Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 230410 comments on the The Brussels Journal story from Aug 24, 2007, titled Who Is Allah?. In it, The Brussels Journal reports that:

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? [...] What does God care what we call him?”

From the desk of Soeren Kern on Fri, 2007-08-24 11:56 Europeans love to mock the salience of religion in American society. via The Brussels Journal

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Brussels Journal.

yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#187865 Sep 7, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Well since you seem to think it is your job to give everybody advice and tell them how wrong they are, then shouldn't you help them find out what is right by helping them verify things like you said? I can't find any of your claims, so if you were a good prophet of God, isn't it your job to help people see the truth and find your claims? You seem to act that way. And as you said, shouldn't they first verify it is the truth before they believe any claims from anybody?
<quoted text>
Yes, I can find that in my copy of the scriptures. Why is anybody supposed to think that third and fourth generation means new generations of the earth itself rather than generations of parents and offspring? I don't see any other verses that would make one think it should be interpreted the way you think. And I still can't find any of the other claims you make.
<quoted text>
First it said him, then it said them. Him is singular, them is plural. So in the first instance, it is talking about Adam himself, and then in the second instance, it is adding Eve or whatever name you want to use and it says them and it is referring to mankind in general when it says them as the rest of mankind will be created male and female. Remember, them is plural. So this is not saying that Adam was created as both male and female at all. And may I remind you of the part where it says Eve was created from Adam's rib because Adam was lonely?
<quoted text>
What verse is this? I cannot find this and I cannot find anything that says 1948 at all. Can you give the verse number so that I can find it? Thank you.
<quoted text>
What verse numbers are these? I can't find where it says anything like this at all and no matter how hard I look, I will never be able to find them because they aren't in the Torah at all.
rabbee: i just did give you, with something in TheTorah. are you complaining, that i did not?

and hey i got three visits, from TheG-D WHO only calls me adam. which means we are here, in the same story again as last time. the exact same thing, where G-D comes to tell adam about the woman thingy. and claimed We both, used to be TheOne Adam. so you know we have all been through, this all more than once.

you did not read, where G-D made Adam in OUR IMAGE. G-D is Singular Our is Plural. your trying not to see something, does not mean it is not there. and the one your falsely claiming to be jesus, used to be both me and this woman G-D came and told me about. what is so hard to understand, about G-D separating Adam into both adam and his mate?

no it says that there was nobody here in TheTorah for Adam to consort with. and their is still nobody, here in it today. there were lots of, alleged jews around two thousand years ago. and they all claimed to not be here, in TheTorah from G-D too. even you are denying being here in TheTorah now too, so your not here in TheTorah either. and this is TheOnly Story TheG-D, of Only TheTorah ever claimed to give.

and i said you can figure it out yourself, using no more than fourth grade math. the amount of years, from Noach to Avraham or from adam to Noach. the genealogy and the time intervals, are both there to do this with. if you, are willing to spend the time doing it.

but i said it could be calculated, the info is imbedded. and then from there it is no biggie figuring out the amount of time Adam(alleged as jesus) appeared 1948 years after Avraham and Sarah. and is not hard to figure out, why Adam is always by some virgin surrogate birth process. the pieces of the puzzle fit together. nor is it hard to figure the 1948 years for adam and his mate.

personally i do not believe that, any unrepented blasphemer of RUACH HAKODESH, really wants to see this. but for the benefit of others, i am giving this to you. and as stubborn and stiffnecked as you are, i suspect that you must be a jew and just don't know it. with your linage, being hidden from you.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#187866 Sep 7, 2013
Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
We are all entitled to our opinions Rabbee.
Benyamin is a Jewish person and he disagrees with Christian theology.
rabbee: so?

you consider what G-D, Personally came and gave to me an opinion? when it was not even my opinion, when G-D first came to give all this to me. now i wished i had not of given to G-D, any of my opinions that day actually. and just too embarrassing, to tell anyone my opinions i said to G-D that day.

i did not get any of this, from just any angel. this came to me, direct from G-D me with standing right there in THEIR Presence. why else would i be disagreeing with jews, christians, muslims, and all other pagans?

even i have to admit, i would have been an excellent atheist. if these visits from G-D, had not of so totally ruined that.

when is the last time, any alleged as jew ever been true to G-D? they even screwed up, being at mt seeanee. they even screwed up, entering Ysrael on the first pass. they fought against G-D and Moshe, all through the desert, even before mt seeanee. what make you think, they or anyone else are doing any better today?
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#187867 Sep 7, 2013
with my high iq, i could have been greater than einstein. but nooooo! G-D, had other plans for me. and did not hesitate, to tell me my life story. of everything, i shall do that was not what i wanted to do. so guess WHO won, that argument?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#187868 Sep 7, 2013
Alex WM wrote:
The detailed analysis of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 9:5-6 and supporting passages in
the Hebrew Bible demonstrate how this passage describes events that had already
taken place during the era in which these prophetic words were spoken by Isaiah,
i.e., it is an historical, not a messianic, passage. Additional passages in the Hebrew
Bible helped establish the connection
between this near-term prophecy and the
righteous King Hezekiah as the one of which Isaiah spoke.
So people called King Hezekiah Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace? How come we can't find any Jewish or Rabbinical commentary that said this before Jesus?
Alex WM wrote:
This passage, Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7], appears to have appealed to Church translators as
an opportunity to infuse into the words of Isaiah Christological significance, since all
that was required to accomplish this were adjustments to the tenses, a manipulation
that changed the historical context (past te
nse) into a current and prophetic context
(present and future tenses).
Where is the past tense here?
For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar -shalom;

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1009.htm

Isaiah didn't speak about things of the past, he spoke about prophecies.
Alex WM wrote:
Yet, it still is puzzling why this passage was targeted for revision in view of the fact
that the authors of the New Testament did not believe that it applied to Jesus, as is
evident from their silence about it.
Tiny clues:
The authors of the NT do not cite either of these two verses, and nowhere do they ever refer to Jesus by any of the names/titles that appear in Isaiah 9:5[6].
Matthew 12
15 Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. A large crowd followed him, and he healed all who were ill. 16 He warned them not to tell others about him. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:

18 “Here is my servant whom I have chosen,
the one I love, in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
19 He will not quarrel or cry out;
no one will hear his voice in the streets.
20 A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out,
till he has brought justice through to victory.
21 In his name the nations will put their hope.”[b]

John 12
7 Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:

“Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”[h]

39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:

40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”[i]

41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
Alex WM wrote:
This means they did NOT consider them as references to BJ.
These names/titles actually are inconsistent with common references to Jesus. How can “The everlasting Father” also be “The Son”?
I explained how, but you don't like it.
Alex WM wrote:
BJ the "Prince of Peace", as in the KJV rendition of Isaiah 9:6, appears to proclaim just the CONTRARY about himself:
Matthew 10:34(KJV)- Think NOT that I am come to send peace on earth: I came NOT to send peace, but a sword!!!!!!!!!!Also Luke 19:27.]
Surely, this cannot portray someone who is called “The Prince of Peace”!!!!!
Well, that is what he was called after he left.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#187869 Sep 7, 2013
you are all so lucky, that G-D does not come to visit any of you. every time you! are screwing up. it can be, a very, very, very, painful and frightful scary experience.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#187870 Sep 7, 2013
i prefer to not help people, the way all-h is helping syrians today. but if push come to shove, then you can shove it.

it is not my fault, muslims and others have never learned. to leave the jews alone, they are not your problem that you all are also.

G-D'S patience, is at an end here again. don't piss THEM off, any more than THEY already are.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#187871 Sep 7, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: i just did give you, with something in TheTorah. are you complaining, that i did not?
I did not complain that what little you gave was not in the Torah, I said it clearly does not mean what you claim it means. And then, you never gave any verses for the rest of your claims.
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
and hey i got three visits, from TheG-D WHO only calls me adam. which means we are here, in the same story again as last time.
You said verify verify verify. So how am I supposed to take your advice and verify your claim with the only book you claim can be used?
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
the exact same thing, where G-D comes to tell adam about the woman thingy.
That happened in the past. There is nothing that says that event has been repeated.
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
and claimed We both, used to be TheOne Adam.
I cannot find that anywhere in the Torah.
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
so you know we have all been through, this all more than once.
No I don't at all and I cannot find one single verse in the Torah that says this.
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
you did not read, where G-D made Adam in OUR IMAGE. G-D is Singular Our is Plural.
This is known as "majestic plural", but it is actually talking about God himself. Read 27

26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
your trying not to see something, does not mean it is not there.
27 proves me right. It says in HIS image, not THEIR image.
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
and the one your falsely claiming to be jesus, used to be both me and this woman G-D came and told me about.
How do I verify that claim? Remember, you said people should only use the torah to verify.
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
what is so hard to understand, about G-D separating Adam into both adam and his mate?
What is hard is that I cannot find anything about Adam ever returning.
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
no it says that there was nobody here in TheTorah for Adam to consort with. and their is still nobody, here in it today.
But the Torah says there was somebody after God created woman from Adam's side, and Adam existed before the woman did. And there is no mention of Adam having a surrogate mother at all.
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
but i said it could be calculated, the info is imbedded. and then from there it is no biggie figuring out the amount of time Adam(alleged as jesus) appeared 1948 years after Avraham and Sarah.
I don't see anything at all in the Torah about Adam ever reappearing at all. And I cannot find any mention of Jesus being equated to Adam at all. So I cannot verify what you say at all.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#187872 Sep 7, 2013
Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
Most Muslims??
Does this bigoted deranged deluded insane Islamophobe know a single Muslim personally?
But first he needs to be let out of his cell.
Would you like me to give you the links?
Alex WM

London, UK

#187873 Sep 7, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>

Well, that is what he was called after he left.
After he left??
READ what it says in OT!

Past tense in Jewish translation....end up as present in KJV

Reference Jewish Translation KJV Translation
Genesis 4:26 was born was born
2Samuel 21:20 was born was born
Isaiah 9:5[6] has been born is born
Jeremiah 20:15 has been born is born
Psalms 87:4 was born was born
Psalms 87:5 was born was born
Psalms 87:6 was born was born
Ruth 4:17 has been born is born
Alex WM

London, UK

#187874 Sep 7, 2013
Reference Jewish Translation KJV Translation
Leviticus 19:20 had ... been given [was ...] given
Numbers 26:62 was given was given
Joshua 24:33 was given was given
Isaiah 9:5[6] has been given is given
Isaiah 35:2 has been given shall be given
Jeremiah 13:20 was given was given
Jeremiah 51:55 was uttered is uttered
Ezekiel 15:4 were given is cast
Ezekiel 16:34 was ... given is ... given
Ezekiel 32:25 was given is put
Ecclesiastes 10:6 was set is set
Esther 4:8 was given was given
Esther 6:8 [was] placed is set
2Chronicles 34:16 was given was committed
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#187875 Sep 7, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Do some research, search (as you did to find the "proofs" of our prophet's cruelty from Islamic books), add the figures of those killed in battles of prophet and add the figure ...
It would come to be less than 1000, counting on both side and it was only Jews of BANI QURAIDAH that increased this figure, otherwise it would have been less than 600!!
Again, where do you get this figure from? And apparently, the number of Jews beheaded after that one invasion only was supposed to be 800. I can link it. Can you link your claims?
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
That Treacherous back stabbing foolish Jewish tribe!!
A little work would give you the result, however if you are incapable of doing it, "request" me and I will give you the countup.
Isn't that what I did in my last post? What does "where do you get that figure from" mean to you?
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
But you have to withdraw your "assumption" that our prophet was a "Blood thirsty tyrant, willing to shed his opponents blood at any pretext, and always terrorizing his opponents".
Is it a fair bargain?
\

I wasn't even the one who said that, El Cid said that. Once again, you can't even keep track of what people say to you. But, I'm not sure that I disagree with his statement at all. I don't think that Muhammad just killed for the sake of killing, but he most certainly was a violent man. He even had people assassinated for mere words. That might even be worse than what Mafia gangsters used to do. I don't think that George Bush Jr ever even got in a fight in his entire life. Does that make him a non violent man? I wouldn't call him that and I would not call Muhammad that. Maybe Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi or even Martin Luther King could be called that, but certainly not Muhammad. you can say that God willed it, but it still does not make him a non violent man.

It seems that he resorted to violence the moment he had a large enough army. It started off with robbing defenseless caravans, which was certainly not supposed to be non violent or else his men wouldn't have carried weapons with them, and then it just grew and grew from there as his army grew and they acquired more and more stolen booty that was taken by force via violence.

Apparently, even Muhammad's sock puppet Allah doesn't like pacifism or non violence.

2:216 (Y. Ali) Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

So Allah likes fighting more than some Muslims do. Of course, this was really Muhammad. Same person who gathered 30,000 men and led them out to the desert to invade a city that was not threatening them, only to change his mind and go back because he didn't know in advance how weak his men would be, so he wisely had to change his mind and wait for another time to do it. And eventually, he did, just not when he thought he would. Whoops, I mean, just not when Allah thought he would. Sorry.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#187876 Sep 7, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, where do you get this figure from? And apparently, the number of Jews beheaded after that one invasion only was supposed to be 800. I can link it. Can you link your claims?
<quoted text>
Isn't that what I did in my last post? What does "where do you get that figure from" mean to you?
<quoted text>\
I wasn't even the one who said that, El Cid said that. Once again, you can't even keep track of what people say to you. But, I'm not sure that I disagree with his statement at all. I don't think that Muhammad just killed for the sake of killing, but he most certainly was a violent man. He even had people assassinated for mere words. That might even be worse than what Mafia gangsters used to do. I don't think that George Bush Jr ever even got in a fight in his entire life. Does that make him a non violent man? I wouldn't call him that and I would not call Muhammad that. Maybe Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi or even Martin Luther King could be called that, but certainly not Muhammad. you can say that God willed it, but it still does not make him a non violent man.
It seems that he resorted to violence the moment he had a large enough army. It started off with robbing defenseless caravans, which was certainly not supposed to be non violent or else his men wouldn't have carried weapons with them, and then it just grew and grew from there as his army grew and they acquired more and more stolen booty that was taken by force via violence.
Apparently, even Muhammad's sock puppet Allah doesn't like pacifism or non violence.
2:216 (Y. Ali) Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
So Allah likes fighting more than some Muslims do. Of course, this was really Muhammad. Same person who gathered 30,000 men and led them out to the desert to invade a city that was not threatening them, only to change his mind and go back because he didn't know in advance how weak his men would be, so he wisely had to change his mind and wait for another time to do it. And eventually, he did, just not when he thought he would. Whoops, I mean, just not when Allah thought he would. Sorry.
Seeker,

If you believe that Jesus' sock puppet Father was the God of OT, then you have to accept that he too had ordered and supervised fighting personally, when his people were persecuted and oppressed. That includes attacks, even before they were attacked.

Jesus was born in a place where the religion of God was already established. Scripture was in place and was followed. There was no violence among people at that time.

Jesus with his few disciples was free to roam and lecture. Nobody attacked him or persecuted or tortured him and his colleagues. The place was quite peaceful. He was not sent to pagans.

If he had been sent to pagans, he would have lost his head within a few days after getting baptized by John.

You cannot compare Jesus with Muhammad. Jesus and his people were docile under the Roman occupation and there were no warring Jews. Jesus lived among believers of God and yet he failed to get any recognition.

Jesus did not face even a fraction of the hardships, opposition and persecution, which Muhammad faced.

Seeker

Lowell, MA

#187877 Sep 7, 2013
Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
After he left??
READ what it says in OT!
Past tense in Jewish translation....end up as present in KJV
Reference Jewish Translation KJV Translation
Genesis 4:26 was born was born

Jewish:
And to Seth also to him a son was born, and he named him Enosh; then it became common to call by the name of the Lord.

KJV:
26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

Both past tense

2Samuel 21:20 was born was born

Jewish version
and he too was born to Orpah.

KJV
and he also was born to the giant.

Both past tense

Isaiah 9:5[6]
Jewish version
For a child has been born to us
KJV
For unto us a child is born

IS and HAS BEEN mean the same exact thing in the context of the rest of the verse. He has been born and he is born mean the same thing. You're supposed to be British, so you should know that. So you have no excuse for being this stupid.

Jeremiah 20:15
Jewish version
A male child has been born to you,
KJV
A man child is born unto thee

Again, this means the same exact thing. Is and has been often mean the same thing. you should know that if English is your native language.

Psalms 87:4
Jewish version
This one was born there
KJV
this man was born there

Same thing.

Psalms 87:5
Jewish version
Man after man was born in her
KJV
This and that man was born in her

Same thing

Psalms 87:6
Jewish version
This one was born there
KJV
that this man was born there

Same thing

Ruth 4:17
Jewish version
A son has been born to Naomi
KJV
There is a son born to Naomi

There IS and HAS BEEN mean exactly the same thing. WAS born and IS born MIGHT mean something different, but HAS BEEN and IS means the same thing. How can you be this retarded?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#187878 Sep 7, 2013
Alex WM wrote:
Reference Jewish Translation KJV Translation
Leviticus 19:20 had ... been given [was ...] given
Numbers 26:62 was given was given
Joshua 24:33 was given was given
Isaiah 9:5[6] has been given is given
Isaiah 35:2 has been given shall be given
Jeremiah 13:20 was given was given
Jeremiah 51:55 was uttered is uttered
Ezekiel 15:4 were given is cast
Ezekiel 16:34 was ... given is ... given
Ezekiel 32:25 was given is put
Ecclesiastes 10:6 was set is set
Esther 4:8 was given was given
Esther 6:8 [was] placed is set
2Chronicles 34:16 was given was committed
Where is the difference in the meaning? For example, has been given means the same thing as is given, in Isaiah 35:2. You are making the same stupid retarded error I pointed out in my last post.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#187879 Sep 7, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeker,
If you believe that Jesus' sock puppet Father was the God of OT, then you have to accept that he too had ordered and supervised fighting personally, when his people were persecuted and oppressed. That includes attacks, even before they were attacked.
I do acknowledge it and so do Jews. The difference is that they do not lie and try to label Moses as a kind and gentle man. They admit the violence and merely say it was God's will. Of course, this was to achieve a small holy land for them. But Muhammad kept invading others repeatedly. He basically spent most of his time always involved in battles, and most of them were offensive, not defensive.
Alex WM

London, UK

#187880 Sep 7, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis 4:26 was born was born
Jewish:
And to Seth also to him a son was born, and he named him Enosh; then it became common to call by the name of the Lord.
KJV:
26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.
Both past tense
2Samuel 21:20 was born was born
Jewish version
and he too was born to Orpah.
KJV
and he also was born to the giant.
Both past tense
Isaiah 9:5[6]
Jewish version
For a child has been born to us
KJV
For unto us a child is born
IS and HAS BEEN mean the same exact thing in the context of the rest of the verse. He has been born and he is born mean the same thing. You're supposed to be British, so you should know that. So you have no excuse for being this stupid.
Jeremiah 20:15
Jewish version
A male child has been born to you,
KJV
A man child is born unto thee
Again, this means the same exact thing. Is and has been often mean the same thing. you should know that if English is your native language.
Psalms 87:4
Jewish version
This one was born there
KJV
this man was born there
Same thing.
Psalms 87:5
Jewish version
Man after man was born in her
KJV
This and that man was born in her
Same thing
Psalms 87:6
Jewish version
This one was born there
KJV
that this man was born there
Same thing
Ruth 4:17
Jewish version
A son has been born to Naomi
KJV
There is a son born to Naomi
There IS and HAS BEEN mean exactly the same thing. WAS born and IS born MIGHT mean something different, but HAS BEEN and IS means the same thing. How can you be this retarded?
How man y Tanach's has this poor deranged person perused?
Take this hint will you?
The books belong to the Jews.
Pagans cannot steal these books and change the words.
Talk to the Jews instead of bullying them.
They deny your mangod.
Ask them why?
Jesus came only for the Jews.
He said that himself.

How can Isaiah claim in present tense about BJ!!
Wake up boy.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#187881 Sep 7, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not complain that what little you gave was not in the Torah, I said it clearly does not mean what you claim it means. And then, you never gave any verses for the rest of your claims.
<quoted text>
You said verify verify verify. So how am I supposed to take your advice and verify your claim with the only book you claim can be used?
<quoted text>
That happened in the past. There is nothing that says that event has been repeated.
<quoted text>
I cannot find that anywhere in the Torah.
<quoted text>
No I don't at all and I cannot find one single verse in the Torah that says this.
<quoted text>
This is known as "majestic plural", but it is actually talking about God himself. Read 27
26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
<quoted text>
27 proves me right. It says in HIS image, not THEIR image.
<quoted text>
How do I verify that claim? Remember, you said people should only use the torah to verify.
<quoted text>
What is hard is that I cannot find anything about Adam ever returning.
<quoted text>
But the Torah says there was somebody after God created woman from Adam's side, and Adam existed before the woman did. And there is no mention of Adam having a surrogate mother at all.
<quoted text>
I don't see anything at all in the Torah about Adam ever reappearing at all. And I cannot find any mention of Jesus being equated to Adam at all. So I cannot verify what you say at all.
rabbee: not my fault, you wasted your life, trying to understand religions rather than G-D. since G-D has given TheTorah even once, then THEY have given it for thousands and thousand of other third and fourth times. no matter what your vanity opinion, of not being here in TheTorah has to say.

no matter how much in denial you are, with your not being here in TheTorah today. IT is TheOnly Story, that G-D ever claimed to give and has ever given. call G-D a liar all you want, but G-D never claimed to give any new testaments.

it says in TheTorah, that Adam was also put to death, and returned as adam and his mate. and now it is just, all happening again. with Who G-D calls Adam, being put to death, about 2000 years ago. and now G-D having actually come to tell me, we-eeere back. what else can i deduce from The-Visit from G-D, coming to tell me about the grandmother of this world again?

so what if this Majestic Plural IMAGE of G-D, is given to the one you call jesus christ. are you fighting against the divinity, of your own alleged as savior? gees! and you call yourself, a christian? do us all a favor, quit pretending you are a christian.

for crying out loud, what i have been saying. actually supports christians claims of their messiah being really, really, really divine.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#187882 Sep 7, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus with his few disciples was free to roam and lecture. Nobody attacked him or persecuted or tortured him and his colleagues. The place was quite peaceful. He was not sent to pagans.
If he had been sent to pagans, he would have lost his head within a few days after getting baptized by John.
You cannot compare Jesus with Muhammad. Jesus and his people were docile under the Roman occupation and there were no warring Jews. Jesus lived among believers of God and yet he failed to get any recognition.
Jesus did not face even a fraction of the hardships, opposition and persecution, which Muhammad faced.
Muhammad faced very little persecution. The worst someone did was to throw some rocks at him. Every time he got in trouble for insulting them his powerful uncle always got him out of trouble. The worst they did to him was to finally kick him out because they were sick and tired of him. They crucified Jesus. And even if you believe they failed, they still tried to. So I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about. But Muhammad sure ended up persecuting them far more than they persecuted him in the end. He killed them. They didn't even kill Muhammad when he was weak and they could have. But when Muhammad was strong, he killed them.
Alex WM

London, UK

#187883 Sep 7, 2013
They maintain this:
he next verb that appears in the verse is
niTAN. This is a conjugation of the root verb
in the 3rd-person, singular, masculine, past tense, in the nif'AL stem, the reflexive and passive verb form, giving it the meaning
has been given or was given, depending on the context of the passage in which it appears.

The KJV renders at Isaiah 9:6 as
is given, in the present tense, which conflicts with the Hebrew as well as with the Jewish translation.
Of the 14 identical instances of the term
in the Hebrew Bible, two appear in the Book of Isaiah – at Isaiah 9:5 and at Isaiah 35:2 – an inadequate sample from which to draw conclusions. Therefore, all 14 cases are included
in the analysis above.

Also ...it goes on to the next bit...in
Isaiah 9:5[6]
and ... was [placed] according to Hebrew Bible
and ...[it] shall be [placed] according to KJV.

Isaiah 9:5[6]
and .... called (Heb Bible)
and ... shall be called (KJV)

So on.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#187884 Sep 7, 2013
this is really stupid, i give supporting evidence in TheTorah. that the alleged christian, messiah is a lot more divine than they think.

and now their all denouncing, that their alleged messiah, has any divinity at all. please pick one or the other, either your jesus is a crook - or not. don't give me with your, wishy-washy lukewarm stuff.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pagan/Wiccan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 1 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,713
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... 11 hr thetruth 59
Doris w/ Spells4free Aug 25 Redd 1
News Looking for a Pagan community in Kentucky? (Mar '12) Aug 19 Dude 12
News Nigeria: Religion, morality and politics Aug 12 jinxi 1
omens of dead animals (Aug '08) Jul '15 skylar 108
Shadows and sounds Jul '15 Dizy 1
More from around the web