Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 253949 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.

JOEL

Mumbai, India

#167217 Mar 12, 2013
Bye.
John

Brisbane, Australia

#167219 Mar 12, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to understand, to a Jew, learning Greek is ESSENTIAL if only to allow us to order a Souvlaki with the proper trimmings.
You have to understand, to a Jew, learning Greek was as ESSENTIAL in the ancient world as learning English is ESSENTIAL in the modern world.
You do speak English, don't you Frijoles???
John

Brisbane, Australia

#167220 Mar 12, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
"The bible says"... is not evidence.
You have no evidentiary basis. And to make matters worse, the gospels are hearsay, which are the weakest form of evidence.
"The bible says"... is not evidence.
Bwahhahhahhahhahhahhah!
If you are discussing the Bible then the Bible is the primary source of evidence.
Furthermore, the gospels are not "hearsay". Fragments are extant from the FIRST CENTURY, indicating they were likely written by people who had seen Jesus themselves.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#167222 Mar 12, 2013
Pomp and pageantry that poor Jesus did not receive.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/6629200...
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#167223 Mar 12, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
St Paul - apostle, prophet and messenger to the gentiles - preached the true Gospel of Jesus the Christ. St Paul was a prophet of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!
So St. Paul was a prophet of God?

This is the latest...please make sure that he is lower in rank than Jesus.

Because in reality he is higher than Jesus.

He wrote 14 books in the NT, while "poor" Jesus has only four. And none of them worthy enough to be quoted by Prophet Paul!!
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#167224 Mar 12, 2013
Dear all,

Here is a very revealing extract. Please save a copy. It tells us about the Great Fraud after the fraudulent Great Commission.

"The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament.

For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).

This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ.

In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).

That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history.

There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time. "

Thanks, dear all.

Truly yours
BMZ
MUQ

Qatif, Saudi Arabia

#167226 Mar 12, 2013
Excerpts from the Gospel of Barnabas, Part-70

Chapter 151 Who is a true Pharisee?

Jesus then embarked on a ship, and the disciples were sorry that they had forgotten to bring bread. Jesus rebuked them, saying: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees of our day, for a little leaven mars a mass of meal." Then said the disciples one to another:'Now what leaven have we, if we have not even any bread?'*

Then Jesus said:'O men of little faith, have you then forgotten what God wrought in Nain, where there was no sign of corn? And how many ate and were satisfied with five loaves and two fishes? The leaven of the Pharisee is want of faith in God, and thought of self, which has corrupted not only the Pharisees of this day, but has corrupted Israel.

For the simple folk, not knowing how to read, do that which they see the Pharisees do, because they hold them for holy ones.…

Chapter 152 Jesus in Jerusalem
Jesus having come to Jerusalem, and having entered one sabbath day into the Temple, the soldiers drew near to tempt him and take him, and they said: "Master, is it lawful to wage war?" Jesus answered: "Our faith tells us that our life is a continual warfare upon the earth." Said the soldiers: "So would you convert us to your faith, and wish that we should forsake the multitude of gods (for Rome alone has twenty-eight thousand gods that are seen) and should follow your God who is one only and for that he cannot be seen, it is not known where he is, and perhaps he is but vanity."

Jesus answered: "If I had created you, as our God has created you, I would seek to convert you." They answered: "Now how has your God created us, seeing it is not known where he is? Show us your God, and we will become Jews." Then Jesus said: "If you had eyes to see him I would show him to you, but since you are blind, I cannot show you him." The soldiers answered: "Surely, the honour which this people pays you must have taken away your understanding. For every one of us has two eyes in his head, and you say we are blind." …

Chapter 153

The priests and Pharisees murmured among themselves and said: "He has the wisdom of Baal and Ashtaroth, and so in the power of Satan has he done this." Jesus opened his mouth and said: "Our God commanded that we should not steal our neighbour's goods. But this single precept has been so violated and abused that it has filled the world with sin, and such [ sin] as shall never be remitted as other sins are remitted: seeing that for every other sin, if a man bewail it and commit it no more, and fast with prayer and almsgiving, our God, mighty and merciful, forgives. But this sin is of such a kind that it shall never be remitted,, except that which is wrongly taken be restored.

Then said a scribe:'O master, how has robbery filled all the world with sin? Assuredly now, by the grace of God, there are but few robbers, and they cannot show themselves but they are immediately hanged by the soldiery.' Jesus answered:'Whoso knows not the goods, they (sic) cannot know the robbers;. No, I say to you truly that many rob who know not what they do, and therefore their sin is greater than that of the others, for the disease that is not known is not healed.' Then the Pharisees drew near to Jesus and said:'O master, since you alone in Israel know the truth, teach you us.'….

(Abridged)
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#167227 Mar 12, 2013
Dear uhuh

Please take a note of the above revealing post. Thanks

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#167229 Mar 12, 2013
bmz wrote:
Pomp and pageantry that poor Jesus did not receive.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/6629200...
Look what Allah did to Jesus.
Allah had Jesus whipped, scourged, and beaten, just so that Jesus could be a Warner to the Jews that the prophet Muhammad was coming.
How merciful it was "Not" of Allah then to call Jesus back to heaven.

And oh how Allah boasted after the Romans nearly beat Jesus to death, saying "they killed him not"!

Allah the merciful one.
John

Brisbane, Australia

#167230 Mar 12, 2013
bmz wrote:
Dear all,
Here is a very revealing extract. Please save a copy. It tells us about the Great Fraud after the fraudulent Great Commission.
"The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament.
For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).
This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ.
In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).
That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history.
There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time. "
Thanks, dear all.
Truly yours
BMZ
Nice try bullshitter.
The Catholic Encyclopaedia was written between 1912 and 1914.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclo...
There have been many many archaeological discoveries since then.
http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-testament...
And for these manuscripts to spread so far the original must have been written many years before the manuscripts themselves.
You lose again bmz.
LOL.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#167231 Mar 12, 2013
bmz wrote:
Dear all,
Here is a very revealing extract. Please save a copy. It tells us about the Great Fraud after the fraudulent Great Commission.
"The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament.
For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).
This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ.
In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).
That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history.
There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time. "
Thanks, dear all.
Truly yours
BMZ
Post the link to that article?
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#167232 Mar 12, 2013
NOMA - YUCK!

I've been told that NOMA, the world's best resturant, located in Copenhagen, serves repulsive fare. Like for instance, the plat du jour may announce toasted ants on one day, caterpillars in lemongrass sauce on another day or fried butterflies on some other day. I guess this is mild stuff when compared to the disgusting culinary items like lizard soup or stir-fried roaches dished up in certain Chinese restaurants.
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#167233 Mar 12, 2013
restaurant not resturant
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#167234 Mar 12, 2013
TODAY'S PLAT DU JOUR:

Flesh and Blood of the crucified Jesus !

(smiles)
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#167235 Mar 12, 2013
MUQ wrote:
So St. Paul was a prophet of God?

This is the latest...please make sure that he is lower in rank than Jesus.

Because in reality he is higher than Jesus.

He wrote 14 books in the NT, while "poor" Jesus has only four. And none of them worthy enough to be quoted by Prophet Paul!!
Great post, MUQ

Glad you spotted the lie.

"Paul the prophet of God" always cracks me up.

When Paul came out of the blue and filled the vacuum left by Jesus and his disciples, he noticed that Jesus had left nothing written.

He knew that Jesus was an illiterate and could not write, so he went on the writing spree. If one takes out the gospels, one would notice that Paul fills the NT.

Half of Paul's letters are considered fraud and forgeries, written by others.

Salaams
BMZ
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#167236 Mar 12, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>Post the link to that article?
No link!

You can read it again and lay your hands on Catholic Encyclopedia and read. Details have been given.

Dear all,

Here is a very revealing extract. Please save a copy. It tells us about the Great Fraud after the fraudulent Great Commission.

"The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament.

For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).

This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ.

In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).

That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history.

There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time. "

Thanks, dear all.

Truly yours
BMZ
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#167237 Mar 12, 2013
JOEL wrote:
TODAY'S PLAT DU JOUR:

Flesh and Blood of the crucified Jesus !
(smiles)
lol!

Cooked or uncooked?

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#167244 Mar 12, 2013
bmz wrote:
Dear all,
Here is a very revealing extract. Please save a copy. It tells us about the Great Fraud after the fraudulent Great Commission.
"The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament.
For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).
This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ.
In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).
That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history.
There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time. "
Thanks, dear all.
Truly yours
BMZ
You are an idiot.
You don't have the capacity to understand what you read.
The bible was completed as a complete Bible after collecting all the early writings of the Apostles in the fourth century.

Historical Dating of the Gospels of Jesus Christ.

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [29]) view as follows:
Mark: c. 68–73,[30] c. 65–70.[31]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[30] c. 80–85.[31]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[30] c. 80–85.[31]
John: c. 90–100,[31] c. 90–110,[32] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts mentions neither the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was put to death by the Romans c. 65[citation needed], nor any other event post AD 62, notably the Neronian persecution of AD 64–65 that had such impact on the early church.[33] Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating the New Testament John A. T. Robinson, a prominent liberal theologian and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

JOEL

Mumbai, India

#167246 Mar 12, 2013
The Absolute is beyond all Truths.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#167248 Mar 12, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
No link!
You can read it again and lay your hands on Catholic Encyclopedia and read. Details have been given.
Dear all,
Here is a very revealing extract. Please save a copy. It tells us about the Great Fraud after the fraudulent Great Commission.
"The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament.
For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).
This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ.
In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).
That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history.
There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time. "
Thanks, dear all.
Truly yours
BMZ
You are an idiot.
You don't have the capacity to understand what you read.
The bible was completed as a complete Bible after collecting all the early writings of the Apostles in the fourth century.

Historical Dating of the Gospels of Jesus Christ.

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [29]) view as follows:
Mark: c. 68–73,[30] c. 65–70.[31]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[30] c. 80–85.[31]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[30] c. 80–85.[31]
John: c. 90–100,[31] c. 90–110,[32] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts mentions neither the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was put to death by the Romans c. 65[citation needed], nor any other event post AD 62, notably the Neronian persecution of AD 64–65 that had such impact on the early church.[33] Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating the New Testament John A. T. Robinson, a prominent liberal theologian and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

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
News Airport runway battle heats up in Macon (Mar '09) Aug 15 Curious 31
News Ruby Rose reveals John Wick 2 co-star Keanu Ree... Aug 14 daredevil82 2
News Archaeologists in Serbia Unearth Ancient Spells... Aug 14 srbosjek 2
News Tonga's Nukuleka, the birth place of Polynesia (Jan '08) Aug 11 Faa Samoa 1,978
News Preservation unit under probe - Hawaii News (Aug '09) Jul '16 Georgina 45
Cities’ Identity Through Architecture and Arts ... Jul '16 moabdallah 1
News On This Day: King Tut's Tomb Unsealed (Jan '13) Jul '16 Antonia 4
More from around the web