Islam, Muslim / Christian Forum - Welcome All

Topic split off from "parallels" thread and given it's own title (from the included link) by admin.

Quote from: amos45 on September 28, 2010, 09:03:57 PM

Greetings Esteban, & welcome to the forum.

It is not my intention to upset you, or any one else in any way, (my comments are with regard to history alone) but are you also aware that there is a certain amount of evidence to support the fact that the Pope of the day, was responsible for uniting the Arab nations into a central Islamic religion?

The Papacy had apparently been trying to get into Jerusalem for some time & were unable to enter because of opposition from certain quarters, so when Mahammed showed interest in most religions that he came in contact with, he was encouraged to study the bible. As a result, we now have the Islamic system, with some spattering of the Bible mixed into the Koran.

Things aren't always what they may seem, as you have shown by pointing out the Protestant position with regard to the Crusades.

Christian greetings,

Amos

http://www.remnantofgod.org/books/docs/How-the-Vatican-Created-Islam.pdf

The Two Babylons - Part III
They took his headship and humbled him: Napoleon's soldiers upturned St. Peter's chair beneath which is carved,
"There is no other God but Allah, ...
www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl166.htm - Cached - Similar

Quote from: yonah33 on October 02, 2010, 05:51:07 PM
Napoleon's soldiers upturned St. Peter's chair beneath which is carved,
"There is no other God but Allah, ...
www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl166.htm - Cached - Similar

Could you provide additional sources for this?

Additionally, I realize that Islamic "tradition" penned in the 7th and 8th centuries claims that Mohammed's grandfather REdug the well of Zamzam, but where is the historical or archaeological record of this?
Or that Mecca even existed before the 4th century AD. The article seems to lean on Islamic historical fiction.

 What do you mean by additional sources? I gave you the website it is from. Are you saying that in order to post you have to have two sources and a personal opinion? The sources are available for anybody who wants to check them. In case you're unfamiliar with The Two Babylons, it is a very authoritative work.

Quote from: yonah33 on October 02, 2010, 07:32:46 PM
What do you mean by additional sources? I gave you the website it is from. Are you saying that in order to post you have to have two sources and a personal opinion? The sources are available for anybody who wants to check them. In case you're unfamiliar with The Two Babylons, it is a very authoritative work.

I didn't notice any footnotes or sources referenced by the author. So I Googled the subject of your first link. All I found of the Allah chair story you posted was one other guy referencing the same site that you did.

First of all, the author lived 1400 years after the period he is supposed to be writing about. Where are the footnotes? Where's the bibliography?
While I don't consider Wikipedia a definitive source here's a little on what some have written about your author.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Rivera

Let's go to the first line of the quoted. No shortage of folks presume that Mohammed and his tribe were Ishmaelites, but they migrated to Mecca from Yemen - south of Mecca, not from northern Arabia, the Wilderness of Paran, or the fertile crescent. Were their ancestors were more likely from across the strait in Ethiopia. There is no record of an overland connection between Yemen and northern Arabia until about the 6th-8th century BC. The spices from Yemen bound for the fertile crescent, for example, traveled by boat. While I used to find it fun to believe Mohammed and his tribe were Ishmaelites ("hand against every man" and such) I find the conclusion increasingly more difficult to make.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1216.0

"In a tribal contention over a well(Zamzam) the treasure of the Kaaba and the offerings that
pilgrims had given were dumped down the well and it was filled with sand - it disappeared. Many years later Adb Al-Muttalib was given visions telling him where to find the well and its treasure."

1. While this is consistent with 7th and 8th century created Islamic "tradition", does it really make sense to you that a well, in one of the driest areas that even Arabia has to offer, that not only the locals but also nomadic Bedouins would have been using for generations, could be filled with treasure and covered over, and that somehow nobody would miss it? That somehow everyone would for some reason forget it's location?

2. Was it supposed to have been God that gave Abdel his "vision" so he could reopen the well and then dedicate it to Asaf and Naelah?
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1209.0

I am splitting this subject off into it's own topic thread since it has more to do with conspiracy than parallels.

I would appreciate it if you responded to the prior replies in order to help keep our exchange organized.

"It is said that the Jews looked upon the
Kaaba as an outlying tabernacle of the Lord with veneration until it became polluted with idols."

More 7th and 8th century created Islamic fiction.
Does it make sense to you that any Jew, would ever have considered a giant black box 1200 kilometers from the Holy Land an "outlying tabernacle"? (let alone that it seems it didn't exist until immigrants from Yemen built it in the early 5th century)

Where is the historical record of this?
Did you notice how so many lines are prefaced with "It is said...."? Do you wonder why that is?

"'Teachers were sent to young Muhammad and he had intensive training. Muhammad studied the
works of St. Augustine which prepared him for his "great calling.""

Pretty studious for an illiterate.

Quote from: yonah33 on October 02, 2010, 07:32:46 PM
What do you mean by additional sources? I gave you the website it is from. Are you saying that in order to post you have to have two sources and a personal opinion? The sources are available for anybody who wants to check them. In case you're unfamiliar with The Two Babylons, it is a very authoritative work.

There is no need to get so defensive. But when you assert something and someone wishes to reference source material it is only fair that you provide it.

God bless

'While Muhammad was being prepared, he was told that his enemies were the Jews and that the
only true Christians were Roman Catholic."

If this was the beginning of this alleged education then how do you explain his pre-Medina "revelations" like these

Sura 5:68 Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith.

"People of the Book" being a reference to Jews and Christians.

"'Muhammad began receiving "divine revelations" and his wife's Catholic cousin Waraquah
helped interpret them. From this came the Koran."

Perhaps better put, that inspired the beginning of the Koran. Mohammed told his wife that a demon met him in the cave, and his wife talked him out of it and convinced him that his feeling that the demon tried nearly squeeze the life out of him 3 times, was actually a messenger from God doing that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpsWnbApBNw

For the mostpart the Quran is a mix of poorly recalled Islamic and Jewish fables Mohammed was told, and self-serving suras that advanced his imperialistic conquest, rape of prisoners and theft of the property of others.

So how do you suppose the Jesuits arranged for Mohammed to have these "revelations" in the cave?

"'Muhammad claimed he had a vision from Allah and was told, "You are the messenger of Allah."
This began his career as a prophet and he received many messages. By the time Muhammad
died, the religion of Islam was exploding. The nomadic Arab tribes were joining forces in the
name of Allah and his prophet, Muhammad.'"

By suggesting it was the "religion" that was exploding someone might get the mistaken impression that somehow folks voluntarily bought into it, however in his first 13 years Mohammed was barely able to gain 100 followers.

Then he went to Medina and enlisted two bandit tribes that made their living off of pillaging caravans and he enlisted them into picking up the sword in the name of Mohammed and his "Allah". He returned to Mecca with a threat and the Quraish submitted. The same went on throughout Arabia in his lifetime, and the imperialistic conquest continued long after, eventually encompassing nearly the whole known world up as far as Tours France and Vienna Austria.

Quote from: yonah33 on October 02, 2010, 07:32:46 PM
In case you're unfamiliar with The Two Babylons, it is a very authoritative work.

"The Two Babylons - Part III

The Bible is the tale of two cities. One is the heavenly Jerusalem -- God incarnate in His glorified elect, reigning through eternity over a kingdom of the "saved". The other is earthly Jerusalem "which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where our Lord was crucified". Here Satan, incarnate in the Roman pope, will rule a New World Order through the time of "Jacob's trouble" to the consummation (Revelation 11:8; Jeremiah 30; Daniel 9:26-27).

Some imagine the Roman Catholic church has been corrupted only recently but she was never Christian, committing adultery with the pagan Trinity against God's Word she claims as her Husband when she married the State at the First Nicea Council of AD325. The Catholic, New Catholic, indeed all encyclopedias declare that the Trinity doctrine and baptism in three Titles were not introduced into Christian circles until centuries after the death of the first apostles."

We'll get into the "authoritative" nature of this article - through scripture, and Anthony Grigor-Scott and "Bible Believers" after you finish defending the earlier replies, to your first link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Believers

I find a lot of strong similarities between Obama and Muhammad.

BTW - do you know there are no Protestants on the US Supreme Court?  But there are 6 Catholics.  

hmmmm

Quote from: yonah33 on October 03, 2010, 01:51:09 PM
I find a lot of strong similarities between Obama and Muhammad.

BTW - do you know there are no Protestants on the US Supreme Court?  But there are 6 Catholics.  

hmmmm

Please support what you previously posted before introducing any new topics. You can start here.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7639#msg7639

Quote from: Peter on October 03, 2010, 02:06:44 PM

Please support what you previously posted before introducing any new topics. You can start here.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7639#msg7639

This is supposed to be a discussion forum - not a kind of college course where the professor uses someone else's material to glorify his own intellectualness while subjectively grading students on their oral comments rather than their ability to reason.

It's how a lot of cults get started.

i must be in the wrong college.

Quote from: yonah33 on October 03, 2010, 02:17:09 PM

Quote from: Peter on October 03, 2010, 02:06:44 PM

Please support what you previously posted before introducing any new topics. You can start here.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7639#msg7639

This is supposed to be a discussion forum ........

EXACTLY! From "Forum Decorum" http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=35.0
"All we require of members is that they engage in a dialog - in an exchange. Post a thread or comment, or even a couple, wait for a response, and then respond to responses. In other words don't just spam away while ignoring the responses of others to your posts.
If you copy and paste something, not unreasonably you will be expected to defend it in it's entirety, as well as any of your own material."

Do you find it unreasonable for folks in this forum to expect other folks to support what they post in the forum?

Quote from: yonah33 on October 03, 2010, 02:17:09 PM.......... - not a kind of college course where the professor uses someone else's material to glorify his own intellectualness while subjectively grading students on their oral comments rather than their ability to reason.

It's how a lot of cults get started.

Cults get started by folks failing to question the veracity of something that someone else advances, but instead simply believing it.

Quote from: yonah33 on October 03, 2010, 02:17:09 PM

i must be in the wrong college.

This is a discussion forum, so why don't you discuss the material that you posted rather than continuing to obfuscate?

Sorry I missed the fine print - I'm not into debating. The material I post speaks for itself much better than my ability. The purpose is to encourage discussion and thinking.

Like I said, I'm in the wrong school. I shall be transferring. You win.

Quote from: yonah33 on October 03, 2010, 02:38:57 PM
Sorry I missed the fine print - I'm not into debating.

Perhaps what you mean is that you are unable to support the unique stuff that you have posted in this forum.

Quote from: yonah33 on October 03, 2010, 02:38:57 PMThe material I post speaks for itself much better than my ability. The purpose is to encourage discussion and thinking.

Yet you express no interest in discussing it, but only avoiding discussion.

Again, do you find it unreasonable for members in this forum to expect other members to support what they post in the forum?

Or should we simply let folks lard the forum with any amount of copy and pasted unsupportable nonsense, in any kind of volume that anyone decides they want to copy and paste in here? Do you think that would be the most effective way to help bring our Muslim could-become brothers and sisters to Christ?

Quote from: yonah33 on October 03, 2010, 02:38:57 PM
Like I said, I'm in the wrong school. I shall be transferring. You win.

It is your classroom to do as you wish. You win.

Quote from: yonah33 on October 03, 2010, 02:58:25 PM
It is your classroom to do as you wish. You win.

All your sour grapes attitude does is suggest that you are trying to convince yourself that this is about something other than your inability to support the preposterous notion that the Vatican created Islam, that the nonsensical article tried to advance, that fails on so many levels.
But there's no need to make up stories about the Roman Church for someone devoted to bashing Roman Catholicism. Their doctrine is sufficient witness against Roman Catholicism.

It would seem apparent that you never had any interest in discussion in a discussion forum at all, but perhaps more of an interest in advancing something by links and copy and paste, that you have perhaps been indoctrinated into believing.

Over and out.

Quote from: yonah33 on October 03, 2010, 03:13:58 PM
Over and out.

I'll go ahead and set the topic as non-sticky.

Then Pete, that makes two of us that are at disagreance with you over this view.

There is ample information out there in the public domain that supports this view concerning Islam & the Vatican. The other thing is....it all makes sense....no imagination needed.

Yonah is much like myself, don't like confrontation or arguements.

Quote from: amos45 on October 04, 2010, 06:37:39 AM

Then Pete, that makes two of us that are at disagreance with you over this view.

There is ample information out there in the public domain that supports this view concerning Islam & the Vatican.

Then why don't you include more supporting links of all of that ample information?
Since the author lived 1400 years after the "history" he is writing about, why didn't he include sources for his information?
Did you see the article on your author that I provided?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Rivera
Do you think it wise to use someone like that as a sole source when even you can't explain the few points that I raised? I had only just begun with the questions.

Quote from: amos45 on October 04, 2010, 06:37:39 AMThe other thing is....it all makes sense....no imagination needed.

If it makes sense then why don't you explain to me how the Vatican arranged the encounter Mohammed had in the cave with the demon?
How is it that you believe the Islamic fictional history penned in the 7th and 8th century, that someone could put treasure in the well of Zamzam and fill it with sand, and that for some reason all of the locals and the nomadic Bedouins that had used it for generations wouldn't miss it? Wouldn't bother to dig it up?
The whole theory relies on the same nonexistent history of Mecca that Muslims believe.
Why don't you show us the historical and archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca ever existed before the 4th century AD?
Show us the EVIDENCE that supports the preposterous notion that the Jews considered it a place of worship.

Quote from: amos45 on October 04, 2010, 06:37:39 AM
Yonah is much like myself, don't like confrontation or arguements.

I remember that you guys did arrive on the scene pretty much simultaneously. I guess that's how you knew why Yonah left the first time. What kind of cult did you guys join that believes such a bunch of unsupportable nonsense, without ever even thinking about it, much less investigating it? Some sort of Jack Chick cult?
If it isn't cult style indoctrination then why is it that you can't explain what you are linking to and copy and pasting in here?

In a PM to him I had written.

"We had two Muslims that joined roughly at the same time that would copy and paste topic after topic, panel after panel, from sites like "Answering Christianity", while ignoring responses to what they posted, as they kept on posting and posting."
Yohan's reply was "(TRASH)"

"If they had been allowed to continue, the forum would have been filled with unsupported copy and pasting, flushing away constructive discussions that folks have spent a lot of time on, but with nobody defending the subjects that they were displaced by."
Yohan's reply was "(BOOT EM)"

Yet for some reason you and he believe you should be exempt from being held to the same standard of supporting what you post in here no matter how nonsensical it is.
Did you miss the "Forum Decorum" section?

"All we require of members is that they engage in a dialog - in an exchange. Post a thread or comment, or even a couple, wait for a response, and then respond to responses. In other words don't just spam away while ignoring the responses of others to your posts.
If you copy and paste something, not unreasonably you will be expected to defend it in it's entirety, as well as any of your own material.
Please include just one point at a time, for constructive discussion, point by point.
Posters that do little beyond copy and paste, demonstrate not only laziness, but an inability to think for themselves."

Do you think it is unreasonable for us to expect folks to support what they post in the forum? Do you believe the best way to reach our Muslim could-become brothers and sisters is with a bunch of unsupportable nonsense, that even necessarily depends on accepting the fraudulent Islamic history, that was a pure fictional creation of the 7th and 8th century AD?

Sorry Pete, but your trying to put thoughts in my head & words in my mouth. Don't belong to any cult, & don't hold with Jack Chick rubbish.

As to showing evidence as you say, I don't think that you'd believe anything that goes against what you say, so it's not worth the effort. As I said earlier, it's available if you look.

BTW, just for the record....I don't;
Quote;
"How is it that you believe the Islamic fictional history penned in the 7th and 8th century, that someone could put treasure in the well of Zamzam and fill it with sand, and that for some reason all of the locals and the nomadic Bedouins that had used it for generations wouldn't miss it? Wouldn't bother to dig it up?"

How did you surmize that I did believe this???

I actually have some dark suspicions of my own, that I'll keep to myself for the moment.

Quote from: amos45 on October 04, 2010, 08:00:38 AM

Sorry Pete, but your trying to put thoughts in my head & words in my mouth. Don't belong to any cult, & don't hold with Jack Chick rubbish.

It is Jack Chik that supports and promotes the poppycock of the very author that you have been trying to advance in here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Rivera

If you don't belong to a cult then why is it that the two of you came here at roughly the same time, and are both now trying to advance the same material, that neither of you can explain, that depends on Islam's phony 7th and 8th century historical fiction to believe?

Quote from: amos45 on October 04, 2010, 08:00:38 AMAs to showing evidence as you say, ........

How about another author that might include just a footnote or two?
Muslims can't show any evidence of a history of Mecca before the 4th century AD either, yet you have put yourself in the unenviable position, of necessarily having to believe there is one.

Quote from: amos45 on October 04, 2010, 08:00:38 AM....... I don't think that you'd believe anything that goes against what you say, ........

This isn't about something that I say. Select any of my threads to discuss something that I say.
This is about something that YOU say. Something that you guys are trying to advance here. All I am requesting you do is respond to questions that I asked about what you are trying to advance in here.
The reason the two of you are in epic failure in that regard is because it is entirely unsupportable. Particularly the phony historical suggestions it depends upon.
That's why you have to pretend that somehow your failure is my fault.

Quote from: amos45 on October 04, 2010, 08:00:38 AM........ so it's not worth the effort. As I said earlier, it's available if you look.

I did look. At the article, at the modern author, at it's historical unworkability. That's how the questions were raised.
I Googled for more sources too. Have you?

Quote from: amos45 on October 04, 2010, 08:00:38 AMBTW, just for the record....I don't;
Quote;
"How is it that you believe the Islamic fictional history penned in the 7th and 8th century, that someone could put treasure in the well of Zamzam and fill it with sand, and that for some reason all of the locals and the nomadic Bedouins that had used it for generations wouldn't miss it? Wouldn't bother to dig it up?"

How did you surmize that I did believe this???

Because of the well of Zamzam portion of your article that I inquired about in this post.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7640#msg7640

As well as the article's ridiculous notion that Jews ever considered the Kaaba a legitimate temple for them, at some point in history, before the Kaaba was filled with 360 idols. The historical fact is that the Kaaba was built for Arabian moon, sun, and star worship, just as all of the other Arabian Kaabas were built for the same purpose.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1133.0

Quote from: amos45 on October 04, 2010, 08:00:38 AM

I actually have some dark suspicions of my own, that I'll keep to myself for the moment.

But bear in mind that whatever those "dark suspicions" are, spring from a mind that is willing to accept and believe something that is completely without merit that you yourself cannot even begin to explain.
That's why you have to try to convince yourself that this is about me, rather than simply answering the questions, that the nonsense you tried to advance, raised.

Sorry pete, but it is about something that YOU say....it's your forum & your religion that you are promoting. Only a few days ago I said that I was glad that I found YOUR forum, how quick things can change.

Another thing is that you have no idea about me & have gone on the offensive without cause, thus showing that your motives are not truely christian, but very strangely self centered & proud.

Ye shall be judged by your actions & treatment of the chosen of the Lord.

Quote from: amos45 on October 06, 2010, 06:19:53 PM

Sorry pete, but it is about something that YOU say....it's your forum & your religion that you are promoting.

No it's about good forum citizenship. I understand that discussing or supporting threads and posts that I advance is expected of me, when I post in other forums, as in this example.
http://whyislam.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26302&PN=1
You see it should be easy for a person to answer questions they are advancing truth.

Quote from: amos45 on October 06, 2010, 06:19:53 PMOnly a few days ago I said that I was glad that I found YOUR forum, how quick things can change.

So what changed? The thousands of threads and posts that were already here, that attracted you to the forum, that still remain? What changed your attitude is that you guys advanced information, but then refused to discuss it. To even field a single question that was asked about it.

Quote from: amos45 on October 06, 2010, 06:19:53 PMAnother thing is that you have no idea about me ........

But it isn't about you and it isn't about me. It's about you trying to advance something that you couldn't even begin to support or even discuss. After that failure, rather than simply admitting it or dropping it, you tried to make it about me instead.

Quote from: amos45 on October 06, 2010, 06:19:53 PM......... & have gone on the offensive .......

What did I do beside expect you to discuss what you post, the same as we would any other member of the forum, and that our forum rules call for?

Quote from: amos45 on October 06, 2010, 06:19:53 PM....... without cause, .....

The cause is you failed to support, or even discuss, what you advanced.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Quote from: amos45 on October 06, 2010, 06:19:53 PM..... thus showing that your motives are not truely christian, ......

The nice thing about the forum is that it keeps a well organized record, so that folks can make their own judgments based on that record, rather than depending on some who believe that God charged them to stand in judgment of other person's - motives, for example.

Quote from: amos45 on October 06, 2010, 06:19:53 PM....... but very strangely self centered & proud.

Ye shall be judged by your actions & treatment of the chosen of the Lord.

You talk about judgment even after your failed attempt to bash the Body of Christ with falsehood, accompanied by the rank anti-semitism of your links that include - Islam and skinhead styled - subjects like the body count from the holocaust being overstated.

"Jerusalem (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida) April 13, 2001 -- A recently published book by an American researcher .... proves that the figure of six million Jews cremated in the Nazi Auschwitz camps is a lie for propaganda..."

From folks that apparently believe that the important subject regarding Hitler, Nazi Germany and the holocaust, is the number of Jews that were murdered, rather than the circumstances under which, and fact that they were, murdered.

Quoting from the "American book" (written by an Arab from Cairo Egypt) on the link you are advancing ......

"Dr. Ramses Awd, "The Holocaust -- Between Denial and Upholding" ... the latest American book to refute and disprove the fable of the holocaust ...."

To Dr. Awd from Cairo Egypt the holocaust is a fable. So amos45 do you believe Dr. Awd simply because he is willing to write down the spurious claim? Is that why you believe Alberto Rivera, the author of the other link, too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Rivera
Can you explain why the number of Jews killed, is the important thing we should understand about the holocaust?

(http://www.petewaldo.com/09267ef0.jpg)

+

(http://www.petewaldo.com/09190240.jpg)

= Their shared interest.
“Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh servant of Allah, oh Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!”  (video (http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1463wmv&ak=null))

(http://www.petewaldo.com/09390760.jpg)

More pics of Islam's Mufti and Hitler (http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&expIds=17259,26714,27014&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=mufti+hitler&cp=7&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1152&bih=549) including the two Islamic panzer divisions in Hitler's army.

Did you happen to notice that the entire prior page of posts consists of you guys accusing me, rather than discussing your unsupportable links, which in turn in part support fictional pre-4th century Mecca "history"?

For folks that came late and didn't look at the gratuitous Roman Catholic bashing through falsehood, and anti-semitism that seems to so often accompany replacement theology, of the links posted - by one of the guys that arrived approximately together, that they eventually tried to advance as a team, ultimately by both attacking me, rather than simply answering questions - please judge for yourself.

http://www.remnantofgod.org/books/docs/How-the-Vatican-Created-Islam.pdf
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl166.htm

There's good reason they couldn't field the first question.

Dear pete, I wasn't going to respond to this last reply of yours, but have thought better of it, as you have completely misrepresented myself, my beliefs & my posts on this thread. I have also responded for the reason that other members can see that what I have said, has been misunderstood by YOU & that YOU have presumed to understand what my beliefs are.

First, I don't believe that I've pasted any links on this thread, you have confused me with someone else.

Second, I totally abhor anything to do with Nazism, Skinheads, etc.

Third, I fully support Israel as being a major part in the "Plan of God." I am NOT anti-Semitic.

Fourth, I have not bashed the "The Body of Christ with falsehood." Please show cause for this false accusation.

I stand by what I have already said as quoted below;

Quote from: amos45 on October 04, 2010, 08:00:38 AM

Sorry Pete, but your trying to put thoughts in my head & words in my mouth. Don't belong to any cult, & don't hold with Jack Chick rubbish.

I don't belong to ANY organization, religious or otherwise, of any sorts, but believe that which is written in scriptures, over anything written my man. I class myself as a "free thinker" within the body of Christ, & compare what I read with the relative scriptural views & reject what I consider does not stand up to true scriptural doctrine. I was attracted to this forum by your support of Ellis's works, which I view as a major breakthrough in Bible understanding.

At this point, I will say that I could be wrong concerning what I have said, that "the Papacy was involved in the establishment of Islam," BUT will add that I understand it is a fact of history that Mohammed visited many different religious institutions prior to the formation of Islam. (I've read this in historical works)

Quote from: amos45 on October 07, 2010, 06:20:31 PM

Dear pete, I wasn't going to respond to this last reply of yours, but have thought better of it, as you have completely misrepresented myself, my beliefs & my posts on this thread. I have also responded for the reason that other members can see that what I have said, has been misunderstood by YOU & that YOU have presumed to understand what my beliefs are.

First, I don't believe that I've pasted any links on this thread, you have confused me with someone else.

My friend it was you that "confused" yourself, with someone else. Please look back to the prior page or click this link.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7690#msg7690

You wrote

"Then Pete, that makes two of us that are at disagreance with you over this view.

There is ample information out there in the public domain that supports this view concerning Islam & the Vatican. The other thing is....it all makes sense....no imagination needed.

Yonah is much like myself, don't like confrontation or arguements."

So you cast your lot in with the information on the links that yonah33 presented, and you declared that "...it all makes sense...". Yet now it seems that you want to put some distance between the information and yourself. Neither you nor he had answered the first request for other information you found to be "ample" that "supports this view", but instead offered the excuse that you "don't like confrontation or arguments" - even as you were declaring confirmation of the veracity of the unsupportable information.

Quote from: amos45 on October 07, 2010, 06:20:31 PM
Second, I totally abhor anything to do with Nazism, Skinheads, etc.

Did you look at the links before you endorsed them?
Just like all my other questions in this thread you ignored the questions in the post that you are addressing. I asked

To Dr. Awd from Cairo Egypt the holocaust is a fable. So amos45 do you believe Dr. Awd simply because he is willing to write down the spurious claim? Is that why you believe Alberto Rivera, the author of the other link, too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Rivera
Can you explain why the number of Jews killed, is the important thing we should understand about the holocaust?

Why don't you try answering the questions this time?

Quote from: amos45 on October 07, 2010, 06:20:31 PM
Third, I fully support Israel as being a major part in the "Plan of God." I am NOT anti-Semitic.

Then why do you agree with the papers that support the enemies of Israel?
Are the Israelis simply supposed to take their security fences down and let the so-called "Palestinian" (mostly Jordanian) hoards suicide-bomb all their market places?
Are they supposed to pretend that a group of people that is sworn to their destruction can instead live peaceably side by side with them? How have the Muslims honored their side of all of the peace agreements thus far?
As it is, Muslims in enjoy more freedom in Israel, than in any Muslim controlled country on earth.

Do you believe that Benjamin Netanyahu was wrong when he said
"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more ‎violence.
If the Jews put ‎down their weapons ‎today, there would be no ‎more Israel"

Quote from: amos45 on October 07, 2010, 06:20:31 PM
Fourth, I have not bashed the "The Body of Christ with falsehood." Please show cause for this false accusation.

This is a serious charge that you need to support. Earlier you wrote

"There is ample information out there in the public domain that supports this view concerning Islam & the Vatican. The other thing is....it all makes sense....no imagination needed."

That view of course being an accusation regarding "How the Vatican created Islam."
http://www.remnantofgod.org/books/docs/How-the-Vatican-Created-Islam.pdf

If the paper you endorsed isn't a falsehood, then why don't you start by explaining how it is that the Vatican arranged to have a demon meet Mohammed in a cave, which is how the historical record suggests that Islam got it's start.
Then you can address the rest of the questions in this thread regarding Ribera's dependence on fictional Islamic ancient history, which were only the beginning, of my exploration of Ribera's paper. Including his preposterous suggestion that
"It is said that the Jews looked upon the Kaaba as an outlying tabernacle of the Lord with veneration until it became polluted with idols."
When all the actual historical record suggests that the Kaaba was built in the early 5th century - expressly for the purpose of housing those idols.

If the claim that the "Vatican created Islam" is falsehood, that you expressed solid agreement with, then who is it that is making the false accusation against whom?

The only other way you could say that what you characterize as my accusations against you as false, based on the information that you provided previously , would be to suggest that the Roman Church isn't part of the body of Christ. But then the questions that follow would be, for example, do Roman Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah - the Son of the living God - that was manifest in the flesh and died on the cross to save us from sin.

After accusing me of what you characterized as a false accusation against you, you closed by writing

Quote from: amos45 on October 07, 2010, 06:20:31 PM
At this point, I will say that I could be wrong concerning what I have said, that "the Papacy was involved in the establishment of Islam," .......

Yet your prior solid endorsement of Ribera's paper is part of the basis you offered us on which the conclusions in my post were made.
So was my conclusion that you characterized as a false accusation against you false? Or was your declaration that I made a false accusation against you, false?

Quote from: amos45 on October 07, 2010, 06:20:31 PM....... BUT will add that I understand it is a fact of history that Mohammed visited many different religious institutions prior to the formation of Islam. (I've read this in historical works)

Completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote from: amos45 on October 07, 2010, 06:20:31 PM
Fourth, I have not bashed the "The Body of Christ with falsehood." Please show cause for this false accusation.

I stand by what I have already said as quoted below;

Are you saying that you recant everything else you said and voiced support for except what you "quoted below"?

Quote from: amos45 on October 07, 2010, 06:20:31 PM

Quote from: amos45 on October 04, 2010, 08:00:38 AM

Sorry Pete, but your trying to put thoughts in my head & words in my mouth. Don't belong to any cult, & don't hold with Jack Chick rubbish.

It was your buddy yonah33 that made a thinly veiled suggestion that this forum is a cult in an email he sent to me.

Folks in cults generally believe, at face value, what someone else is willing to tell or show them without thinking about it or investigating it too much. Then they set to work encouraging others to believe what they do. Whether Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson or Mohammed's followers.

You expressed solid agreement with, then recanted from, the links that Yohan33 posted.
You guys arrived roughly together.
So let me first ask, did the two of you have ANY prior relationship before arriving in this forum?

Quote from: amos45 on October 07, 2010, 06:20:31 PM
I don't belong to ANY organization, religious or otherwise, of any sorts, but believe that which is written in scriptures, over anything written my man. I class myself as a "free thinker" within the body of Christ, & compare what I read with the relative scriptural views & reject what I consider does not stand up to true scriptural doctrine. I was attracted to this forum by your support of Ellis's works, which I view as a major breakthrough in Bible understanding.

Sorry pete, but you have a major problem & that's called paranoid.

I neither support nor endorse anything to do with Islam, & your rant is entirely incorrect & over the top. I have already said at least twice that I DO NOT support or believe the rubbish on Jack Chick's site, which you have conveniently ignored.

Yonah mentioned something about YOUR CLASSROOM or something similar, & he was right in saying so. And I believe that you're making yourself a new religion.

BTW, since when has the Papacy been "The Body of Christ?"  :o

And that's not knocking them, the Reformation did a good job of that, without any help from me. Then the Protestants set about terrorising other minor religions, as I stated earlier on another post.

Have a nice day.

Quote from: amos45 on October 08, 2010, 08:01:03 AM

Sorry pete, but you have a major problem & that's called paranoid.

Now you are trying to divert a discussion regarding facts, into a discussion about states of mind.
The fact is that you falsely accused me, of falsely accusing you.
Admin has already learned what happens when we let posters run wild with false accusations, without requiring them to support them. It results in more false accusation as you demonstrated.
Just like the other poster also demonstrated.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1678.0

Quote from: amos45 on October 08, 2010, 08:01:03 AMI neither support nor endorse anything to do with Islam, .........

But the "Vatican created Islam" link that you had declared solid support for, depended in part upon fictional Islamic ancient history.

Quote from: amos45 on October 08, 2010, 08:01:03 AM....... & your rant is entirely incorrect & over the top.

What you refer to as a "rant" is my review of the facts as confirmed throughout this thread. That's why I appreciate the easily accessed history in threads in this forum format. Everyone can make their own judgment.

Quote from: amos45 on October 08, 2010, 08:01:03 AMI have already said at least twice that I DO NOT support or believe the rubbish on Jack Chick's site, which you have conveniently ignored.

I did not ignore this subject at all.
First of all it was your buddy Yonah33 that initiated the subject of cults in regard to this forum.

".......... - not a kind of college course where the professor uses someone else's material to glorify his own intellectualness while subjectively grading students on their oral comments rather than their ability to reason.

It's how a lot of cults get started."
Which I addressed earlier here
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7679#msg7679

And more specifically to your post here
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7691#msg7691

In which I included the link to the author of the Vatican created Islam paper that you endorsed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Rivera

While Wikipedia is certainly not difinitive let me quote what they say about the author of that paper.

"Alberto Magno Romero Rivera (September 19, 1935 â€" June 20, 1997) was an anti-Catholic religious activist who was the source of many of fundamentalist Christian author Jack Chick's conspiracy theories about the Vatican.

Chick promised to promote Alberto's claims even after he died. Rivera claimed to have been a Jesuit before becoming a Fundamentalist Protestant, and many of the stories Chick published about Rivera involve Jesuit conspiracies."

Contrary to your claim in regard to your beliefs (quoted above), you - at least previously - not only believed "...the rubbish on Jack Chick's site...", but you endorsed and supported it in this very thread. While failing altogether to explain or even discuss it, but instead diverting the subject to accusations against me instead, when all I did was ask the questions about it.

Quote from: amos45 on October 08, 2010, 08:01:03 AM
Yonah mentioned something about YOUR CLASSROOM or something similar, ......

That I answered to in this post
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7679#msg7679

Quote from: amos45 on October 08, 2010, 08:01:03 AM....... & he was right in saying so. And I believe that you're making yourself a new religion.

But in order to confirm his suggestion, and lodge your new accusation, you would have to have a basis under which your accusations are supported.
We have seen no shortage of folks that have come to this forum, who seem to believe that just because they are willing to say something, that makes it true.

Indeed a large volume of the forum itself stands as an indictment against religion, and particularly against what has resulted from the misunderstanding of authority, in the "church".

Far from advancing any kind of a religion in this thread, all I have done is simply asked you and the original poster to support, or even discuss, what was advanced in the original post.
And even to now you failed to answer as to why you supported the anti-Jew anti-Israel link or other subject matter, but continue to divert the subject to me, escalating into false accusation.

Quote from: amos45 on October 08, 2010, 08:01:03 AM
BTW, since when has the Papacy been "The Body of Christ?"  :o

And that's not knocking them, .......

So that's not knocking them.

Quote from: amos45 on October 08, 2010, 08:01:03 AM....... the Reformation did a good job of that, without any help from me.

This forum Roman Catholic category details no shortage of unsound doctrine within the RCC, written primarily by former Roman clergy, who of course also composed the majority of the leaders of the reformation, and I harbor no shortage of concern for folks caught up in the bondage of that institution.

However I don't believe that a person is saved by the doctrines of institutions but rather than the condition of their heart. The second and third chapters of revelation suggests that there are regenerate persons even in the worst churches.

But you falsely accused the Roman Church as you supported Ribera's lies against it.

Quote from: amos45 on October 08, 2010, 08:01:03 AMThen the Protestants set about terrorising other minor religions, as I stated earlier on another post.

Have a nice day.

If rather than endorsing the false accusations made against the Roman Church, as you did in this post
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7690#msg7690

"There is ample information out there in the public domain that supports this view concerning Islam & the Vatican. The other thing is....it all makes sense....no imagination needed."

you had simply said you did not agree with the links - as you later suggested
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7740#msg7740

"At this point, I will say that I could be wrong concerning what I have said, that "the Papacy was involved in the establishment of Islam,"..."

you could have saved yourself all the time you spent making false accusations against me as a diversion, and the time I spent defending myself from those false accusations. (as well as your judging "your motives are not truely christian" of me)

If you believe the Lord restored the Jews to their land and believe the holocaust isn't a fable, why didn't you state that you did not agree with the content of the second link either, that yonah33 cited in the OP as if it supported the first link?
That second link inspired the holocaust portion of my post at the top of this page.

I believe that your agression is both uncalled for & totally unchristian. But then you may be influenced by that which you are proclaiming that I am supporting when I am not guilty of this at all.

Problem is pete, you just don't know when to stop....or is it that you must try to have the last say?

I want you to realize the harm you have done to your cause, because of your pride, & also realize that by your vendetta against some of the Lords Brother's, that you will reap the reward that the Lord see's fit to recompense you with.

I also wonder what those of Israel who visit this forum think of the low act that you did, by once again exposing their shame regarding the Holocaust....shame on you, "may you reap what you sow."

By what you have also said in regard to the Papacy, & your defence of them, perhaps this forum is part of their machine?

Like I said before, have a nice day, & remember what the scriptures say about a calm heart, & love for your neighbour & even your enemies.

Quote from: amos45 on October 09, 2010, 04:21:07 AM

I believe that your agression is both uncalled for & totally unchristian. But then you may be influenced by that which you are proclaiming that I am supporting when I am not guilty of this at all.

Problem is pete, you just don't know when to stop....or is it that you must try to have the last say?

I want you to realize the harm you have done to your cause, because of your pride, & also realize that by your vendetta against some of the Lords Brother's, that you will reap the reward that the Lord see's fit to recompense you with.

I also wonder what those of Israel who visit this forum think of the low act that you did, by once again exposing their shame regarding the Holocaust....shame on you, "may you reap what you sow."

By what you have also said in regard to the Papacy, & your defence of them, perhaps this forum is part of their machine?

Like I said before, have a nice day, & remember what the scriptures say about a calm heart, & love for your neighbour & even your enemies.

At this point I must step in and ask you wouldn't your efforts be better spent simply answering the questions posed to you about your support of yonah33's assertion. You said that you agreed with his view and so by extension the links he provided for that view. You have continued to divert attention away from the issue of this thread at every turn.

I would also ask at this point that if you do not wish to discuss the topic of this thread and offer the support for your view, or yonah33's view that you agree with, that you refrain from finger pointing. I also would like you to show exactly what Peter posted that contributed to "exposing their [Israel's] shame regarding the Holocaust" Are you suggesting that like the link that yonah33 provided that you believe the Holocaust to be overexaggerated or even fictional? As for Pete's "defence of them [Papacy, Catholics]" like myself Peter has no problem showing error when he identifies it. In fact there is a whole section devoted to the subject of the RCC ,but also like me he is not interested in attributing things to them that simply are not true, or at the very least unsupportable. In fact that is how this whole mess got started. By Peter simply asking "Could you provide additional sources for this?"


A simple enough request don't you think. And then yonah33 immediately became overly defensive for being held to the same standards as anyone posting in this forum. http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7632#msg7632 To which Peter gave his reasoning for asking, "I didn't notice any footnotes or sources referenced by the author. So I Googled the subject of your first link. All I found of the Allah chair story you posted was one other guy referencing the same site that you did. "

yonah33 and you both have failed to show any evidence other than the one website that cannot prove its' assertion and yet you claim...

Then Pete, that makes two of us that are at disagreance with you over this view.

There is ample information out there in the public domain that supports this view concerning Islam & the Vatican. The other thing is....it all makes sense....no imagination needed.

Yonah is much like myself, don't like confrontation or arguements.http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7690#msg7690

But the truth is that there is not any such ample information that supports this view otherwise why not provide it when asked. It was a simple request. Whether you like confrontation or arguments is not even an issue here. No argument was needed. Only a source. But since you have failed to provide one I will venture to guess you cannot. If you wish to discuss the topic of this thread please feel free to do so.

God bless

Resisting.....I have never said that I support anything concerning the denial of the Holocaust, in fact have very clearly stated to the contrary. Another thing is that you are confused...I have never placed any links to any sites at all on this thread.

I think the main problem is that I am in fact on trial at this forum. Anything that I've said in support of my views in favour of Israel, have been completely ignored, in favour of peter flogging a dead horse. Both yourself & peter have quoted my statement concerning the possibility of what I said as being incorrect, yet you both now continue to squeeze, instead of letting it go at that. I will very clearly state YET AGAIN...I do not agree with the Jack Chick site.

Any truths that I've stated in support of Israel has either been ignored, or turned back against me in a totally unchristian fashion. It appears to me that when it looked like I was supporting Islamic views I was wrong....then when I have shown that I have not nor never have supported Islam, but have total support of Israel as my belief...."I'M STILL WRONG!"

Ask yourself....if Yeshua Messiah was the moderator of this forum, "How would he have treated me?" I think that the following verses recorded at John 13:34,35 gives the answer to this;
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. KJV

By now, you must realize that I don't play mind games, & I refuse to be cross-examined on a Christian Forum!

I came here to join into upbuilding bible discussion, "as I thought", along the lines of Ellis Skolfield's books, in support of Israel & in exposure of Islam as the Arch enemy of God's Chosen People, perhaps my thought in this regard was wrong.

Shalom.

Quote from: amos45 on October 09, 2010, 09:46:24 AM

Resisting.....I have never said that I support anything concerning the denial of the Holocaust, in fact have very clearly stated to the contrary. Another thing is that you are confused...I have never placed any links to any sites at all on this thread.

I think the main problem is that I am in fact on trial at this forum. Anything that I've said in support of my views in favour of Israel, have been completely ignored, in favour of peter flogging a dead horse. Both yourself & peter have quoted my statement concerning the possibility of what I said as being incorrect, yet you both now continue to squeeze, instead of letting it go at that. I will very clearly state YET AGAIN...I do not agree with the Jack Chick site.

Any truths that I've stated in support of Israel has either been ignored, or turned back against me in a totally unchristian fashion. It appears to me that when it looked like I was supporting Islamic views I was wrong....then when I have shown that I have not nor never have supported Islam, but have total support of Israel as my belief...."I'M STILL WRONG!"

Ask yourself....if Yeshua Messiah was the moderator of this forum, "How would he have treated me?" I think that the following verses recorded at John 13:34,35 gives the answer to this;
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. KJV

By now, you must realize that I don't play mind games, & I refuse to be cross-examined on a Christian Forum!

I came here to join into upbuilding bible discussion, "as I thought", along the lines of Ellis Skolfield's books, in support of Israel & in exposure of Islam as the Arch enemy of God's Chosen People, perhaps my thought in this regard was wrong.

Shalom.

I never claimed that you placed the links into the forum. What I said was...

" You said that you agreed with his view and so by extension the links he provided for that view. You have continued to divert attention away from the issue of this thread at every turn."

If you do not support yonah33's view that is well and good. If you say you support Israel I certainly believe you. You are not on trial here nor have you ever been. The only request is some supportive evidence that the Vatican created Islam. From there it has spiraled out of control and has continued to do so simply because simple questions that were asked for the sake of clarity have not only been ignored but the situation conflated by finger pointing. I have no doubts as to how Yeshua would moderate this site. He would deal in truth and truth alone. As many things that are wrong with the RCC why should we attribute to it something that is unsupportable and by the vast preponderance of evidence not true? And if you remember correctly He always dealt definitively with those closest to Him. We show each other the love of Christ by pointing out those things we find to be in error for the betterment of one another. With that being said I will extend my hand in the sincerest apology that I can make over the internet for any confusion or misunderstanding that may have resulted.

So let's start fresh and get this thread back on track.

1. How did the Vatican "create" Islam? Please provide reliable sources preferably with footnotes.

2. If you do not support Jack Chick, which I believe you do not, how do you support yonah33's thesis since the sites he linked to used Jack Chick material for its' own.

Quote from: amos45 on October 09, 2010, 04:21:07 AM
Problem is pete, you just don't know when to stop....or is it that you must try to have the last say?

Why wouldn't you want to strive for clarity, and resolution, through truth? Why do you suppose you desire your prior, or your continuing, false accusations to be left unanswered? (of which I have ignored many)
It doesn't matter that you didn't put the link in the OP, since previously you had agreed with the Vatican link.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7690#msg7690
It is the same as having put the link in yourself.

Since you now disagree with both links, as I did after my initial assessment of both links, how much sooner do you think you might have reached that conclusion if you had put your effort into being a responsible forum member, and discussed the material of the links, rather than ignoring my questions related thereto, and instead obfuscating by trying to make me the subject - which even now you continue to do without relenting?

Quote from: amos45 on October 09, 2010, 04:21:07 AM
I want you to realize the harm you have done to your cause, because of your pride, & also realize that by your vendetta against some of the Lords Brother's, that you will reap the reward that the Lord see's fit to recompense you with.

I also wonder what those of Israel who visit this forum think of the low act that you did, by once again exposing their shame regarding the Holocaust.....

What "shame" should the Israelis, or any Jews carry, regarding the holocaust? You have it exactly backwards. It's their persecutors that are shamed, just as all those around the world that persecute them today, should feel equally shamed.

Do you believe it's a "low act" for me to remind people what happened during the holocaust, and thus try to make all those who persecute Jews be made aware, and feel ashamed?

Do you think the Jews, which are going through a particularly intense wave of anti-Semitic persecution (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,25567,26644,26766,27007,27015&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=wave+anti-semetism&cp=18&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=wave+anti-semetism&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=9f2370386c77b788) today, don't want the world to be reminded of what happened the last time they were subjected to intense persecution?

Quote from: amos45 on October 09, 2010, 04:21:07 AM...shame on you, "may you reap what you sow."

By what you have also said in regard to the Papacy, & your defence of them, perhaps this forum is part of their machine?

As I said before,
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7683#msg7683
Roman Church doctrine is a testament against the Roman Church. That's why there is no need to resort to lies, that suggest that the Roman Church invented Islam, in order to expose the Roman Church or the papacy.
That is nothing more than a testament against the messenger while providing aid to the Roman Church. Indeed in this case aid to false Islamic "history" as well.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7691#msg7691

Fortunately the forum maintains a clear and easily accessed record, so folks can judge your non-stop, continuing, accusations for themselves.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=15.msg185#msg185
Seems you're incapable of doing other than digging your hole deeper.

Quote from: amos45 on October 09, 2010, 04:21:07 AMLike I said before, have a nice day, & remember what the scriptures say about a calm heart, & love for your neighbour & even your enemies.

Then let's reverse the conversation my brother......please provide the proof that you have that in fact the RCC did not provide ANY input into the founding or susequent establishment of the Islamic religion "IN ANY WAY AT ALL."

PLease provide the evidence for YOUR beliefs in this respect.

Shalom

Quote from: amos45 on October 10, 2010, 06:32:15 PM

Then let's reverse the conversation my brother......please provide the proof that you have that in fact the RCC did not provide ANY input into the founding or susequent establishment of the Islamic religion "IN ANY WAY AT ALL."

You are bending your mind purely for the sake of being argumentative, even though you reject the same two links I did. Or are you back to promoting fake Islamic ancient "history" now?
So next you turn to arguing just like a Muslim.
"Gee just because there is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca - the epicenter of Islam since Adam - ever existed before the 4th century AD, doesn't mean it didn't."

First, who are you quoting? Please provide a link to the post.

Second you are apparently unaware that Islam was established when Mohammed met what he properly identified as a demon in a cave. This is part of actual Islamic history, the history of which began to be recorded in about the Year of the Elephant - or around the year Mohammed was born. His demon encounter happened just a couple hundred years after Mecca was first settled by immigrants from Yemen.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1138.0
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1132.0

Third, in the first 13 years Mohammed was barely able to win a hundred converts. That's why Mohammed was eventually laughed out of Mecca (actually boycotted and starved out for a time).

Fourth, so you would have to place the pope or his boys in Mecca, and describe what the papacy's interests would have been, across 1000 miles of harsh desert, deep into Saudi Arabia, even if they had they known about Mohammed's new designer religion and his hundred or so followers. What would Rome have wanted with a hundred pagans "converted" to a brand new pagan religion, whose rituals were simply a repackaged version of the old pagan moon, sun, star, planet and demon worship?
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1267.0

(http://www.petewaldo.com/082de2a0.png)

Fifth, Arabia wasn't even conquered within Mohammed's lifetime, though a good bit of it was.

Quote from: amos45 on October 10, 2010, 06:32:15 PM
PLease provide the evidence for YOUR beliefs in this respect.

Shalom

Please review the subjects in the "History of Islam" category.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?board=56.20

Sixth, have you ever attended a Pentecostal church, or had contact with a Pentecostal or Pentecostalism?

My nearest association with any Pentecostalism was to investigate several of their churches on the net. Why did you ask that question?

While I'm familiar with some of the tenets of Islam, I'm not the least bit interested in pursuing it further, like I've said before, am in agreement with the sentiments of Ellis Skolfield. (which I believe you have ignored any reference I've made to this.)

So where brotherpete have you supplied any evidence in support of your view concerning this topic?

As I have only employed the same methods you have, why do you call this mind bending?

So far I haven't quoted anybody, just made observations, to which you have hounded me for supporting links. Do you mean to say that we can't have freedom of speech on this forum, without the need for giving links to why we think as we do?

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 02:28:31 AM

My nearest association with any Pentecostalism was to investigate several of their churches on the net. Why did you ask that question?

While I'm familiar with some of the tenets of Islam, I'm not the least bit interested in pursuing it further, like I've said before, am in agreement with the sentiments of Ellis Skolfield. (which I believe you have ignored any reference I've made to this.)

So where brotherpete have you supplied any evidence in support of your view concerning this topic?

As I have only employed the same methods you have, why do you call this mind bending?

So far I haven't quoted anybody, just made observations, to which you have hounded me for supporting links. Do you mean to say that we can't have freedom of speech on this forum, without the need for giving links to why we think as we do?

Amos45 in case you overlooked it I requested that we get this thread back on track by discussing the topic of the thread. In any situation, be it academic or even a court case, the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those pushing a theory. Now I feel I was being more than fair by suggesting a fresh start and simply discussing the topic of THIS thread and asking for the supportive evidence of the theory espoused here. While Pete and I both believe that the RCC did not create Islam we are interested in seeing any evidence to the contrary if such evidence exists. But to show you how ridiculous your request for Pete to prove the RCC did not create Islam I will ask you to prove that Buddhists, Greek Orthodox, Hindus or even Jews did not create Islam. See how preposterous this can and did get? Noone is guilty until proven innocent. And while I believe the RCC is guilty of alot, and I mean alot, it still does not give me or anyone else carte blanche to ascribe to them anything they wish. Now to avoid further useless tail chasing posts please just start fresh and include your reasons for believing the RCC created Islam so that we may discuss them.

Seeing as how neither yourself or pete will answer my request for your supportive proof regarding the RCC NOT having any input into the Islamic religion, there is no point discussing it any further.

THere is however, the request that pete made of me with regard to the Pentecostals...why no answer?

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 04:07:51 AM

Seeing as how neither yourself or pete will answer my request for your supportive proof regarding the RCC NOT having any input into the Islamic religion, there is no point discussing it any further, as I will not provide my reasons until this happens.

THere is however, the request that pete made of me with regard to the Pentecostals...why no answer?

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 04:07:51 AM

Seeing as how neither yourself or pete will answer my request for your supportive proof regarding the RCC NOT having any input into the Islamic religion, there is no point discussing it any further.

THere is however, the request that pete made of me with regard to the Pentecostals...why no answer?

Pete hasn't been on yet to answer it and I don't make a habit of answering questions dealing specifically with him. Furthermore I did answer your request. In case you missed it...

" the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those pushing a theory...Noone is guilty until proven innocent. And while I believe the RCC is guilty of alot, and I mean alot, it still does not give me or anyone else carte blanche to ascribe to them anything they wish."

You are pushing a theory not me. It is up to you to provide evidence for that theory. Let me simplify this for you. If I claim you are a murderer and you are arrested and put on trial it is up to me as the accuser to make a case that you are guilty of murder. It is not up to you as the accused to prove you are innocent. Again noone is guilty until proven innocent. Besides the topic of this thread is, and wait for it,...How the vatican created Islam not How the vatican did not create Islam. If I had started a thread entitled How the Vatican did not create Islam I would include evidence and sound deductive reasoning for why I was pushing such a theory. So I tell you what in one more show of good faith I will meet you half way. If you first show why you believe the Vatican did create Islam, which is the topic of this thread, I will show you why I don't believe they did. Sound fair?

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 02:28:31 AM

My nearest association with any Pentecostalism was to investigate several of their churches on the net. Why did you ask that question?

Have you have spoken in tongues?

Quote from: Peter on October 11, 2010, 05:51:55 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 02:28:31 AM

My nearest association with any Pentecostalism was to investigate several of their churches on the net. Why did you ask that question?

Have you have spoken in tongues?

What about yourself, have you, or do you speak in tongues?

Quote from: resistingrexmundi on October 11, 2010, 05:22:10 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 04:07:51 AM

Seeing as how neither yourself or pete will answer my request for your supportive proof regarding the RCC NOT having any input into the Islamic religion, there is no point discussing it any further.

THere is however, the request that pete made of me with regard to the Pentecostals...why no answer?

Pete hasn't been on yet to answer it and I don't make a habit of answering questions dealing specifically with him. Furthermore I did answer your request. In case you missed it...

" the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those pushing a theory...Noone is guilty until proven innocent. And while I believe the RCC is guilty of alot, and I mean alot, it still does not give me or anyone else carte blanche to ascribe to them anything they wish."

You are pushing a theory not me. It is up to you to provide evidence for that theory. Let me simplify this for you. If I claim you are a murderer and you are arrested and put on trial it is up to me as the accuser to make a case that you are guilty of murder. It is not up to you as the accused to prove you are innocent. Again noone is guilty until proven innocent. Besides the topic of this thread is, and wait for it,...How the vatican created Islam not How the vatican did not create Islam. If I had started a thread entitled How the Vatican did not create Islam I would include evidence and sound deductive reasoning for why I was pushing such a theory. So I tell you what in one more show of good faith I will meet you half way. If you first show why you believe the Vatican did create Islam, which is the topic of this thread, I will show you why I don't believe they did. Sound fair?

Got a better idea resisting, you start a thread showing why you believe the RCC had NOTHING to do with Islam! Then we can discuss that first.

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 06:36:51 AM

Quote from: Peter on October 11, 2010, 05:51:55 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 02:28:31 AM

My nearest association with any Pentecostalism was to investigate several of their churches on the net. Why did you ask that question?

Have you have spoken in tongues?

What about yourself, have you, or do you speak in tongues?

No. How about you?

Quote from: Peter on October 11, 2010, 06:51:06 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 06:36:51 AM

Quote from: Peter on October 11, 2010, 05:51:55 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 02:28:31 AM

My nearest association with any Pentecostalism was to investigate several of their churches on the net. Why did you ask that question?

Have you have spoken in tongues?

What about yourself, have you, or do you speak in tongues?

No. How about you?

Matt. 21:23-27; 23 "And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things."

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 07:09:02 AM

Quote from: Peter on October 11, 2010, 06:51:06 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 06:36:51 AM

Quote from: Peter on October 11, 2010, 05:51:55 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 02:28:31 AM

My nearest association with any Pentecostalism was to investigate several of their churches on the net. Why did you ask that question?

Have you have spoken in tongues?

What about yourself, have you, or do you speak in tongues?

No. How about you?

Matt. 21:23-27; 23 "And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things."

So have you spoken in tongues or not?

Quote from: Peter on October 11, 2010, 07:15:19 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 07:09:02 AM

Quote from: Peter on October 11, 2010, 06:51:06 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 06:36:51 AM

Quote from: Peter on October 11, 2010, 05:51:55 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 02:28:31 AM

My nearest association with any Pentecostalism was to investigate several of their churches on the net. Why did you ask that question?

Have you have spoken in tongues?

What about yourself, have you, or do you speak in tongues?

No. How about you?

Matt. 21:23-27; 23 "And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things."

So have you spoken in tongues or not?

1 Cor. 14:22; "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe."

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 07:21:24 AM

1 Cor. 14:22; "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe."

So have you spoken in tongues or not? It's a simple question.

Why is this so important? & if you are so interested, why ask this on the wrong thread?

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 07:28:34 AM

Why is this so important? & if you are so interested, why ask this on the wrong thread?

I will add that I have answered your question concerning the Pentecostal connection, that I don't have one, & yet you refuse to tell me why you wish to know.

Quote from: Peter on October 11, 2010, 07:22:47 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 07:21:24 AM

1 Cor. 14:22; "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe."

So have you spoken in tongues or not? It's a simple question.

If it's so simple why can't you answer it?

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 07:32:47 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 07:28:34 AM

Why is this so important? & if you are so interested, why ask this on the wrong thread?

I will add that I have answered your question concerning the Pentecostal connection, that I don't have one, & yet you refuse to tell me why you wish to know.

One doesn't have to be a Pentecostal to speak in tongues.
Have you spoken in tongues or not? It's a simple question.

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 07:34:02 AM

Quote from: Peter on October 11, 2010, 07:22:47 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 07:21:24 AM

1 Cor. 14:22; "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe."

So have you spoken in tongues or not? It's a simple question.

If it's so simple why can't you answer it?

I answered it with a clear "No" in the post at this link.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7786#msg7786
Your failure to have read, or understand that, but instead squandering time and forum space in post after post, continues to demonstrate the topic I am getting to.

ok, that's an apology from me, I misread your "No" as being "Now" my eyes are getting tired.& it's getting late where I am.

No neither have I nor do I believe that speaking in tongues is part of any modern ministry.

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 07:41:20 AM

ok, that's an apology from me, I misread your "No" as being "Now" my eyes are getting tired.& it's getting late where I am.

No neither have I nor do I believe that speaking in tongues is part of any modern ministry.

If you don't believe tongues have a place and function among God's people today then I would recommend you read the book "Bruchko" by Bruce Olsen. You can buy a copy cheap at a discount Christian book seller. It's my favorite Christian book, for passing out to non-Christians. Perhaps my favorite book.

But the reason I asked is that you wouldn't be the first member of this forum to engage in a plethra of false accusations against brethren, and further time wasting through argumentum ad ignorantiam and such (to which I answered anyway, by posting regarding the supported history of Islam with links, http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7776#msg7776 of which this forum contains a wealth of information. Yet in the very next post you claimed I did not present any evidence, rather than answering to the post. ).

Just because a person hasn't spoken in tongues does not mean they aren't housing unclean spirits as the last poster who behaved in the fashion you have, eventually admitted to. Inquiring about Pentecostalism just happened to be the shortest route to establish the fact in his case.

Have you asked yourself what inside you, is making you argue in favor of something that you yourself don't believe in, in an effort that accomplishes nothing more than disharmony and animus against brethren?
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7749#msg7749

Why don't you relax and take a day or two and read each of your posts in this thread, and then decide what your participation in this thread has contributed to the forum, and then share a summary of that with us.

How has that participation helped aid in showing our Muslim read-only participant - could-become brethren - the truth?

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 06:40:15 AM

Quote from: resistingrexmundi on October 11, 2010, 05:22:10 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 04:07:51 AM

Seeing as how neither yourself or pete will answer my request for your supportive proof regarding the RCC NOT having any input into the Islamic religion, there is no point discussing it any further.

THere is however, the request that pete made of me with regard to the Pentecostals...why no answer?

Pete hasn't been on yet to answer it and I don't make a habit of answering questions dealing specifically with him. Furthermore I did answer your request. In case you missed it...

" the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those pushing a theory...Noone is guilty until proven innocent. And while I believe the RCC is guilty of alot, and I mean alot, it still does not give me or anyone else carte blanche to ascribe to them anything they wish."

You are pushing a theory not me. It is up to you to provide evidence for that theory. Let me simplify this for you. If I claim you are a murderer and you are arrested and put on trial it is up to me as the accuser to make a case that you are guilty of murder. It is not up to you as the accused to prove you are innocent. Again noone is guilty until proven innocent. Besides the topic of this thread is, and wait for it,...How the vatican created Islam not How the vatican did not create Islam. If I had started a thread entitled How the Vatican did not create Islam I would include evidence and sound deductive reasoning for why I was pushing such a theory. So I tell you what in one more show of good faith I will meet you half way. If you first show why you believe the Vatican did create Islam, which is the topic of this thread, I will show you why I don't believe they did. Sound fair?

Got a better idea resisting, you start a thread showing why you believe the RCC had NOTHING to do with Islam! Then we can discuss that first.

Sorry but you don't get to dictate how this goes down. You threw support in for a topic that is already in existence. I believe in doing all things in good order. In keeping with that I will request one last time that you give your side of the case and then I will give mine. I feel I am being more than fair. If you feel differently then you can PM me and we can discuss it. Also I never said the RCC had NOTHING to do with Islam. I said I don't believe they created it. Ellis shows the connection with the RCC and the endtimes and Islam in his chapter covering the beast that looks like a lamb but speaks like the dragon. In case you haven't noticed we have a category covering the parrallels between Islam and Catholicism. But the topic of this thread is not similarities or connections between the two but specifically Islam being created by the RCC. Until you are ready to discuss that this thread cannot proceed. Also I think at this point it may be a good time to do as Pete asked and review your posts and see what exactly you have contributed to what was supposed to be a discussion.

Quote from: resistingrexmundi on October 11, 2010, 08:15:50 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 06:40:15 AM

Quote from: resistingrexmundi on October 11, 2010, 05:22:10 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 04:07:51 AM

Seeing as how neither yourself or pete will answer my request for your supportive proof regarding the RCC NOT having any input into the Islamic religion, there is no point discussing it any further.

THere is however, the request that pete made of me with regard to the Pentecostals...why no answer?

Pete hasn't been on yet to answer it and I don't make a habit of answering questions dealing specifically with him. Furthermore I did answer your request. In case you missed it...

" the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those pushing a theory...Noone is guilty until proven innocent. And while I believe the RCC is guilty of alot, and I mean alot, it still does not give me or anyone else carte blanche to ascribe to them anything they wish."

You are pushing a theory not me. It is up to you to provide evidence for that theory. Let me simplify this for you. If I claim you are a murderer and you are arrested and put on trial it is up to me as the accuser to make a case that you are guilty of murder. It is not up to you as the accused to prove you are innocent. Again noone is guilty until proven innocent. Besides the topic of this thread is, and wait for it,...How the vatican created Islam not How the vatican did not create Islam. If I had started a thread entitled How the Vatican did not create Islam I would include evidence and sound deductive reasoning for why I was pushing such a theory. So I tell you what in one more show of good faith I will meet you half way. If you first show why you believe the Vatican did create Islam, which is the topic of this thread, I will show you why I don't believe they did. Sound fair?

Got a better idea resisting, you start a thread showing why you believe the RCC had NOTHING to do with Islam! Then we can discuss that first.

Sorry but you don't get to dictate how this goes down. You threw support in for a topic that is already in existence. I believe in doing all things in good order. In keeping with that I will request one last time that you give your side of the case and then I will give mine. I feel I am being more than fair. If you feel differently then you can PM me and we can discuss it. Also I never said the RCC had NOTHING to do with Islam. I said I don't believe they created it. Ellis shows the connection with the RCC and the endtimes and Islam in his chapter covering the beast that looks like a lamb but speaks like the dragon. In case you haven't noticed we have a category covering the parrallels between Islam and Catholicism. But the topic of this thread is not similarities or connections between the two but specifically Islam being created by the RCC. Until you are ready to discuss that this thread cannot proceed. Also I think at this point it may be a good time to do as Pete asked and review your posts and see what exactly you have contributed to what was supposed to be a discussion.

On the contrary, with my persistence, it has been bourne out that you have the same views as myself. It would have been much more beneficial had you stated your views earlier, when it was established what my viewpoint was. The problem is that both yourself & peter, were being legalistic over the title of the thread, instead of using reasonableness, as though you had to prove a point, even after you knew what my position was...this is not compatable with true christianity in my views. To say I'm dissapointed with you, is an understatement.

Quote from: Peter on October 11, 2010, 07:51:11 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 07:41:20 AM

ok, that's an apology from me, I misread your "No" as being "Now" my eyes are getting tired.& it's getting late where I am.

No neither have I nor do I believe that speaking in tongues is part of any modern ministry.

If you don't believe tongues have a place and function among God's people today then I would recommend you read the book "Bruchko" by Bruce Olsen. You can buy a copy cheap at a discount Christian book seller. It's my favorite Christian book, for passing out to non-Christians. Perhaps my favorite book.

But the reason I asked is that you wouldn't be the first member of this forum to engage in a plethra of false accusations against brethren, and further time wasting through argumentum ad ignorantiam and such (to which I answered anyway, by posting regarding the supported history of Islam with links, http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7776#msg7776 of which this forum contains a wealth of information. Yet in the very next post you claimed I did not present any evidence, rather than answering to the post. ).

Just because a person hasn't spoken in tongues does not mean they aren't housing unclean spirits as the last poster who behaved in the fashion you have, eventually admitted to. Inquiring about Pentecostalism just happened to be the shortest route to establish the fact in his case.

Have you asked yourself what inside you, is making you argue in favor of something that you yourself don't believe in, in an effort that accomplishes nothing more than disharmony and animus against brethren?
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7749#msg7749

Why don't you relax and take a day or two and read each of your posts in this thread, and then decide what your participation in this thread has contributed to the forum, and then share a summary of that with us.

How has that participation helped aid in showing our Muslim read-only participant - could-become brethren - the truth?

No reply required, as this is not the sort of forum that I first thought it was. As I have said, I was under the impression that it was more along the lines of discussing Ellis Skolfield's works, to which I also ascribe, as I've said several times now, & has basically been ignored by yourselves.

I see no benefit to myself or others for me to remain a member of this forum, as has been bourne out by your legalisticness, rather than seeing some form of latitude within the threads, as I have just replied to resisting. I may catch up with you again some time in the future, but that remains to be seen.

Adios

Quote from: amos45 on October 14, 2010, 06:47:40 PM

Quote from: Peter on October 11, 2010, 07:51:11 AM

Quote from: amos45 on October 11, 2010, 07:41:20 AM

ok, that's an apology from me, I misread your "No" as being "Now" my eyes are getting tired.& it's getting late where I am.

No neither have I nor do I believe that speaking in tongues is part of any modern ministry.

If you don't believe tongues have a place and function among God's people today then I would recommend you read the book "Bruchko" by Bruce Olsen. You can buy a copy cheap at a discount Christian book seller. It's my favorite Christian book, for passing out to non-Christians. Perhaps my favorite book.

But the reason I asked is that you wouldn't be the first member of this forum to engage in a plethra of false accusations against brethren, and further time wasting through argumentum ad ignorantiam and such (to which I answered anyway, by posting regarding the supported history of Islam with links, http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7776#msg7776 of which this forum contains a wealth of information. Yet in the very next post you claimed I did not present any evidence, rather than answering to the post. ).

Just because a person hasn't spoken in tongues does not mean they aren't housing unclean spirits as the last poster who behaved in the fashion you have, eventually admitted to. Inquiring about Pentecostalism just happened to be the shortest route to establish the fact in his case.

Have you asked yourself what inside you, is making you argue in favor of something that you yourself don't believe in, in an effort that accomplishes nothing more than disharmony and animus against brethren?
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7749#msg7749

Why don't you relax and take a day or two and read each of your posts in this thread, and then decide what your participation in this thread has contributed to the forum, and then share a summary of that with us.

How has that participation helped aid in showing our Muslim read-only participant - could-become brethren - the truth?

No reply required, as this is not the sort of forum that I first thought it was. As I have said, I was under the impression that it was more along the lines of discussing Ellis Skolfield's works, ........

Then why were you messing around in this nonsensical thread and category, when the forum has an entire category devoted to Skolfield's books and videos, which even includes a copy and paste of The False Prophet in it's entirety? Or another "Continuous Historic" category rich with subjects related to The False Prophet?
Perhaps because you preferred to bash the Roman Church instead? Carefully and thoughtfully through truth? The witness of this thread would certainly suggest otherwise.
Indeed rather than discuss Mr. Skolfield's eschatology you instead chose to promote the unsupportable idea that the Vatican invented Islam.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7690#msg7690
A view that is also inconsistent and unworkable with the very view to which you claim to ascribe.
When I initially asked just a few questions about Ribera's unique and unsupportable view you were promoting (http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7690#msg7690), rather than discuss it, you chose to attack me instead. In post after post, page after page ad nauseum.
That's what you call "discussing Ellis Skolfield's works"?

Quote from: amos45 on October 14, 2010, 06:47:40 PM........ to which I also ascribe, as I've said several times now, & has basically been ignored by yourselves.

You had ample opportunity to discuss Skolfield, but instead were too busy wasting our mutual time with this Vatican/Islam thread. To my knowledge you didn't post a single post regarding Skolfield. It was you that ignored yourself.

The purpose of this forum is to help the blind and lost see the truth of Christ Jesus.
And in particular the 1.5 billion - 1/4 of mankind - that is in the bondage of the spirit of antichrist, through the false prophet Mohammed. Posting a bunch of unsupportable nonsense will only further confuse Muslim read-only participants and make relevant subjects less accessible.
EVERYONE who comes to this forum needs to understand that everything they post, will be viewed by Muslims, that have been attracted here by dedicated websites and YouTube channels (and perhaps a few through search engines), so before posting any content one really needs to carefully decide what it will do to advance the purpose of helping to rescue Muslims from Mohammed.

Our purpose is also to arm, the one-in-a-thousand Berean spirited brethren within the body of Christ with additional information, to help our Muslim could-become brothers and sisters, overcome Mohammed's stand-alone 7th century religion.
Over the couple of years that I tried to bring this message to the church in Christian forums, I found the church in the same condition as Ellis had for over 30 years. An eschatologically blind body, that can't see past John Nelson Darby and 17th century Jesuit priest Alcazar.

Over the last couple of years I have become more involved with ministering to Muslims, since as I continued my journey I became increasingly aware of the details, of the opposite nature of Islam to Christianity, and continue to peel back that onion. I opened the forum to catalog that material as well.

The history of Mecca and Islam has become another very large subject in this forum. I believe it's perhaps the most important subject in helping Muslims to overcome Islam, and some may have to do that first, before they can begin to seek out the truth of the Gospel. The history of Mecca is a very important subject for everyone, that everyone can see and understand, whether Christian, Jew, atheist, Hindu or even Muslims with open eyes.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/

There are also categories like this Roman Catholic one, to help God's people, overcome institutional bondage.

Quote from: amos45 on October 14, 2010, 06:47:40 PM
I see no benefit to myself or others for me to remain a member of this forum, .......

Based on the spectacle and example you presented in this thread for Muslim read-only participants to observe, and the time you wasted of other forum members with your animus, I tend to agree.
You didn't even answer to my last question, simply ignoring it as you did so many others.
An answer as simple as "it didn't" would have sufficed.

Quote from: amos45 on October 14, 2010, 06:47:40 PM....... as has been bourne out by your legalisticness, rather than seeing some form of latitude ........

We gave you as much latitude as you desired. Unfortunately you choose to dig a hole for yourself with it, rather than participating as a constructive member of the forum.

Quote from: amos45 on October 14, 2010, 06:47:40 PM........ within the threads, as I have just replied to resisting. I may catch up with you again some time in the future, but that remains to be seen.

Adios

Really pete, you do go on.....

Quote;
"You had ample opportunity to discuss Skolfield, but instead were too busy wasting our mutual time with this Vatican/Islam thread. To my knowledge you didn't post a single post regarding Skolfield. It was you that ignored yourself."

I made several references to Skolfield in this thread, but because you would rather castigate me, you did not recognize what I had said.

Quote;
"We gave you as much latitude as you desired. Unfortunately you choose to dig a hole for yourself with it, rather than participating as a constructive member of the forum."

REALLY? I made an observation, & you immediately made an inquisition of it.

By your innate desire to protect the papacy, it is also my view that this could in fact be a RCC or Jesuit site. From your previous record, this statement will probably result in another barage of attack from you or resisting.

As to your suppositions regarding myself & Yonah33, we arrived here about the same time by coincidence, & there has been no collusion between him & myself on this forum.

As Yonah said in one of his replies to you, he is in the wrong forum....well so am I.

adios

Quote from: amos45 on October 16, 2010, 01:55:07 AM

Really pete, you do go on.....

Quote;
"You had ample opportunity to discuss Skolfield, but instead were too busy wasting our mutual time with this Vatican/Islam thread. To my knowledge you didn't post a single post regarding Skolfield. It was you that ignored yourself."
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7690#msg7690

I made several references to Skolfield in this thread, but because you would rather castigate me, you did not recognize what I had said.

Random offhand reference to an author's name, in a thread completely unrelated to his material, does not constitute "discussion" about Skolfield's view.

Quote from: amos45 on October 16, 2010, 01:55:07 AM
Quote;
"We gave you as much latitude as you desired. Unfortunately you choose to dig a hole for yourself with it, rather than participating as a constructive member of the forum."

REALLY? I made an observation, & you immediately made an inquisition of it.

And the hole gets deeper.
After yonah33 posted the nonsense in the OP, and was unable to support and refused to even discuss it - yet even after that you jumped in voicing absolute solidarity with it - even with a claim of

"There is ample information out there in the public domain that supports this view concerning Islam & the Vatican. The other thing is....it all makes sense....no imagination needed."
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7690#msg7690

Yet where was all of that "ample information" that you claimed existed? Where is the history? Why didn't you bring it to bear on your claim?
If you had no such knowledge of "ample information", at the time you made the claim, how would that have constituted other than a lie? If it wasn't a lie then why didn't you simply post some of that "ample information"?
The reason would seem apparent since you even wound up disowning the Vatican/Islam claim yourself.

"At this point, I will say that I could be wrong concerning what I have said, that "the Papacy was involved in the establishment of Islam,"..."
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7740#msg7740

Quote from: amos45 on October 16, 2010, 01:55:07 AM
By your innate desire to protect the papacy, it is also my view that this could in fact be a RCC or Jesuit site.

As I said before, it is fortunate that the forum provides such an easily accessed record. Folks can judge your further claims, in light of the material in this forum category, for themselves.

What seems to still be lost on you is that it isn't necessary to attack the Roman Church with lies.
It's own doctrine and history do a good job of exposing the Roman Church through truth.

Lies simply obscure the truth for those in the bondage of the Roman Church, by offering an opportunity to divert the conversation, through truthful observation such as ".... and the accusation that the Catholic Church is somehow responsible for Islam cannot be seriously supported.", as one Roman Catholic did on the 29th, regarding this very subject, in this very forum.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=512.msg7706#msg7706

Quote from: amos45 on October 16, 2010, 01:55:07 AMFrom your previous record, this statement will probably result in another barage of attack from you or resisting.

As to your suppositions regarding myself & Yonah33, we arrived here about the same time by coincidence, & there has been no collusion between him & myself on this forum.

As Yonah said in one of his replies to you, he is in the wrong forum....well so am I.

adios

Something I can agree with. Thank you.
There are lots of forums where you could find folks willing to agree with the original post of this thread - immediately and at face value - just as you did.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg7690#msg7690
Some may even encourage you by embellishing with personal opinion devoid of foundation.
Try here http://www.christianforums.com/f80/
You may appreciate that there is no shortage of unsupported claims in that forum, that result in disharmony, rancor, animus and unsupported accusations between members. You should feel right at home there.

I have recently heard that Jack Chick Publications basically crashed and burned due to his unflagging support for Rivera.