We can read in a book named MY FIRST CATECHISM p.65 whose author is Fr. Paolo O. Pirlo, SHMI with Nihil Obstat of Very Rev. Msgr. Josephino S. Ramirez, Vicar General and Chancellor Manila October 28, 1993 the following:
"The particular judgment is immediately after our death. Then the souls of the just go to paradise, Those who still have some sins to be expiated go to purgatory. Those who are evil go to hell. As Jesus said in the parable of Lazarus: The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and was tormented in Hell (Luke 16:22-23)"
HERE ARE MY REFUTATIONS:
FIRST: In the parable, you cant read that a man went to purgatory. so using the parable that there is a chance for a man to go to purgatory after his death is clearly wrong.
SECOND: The parable teaches only that there is eternal life and eternal damnation. The Catholic Church's interpretation of the said verse is clearly wrong. why? it doen't mean that when a righteous and the wicked man both died will automatically go to afterlife as THEIR JUDGMENT.
In the Bible, Apostle Paul taught the the Judgment of the souls is only ONE DAY. (So it will not happen many times after death)
Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointeda day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
It will happen at the end of the world when heaven and earth will pass way.
Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
THIRD: The Bible clearly testified what will happen to the dead during this present time as written here:
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Then on the Judgment Day, God will unite them again.
Ezekiel 37:4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. 37:5 Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:37:6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
FOURTH: Lord Jesus, Apostle Peter and Apostle St. John said that no man hath seen God and ascended into the paradise where God is there. so the dead saints are just in the graves (read my third refutation)
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens:
1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time.
FIFTH: In order to come to Jesus where he is IF YOU ARE A RIGHTEOUS MAN, you need still to be resurrected
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
SIXTH: If the dead saints will go straight into the paradise where God is there, no need for them to wait for the coming of Lord Jesus Christ and prepare a place for them
John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 14:3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
SEVENTH AND LAST: It is clear that all the dead saints and the wicked men before they receive their eternal life or eternal damnation is they need still to be resurrected.
John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
ALL THE DEAD SAINTS ARE NOT YET IN HEAVEN, THEY NEED TO BE RESURRECTED BY LORD JESUS:
1 Thessalonians 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesuswill God bring with him.
1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 For
the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice
of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christshall rise first:
We must remember that God will change our earthly body into heavenly body first before reaching the Kingdom of God by means of resurrection so it is wrong to say that when a righteous man died and was buried, that man will go to heaven ASAP.
1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1 Corinthians 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
1 Corinthians 15:52 In
a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we
shall be changed.
1 Corinthians 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
The unrefutable fact that can be read in the Bible that the dead saints are not yet today with God in his paradise as the Catholic Church presently believes in it is read these verses:
Hebrews 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
The promise mentioned in those verses in Hebrews can be read here:
1 John 2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us,even eternal life.
This is where all the saints will live forever with the Lord after the Judgment Day and obtain eternal life:
Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them,and be their God. 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 21:7He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
It is called new heaven because the former heaven which we see today is we cant see God there and He is not with us. so It is not true that the new heaven and the place where God is different.
In the new heaven in God's Kingdom, we will see God and live with us if you are one who'll be save.
Historical note: Roman Catholics borrowed the idea of praying with beads from the pagan religions who were already using them hundreds of years before: In 456 AD, Hindus are thought to have introduced the concept of praying with beads to the world. The earliest reference to a rosary (boberkhas) is in their "Jain Canon" (456 AD) These boberkhas had various numbers of beads 6,9,12,18,36 (any sub-multiple of 108) Islam (610 AD) uses a rosary of 99 beads, one for each of the names of God. Buddhists have 108 prayer beads on the string. The Rosary is of pagan origin and no Christian prior to 1000 AD used beads to pray.
The Bible teaches Christians not to do the pagans' way of life:
1 Peter 4:3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4:4 They think it strange thatyou do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you. (NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION)
REASON TWO:Long prayers will let you receive greater damnation
Luke 20:47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation. because God wanted us when communicating with him is read this verse:
Ecclesiastes 5:2 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few. REASON THREE:It was the Catholic saint Saint Dominic who introduced it
"He was the one who introduced the beautiful prayer of the Holy Rosary in honor of the Virgin Mary"
p. 176 of the book named MY FIRST BOOK OF SAINTS.
ISBN: 971-91595-4-5
Author: Fr. Paolo O. Pirlo, SHMI
Edition: 1st Edition, Manila, August 15, 1997 Assumption of Mary
Printer: Don Bosco Press Makati City, Philippines
Imprimatur: Very Rev. Msgr. Socrates B. Villegas Vicar General Manila April 10, 1997
Nihil Obstat: Very Rev. Msgr. Jose C. Abriol Vicar General and Censor Manila April 10, 1997
In the Bible, Christians are taught to accurse or reject the people who taught other gospel other than what was preached by the apostles. (Whats more on their false teachings right?)
Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
It used to be that crimes were done in the name of God. Hand it to the inglorious Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to hit rock bottom and commit malfeasance for bishops’ birthdays. Yes, that’s birthday-plus-s because the Mitsubishi Montero gift was not a lone event. On March 9, 2006, Arroyo made a much bigger offering to mark the birthday of Pampanga Archbishop Paciano “Apu Ceto” Aniceto—policies on women and the Filipino family that, in her words, “would be the best birthday gift” she could give. Unconcerned about displaying the power of Catholic bishops during Arroyo’s rule, the Philippine Information Agency (PIA) releasedthe following account:
[Arroyo:] “It must be providential that the birthday of Apu Ceto (her important adviser) falls within International Women’s Week when I have to make policy statements on women’s concerns and issues relating to them.”
After the concelebrated mass held in the Bishop’s honor at the Mother of Good Counsel seminary in this city, the President would attend a meeting of all female members of her cabinet in which women’s issues would be discussed.
After this, the President said she would make a declaration that “a strong family makes a strong republic”, and follow up with measures designed to further strengthen the Filipino family.
“This I think would be the best birthday gift I could give to Apu Ceto”, the President said amidst loud applause from the audience composed mostly of the bishop’s religious congregation in the province.
Strange but true. Our highest public official openly gifted someone who is not a woman and does not claim to have a wife or kids with policies on women and families. Can this be just one of those quirkiness that makes our great nation so, well… quirky? To answer this, we have to go further into the Archbishop’s background and the context when this event occurred.
Arroyo’s Gifts
Luckily, the regime then was truly indifferent about revealing Catholic church influence over governance. The samePIA piece stated that the Archbishop was the President’s adviser on “issues concerning population, family, women welfare and health” and was consulted on March 2001, just two months into Arroyo’s term, prior to her making a statement on these issues; that the President “consults with him when making a choice for a new Secretary of Health”; and that at an Interfaith Summit and the UN General Assembly in 2005, the President “brought much of the Bishop’s inputs into the statements she made in front of these prestigious international bodies”.
Dr. Manuel Dayrit—a member of Couples for Christ—became the Archbishop-and-President’s Secretary of Health in 2001. In the next few years, Dr. Dayrit created the legal basis and structures for overly expanding natural family planning (NFP) and entwining it with Catholic doctrine. He set an ambitious “mainstreaming” target—unmet up to now—to raise NFP useto 20%; created a National Natural Family Planning Committee with a Couples for Christ doctor as Chairperson and with a representative of the CBCP Family Life specified as a member; and separated NFP from the national family planning programto let the government “work more closely with groups and partners that want to promote NFP exclusively”. He even tried to ban the IUD for being an “abortifacient” but was foiled by protests done by women’s and doctors’ groups.
And what was the Archbishop’s inputs to Arroyo’s statement at the UN? The full speech was 10 paragraphs long, but these two about funding NFP exclusively in the name of Catholicism, and belittling the value of artificial contraceptives are proclamations the Archbishop would surely be proud of:
… We expect the United Nations to be sensitive to the deep Catholicism of the vast majority of the Filipino people. The funding given by the United Nations to our national Government for reproductive health will be dedicated to training married couples in a natural family planning technology which the World Health Organization has found effective compared with artificial contraceptives.
The Population Council of New York has found that artificial contraception contributes only 2 per cent to the decline of birth rates, while the combination of improving the economic condition of the family, urbanization and breastfeeding contributes 98 per cent. Thus we ask the United Nations and donor countries to direct their assistance towards the improvement of family productivity and income.
Both are based on lies, or lapses in judgment if your prefer the colorful language of the powerful who when caught are always absolutely sorry about absolutely nothing prosecutable.
The World Health Organization (WHO) rates most artificial methods as more effective than fertility awareness methods. Moreover, limiting people to a method not of their own choosing—whether pills, NFP or whatever—will do nothing but cut sharply its effectiveness and violate fundamental human rights which the WHO promotes.
As for the Population Council, here’s what they said in an article entitled Family Planning Programs Remarkably Successful:“Decades of research show that comprehensive family planning and reproductive health services lead to sharp rises in contraceptive use that help women avoid unintended pregnancies. Over a 30-year period (1960–90), fertility declined in the developing world from more than six to fewer than four births per woman, and almost half of that decline—43 percent—is attributable to family planning programs.”
What’s the Catch?
The Population Council’s 43% became 2% at the UN speech, a remarkable manipulation of numbers to suit one’s needs. Audacious but nothing new. Just a few months earlier, Arroyo was heard in a wiretapped conversation with Comelec Commissioner Virgilio “Garci” Garcillano asking for a lead of one million votes while counting was still going on for the presidential election of 2004.
The Garci scandal and Arroyo’s no holds barred battle to cling to power set the stage for the Archbishop’s birthday gift in March 2006. The scandal erupted nine months earlier in June 2005.
Despite widespread protests and calls for Arroyo to resign, the CBCP merely asked for an independent “Truth Commission”. The protests continued and on February 24, 2006, two weeks before the Archbishop’s birthday, Arroyo declared a State of Emergency to quell a supposed coup attempt against her.
The tottering Arroyo needed the bishops to survive. She bought them with various currencies, from religion-inspired policies to the glittering currency of legal gambling. To their historic ignominy, majority of Catholic bishops granted her wish.
Something died during those trying times of Arroyo’s decadent rule. Some may call it the moral authority of Church leaders. Or the principle that the end never justifies the means. Or maybe just plain honesty, fair play and decency. Whatever you call it, something is dead and rotting. And the stench is inevitably escaping.
SONG OF SOLOMON 5:16 "his mouth is sweet yea he is "ALTOGETHER LOVELY-MACHMAD IN HEBREW". THIS IS MY BELOVED AND THIS IS MY FRIEND."
so what if the word mohammadin is in the bible, does it mean the prophet? similarities in words doesn't always imply the same thing. how will you prove that that is a prophecy? is solomon a prophet?
if we read verse 6:8-9 it speaks here that muhammadin has 60queens 80 concubines and a lot virgins but he has one special, one beloved amongst the many wives, is that false prophet muhammad? muhammad i think has a dozen wives and 1 concubine so how does the verse fit him? that is a sensible question, if we used MACHMAD as a name instead as an adjective.
how was muhammadin used WAS IT AS A NAME OR AN ADJECTIVE BEC MACHMAD OR ALLEGEDLY MUHAMMADIN IN HEBREW MEANS DELIGHTFUL AND WAS USED AS AN ADJECTIVE TO SOLOMON RATHER THAN USED AS A NAME OR EVEN A PROPHECY BEC SOLOMON WAS NEVER A PROPHET OF GOD. MACHMAD BY THE CONTEXT OF THE VERSE IS AN ADJECTIVE AND NOT A NAME, OH WHAT FOOLERY! your delusions will not make your false prophet a true one. salam!
A picture depicting Father Damaso (Dr. Rizal's symbolism of the friars mostly of his time in his Noli Me Tangere novel who are arrogant, anti Filipino and immoral)
I first heard this term used by Carlos Celdran, who has become quite famous for his interesting walking tours of Intramuros. In just over two hours, he gives an enthralling summary of Philippine history, from pre-Spanish colonial times to the American occupation, complete with his unique brand of theatrics, period costumes, and music. However, Carlos also deftly explains the psyche of the Filipino nation and the historical factors that led to its formation.
In particular, Carlos explains how the Church was able to exert a tremendous amount of influence during the Spanish era, how its power oftentimes superseded that of the Spanish governor-general, and how this religious-political arrangement continues to this day. His tours are a crash course in Philippine culture for foreigners seeking to understand this country’s soul and a definite eye-opener for many Filipinos.
Carlos has also gained notoriety—and popular following—for his recent public antics. A few months ago, he spent a night in jail after interrupting a mass at the Manila Cathedral by walking in dressed in a 19th century outfit and denouncing at the top of his voice the Church’s opposition to the Reproductive Health Bill. If passed, the RH Bill would, among others, educate Filipinos on modern family-planning methods, make available condoms and contraceptives, and improve pre- and post-natal care for women. Some praised Carlos for his stunt, comparing the diminutive tour guide to national hero Jose Rizal who also criticized the Church’s meddling in the country’s affairs and was executed upon the behest of the friars. Others castigated him for being a trouble-maker and rabble-rouser.
While I didn’t agree with his Manila Cathedral caper (the wrong execution of the right ideal), I fully support Carlos’ stand on the RH Bill and the complete separation of Church and State.
The Philippines is a secular country, as enshrined in Article 2, section 6 of the 1987 constitution, which states that the separation of Church and State is inviolable. This means that the government should not make any laws that aid or give preference to a certain religion, nor should any religious group or denomination interfere in government affairs and policies. However, even under the most ideal circumstances, the Church can be expected to try to sway state policies by alluding to issues in homilies or employing back-channel approaches to quietly influence politicians. Unfortunately, the Church has just gone too far.
For instance, emblazoned on the façade of the Manila Cathedral are two very big signs that read “Do we need the RH Bill? No!”. I have traveled extensively all over the Catholic world and this is the first time I have ever seen such a direct and barefaced manifestation of the Church’s interference in state affairs. What is even more shocking and alarming is that thousands of people pass in front of the Manila Cathedral everyday, yet no one seems to have noticed this or complained about it.
Just a few days ago, sources said retired Cebu Archbishop Ricardo Cardinal Vidal and four other bishops hosted a dinner in Wack-Wack village for the 35 lawmakers who had committed to blocking the passage of the RH Bill being debated in Congress. The meeting was reportedly set to cement the pro-Church voting bloc in the Lower House and to discuss other ways to derail the passage of the RH Bill.
As I write this column, the Church, through its minions, is trying to pass a barangay (community) ordinance to ban the sale of condoms and contraceptives in the Ayala Alabang area. Barangay Ordinance 01-2011, 1, entitled “An Ordinance Providing for the Safety and Protection of the Unborn Child,” deems it illegal to sell, advertise, or even purchase contraceptives within the territory of Ayala Alabang unless the buyer presents a doctor’s prescription. This is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights as citizen’s of the Republic, not to mention our private lives.
I am not against the Church preaching its beliefs to its followers, as long as this is done in their places of worship or Catholic-run schools. What I am against is the Church’s blatant interference in secular matters. There are 16.1 million Filipinos who are not Catholics and the government is obligated to look after their welfare. Furthermore, surveys say that 70% of Catholics want family planning advice and be able to use contraceptives. The issue here is education and free choice.
The Catholic Church hierarchy had better wake up and smell the coffee. The arrogance of these men of the cloth and their stooges and their blatant disregard of their place in our modern, secular state, not to mention their open contempt for those who disagree with their religious views, behoove me. Like the Taliban hiding in their caves in the mountains of Afghanistan, they have absolutely no place in a free, democratic society.
It is not Apostle Peter is the rock that the Christian Church used to build but our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, what kind of stone is Apostle Peter inside the Temple of God in spirit?
1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Apostle Peter was classified as living stone that was built up in a spiritual hose.
Apostle Peter is a pillar of the Temple of God in Spirit
Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
They are called foundations of the Christian Church (read Ephesians 2:20)
1. Catcholic Doctrine -Purgatory (Lat.purgare,to make clean ,to purify)"vol.12,p.575"According to the teaching of the Church ,the state ,place,or condition in the next world ,which will continue until the last judgement, where the soul of those who die i the state of Grace ,but not yet free from all imperfection,make expiation for unforgiven venial sins or for temporal punishment due to venial and moral sins that have already been forgiven and ,by so doing are purified before they enter heaven."(New Catcholic Encyclopedia,vol.11,p.1034)
PROOF #1: Isaiah 6:5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. 6:6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: 6:7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.
MY REFUTATION: Is this purgatory? Well read the verses above and it is not purgatory but a vision of heaven:
Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. 6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. 6:3And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. 6:4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
PROOF#2: Zechariah 13:8And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. 13:9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.
The dead are not the ones mentioned in these verses but the believers. we must know that the dead cannot do any work on the grave where they will go (read Ecclesiastes 9:10)
To understand this verses, Pls. read 1 Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
PROOF#3: Matthew 5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
MY REFUTATION: Are they (Catholic defenders) saying that you need to pay cash in order for a man's soul to be removed in purgatory? Does this mean that God can be bribed to save a man's soul? Is this true Biblically?
Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
Proverbs 6:34For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance. 6:35 He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts.
Why did our Lord Jesus Christ said this thing on the said verse?
Matthew 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
PROOF#4: 1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
MY REFUTATION: The fire mentioned in the verses above is not literal but spiritual. the fire symbolizes the test of faith
1 Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
And it is works and not dead believers will be put to that spiritual fire. HOW CAN A LITERAL FIRE BURN MENS' WORK?
so the works of the people mentioned in the verses of 1 Corinthians
Chapter 3:12-15 are the works of the living and not of the dead.
That
spiritual fire OR THE TEST OF FAITH will test those works whose people
laid their foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble
upon the foundation of Christians which is Christ.
The works are compared to gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble.
PROOF#5: 1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
MY REFUTATION: The spirit of prisons mentioned in the Bible is not purgatory but a prison of rebelled angels who married the daughters of men in this world as mentioned in Genesis Chapter 6.
Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
It is clear that the spirit who makes live the human body will be in God's hand while the body will become dust (read Ecclesiastes 12:6)
Then it will be joined together by God with the bones as mentioned in Ezekiel 37:4-6 read it
Then Jesus Christ said that the dead who will be resurrected will either obtain eternal life or damnation each of them (read John 5:28-29)
CONCLUSION: There is no such thing as purgatory
1) Its word cannot be found in the Bible while you can find the words hell and heaven itself in the Bible.
2) It is clear that Apostle Paul taught that AFTER DEATH IS JUDGMENT (Hebrews 9:27 read it) so there is no detour for the souls of the dead.
3) Jesus Christ said that all dead souls will be resurrected and each of them will either have an eternal life or eternal damnation
John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 5:29And shall come forth; they that have done good,unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
4) God taught us to clean ourselves from iniquities when we are still alive in this mortal and temporal world.
1 John 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. (SO NO NEED FOR PURGATORY AFTER DEATH)
Isaiah 1:16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;1:17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
5) There is no purgatory until the last judgment. what the dead will wait is the Judgment Day
Hebrews 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
6) No man can tell what shall be after him after death.
Ecclesiastes 6:12 For who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?
you don't even know if one of your dead loved ones you have been asking to a priest to set a mass to pray for him and also paid in it in order to be released from that so called purgatory was soon or later been released from that place and went to paradise.how can you sure that he is still today in that place? what if he really never went in that place and instead went to hell or heaven?
you are just wasting your money in it in a hope that your loved one will be released from that non existing place that you dont even know when it will happen or perhaps maybe he never really went to that place. believing in purgatory is also part mentioned in the Bible that setting your eyes upon that which is not (read Proverbs 23:5)
I believe purgatory was invented so that the Catholic Church assures to get a lot of money from its followers in order for the dioceses and archdioceses to obtain more profit from it.
7) Purgatory was invented by a certain "MARCION" during the Second Century A.D. and it was accepted as offical doctrine in year 593 A.D. by Pope Gregory I and it was adopted in the Council of Florence the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031),and on Council of Trent in year 1548.
But Apostle Paul taught the Christians not to accept the people who teach other gospel other than what was preached by the apostles and should be ACCURSED.
Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Meaning what we should believe are the teachings only of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ that can be read today in the Bible.
8) It is clear that the dead on the graves will not do any work . so cleansing themselves on their sins on a non existing purgatory is not true (read Ecclesiastes 9:10)
CATHOLIC EXPLANATION:1 Kings 6:23 And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high. 6:24 And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits. 6:25 And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size. 6:26 The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub. 6:27 And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house. 6:28 And he overlaid the cherubims with gold. 6:29 And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without.
1 Kings 7:25 It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward. 7:29 And on the borders that were between the ledges were lions, oxen, and cherubims: and upon the ledges there was a base above: and beneath the lions and oxen were certain additions made of thin work. 7:36 For on the plates of the ledges thereof, and on the borders thereof, he graved cherubims, lions, and palm trees, according to the proportion of every one, and additions round about.
plus this:Exodus 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. 25:19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. 25:20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.
MY REFUTATION: We should know that It was God who ordered this that this design should be made in 1 Kings Chapter 6 and 7 and It was not of King David's own idea.
1 Chronicles 28:12 And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit,of the courts of the house of the LORD, and of all the chambers round about, of the treasuries of the house of God, and of the treasuries of the dedicated things: 28:19 All this, said David, the LORD made me understand in writing by his hand upon me,even all the works of this pattern.
Catholic Defenders may ask, Why will God violate his own instruction not to make graven images if making of it is a violation to his commandment according to Exodus 20:4-5?
First, What God dont want men to make graven images that they THEMSELVES WILL MAKE IMAGES. (read Deuteronomy 16:22) and not the images He ordered to make it.
Second, These images are made just for designs of the Ark or of the temple and not to be used to pray upon to (another way of worship) by children of Israel and offer some candles or flowers to them.
Last, Why will you require God to follow his commandment? Dont they know that the commandments are only for sinners to follow as taught by Apostle Paul:
1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.
We should also notice that God never ask to make a graven images of the saints like Mother Mary.
If really the Catholic Church is really following this God's order, Catholic churches' altars should be the same as written in the Scriptures but sadly it is not. They just add on what is really written on the Scriptures that made the Catholic clergies liars.
Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
In desperation, Catholic Church will cite a verse that Christianity has an altar just to say that their idolatry is justified.
Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
In the tabernacle made by hands, there was an altar where the high
priest offers blood for himself and errors of the people in Hebrews 9:7,
Hebrews 9:1-6.
The tabernacle of Christians is not MADE WITH HANDS in Hebrews 9:11 but the Catholic altar is MADE WITH HANDS.
Since the tabernacle made with hands has an altar, the same the tabernacle of Christians MADE NOT WITH HANDS has an altar.
That altar is in heaven because heaven is not made with mens' hands. (That's the Christian altar in Hebrews 13:10)
Revelation 14:17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven,he also having a sharp sickle.
Revelation 14:18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire;
and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying,
Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the
earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
Jesus Christ taught us on how to pray to the Father. We are taught to worship HIS NAME and not the image.
Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. There is no commandment by Jesus Christ or his apostles to make graven images as a way to remember God, instead these were taught to Christians:
2 Corinthians 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
John 20:29 Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Do we need images to remember God? NO NEED!
The name of God is the one we Christians should worship as Jesus taught and not the graven image (read again on Matthew 6:9)
Idol worshippers/Idolaters in fact are commanded to be removed from the Christian Church (read 1 Corinthians 5:11-13)
Idols are with ears, eyes, mouth which cannot see, hear or speak and they do not have breath and those who trust them will be like them (not physically but spiritually) - Read Psalms 135:15-18
In the Bible, the thing that can make us remind of God is this: (HIS CREATIONS AND NOT THE GRAVEN IMAGES)
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Pinocchio, the well known lying puppet in the world
Summary Answer:
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences."
There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
The Qur'an:
Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."
Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.
Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.
Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"
Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.
Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."
Muslim (32:6303)- "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."
Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.
From Islamic Law:
Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...
"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.
Additional Notes:
Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:
Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.
Hadiths that allow lying following the guidance by Islamic prophet Mohammad:
Sahih Muslim/Hadith Book 032, Number 6303: …”Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)”.
Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari: Volume 3, Book 49, Number 857: Narrated Um Kulthum bint Uqba:
“That she heard Allah’s Apostle (Mohammad) saying, He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar”.
Sahih al-Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369: Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle”?
Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?; The Prophet said, Yes; Muhammad bin Maslama said, Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). The Prophet said, “You may say it”
In the book “The spirit of Islam,” by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah stated: “Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: ‘He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good.”
Tabbarah’s book is in the catologue of the King Saud University Library in Saudi Arabia, the birth place of Islam.
And from Abdullah Al Araby: The Arabic word, “Takeyya”, means “to prevent,” or guard against. The principle of Al Takeyya conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one’s self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-Takeyya is based on the following Quranic verse:
“Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.” Surah 3: 28
An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Quran from the early part of Mohammed’s ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers
In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts.”
“Reflections of an American Muslim“ (archive copy from 3/3/08 – been published since Jan. 1999) was written by Dr. Shahid Athar. He is the former president of The Islamic Medical Association of North Americaand is the Clinical Associate Professor of Internal Medicine and Endocrinology, Indiana University School of Medicine Indianapolis, Indiana.
Below is what he wrote:
“LYING EVER JUSTIFIED?
There are no absolute justifications in Islam and the Prophet has asked us to tell truth even under the harshest circumstances of oppression. However, one may choose not to tell the truth when:
a. He is under oppression and there is danger of losing his life if he told the truth. Shaykh Saadi narrates a story, “A cruel king ordered an innocent man present in his court to be killed because of his lack of manners. Hearing this, the villager started to curse the king in his native language. The king asked the prime minister, who understood that man’s language, to tell him what that man was saying The wise minister, instead of telling the truth, told the king this man is sorry for his conduct, praising his greatness and asking for his mercy The king was affected and he spared the life of that innocent man.” Shaykh Saadi calls this a “lie with wisdom.”
b. To promote mutual relationship between spouse, i.e., if wife asks you, “Am I beautiful?” or “Do you love me?” there is nothing wrong with saying “Yes,” even if this is not the case.
c. While making peace between two quarreling parties, instead of igniting them against each other, i.e., “He said such and such bad thing about you,” just say,”He says such and such good thing about you.” Tradition: He is not a liar who tries to bring peace between two people by trying to tell the truth only as described in Surah al-Anbiya (21:62).
d. To make unbelievers realize the truth (21:62-65) When Prophet Abraham broke all the idols except the biggest one, the unbelievers entered the temple. Abraham hid and put his ax in the hand of the chief idol. They asked, “Who broke our gods?” He said, “Ask the chief idol, he has the ax.” They said, “Don’t you know he can’t speak or do anything?” Abraham said, “That’s what I have been telling you, so worship God, rather than these stones who cannot harm or profit you.”
Kitman -Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."
Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.
Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.
At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).
Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).
Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.
Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.
The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'
The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.
The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.
Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.
NOW COMPARE THIS TEACHING OF APOSTLE PAUL:
Ephesians 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
Muslims may not steal from each other. In fact, Muhammad had people's hands cut off for that. But the same is not true of unbelievers. Property rights for them exist only at the discretion of their Muslim rulers. Non-submissive infidels frequently had their property stolen from them by Muhammad's warriors, which sometimes included wives and children.
The Qur'an:
Qur'an (5:38) - "As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power." Keep in mind that the Qur'an promises the most severe of punishments for those who believe in one part of the Qur'an, but not the other (2:85). There is no such thing as moderate Islam. Those Muslims who reject cutting off hands for theft are not only disregarding their own religion, but are subject to punishment from true believers for it, since they are hypocrites by definition (see 66:9).
Qur'an (48:20) - "Allah promised you many acquisitions which you will take, then He hastened on this one for you and held back the hands of men from you, and that it may be a sign for the believers and that He may guide you on a right path." Allah promises Muslims that they will profit materially in their war against unbelievers.
Qur'an (33:27) - "And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is ever Able to do all things." Referring again to the property of unbelievers, which is given to those Muslims who defeat them.
From the Hadith:
Forbidden to Steal from Fellow Muslims
Bukhari (81:780) - The Prophet said, "The hand should be cut off for stealing something that is worth a quarter of a Dinar or more."
Bukhari (81:792) - Narrated Aisha: "The Prophet cut off the hand of a lady, and that lady used to come to me, and I used to convey her message to the Prophet and she repented, and her repentance was sincere."
Abu Dawud (38:4373) - The Prophet (peace be upon him) had a mans hand cut off who had stolen a shield.
Stealing from Unbelievers Permitted if Needed
Ibn Ishaq (764) - As for taking from unbelievers, perhaps the most illuminating example among many comes from the aftermath of the battle against the Khaybar as recorded by Muhammad's earliest biographer. The Khaybar were a peaceful community of Jewish farmers who did not even know they were at war until Muhammad led his men against their town one morning, taking them by surprise and handily defeating them.
Not only did Muhammad take much of the town's possessions and land, but he actually had the tribe's treasurer, a man named Kinana, tortured until he gave up the location of hidden treasure. Muhammad then beheaded the man and "married" his traumatized widow, Safiyya (who passed through the hands of one of his lieutenant's first due to the luck of the draw).
Bukhari (44:668) - "We were in the company of the Prophet at Dhul-Hulaifa. The people felt hungry and captured some camels and sheep (as booty)..." Muhammad said that Allah would always provide sustenance for those who believe in him. Stealing from non-Muslims was a legitimate means of fulfilling His promise.
Ahmad 4869 (also found in the original Hadith of Bukhari) - It is mentioned from Ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.” The word "provision" means livelihood and "abasement and humility" refer to the jizya that non-Muslims are supposed to pay. By mere virtue of their unbelief, the property of non-Muslims belongs to Muslims.
Additional Notes:
After being chased out of Mecca, Muhammad and his small band of followers sought refuge in Medina, where he was accepted as a mediator between disparate factions. In order to make ends meet, he raided caravans carrying goods from Syria to merchants in Mecca, taking what he wanted and killing or capturing whoever resisted. Aside from establishing the rule that stealing from non-Muslims is permissible, Muhammad's raids also laid a firm foundation for Islamic terrorism.
In later battles, Muhammad ordered his men to set aside a fifth of whatever they were able to take from a conquered population and give it to him. This is how he eventually accumulated great wealth (which his eleven widows did not inherit, even though they were forbidden from remarrying).
As Wafa Sultan puts it: Bedouins feared raiding on the one hand, and relied on it as a means of livelihood on the other. Then Islam came along and canonized it (A God Who Hates).
The legacy of Muhammad's raids makes the property rights of non-Muslims extremely tenuous.
For centuries, the Muslim empire subsisted on war booty (Maal-e-Ghanimat) and jizya extorted from the labor of conquered people. In Western countries today, radical Muslims often live on public benefits - perhaps the best example being Anjem Choudary of Britain. What could be wrong with stealing from the infidel?
Consider this remarkable excerpt from a recent televised sermon by Abu Ishak al Huweini:
"We are at a time of Jihad; Jihad for the sake of Allah is a pleasure, a true pleasure. Mohammed’s followers used to compete to do it. The reason we are poor now is because we have abandoned jihad. If only we can conduct a jihadist invasion at least once a year or if possible twice or three times, then many people on Earth would become Muslims. And if anyone prevents our dawa or stands in our way, then we must kill them or take as hostage and confiscate their wealth, women and children. Such battles will fill the pockets of the Mujahid who can return home with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women and 3 or 4 children. This can be a profitable business if you multiply each head by 300 or 400 dirham,. This can be like financial shelter whereby a jihadist, in time of financial need, can always sell one of these heads (meaning slavery). No one can make that much money in one deal (from hard work) even if a Muslim goes to the West to work or do trade. In time of need, that is a good resource for profit."
NOW COMPARE THIS TO THE TEACHING OF APOSTLE PAUL WHOM MUSLIMS TODAY HATE SO MUCH OF THE ALL APOSTLES OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST:
Ephesians 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
Head of Constantine's colossal statue at the Capitoline Museums. The original marble statue was acrolithic with the torso consisting of a cuirass in bronze
Question: "What is the origin of the Catholic Church?"
Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately 30 A.D. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the Church that Jesus Christ died for, the Church that was established and built by the Apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity at the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.
Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse – not everyone would agree to forsake their religious beliefs and instead embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:
(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and “theotokos” (God-bearer) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.
(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman empire, it was the de-facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in concept of the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion. Sadly, some early Christians had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the Biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass / Eucharist, complete.
(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primary on one particular god, or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.
(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course it is best for the unity of the Roman empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.
Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the true origin of the Catholic Church. Of course the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology. The Catholic Church excuses and denies its pagan origin beneath the mask of “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.
The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
