.

One writer said, <<" Among the deeds of the great founders of religions, such as Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Moses, and Christ, one can find nothing comparable with Muhammad's plundering of caravans, ambushing of tribes, massacring of prisoners of wars, and enslaving of the women and children. Nor did any of these religious leaders have as many wives as Muhammad. In these and similar performances, Muhammad is unique and unparalleled.[source - "Fruits of Plunder" http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/index.php/FruitsOfPlunder]>>.

WITH RESPECT WHO CAUSED THE CRUSADES:

Let's look at what was really the cause of the Crusades that Islam blames on apostate (counterfeit) Christians, and a usual Islam is found to be responsible and the fuse lighter.   Now here are the facts,  <<" Most of Islam blames the apostate (counterfeit) Christians for the Crusades, but in reality Islam caused the Crusades which were the effect or result or consequences of a malicious wrong act by Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah.   How so?    Well simple, in 1009 this Caliph sacked the pilgrimage hospice in Jerusalem and destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was later rebuilt by the Byzantine emperor, but this event was remembered in Europe and was the spark or cause for the crusades.

Now let's look at what an encyclopedia says, <<" This background in the Christian West must be matched with that in the Muslim East. Muslim presence in the Holy Land goes back to the initial Arab conquest of Palestine [[They stole land that did not belong to them from the Hebrews and others.]]in the 7th century. This did not interfere much with pilgrimage to Christian holy sites or the security of monasteries and Christian communities in the Holy Land of Christendom, and western Europeans were not much concerned with the loss of far-away Jerusalem when, in the ensuing decades and centuries, they were themselves faced with invasions by Muslims and other hostile non-Christians such as the Vikings and Magyars. However, the Muslim armies' successes were putting strong pressure on the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire.

A turning point in western attitudes towards the east came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid caliph of Cairo, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem destroyed. His successor permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it under stringent circumstances, and pilgrimage was again permitted, but many stories began to be circulated in the West about the cruelty of Muslims toward Christian pilgrims; these stories then played an important role in the development of the crusades later in the century.

The immediate cause of the First Crusade was Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire had been defeated, and this defeat led to the loss of all but the coastlands of Asia Minor (modern Turkey)[[Another land theft.]]. Although the East-West Schism was brewing between the Catholic Western church and the Greek Orthodox Eastern church, Alexius I expected some help from a fellow Christian. However, the response was much larger, and less helpful, than Alexius I desired, as the Pope called for a large invasion force to not merely defend the Byzantine Empire but also retake Jerusalem.

When the First Crusade was preached in 1095, the Christian princes of northern Iberia had been fighting their way out of the mountains of Galicia and Asturias, the Basque Country and Navarre, with increasing success, for about a hundred years. The fall of Moorish Toledo to the Kingdom of León in 1085 was a major victory, but the turning points of the Reconquista still lay in the future. The disunity of the Muslim emirs was an essential factor, and the Christians, whose wives remained safely behind, were hard to beat: they knew nothing except fighting, they had no gardens or libraries to defend, and they worked their way forward through alien territory populated by infidels, where the Christian fighters felt they could afford to wreak havoc. All these factors were soon to be replayed in the fighting grounds of the East. Spanish historians have traditionally seen the Reconquista [[Retaking of lands that belonged to them.]] as the molding force in the Castilian character, with its sense that the highest good was to die fighting for the Christian cause of one's country.

While the Reconquista was the most prominent example of Christian war against Muslim conquests, it is not the only such example. The Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard had conquered the "toe of Italy," Calabria, in 1057 and was holding what had traditionally been Byzantine territory against the Muslims of Sicily. The maritime states of Pisa, Genoa and Catalonia were all actively fighting Islamic strongholds in Majorca and Sardinia, freeing the coasts of Italy and Catalonia from Muslim raids. Much earlier, of course, the Christian homelands of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, and so on had been conquered by Muslim armies [[More land grabs by Islam that should be returned]]. [b]This long history of losing territories to a religious enemy, as well as a powerful pincer movement on all of Western Europe, created a powerful motive to respond to Byzantine emperor Alexius I's call for holy war to defend Christendom, and to recapture the lost lands, starting at the most important one of all, Jerusalem itself.">> [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

So as can readily be seen, the actual cause of the Crusades was the land grabbing [[Stealing.]] by Islam from both the Hebrews and the apostate (counterfeit) Christians, and the final straw was the malicious sacking of the pilgrimage hospice in Jerusalem and the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Interesting side note, the Hebrews when they retook some of their lands, the whole of Palestine really rightly being theirs, permitted the Al-Aqsa Mosque to remain on their former temple site showing a compassion very different than that exhibited by the land grabbing [[Stealing.]] members of Islam such as Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah.   Of course, as we all know, the land grabbers [[Stealers.]] hated the Hebrews for rightly wanting their land back that had been stolen from them centuries earlier by Islam.  But of course they do NOT LIKE the effect or consequence of having to pay for their wrong act, the cause, land grabbing of others land, most notably that of the Hebrews." [source - Islam Does Not Know Difference Between Cause and Effect or Result: by Iris the Preacher]

CONCLUSION:

The entire middle eastern turmoil with respect the State of Israel is because Islam does not like giving back and/or forced to get out of lands they stole and pillaged.  However, they like to blame those being wronged for the results.  The Byzantine should be given back their lands and nations and the ancestors of all forced converts should revert to whatever their ancestors were.

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION - BOTH TRUE AND FALSE - AT    WWW.JW.ORG

COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]    ISLAM PROTEST HEARING THE TRUTH

[1] SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [426B]

Pray without ceasing.   1 Thessalonians 5:17,  [authorized King James Bible; AV]

To show the importance of praying continually, Jesus (Yeshua) used a parable found at Luke 18:1 – 8, [AV] “And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;  2  Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:  3  And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.  4  And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;  5  Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.  6  And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.  7  And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?  8  I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”  And the need to continue praying is stated at Romans 12:12, [AV] “Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;”   


[2]     ISLAM PROTEST HEARING THE TRUTH:

INTRODUCTION:

Pope Benedict XVI made remarks on 09/14/2006 that angered many members of Islam. He quoted Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire whom members of Islam later took by sword and forced all to convert and/or leave their own land which members of Islam stole. Of course, members of Islam do not want to hear these facts, i.e., that they stole the land of the Byzantine Empire and forced all in Jihad to convert at the edge of the sword or leave, but truth should be made known even if it is by the leader of another group which also has committed many wrongs in the name of religion - its really the kettle calling the pot black situation.

What the Pope quoted was a far cry from an even worse truth.   For starters, Islam sacked Rome in 846 A.D. and never paid for the damages done so the Pope and NOT Islam should be protesting loudly.    Of course this was NOT their only evil attempt to convert by the figurative sword and then try and throw the blame on the other side.   This has been Standard Operating Procedure for Islam to the present time.

How so?   Let's look at the most recent example, the State of Israel - Lebanese dysfunctional situation.   In a 'nut-shell' the situation was caused by a criminal group, Hezbollah, that Lebanese gave sanctuary to crossing an international boundary and murdering eight (8) Israelis and kidnapping two (2) Israelis with a view of creating turmoil.   Then crying when Israel justly struck back saying Israel had committed atrocities, but the truth is Islam has the inability of many to distinguish between cause and effect in the crisis between Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Israel (year 2006).  Many point to the number killed and which side did it, i.e., hospital in Israel and town of Qana in Lebanon, but ignore the fact that both are but effects of a causative act.  Now the causative act that resulted in so much adverse effects, destruction and death, was of course the previously mentioned surprise unprovoked across boarder attack by a criminal organization, Hezbollah, given tacit approval by the government of Lebanon who even permits members of this group to be members of its parliament.  So this attack was the 'trigger' and/or cause responsible for all the adverse effects, death and destruction, that results; therefore, total responsibility for all the effects rest solely on this criminal organization and the Lebanese government for permitting their operation in Lebanon, i.e., on Islam.

ISLAM'S ATROCITIES THAT ACTUALLY WERE THE FUSE FOR THE CRUSADES:

Let's look at another fact than many are NOT aware of, Islam actually brought on the Crusades by their own evil actions against so called Christians, the Roman Catholics and the Eastern or Orthodox Church.

First let's consider that Islam sacked Rome in 846 A.D., here is one account of this evil activity on Islam's part, <<" These crises were aggravated by the rise of another foreign power, the Arabs or, as the Middle Ages Italians called them, the Saracens: these newcomers, sailing from their bases in Northern Africa, had conquered Sicily and had began a steady penetration of Southern Italy. Infiltration of band of pirates brought terror in the territories around Rome. Under Pope Paschal I (817-824) all the spoils of the holy martyrs were transferred into the walls. But this move did not prevent a groups of Muslim to predate the St. Peter's Basilica itself, which was outside the ancient walls, sacking it in 846. In 852 Pope Leo IV commissioned therefore the construction of another wall around an area on the opposite side of the Tiber from the seven hills of Rome, which has since been called the Leonine City."
[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

To wit, in 846 Rome is attacked.   This sack of Rome by the Muslims transcended in intensity and horror of human carnage any that had occurred in the past.    The Basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the surrounding
buildings, are razed. Thousands of priests, nuns, and innocents are slaughtered. Although the city of Rome was not destroyed, the attack focused on the sacred center of Christendom, in the hope of anihilating the Christian faith. [references, to be called reference T - 1. Brehier, Louis. "Crusades." Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm. K. Knight, 2005, 2. Coffman, Elesha. "Secrets of Islam's Success." Christian History. Vol. XXI, No. 2, Issue 74, 16-18. Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, 2002, 3. Crawford, Paul. "A Deadly Give and Take." Christian History. Vol. XXI, No. 2, Issue 74, 19-24. Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, 2002, 4. "History of the Arabs." http://www.historyworld.net. History World, 2005, 5. Lattourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity: Beginnings to 1500. Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 2003, 6. Lewis, Bernard. Cultures in Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, 7. Maalouf, Amin. The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. New York: Shocken Books, 1984.
Moosa, Matti. "The Crusades: An Eastern perspective, With Emphasis on Syriac Sources." Muslim World. Vol. 93, Issue 2, 249-290. April, 2003, Rempel, Gerhard. "The Crusades." http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc1/lectures/21crusades.html Western New England College, 2000, 8.
Renick, Timothy M. "Crusader Zeal." Christian Century. Vol. 122, Issue 2, Jan. 25, 2005, 9. And Riley-Smith, Jonathan. "Rethinking the Crusades." First Things. Issue 101, 20-23. March 2000.]

And here is a timeline history of evil acts by Islam that lit the fuse for the Crusades that Islam likes to point their fingers at so called Christians for starting and carrying out.   As usual, Islam is the causative agent for turmoil, but falsely accuses others for what Islam brings about as will be shown by the time line of History of provocations by Islam:

624 Battle of Badr. Expulsion of the Jews from Madina.
627 Battle of the Trench. Expulsion of the Jews at Banu Quraiza.
630 Conquest of Makkah. Battles of Hunsin, Auras, and Taif.
634 Muslim armies stormed out of the Arabian Peninsula and began
their conquests.
635 Siege and conquest of Damascus.
638 Christian Jerusalem and Syria conquered by Muslim armies.
641 Muslims conquer Persia.
642 Conquest of Egypt from the Christians, followed by the rest of
North Africa.
647 Conquest of the Island of Cyress.
648 Campaigns against the Christian Byzantine. The armies of islam
launch a series of attacks against the Christians in the east that
culminate in the siege of its capitol Constantinople in 673.
651 Naval battle against the Byzantine.
666 Raid of Sicily.
672 Conquest of the island of Rhodes.
673 Siege of Constantinople. Muslim armies lay siege to the Byzantine
Christian capitol, Constantinople. The siege lasts for five years,
until the final capture of the city in 678.
688 Construction begins on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.
711 Conquest of Spain begins.
716 Invasion of Constantinople.
725 Muslims occupy Nimes in France.
732 The Battle of Poitiers in France. Charles Martel halts the advance
of Muslims into Central Europe in this decisive battle.
737 The Muslims are defeated in Avignon, France.
756 Founding of the Umayyad State in Spain.
777 Battle of Saragossa in Spain.
792 Invasion of Southern France.
805 Campaigns against the Byzantines. Recapture of Rhodes and Cypress.
818 Capture of the islands of Izira, Majorca, and Sardinia.
831 Muslims capture Palermo, Italy.
839 Muslims occupy all of southern Italy. Capture of the city of Messina
in Sicily. This is the main assault on Europe before the First Crusades.
Th goal of Islam appeared to be the destruction of Christianity, hence
its thrust to attack the heart of Christendom, the Papal Seat in Rome.
846 Rome is attacked. The sack of Rome by the Muslims transcended in
intensity and horror of human carnage any that had occurred in the
past. The Basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the surrounding
buildings, are razed. Thousands of priests, nuns, and innocents are
slaughtered. Although the city of Rome was not destroyed, the attack
focused on the sacred center of Christendom, in the hope of annihilating
the Christian faith.
909 Sicily and Sardinia fall to the Muslims.
937 The Church of the Resurrection (Church of the Holy Sepulchre) is
burned down by Muslims. Many more churches in Jerusalem are
attacked and burned.
966 Anti-Christian riots in Jerusalem.
970 Muslim Fatamids invade Palestine and destroy it through a century
of war, which devastated the Jewish population.
973 The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is burned to the
ground by Muslims.
1003 Al-Hakim begins his persecutions by destroying the Church of
St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt. He continues his persecutions by destroying
the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem in 1009. And later in
1012, he issues many oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians. [reference - reference T previously given].

So we can see indeed that Islam was NOT a religion of peace as they falsely claim, but committed many evil acts of aggression.  Finally, others struck back at them and called their strike back the Crusades.  Now in evil hypocrisy Islam tries through false propaganda to blame so called Christians for the Crusades.  As usual Islam fails to distinguish between cause and effect since it would show them in an evil light, so let's review cause and effect:

Cause = Something that brings about an effect or result [source - Webster New Collegiate Dictionary].

Effect = 1. To cause to come into being, 2. To bring about often by surmounting obstacles: accomplish, b. to put into effect. [source - Webster New Collegiate Dictionary].

Result = 1. Something that results as a consequence, issue, or conclusion, [from a cause or action] [source - Webster New Collegiate Dictionary].

Therefor a cause is something that gives rise to effects or results as a consequence.    For example, if you light the fuse leading to sticks of dynamite the effect or consequence will be an explosion.   How big or destructive the explosion depends on the placement of the dynamite.   In an open field, the effect or consequences will be minimal, but in a crowded building the, the effect or consequences could be very significant.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE START OF THE CRUSADES AS SHOWN BY HISTORY?

If we listen to Islamic propaganda, it was of course the so called Christians, the apostate (counterfeit) Christians, but it was in reality Islam by their continued attacks on so called Christianity previously detailed in timeline forum.   But let's look at how Islam tries to put the blame always on the victim, <<""The derogatory remarks of the Pope about the philosophy of jihad and Prophet Mohammed have injured sentiments across the Muslim world and pose the danger of spreading acrimony among the religions," the AFP news agency quoted the resolution by the country's national assembly as saying.

In India, which has a sizeable Muslim population, Minority Commission Chairman Hamid Ansari said: "The language used by the Pope sounds like that of his 12th-Century counterpart who ordered the crusades..."[source - BBC].

As shown above, Islam is in denial and does NOT WISH to see or hear the truth, but to cover it up with misleading propaganda.  Now let's look at the facts, <<" Most of Islam blames the apostate (counterfeit) Christians for the Crusades, but in reality Islam caused the Crusades which were the effect or result or consequences of a malicious wrong act by Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah.   How so?    Well simple, in 1009 this Caliph sacked the pilgrimage hospice in Jerusalem and destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was later rebuilt by the Byzantine emperor, but this event was remembered in Europe and was the spark or cause for the crusades.

Now let's look at what an encyclopedia says, <<" This background in the Christian West must be matched with that in the Muslim East. Muslim presence in the Holy Land goes back to the initial Arab conquest of Palestine [[They stole land that did not belong to them from the Hebrews and others.]]in the 7th century. [b]This did not interfere much with pilgrimage to Christian holy sites or the security of monasteries and Christian communities in the Holy Land of Christendom, and western Europeans were not much concerned with the loss of far-away Jerusalem when, in the ensuing decades and centuries, they were themselves faced with invasions by Muslims and other hostile non-Christians such as the Vikings and Magyars. However, the Muslim armies' successes were putting strong pressure on the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire.

A turning point in western attitudes towards the east came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid caliph of Cairo, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem destroyed. His successor permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it under stringent circumstances, and pilgrimage was again permitted, but many stories began to be circulated in the West about the cruelty of Muslims toward Christian pilgrims; these stories then played an important role in the development of the crusades later in the century.

The immediate cause of the First Crusade was Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire had been defeated, and this defeat led to the loss of all but the coastlands of Asia Minor (modern Turkey)[[Another land theft.]]. Although the East-West Schism was brewing between the Catholic Western church and the Greek Orthodox Eastern church, Alexius I expected some help from a fellow Christian. However, the response was much larger, and less helpful, than Alexius I desired, as the Pope called for a large invasion force to not merely defend the Byzantine Empire but also retake Jerusalem.

When the First Crusade was preached in 1095, the Christian princes of northern Iberia had been fighting their way out of the mountains of Galicia and Asturias, the Basque Country and Navarre, with increasing success, for about a hundred years. The fall of Moorish Toledo to the Kingdom of León in 1085 was a major victory, but the turning points of the Reconquista still lay in the future. The disunity of the Muslim emirs was an essential factor, and the Christians, whose wives remained safely behind, were hard to beat: they knew nothing except fighting, they had no gardens or libraries to defend, and they worked their way forward through alien territory populated by infidels, where the Christian fighters felt they could afford to wreak havoc. All these factors were soon to be replayed in the fighting grounds of the East. Spanish historians have traditionally seen the Reconquista [[Retaking of lands that belonged to them.]] as the molding force in the Castilian character, with its sense that the highest good was to die fighting for the Christian cause of one's country.

While the Reconquista was the most prominent example of Christian war against Muslim conquests, it is not the only such example. The Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard had conquered the "toe of Italy," Calabria, in 1057 and was holding what had traditionally been Byzantine territory against the Muslims of Sicily. The maritime states of Pisa, Genoa and Catalonia were all actively fighting Islamic strongholds in Majorca and Sardinia, freeing the coasts of Italy and Catalonia from Muslim raids. Much earlier, of course, the Christian homelands of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, and so on had been conquered by Muslim armies [[More land grabs by Islam that should be returned]]. This long history of losing territories to a religious enemy, as well as a powerful pincer movement on all of Western Europe, created a powerful motive to respond to Byzantine emperor Alexius I's call for holy war to defend Christendom, and to recapture the lost lands, starting at the most important one of all, Jerusalem itself.">> [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

So as can readily be seen, the actual cause of the Crusades was the land grabbing (Stealing.) by Islam from both the Hebrews and the apostate (counterfeit) Christians, and the final straw was the malicious sacking of the pilgrimage hospice in Jerusalem and the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

Interesting side note, the Hebrews when they retook some of their lands, the whole of Palestine really rightly being theirs, permitted the Al-Aqsa Mosque to remain on their former temple site showing a compassion very different than that exhibited by the land grabbing (Stealing.) members of Islam such as Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah.   Of course, as we all know, the land grabbers (Stealers.)  hated the Hebrews for rightly wanting their land back that had been stolen from them centuries earlier by Islam.  But of course they do NOT LIKE the effect or consequence of having to pay for their wrong act, the cause, land grabbing of others land, most notably that of the Hebrews." [source - Islam Does Not Know Difference Between Cause and Effect or Result: by Iris the Preacher]>>.

So as can clearly be seen, Islam is responsible for the Crusades launched by so called Christianity since it was the response to the evil and continuing attacks from Islam.  Islam says it does not convert by the figurative sword, but of course as can be seen from the above this is just an un-truth. 

CONCLUSION:

Many of Islam claim that others have a misconception of Islam because they claim it is spread by the 'sword', but let's look at the facts from Muslim sources themselves.

Muslim forces overran the Byzantine Empire by force, i.e., use of the sword, and eventually forced all to convert to Islam or get out, i.e., they stole the land and people belonging to the Byzantine Empire. Here is the proof in their own words, <<" It was not until the 10th century that the Turks reverted in any great number. Islamicization was accomplished largely through the missionary efforts supported by the Samanids, whose Muslim state of Central Asia straddled the river Oxus. At the end of the 10th century a group of Turks destroyed the hegemony of the samanids. Subsequently, those victors were themselves vanquished by a mighty group of nomadic Turks led by the descendents of a chieftain named Seljuk. Following a significant victory in 1040, the Seljuks divided the spoils of war. Seljuk's grandson Tughril received direction of the Seljuk thrust into the Islamic heartland. A combination of sound leadership, military prowess, unbridled energy and zeal, as well as a deteriorating economic and political situation in the Islamic territories in their path, enabled the Seljuks quickly to make themselves masters of the Iranian plateau, taking Isfahan in 1043. Sweeping down from that region into the eastern part of the Fertile Crescent in 1055, Tughril took the Caliphal seat of Baghdad.
As Seljuk leadership became more politically ad culturally more sophisticated, and identified its interests with those of the urban elites it had conquered, the more it became necessary to keep the predatory Turcomans out of the settled areas. The Turcomans were encouraged to satisfy their thirst for plunder and adventure in the north against Christian kingdoms in Georgia and Armenia. There they joined other Muslim warriors for the faith (ghazis) in the Holy struggle for the greater glory of Islam.

It was in Byzantium that the ghazis found a rich lode worthy of their efforts. Its own internal difficulties compounded the threat posed by the ghazis. Fifty years of strife between the bureaucracy and the army had weakened it. However under Alp Arslan, the Seljuks chose to maintain a tranquil northern flank whilst moving against the Shi'ite Fatimids in the south and the Byzantines and the Seljuks reached an accord in 1070.

This stalemate with Byzantium ended the following year, when the Emperor Romanus Diogenes gathered a large army and marched eastward across Anatolia. In august 1071 the two armies clashed at Manzikert near lake Van. At first the battle went in favour of the Emperor; but the tide swung and Romanus was captured (some sources say through treachery), and his army fled. Anatolia was now open to permanent Turkish settlement to become the Seljuks of Rum (Arabic term for Roman empire)." [source - www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0075.htm under the title of Seljuks of Rum]

Also, they tried to steal much of Europe by force of the sword to convert them to Islam per <<" This clearly shows how they love to obfuscate and distort the issue of whose land it is, but this has always been the Standard Operating Principle (SOP) of the greedy members of Islam. Let's look at the facts, as previously shown by an Australian newspaper, 95 percent of the violence and destruction we see in the world so far in 2006 has been caused by greedy members of Islam, such things as train bombings, their different sects bombing each other's mosques and killing each others members, suicide bombers, road side bombs, bus bombings, kidnapping of other peoples soldiers to ignite violence, going irrationally insane over stupid cartoons, etc.

As one anonymous poster on the Internet said, <<" Mahmoud Ashour, the former deputy of Cairo's Al-Azhar Mosque, the Sunni Arab world's most powerful institution, told Al-Arabiya TV immediately after the pope's speech that, "It is not enough. He should apologize because he insulted the beliefs of Islam. He must apologize in a frank way and say he made a mistake." (Forget the fact completely of the flipping Ack-madman of Iran saying all the crap he has about the Holocaust, wiping Israel off the map and killing Christians. Who has apologized for the Kobar Towers? The USS Cole? The American Embassy's? 9-11" [source - an anonymous poster on the Internet]>>, who really well summarized the present situation and Islam's denial of reality.

As A. M. Whittaker said, <<"Reasons for the Crusades
Upon reflection, I could only wonder how the Crusades could come about; what sparked this reaction from Christians who are supposed to love their enemies and be committed to peace?

I shall list the various reasons...
1. 613 Persians capture Damascus and Antioch

2. 614 Persians sack Jerusalem

3. 633 Muslims conquer Syria and Iraq...(all provocations previously listed in this article along with many more in a time-line of provocations)""[source A. M. Whittaker]>>.
So the Pope was correct, but too soft with respect the quotation of an Byzantine emperor.   It is high time that the Muslims give back the land and goods they stole from the Byzantine Empire and the ancestors of the people they forced to convert revert back to what they were before.

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION - BOTH TRUE AND FALSE - AT    WWW.JW.ORG