Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

[HughBe]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Being agnostic on the matter means I have no proof either way. I am nuetral. Vs being atheistic. Since we are talking about a historic fact, not a deity, this is an adaptive use of the actual word.
Anyone intelligent would of figured that out.

1. Do as you are told.

2. You talk too much BS or better yet Chicken S.

3. Any intelligent person would NOT avoid answering the questions and would give an INTELLIGENT answer for AGNOSTIC. YOU have FAILED in every department.

4. Try again.

5. Here is a push start for you. Agnostic= a person who DOUBTS that there is a god or a "disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter,"

6. Take it from here.

YOUR words,"I never DOUBTED the existence of historical Jesus..... I am AGNOSTIC on the matter."
Genius what is the meaning of AGNOSTIC?

Reconcile being an AGNOSTIC with you NEVER doubting.

[HughBe]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Prove that he is anything other than a delusion.
Be a man, not an agnostic.

Frijoles--Be a man, not an agnostic.

HughBe--- Thanks for the CONFIRMATION that functionally you are a woman. Note the contrast man versus AGNOSTIC and you have said, "Being agnostic on the matter". So you have called yourself an AGNOSTIC and NOT a man.

Bi-Frijoles

[HughBe]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually it is your burden to prove or at least show evidence that your Jesus is NOT a delusion.

HUghBE---Greetings my Battyboy friend.

Your man called MY Jesus, the Christ, a DELUSION and so it is appropriate for me to ask him, in what way is Jesus a "DELUSION figure"?

Take your time to understand the flow and the basic logic.

Much love from JJ.

[former res]

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
HUghBE---Greetings my Battyboy friend.
Your man called MY Jesus, the Christ, a DELUSION and so it is appropriate for me to ask him, in what way is Jesus a "DELUSION figure"?
Take your time to understand the flow and the basic logic.
Much love from JJ.

]

Frijole posted the definition of delusion for you:

a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

So back to the central question....do you have any evidence to support your delusion??

[HughBe]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>]
Frijole posted the definition of delusion for you:
a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
So back to the central question....do you have any evidence to support your delusion??

Since your man is UNABLE to apply the definition you do so now and answer this, in what way is Jesus a "DELUSION figure"?

[HughBe]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>]
Frijole posted the definition of delusion for you:
a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
So back to the central question....do you have any evidence to support your delusion??

While at it explain your man's/Frijoles' words i.e. "I never DOUBTED the existence of historical Jesus."

Having explained it, integrate it into your previous assignment.

[Frijoles]

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
While at it explain your man's/Frijoles' words i.e. "I never DOUBTED the existence of historical Jesus."
Having explained it, integrate it into your previous assignment.

off on tangents.

This is why we see you as a slime ball. You are incapable of following the conversation - because you know you have no way to answer our initial question - so as a result you get hung up on tangents.

[Frijoles]

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
HughBe--- In what way is Jesus a "DELUSION figure"?
Frijoles---Prove that he is anything other than a delusion.
HughBe--- son son, YOU called Him a delusion so YOU explain it and ANSWER my question.

I have no evidence that he is a messianic figure or real. Do you? If not, and you still consider him messianic and/or real, he is a delusion by definition.

[MUQ]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
The oldest human religion, and the most commonly encountered tribal religion, is shamanism.
Most forms of Islam are not shamanistic, though the sufis come close in their use of altered states.
Shamanism (pron.:/&#712;&#643; &#593;&#720;m&#601 ;n/ shah-m&#601;n or /&#712;&#643;e&#61 8;m&#601;n/ shay-m&#601;n) is a practice that involves a practitioner reaching altered states of consciousness in order to encounter and interact with the spirit world.[2] A shaman is a person regarded as having access to, and influence in the world of benevolent and malevolent spirits, who typically enters into a trance state during a ritual, and practices divination and healing.[3]

The OLDEST religion in the world is what was practised by Adam the first human on earth and it was Islam, nothing else.

All other isms came after that. We have to see and examine how far they go along with the basic teachings of Islam, that is from God and rest is human distortions.

So easy to check and verify.

PS:

Am I being impossible? Try Joe or HUgh

[MUQ]

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly, Mecca

Makkah is OK, but you need a Visa to enter Makkah.

And that Visa is you declare with your mouth "ASHAD -U - AN LA ILAH A ILL A ALLAH MUHAMMAD AL RASOOL ALLAH"

i.e. "I bear witness that their is no deity to worship except Allah, and Mohammad is His Messenger".

messianic Jews, Normal Jews, Christians or people of any other faith can enter Makkah after fulfilling this Visa requirement.

Makkah is a sanctuary and safe place of Allah, it has to be kept pure and uncluttered. Should it not?

[JOEL]

Hi.

(smiles)

[JOEL]

Hi.

[MUQ]

First HI was with smiles and second HI when Smile was wiped off the face?

[jason_orange]

fear

[jason_orange]

something

[jason_orange]

moving

[Frijoles]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
The OLDEST religion in the world is what was practised by Adam the first human on earth and it was Islam, nothing else.
All other isms came after that. We have to see and examine how far they go along with the basic teachings of Islam, that is from God and rest is human distortions.
So easy to check and verify.
PS:
Am I being impossible? Try Joe or HUgh

so easy to check and verify that there is no objective evidence.

Shamanism, on the other hand, is verified not only in the archaeological record, but among recent ethnographic studies of tribal groups

Islam is a recent religion. Thousands of years after Judaism. But both are believed to come from a common ancestor.

[Frijoles]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>

PS:
Am I being impossible? Try Joe or HUgh

Actually I dont see much difference. All of you are hypersensitive to correction.

Though at least you are capable of self-reflection.

[Frijoles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism#Hypoth...

Shamanic practices may originate as early as the Paleolithic, predating all organized religions,[81][82] and certainly as early as the Neolithic period.[82]

Early anthropologist studies theorise that shamanism developed as a magic practice to ensure a successful hunt or gathering of food. Evidence in caves and drawings on walls support indications that shamanism started during the Paleolithic era. One such picture featured a half-animal, with the face and legs of a man, with antlers and a tail of a stag.[83]

Archaeological evidence exists for Mesolithic shamanism.

The oldest know female Shaman grave in the world is located in the Czech Republic at Dolni Vestonice (National Geographic No 174 October 1988. Also In November 2008, researchers announced the discovery of a 12,000-year-old site in Israel that is perceived as one of the earliest known shaman burials. The elderly woman had been arranged on her side, with her legs apart and folded inward at the knee. Ten large stones were placed on the head, pelvis and arms. Among her unusual grave goods were 50 complete tortoise shells, a human foot, and certain body parts from animals such as a cow tail and eagle wings. Other animal remains came from a boar, leopard, and two martens. "It seems that the woman … was perceived as being in a close relationship with these animal spirits", researchers noted. The grave was one of at least 28 at the site, located in a cave in lower Galilee and belonging to the Natufian culture, but is said to be unlike any other among the Natufians or in the Paleolithic period.[84]

----------

81^ Jean Clottes. "Shamanism in Prehistory". Bradshaw foundation. Retrieved 2008-03-11.

82^ a b Karl J. Narr. "Prehistoric religion". Britannica online encyclopedia 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-28.

83^ Winkelman, Michael. Shamanism: a Biopsychosocial Paradigm of Consciousness and Healing. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2010. Print.

84^ "Earliest known shaman grave site found: study", reported by Reuters via Yahoo! News, November 4, 2008, archived. see.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[STEFANO COLONNA]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
01. So you left the "debate" on Quranic Chapter 112 and started a "new" argument?

No. I ended it up.

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text> Moses prophesized for some prophet to come after him or not? Who is that Prophet?

You stated he described the last prophet. He has never prophesized or described any last prophet.

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text> Many prophets foretold about Messiah, it is not a strange title with Jews. There have been so many Messiahs in the past and one more will come.

It was not your Muhammad. It must be from the seed of David, he has to restore Jerusalem, and should appear at the end of the days. Those are but few things out of many that this messiah should accomplish and whom Muhammad failed miserably, hence he is disqualified for the being what previous scriptures foretold.

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>I read Bible from cover to cover, if that is what you mean. Who can say that he "fully understood" any religious scripture? Only fools or those with "little knowledge" can say that.

That you don't fully understand what you read is pretty evident. What did I say was if you ever read and understood the Tanakh, seen the gross mistakes and lack of basic knowledge displayed by your posts.

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text> 02. In those days, people were very "quick" to change their religion, no doubt. Just look at how Jesus got his first disciples.
One odd miracle here and there, and lo, they followed you to the end of world, why cant the same thing happen with our prophet?

How do you know that in those days people were very quick to change religion? The disciples of Jesus were Jews and they have never changed their religion. Quite stupid example you made, to support the lie of the story narrated in Hadith

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>This ZAID was "more than half convinced" with teachings of our prophet. He only wanted to test his patience and forbearing about which he had read in his Torah. So he devised a scheme to find a way to test it. And when he saw what he was looking for he declared his faith.

If Zaid was a Jewish he would have known yet that Muhammad was not the prophet foretold in Tanakh (see above why). So either the story was invented, or his convertion was forced. The test itself is pretty stupid and cannot determinate whether or not Muhammad was the prophet, or that prophet. Furthermore Zaid has not really been that offensive either.

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>Prophets of God have very strong power to attract people, when we see in our days so many people becoming fans and supporters just be hearing one speech or shaking hands with some leaders, what we can say about prophets.

You don't have to be a prophet of god to attract people since any charismatic person has the power to, and they were/are not prophet of any god. Besides in the Tanakh there are several examples of how certain prophets were rejected or not listened by their folks.

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text> It is not "every day" that new prophets come into the world. It is rarest of the rare occasions and blessed are people who see prophets and meet with them.

Actually from the Tanakh we know there have been a lot of prophets but just some were recorded. Those prophets in Tanakh came out pretty often, in any period, and only among the Jews. It just contradicts what you said. It was not that rare back then, in Israel.

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text> And then on the other hand, those who see prophets face to face and listen them speak and teach and…..still reject them, they are the worse humans, lost for ever.

Had Muhammad been the prophet of god and therefore able to attract people then he wouldn't have made so many wars.

Had Allah really existed and been powerful he wouldn't have allowed the death of thousands of people to convert into his religion.