Who Is Allah?

There are 220237 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.

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#166398 Mar 8, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
What it shows is that Jesus and His followers used the Greek Septuagint.
The Greek Septuagint was never not considered the Holy Scripture. It was just a simple and a very poor translation of the first five books of the Jewish Bible.

Jesus could not read Greek.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#166399 Mar 8, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I never do that. I just bring up absurdities, forgeries and serious contradictions to Christians' attention.
The baptism of Jesus is strikingly the most absurd story. To me, it is a hoax.
To you, it is true. Which one do you believe is correct of the following two?
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, "
And compare it with Acts 2:37-38
"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles,“Brothers, what shall we do?”
Peter replied,“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
In whose name did Peter baptize? Let me have your esteeemed spin on this, please.
Which name are you referring too?
Jesus was called by many different names by his disciples. Including the Messiah, Master, the one promised by the prophets and rabbi. While many of his disciples may have been uneducated fisherman they seemed to know that he was the one promised in the Old Testament.

Jesus in Matthew 28:19 gave the disciples the command to baptize
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#166400 Mar 8, 2013
uhuh wrote:
only Peter, James and John witnessed Jesus "metamorph" and talking to Moses and Elijah
if the author of Gospel of John was really the apostle John, he should've mentioned this important event
That is a very good observation, uhuh.

Many Johns wrote john.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#166401 Mar 8, 2013
uhuh wrote:
after speaking in riddles, never getting to the point, leaving the crowd wondering what the hell he just said,
"After speaking these things, Jesus went away and hid himself from them" (John 12:36) lol
Was it because if Jesus knew that if he told the Jews that God was sending Muhammad as their Messiah as Muslims Claim they would crucify Jesus?

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#166402 Mar 8, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a very good observation, uhuh.
Many Johns wrote john.
An ignorant Muslim observation.
A dumb dumb assumption by "uhuh" proven wrong by Scripture.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#166403 Mar 8, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
The Greek Septuagint was never not considered the Holy Scripture. It was just a simple and a very poor translation of the first five books of the Jewish Bible.
Jesus could not read Greek.
You are ignorant
Jesus read Isiah from it in the Hellenist Greek Jews synagogue.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#166404 Mar 8, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
All you have to do is to think and I never see you doing that.
You never see my thinking because you are a Muslim, and a Muslim never thinks with his brain.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#166405 Mar 8, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
The verse is so easy to understand. There is no mention of Jesus in it.
You need to get a new translator.
Read mu post.

It may be added that this interpretation accords with the connection in which the word occurs. Though it may be admitted that the connection would not "necessarily" lead to this view, yet this interpretation is in entire harmony with the statements in the previous verses, and in the following verse. Thus, in the previous verse, the psalmist had said that "his flesh would rest in hope," - a sentiment which accords with either the idea that he would at some future period be raised from the grave, and would not perish forever, though the period of the resurrection might be remote; or with the idea of being raised up so soon that the body would not return to corruption, that is, before the change consequent on death would take place. The sentiment in the following verse also agrees with this view. That sentiment is, that there is a path to life; that in the presence of God there is fulness of joy; that at his right hand there are pleasures forevermore - a sentiment, in this connection, founded on the belief of the resurrection from the dead, and equally true whether the dead should be raised immediately or at some remote period. I infer, therefore, that the apostles Peter and Paul made a legitimate use of this passage; that the argument which they urged was derived from a proper interpretation of the language; that the fair construction of the psalm, and the fact that David "had" returned to corruption, fully justified them in the application which they made of the passage; and that, therefore, it was the design of the Holy Spirit to convey the idea that "the Messiah" would be raised from the dead without undergoing the change which others undergo in the grave; and that it was thus "predicted" in the

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#166406 Mar 8, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
The Greek Septuagint was never not considered the Holy Scripture. It was just a simple and a very poor translation of the first five books of the Jewish Bible.
Jesus could not read Greek.
which when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians; or Hellenist Jews, who were born and brought up in Greece, and spoke the Greek language; though the Alexandrian copy, and the Syriac version, read "Greeks", as if they were native Greeks,
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#166407 Mar 8, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>

lol! That was cute!
Ya Ma.

Isn't Ma a popular Chinese name?

(smiles)

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#166408 Mar 8, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
For three years, the disciples could not understand a thing of what Jesus spoke. How much could Jesus teach and how much could they have learned within a short walk on the track?
In Acts 2, Peter lies boldly by saying, "32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it."
He and other disciples were not witnesses to the alleged resurrection.
And here I am opening your mind on the broadband, to show the deliberately twisted and distorted translations in the OT.
Your mind is twisted like a pretzel.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#166409 Mar 9, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>Your mind is twisted like a pretzel.
Actually it should be applied to you and not to BMZ.

How you people "believed" that Jesus "appointed" Paul as his 13th Apostle?

Your problem started with this "assumption" and it shall never end unless you solve this basic riddle.

This is the Pretzel Twist you are calling about.

If your "basic hypothesis" is wrong, all conclusions derived from it would be wrong.

Just expunge all the letters of Paul from your NT and then re-read it. It would make a totally different sense.

It shows that twists of your pretzel and getting straightened!! Try it and I tried it and it helped a lot!!
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#166410 Mar 9, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has claimed to an expert translator. The problem with you is that you have no knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and te non-scriptural language Greek.
Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic are very close. Idioms, figuratives, etc are strikingly similar. And that is why we can easily understand the context and true meanings of Jewish Scripture, without even knowing Hebrew.
By the way, there are many words, which are common among Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic but there is nothing common between Hebrew and Greek.
We just want you to try and compare different translations and try to detect wrong insertions, forgeries, etc.
A very masterpiece post BMZ.

We can understand most of "aramaic words" which Jesus spoke and which are recoded "verbatim" in the NT books, even when we do not understand Aramaic as a language. The same holds for Hebrew.

And as you pointed out there is nothing common between Hebrew and Greek.

East is east and west is west and the twain shall never meet.

Christianity (of St. Paul) was an attempt to patch Western Ideas into an "eastern religion" preached by Jesus, and that is why there is so much confusion.

But your post was really brilliant.

Salaam

MUQ
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#166411 Mar 9, 2013
Shamma wrote:
Jesus in Matthew 28:19 gave the disciples the command to baptize
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Peter did not follow that so-called command at all.

Peter baptized ONLY in the name of Jesus.

You cannot deny this! Don't even try. OK?

How come that trinitarian formula for baptism was not mentioned in the other three gospels?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#166412 Mar 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
A very masterpiece post BMZ.

We can understand most of "aramaic words" which Jesus spoke and which are recoded "verbatim" in the NT books, even when we do not understand Aramaic as a language. The same holds for Hebrew.

And as you pointed out there is nothing common between Hebrew and Greek.
East is east and west is west and the twain shall never meet.

Christianity (of St. Paul) was an attempt to patch Western Ideas into an "eastern religion" preached by Jesus, and that is why there is so much confusion.

But your post was really brilliant.

Salaam
MUQ
Thanks, MUQ for the compliment.

If Jesus' teachings were understood in his native language, there would have been no Christianity at all.

The Greek language ruined it all.

If Paul had not gone West (Turkey, Greece and Rome), this triune God would never have been concocted and created to win pagan converts for the religion founded by Constantine.

Salaams

BMZ
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#166414 Mar 9, 2013
JOEL wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya Ma.
Isn't Ma a popular Chinese name?
(smiles)
Not really. It is spelled as Mah. Another name is Mak.

The most popular names are Tan, Lim, Leong, Wong, Ho and Loh here.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#166415 Mar 9, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>

Which name are you referring too?

Jesus was called by many different names by his disciples. Including the Messiah, Master, the one promised by the prophets and rabbi. While many of his disciples may have been uneducated fisherman they seemed to know that he was the one promised in the Old Testament.

Jesus in Matthew 28:19 gave the disciples the command to baptize
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Which name was I referring to? I did not ask you the various names of Jesus.

The question was: Under whose name did Peter baptize the people?

And my post showed that Peter did not baptize folks in the name of the three. So, it is quite obvious that Matthew 28:19 was a forgery.

Under whose name did John baptize Jesus?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#166416 Mar 9, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>You are ignorant
Jesus read Isiah from it in the Hellenist Greek Jews synagogue.
Another lie! Jesus spoke Aramaic and possibly Hebrew.

Now it is Hellenist Greek Jews Synagogue! lol!

Scripture was always read in Hebrew in all synagogues. Ever heard of Jews reciting and praying in English or Greek?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#166417 Mar 9, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>You need to get a new translator.
Read mu post.
It may be added that this interpretation accords with the connection in which the word occurs. Though it may be admitted that the connection would not "necessarily" lead to this view, yet this interpretation is in entire harmony with the statements in the previous verses, and in the following verse. Thus, in the previous verse, the psalmist had said that "his flesh would rest in hope," - a sentiment which accords with either the idea that he would at some future period be raised from the grave, and would not perish forever, though the period of the resurrection might be remote; or with the idea of being raised up so soon that the body would not return to corruption, that is, before the change consequent on death would take place. The sentiment in the following verse also agrees with this view. That sentiment is, that there is a path to life; that in the presence of God there is fulness of joy; that at his right hand there are pleasures forevermore - a sentiment, in this connection, founded on the belief of the resurrection from the dead, and equally true whether the dead should be raised immediately or at some remote period. I infer, therefore, that the apostles Peter and Paul made a legitimate use of this passage; that the argument which they urged was derived from a proper interpretation of the language; that the fair construction of the psalm, and the fact that David "had" returned to corruption, fully justified them in the application which they made of the passage; and that, therefore, it was the design of the Holy Spirit to convey the idea that "the Messiah" would be raised from the dead without undergoing the change which others undergo in the grave; and that it was thus "predicted" in the
Utter nonsense!

There is no mention of a Messiah in the Torah. Only a prophet was foretold.

And there is no mention in the Jewish Scriptures of a messiah, who was to be a son of God, who would die and get resurrected.

Please stop lying and start thinking hard.

Your salvation is only from the Jews as Jesus said. So please listen to Jesus, revert to Judaism and start going to synagogues.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#166418 Mar 9, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>which when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians; or Hellenist Jews, who were born and brought up in Greece, and spoke the Greek language; though the Alexandrian copy, and the Syriac version, read "Greeks", as if they were native Greeks,
What has this piece from Acts 11 to do with what I said?

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.

Archaeology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Screenwriter needs to consult... Mon Teslafan 1
Hands-on Archaeology of New Mexico Exhibit at t... May 23 Dairine 1
News Hair Extension Found On Ancient Egyptian Woman May 5 Akhenaten 1
News Giant Easter Island 'Hats' Rolled Into Place, S... Apr 27 peterw 1
Is Nebuchadnezzar II responsible for the ruins ... Apr 26 Cyler 1
News The History of Human Migration (Feb '13) Apr '15 jake10 2
News "Digging" the Archaeological Study Bible; Curre... (Jan '08) Apr '15 Crazy Talk 12
More from around the web