Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 253000 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.

Mahmood

Peterborough, Canada

#195025 Nov 13, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
Dear TS
I am not reading too much in your words, it is you who are saying "too much" in those words, trying to dictate what prophets Must do and Must not do.
What is this "Universal Understanding of God" that provides the list of Qualities of a True prophet of God.
In the same way please elaborate what is this "Universal Principle of God". This is a new word for me.
So there is no proof or authority behind your list and you behave like a "Free lance" authority of God and prophet.
This issue is not trivial and should be sorted because we are in starting phase of our discussion.
Unless your list has some support from Scriptures, there is no authority at the back of your list of qualities.
Without any support your list lacks any authority and any person might come with his own list saying a Prophet MUST be Like this and MUST NOT be like this.
When I will present my list, you will see Inshallah, that it would be supported by Quotations from my scripture.
Brother MUQ, I have only one question and I will not bother you for a while. Please explain why 2:62 does not contradict 4:150-151? Keep in mind that 2:62 does not say people of the book "before Mohammad". BTW, I am not an expert, so please answer my question.

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#195026 Nov 13, 2013
it's just stupid, to let a fake name. mentally only fool everyone, out of being here in Only TheTorah again from HaShem G-D.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#195027 Nov 13, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
And at that is not aware".
The Jew recognizes Tanak as God's word revealed to Israel, requiring neither supplement nor fulfillment.
It is used in public and private worship linking the individual Jew to the household of faith throughout history, providing strength in time of need, offering hope in moments of darkness, and giving assurance that the Covenant made with God in the
past has relevance today.8
God gave the Gentile Gods laws before the laws of Moses were given to the Israelite people.

So the history of God and the Gentiles goes further back then Gods relationship with the Jews.

The forefathers of the Jews were Gentiles, and it is of those Gentile forefathers that God promised land to the Israelite's.

The seven Noahic commandments are binding on all people, because all people are descended from Noah and his family. The 613 mitzvot of the Torah, on the other hand, are only binding on the descendants of those who accepted the commandments at Sinai and upon those who take on the yoke of the commandments voluntarily (by conversion).

The Bible is the world history of Gods relationship with the human race.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#195028 Nov 13, 2013
More on Jesus in the interpretation YHVH is salvation/saviour.

Moses asking : who shall is say sent me?
'Tell them:'He exists"

wiki I am that I am.
In appearance, it is possible to render YHWH as an archaic third person singular imperfect form of the verb hayah "to be" meaning, therefore, "He is". It is notably distinct from the root El, which can be used as a simple noun to refer to the creator deity in general, as in Elohim, meaning simply "God" (or gods). This interpretation agrees with the meaning of the name given in Exodus 3:14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person — ehyeh "I am". Other scholars regard the triconsonantal root of hawah (&#1492;&#1493;&#1 492;) as a more likely origin for the name Yahweh (&#1497;&#1492;&#1 493;&#1492;).

Intertestamental Judaism[edit]

In the Hellenistic Greek literature of the Jewish Diaspora the phrase "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" was rendered in Greek "''eg&#333; eimi'' ho &#333;n", "I am the BEING".

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#195029 Nov 13, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>God gave the Gentile Gods laws before the laws of Moses were given to the Israelite people.
So the history of God and the Gentiles goes further back then Gods relationship with the Jews.
The forefathers of the Jews were Gentiles, and it is of those Gentile forefathers that God promised land to the Israelite's.
The seven Noahic commandments are binding on all people, because all people are descended from Noah and his family. The 613 mitzvot of the Torah, on the other hand, are only binding on the descendants of those who accepted the commandments at Sinai and upon those who take on the yoke of the commandments voluntarily (by conversion).
The Bible is the world history of Gods relationship with the human race.
Concur, many different faces, the idea of one 'father'god=El is allready very old. Elohim- powers as sons and daughters.
'He exist' as making a berit- Mutual covenant by addressing all the people is however unique to Israel.
Another unique idea is not having a depiction, or 'soul' in stone, that could be taken away. The arc and it's abduction showed that lesson.

We see in a time of draught and failed harvest, Joseph and others going to Egypt and later returning.
They do not come out of the blue but where part of KHN in the first place.(Just as the phenicians were.)

Later still we see the remnant of Israel/Omri congregate in Judah.
Yahudi by the way also shows the godname.

Finkelstein would suggest two waves of conquest againt Earlier Amorites that had invaded the land (Not entirely clear in the verses, but having the Ugarit tekst it seems KHN was conquered with people introducing there Mesopotamian rites: kispu ancestor-funarary fests). Archeology in Syria and Libanon is however difficult to accomplish.
And before they could be a nation the hittite and Egyptian empires had to desintegrate.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#195030 Nov 13, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed what's in a nametitle Jesus: YHVH is our saviour
And title Christ: usefull man/servant/slave.
A quote from the churchfather Eusebius (of Ceasarea a.k.a. Eusebius Pamplilius) who started the tradition of using Sacred Scripture against the Hebrews by writing a churchhistory and the ordered the gospels first 50 copies written early in the 4th century. After the council of Nicea 325 CE)
' But sons of the Hebrews also would find fault with us, that being strangers and aliens we misuse their books, which do not belong to us at all, and because in an impudent and shameless way, as they would say, we thrust ourselves in, and try violently to thrust out the true family and kindred from their own ancestral rights.
For if there was a Christ divinely foretold, they were Jewish prophets who proclaimed His advent, and also announced that He would come as Redeemer and King of the Jews, and not of alien nations: or, if the Scriptures contain any more joyful tidings, it is to Jews, they say, that these also are announced, and we do not well to misunderstand them.
Moreover they say that we very absurdly welcome with the greatest eagerness the charges against their nation for the sins they committed, but on the other hand pass over in silence the promises of good things foretold to them; or rather, that we violently pervert and transfer them to ourselves, and so plainly defraud them while we are simply deceiving ourselves. But the most unreasonable thing of all is, that though we do not observe the customs of their Law as they do, but openly break the Law, we assume to ourselves the better rewards which have been promised to those who keep the Law.'
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe...
15 books (and counting in case i do not find immediately what 'm looking for. As in Ireneus writings on issues put up to vote i.e. declared atheist and heretic.) to peruse.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe...
The early Church father's writings are not from a comic book as you view their writings.

They are consistence with the teachings taken from Gods Holy Bible that includes The Torah.

The early Church fathers examined the scriptures and explained what the prophets did not explain in their writings about God and The Holy Spirit of God.
Saying God is One and there is no other God besides God as Scripture says does not explain how God is Omnipresence in the world.

So the early Church fathers had to explain how God is different from the ancient pagan Gods that are created by man.


““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#195031 Nov 13, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>God gave the Gentile Gods laws before the laws of Moses were given to the Israelite people.
So the history of God and the Gentiles goes further back then Gods relationship with the Jews.
The forefathers of the Jews were Gentiles, and it is of those Gentile forefathers that God promised land to the Israelite's.
The seven Noahic commandments are binding on all people, because all people are descended from Noah and his family. The 613 mitzvot of the Torah, on the other hand, are only binding on the descendants of those who accepted the commandments at Sinai and upon those who take on the yoke of the commandments voluntarily (by conversion).
The Bible is the world history of Gods relationship with the human race.
Those are however later ideas.
If for instance Babylonian literature was found first the world would have looked different.

It is a unique history, and most people did not share it in the old days, nor felt inclined to do so. To each it's own god(s)(Let's suppose the myth is true plus sudden amnesia):
It is estimated that close to 1,000,000 Jews lived in Alexandria, Egypt, during the third century B.C. Having been separated from Palestinian Judaism for many generations, the Alexandrian Jews spoke only Greek and could not understand the Hebrew scriptures.
According to a legend preserved in "The Letter of Aristeas,"3 in response to a request that the Jewish scriptures be translated into Greek, seventy Jewish scholars (another tradition
says seventy-two) went to Egypt and translated the first five books of the Bible (the Law or Torah). These books, believed to be the work of Moses, had achieved a relatively fixed form and canonical status during the fifth century B.C.

Pressure only began to build after the syrian-greek invaded during Maccabean times.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#195032 Nov 13, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>The early Church father's writings are not from a comic book as you view their writings.
They are consistence with the teachings taken from Gods Holy Bible that includes The Torah.
The early Church fathers examined the scriptures and explained what the prophets did not explain in their writings about God and The Holy Spirit of God.
Saying God is One and there is no other God besides God as Scripture says does not explain how God is Omnipresence in the world.
So the early Church fathers had to explain how God is different from the ancient pagan Gods that are created by man.
They distinguish themselves to be in between Greeks and Barbarians, but more related to the latter as their birthground.

Their idea is to call Greek philosophy and gods as pagan=barbarian.
Atheism came to mean all that do not subscribe to Jesus and the twelve.(other options on the number of deciples were forwarded, as well as the age of Jesus a.s.o.)
And judaism came to be called heretical and atheist.

So they went rather overboard in their defense.

Eusebius starts rational to get ever wilder.
Well he wrote the books to convince Theodius or whomever the emperor of the day was, to make christianity a state-religion.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#195033 Nov 13, 2013
Almost forgot.
Sinnce they knew Philo of Alexander's work, who was jewish, the equated greek philosoph with judaism.

So judaism was in one go declared: pagan, heresy and atheist.

Hebrews f.i. reflects this extremism.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#195034 Nov 13, 2013
In the meantime.
Who was the beloved diciple?
A reflection of the confusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Je...

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#195035 Nov 13, 2013
Irenaeus Against heresies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus

e.g. of nothing being as clearcut as we read it now:
In Demonstration (74) Irenaeus reinforced his view that Jesus was at least 45 with the statement "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified."[45] This would place the crucifixion no earlier than AD 42.[46]

And would state that Luke was a companion of Paul.

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

and f.i. his book on Refutations on Gnosticism.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#195036 Nov 13, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Irenaeus Against heresies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus
e.g. of nothing being as clearcut as we read it now:
In Demonstration (74) Irenaeus reinforced his view that Jesus was at least 45 with the statement "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified."[45] This would place the crucifixion no earlier than AD 42.[46]
And would state that Luke was a companion of Paul.
Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
and f.i. his book on Refutations on Gnosticism.
This link at the bottom reveals how that falsehood got in the Quran.

(Quran 4:157-158)
"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
158. Rather, God raised him up to Himself. God is Mighty and Wise."

Historical facts prove the Quran wrong.
It came from a heretic group of Christians.
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/Mohammad...

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#195037 Nov 13, 2013
http://www.theologian-theology.com/theologian...

Anselm begins by rejecting the ransom theory of the church fathers whereby Jesus’s sacrifice was a ransom paid to the devil by God, freeing sinners from the devil’s mastery. He rejects this theory on the grounds that it attributes too much authority to the devil and not enough to God. For example, Anselm argues that since both the devil and humans belong to God,“what case, then, did God have to plead with his own creature [the devil], concerning his own creature [humans](AC-108)?”

[...]
Anselm illustrates the gravity of human sin by arguing that people should avoid the slightest sin even if all creation would be “reduced to nothingness” as a result (AC-138-9). In other words, human sin results in a debt to God that is greater than the value of all creation.

[...]
But, if the debt of sin is greater than the value of all creation, how can human beings, a limited portion of that creation, offer anything adequate in payment (AC-139)? Since “it is impossible for God to lose his honor,” it would seem that God’s only option would be to punish sinful humanity, removing the possibility of eternal blessedness. Through such punishment God’s honor would be restored by reasserting that “the sinner and all that belongs to him are subject to himself (AC-123).”

However, on the other hand, if God intended blessedness for humanity then abandoning such a project in mid-stream would imply that God was either “unable to complete the good work that he began,” or that he regretted beginning it (AC-134, 151). Both of these alternatives are “absurd” to Anselm in light of God’s powerful and rational nature (AC-134), and so God must complete his human project. If such completion requires satisfaction for sin,“which no sinner can make,” it must follow that God himself supplies it (AC-148).

[...]
If the payer of human debt must offer something “of his own to God,” then this payer must be greater than all creation, i.e., God himself (AC-150). However, this one also must be human, since “none but true man owes” the debt of human sin (AC-152). Hence, the need for the God-Man—Christ (AC-151).

[...]
The implied premise is that all justice honors God. The payment was sufficiently large since a sin against the person of Christ, the God-Man, is infinitely worse than all other sins (AC-164),[...]
Anselm’s response is that God’s will is “not constrained by any necessity, but that it maintains itself by its own free changelessness (AC-170).” He distinguishes between antecedent and consequent necessity. Antecedent necessity is an external compulsion, while consequent necessity is the necessity of something that has happened, is happening, or will happen, and so seems necessarily to be. Consequent necessity is not effective but rather descriptive.

[...]
as human, Christ paid the debt owed by his race.
---
God's honor at stake.
Theodicy hinges on the notions of an all-seeing, all knowing and all-powerfull god.
But this arguement (getting rid of the devil being stronger than god) would hinge on peer-group pressure. As in entirely going against his own command/first principles just to safe face.

If the debt is paid then why the need for all this christianity?

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#195038 Nov 13, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>This link at the bottom reveals how that falsehood got in the Quran.
(Quran 4:157-158)
"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
158. Rather, God raised him up to Himself. God is Mighty and Wise."
Historical facts prove the Quran wrong.
It came from a heretic group of Christians.
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/Mohammad...
The passage:
After the negative experiences which depressed Mohammed, Khadijah sent him to her cousin, Waraqa, to convince him that Mohammed was called to be a prophet of Allah. Waraqa succeeded in his task and became responsible for most of the Qur’anic verses at the beginning. Waraqa inserted Ebionite doctrines about Jesus in the Qur’an, stating that Jesus was a prophet, and that He was not crucified, but God made someone to resemble Jesus. That one was crucified because the crowd thought he was Jesus. This doctrine was first initiated by Simon, the magician from Samaria, who later founded a heresy which took his name, Simonianism. In reality, Simon created the root for such doctrine, before it was developed by the Gnostics in later times. Here, I present Simon the magician’s idea about Jesus, which Hyppolytus reported in “The Refutation of all heresies”:

Jesus Christ being transformed, and being assimilated to the rulers and powers and angels, came for the restoration (of things). And so (it was that Jesus) appeared as man, when in reality he was not a man. And (so it was) that likewise he suffered, though not actually undergoing suffering, but appearing to the Jews to do so.[xxx][30]
---
Arians had similar ideas. Have to look at it.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#195039 Nov 13, 2013
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christ...

Just as Eusebius was writing about Christianity's defeat of paganism, one of its greatest threats was developing on the inside. Arius, a presbyter from Libya, was gaining followers around the empire, teaching, "There was a time when the Son was not." Egyptian bishop Alexander and his chief deacon, Athanasius, fumed at the teaching. The argument spread throughout the empire, promising to rip the church in two. Constantine—God's chosen instrument, as Eusebius saw him—called the Council of Nicea to close the fissure.

Since his earliest days with Pamphilus, Eusebius was enthralled with the teachings of Origen,((who has been criticized for 1,800 years for his belief that the Trinity was a hierarchy, not an equality.)) So Eusebius was less concerned with Arius's heresy than the threat of disunity in the church. When Arius was censured, Eusebius—who thought the entire debate brought Christianity the "most shameful ridicule"—was among the first to ask that he be reinstated.

(()) in case that would appear confusing. Origin is one of the old ones too.

At the Council of Nicea, Eusebius (whose name means "faithful") attempted to mediate between the Arians and the orthodox. But when the council was over and Arius was anathematized, Eusebius was reluctant to agree with its decision. He eventually signed the document the council produced, saying, "Peace is the object which we set before us." But a few years later, when the tables flipped and Arianism became popular, Eusebius criticized Athanasius, hero of the council. He even sat on the council that deposed him. Eusebius wasn't himself an Arian—he rejected the idea that "there was a time when the Son was not" and that Christ was created out of nothing. He simply opposed anti-Arianism.

As the Arian controversy continued to rage, Eusebius stayed in Caesarea—declining a promotion to become bishop of Antioch—and wrote. Among his most famous writings of this period was another history: a praise-filled Life of Constantine, his adored political leader.

---
Arianism seems to have had a longer breath, so more influentual.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#195040 Nov 13, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
The passage:
After the negative experiences which depressed Mohammed, Khadijah sent him to her cousin, Waraqa, to convince him that Mohammed was called to be a prophet of Allah. Waraqa succeeded in his task and became responsible for most of the Qur’anic verses at the beginning. Waraqa inserted Ebionite doctrines about Jesus in the Qur’an, stating that Jesus was a prophet, and that He was not crucified, but God made someone to resemble Jesus. That one was crucified because the crowd thought he was Jesus. This doctrine was first initiated by Simon, the magician from Samaria, who later founded a heresy which took his name, Simonianism. In reality, Simon created the root for such doctrine, before it was developed by the Gnostics in later times. Here, I present Simon the magician’s idea about Jesus, which Hyppolytus reported in “The Refutation of all heresies”:
Jesus Christ being transformed, and being assimilated to the rulers and powers and angels, came for the restoration (of things). And so (it was that Jesus) appeared as man, when in reality he was not a man. And (so it was) that likewise he suffered, though not actually undergoing suffering, but appearing to the Jews to do so.[xxx][30]
---
Arians had similar ideas. Have to look at it.
On the other hand do we have the question by Pilate as to whether Barabbas (son of the father, one translation states) should be freed.
Jesus was claiming this or thought to do so.
So this Barabbas was set free.
But still three men went to the valley of the skull.
With the suggestion that they were the same men as before.
We do not read of any replacement.

Is Barabbas a spurious tale?

Apart from the fact that none of the apostles were present at the crucifixion.(Though it is claimed that Simon-who-is-also-Peter was near the stone? When?)
We are faced with the fact that we suddenly have an unexplained third person.

--
Apropos arianism. The christian site gave a really simple to understand version.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#195041 Nov 13, 2013
Wilders working together with the Front National of Le Pen.
Suddenly they only had a racist, anti-semitic 'past'.
Who condoned Breivics (Norway massacre) behaviour.
Finally as predicted years ago, as in showing true colours.

Wilders no longer welcome at U. Kip the english national party. Suddenly joined by the dutch State Reformed Party as in extreme orthodox christians.
Forming another mini-european block. These are againt Europe as Union.
El Cid

Saint Albans, WV

#195042 Nov 13, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
The passage:
After the negative experiences which depressed Mohammed, Khadijah sent him to her cousin, Waraqa, to convince him that Mohammed was called to be a prophet of Allah. Waraqa succeeded in his task and became responsible for most of the Qur’anic verses at the beginning. Waraqa inserted Ebionite doctrines about Jesus in the Qur’an, stating that Jesus was a prophet, and that He was not crucified, but God made someone to resemble Jesus. That one was crucified because the crowd thought he was Jesus. This doctrine was first initiated by Simon, the magician from Samaria, who later founded a heresy which took his name, Simonianism. In reality, Simon created the root for such doctrine, before it was developed by the Gnostics in later times. Here, I present Simon the magician’s idea about Jesus, which Hyppolytus reported in “The Refutation of all heresies”:
Jesus Christ being transformed, and being assimilated to the rulers and powers and angels, came for the restoration (of things). And so (it was that Jesus) appeared as man, when in reality he was not a man. And (so it was) that likewise he suffered, though not actually undergoing suffering, but appearing to the Jews to do so.[xxx][30]
---
Arians had similar ideas. Have to look at it.
IOW, Mohammad was a demonstrably false prophet.

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#195043 Nov 13, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Can we skip the messianic internal dialogue.
It's getting stale.
rabbee: show me one messianic congregation, that says that? you won't find this, in any religion here on earth. and you can only find this, in TheTorah without the fake name to deceive you. and you shall not bear false witness, of any thing from G-D to anyone.

i did not get this from anyone, from earth. you can search high and low, here in TheTorah. and you won't find anyone, teaching what G-D gave to me to teach actually here in TheTorah. your failure to consider, we are all here in TheTorah from G-D. is your failure, in the original sin. why am i the only one, who seems to know what is the original sin. when it is actually, written in TheTorah.

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#195044 Nov 13, 2013
there ain't nobody on his planet, preaching or teaching what G-D gave to me say. because G-D, came and gave this all to me. with G-D, and ANGELS, Angels, and angels all over the place that day. even hasatan, baal hamolech, and halooseefer were there off in the distance.

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 The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 1 hr thetruth 4,515
Astrology and Paganism Thu Wolf 1
SHADOW PEOPLE... i need help (May '07) Jun 28 Friendly User17 348
News Ancient Spirituality and Commerce Clash in Mari El (Aug '10) Jun 25 yav1112 13
News Pastor: Church sign on Ramadan drew angry call,... Jun 20 The Prophet MO LIES 9
omens of dead animals (Aug '08) Jun 15 Jakes mom 112
News This Halloween, Think of Islam as a Religion of... May '16 Im a poet and I k... 2
More from around the web