Who Is Allah?

Aug 24, 2007 Full story: The Brussels Journal 207,642

“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

Full Story
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#184203 Aug 3, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure Alex is not going to miss this post of yours, Seeker!
Who cares. I believe the Gospel of John is legit. I don't know how Muslims say that John is not legit, as to then suggest the other
Gospels ARE legit. It makes no sense. I don't know why Muslims ever ask for any quotes from any Gospels. Let's face it, the only real measure that Muslims use to decide which Gospels are right or wrong, or which parts of the Gospels are right or wrong, is if it tells them what they want to hear. If it says what they want to hear, that must be the legit part. If it doesn't, that must be the illegite part. A subjective and completely flawed train wreck and disaster according to the rules of logic. I just don't know why Muslims can never see the self serving logical fallacy of that. You don't decide what is true or false based on whether something tells you what you want to hear or not. I don't do that with the Quran.

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#184204 Aug 3, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares. I believe the Gospel of John is legit. I don't know how Muslims say that John is not legit, as to then suggest the other Gospels ARE legit. It makes no sense. I don't know why Muslims ever ask for any quotes from any Gospels.

Let's face it, the only real measure that Muslims use to decide which Gospels are right or wrong, or which parts of the Gospels are right or wrong, is if it tells them what they want to hear. If it says what they want to hear, that must be the legit part. If it doesn't, that must be the illegite part.

A subjective and completely flawed train wreck and disaster according to the rules of logic. I just don't know why Muslims can never see the self serving logical fallacy of that. You don't decide what is true or false based on whether something tells you what you want to hear or not. I don't do that with the Quran.
No, no and no! I was not talking about any gospel.

I was referring to your response to Rabbee. You wrote:

"Bottom line is that you can quote nothing to back your assertions up.

There are no specific verses that say that Adam will keep returning.

There are no specific verses that say that Adam and Jesus are the same person.

There are no specific verses that say we have all repeated the same exact things three times over."

So, when we ask you to show when and where Jesus said that he was the son of God, God in flesh or God in person, the Father and God, shouldn't we say the same things that you told Rabbee?

That is what I meant, because you have no specific verses and nothing in the scripture to back your assertions at all. Right?
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#184205 Aug 3, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Bottom line is that you can quote nothing to back your assertions up. There are no specific verses that say that Adam will keep returning. There are no specific verses that say that Adam and Jesus are the same person. There are no specific verses that say we have all repeated the same exact things three times over. If you want to prove me wrong, then be my guest, but your excuses for not doing so are to be rejected and seen as you knowing that you cannot prove me wrong. You might as well not even bother with your excuses as they simply do not work and merely make you look evasive and therefore deceptive. You don't HAVE to do anything, you can just keep using excuses that do not work all that you want. It's really no problem, because I already know what a fraud you are, even if you are crazy enough to believe yourself.
rabbee: you mentally retarded add clown i just gave to you the proof in scripture. "(and G-D said, "Let US make Adam in OUR IMAGE, after OUR LIKENESS. They shall rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of the sky, and over the animal, the whole earth, and every creeping thing that creeps that creeps upon the earth.")" or "A Prophet from your midst, from your brethren, like ME shall HaShem, your G-D, establish for you - to Him shall you harken."

your fake name for Yeshooah Benee Adam, is not proof of anything. all your fake name does, is prove you a delusional liar. but the fact is, the one you are talking about has every Attribute of G-D.

and G-D has already told you, THEY gave day one to seven before this day one to 7 again. and Parashas Noach this time, is just day one with G-D giving it all again with more detail. the story does not change, to this evil and wicked world. Parashas Noach is no different this time, than the last two Torot times.

and why are there two accountings of Adam to adam and his mate in what you call genesis? why did G-D, create light twice? why were three Torah Scrolls found, with only the slightest of very infrequent variation?

your using mental magic, to try and prove your jesus is not Adam. your agreeing with the more subtle, than any other beast of the fields to disbelieve in G-D here in TheTorah. but has no foundation in TheTorah. when TheTorah is TheOnly Word of G-D we have from G-D. there is no basis for anyone called jesus, in TheTorah because it is TheG-D child Adam. and so your ignorantly denying, and rejecting your own savior in ignorance of TheTorah.

i remember the Day, G-D came and spoke to me. Their were Angels all over the place. and hasatan, baal hamolech, and halooseefer where there standing off in the distance. it is even recorded in your Book of Revelation, for about the half an hour, G-D came to speak to me TheHisMale Child adam. which is exactly in alignment with G-D coming to speak to THEIR HisSon adam. everything fits, and your mental magic is trying to make it fit your delusion.

so now your even denying your own scriptures, with the book of Revelation being the lest altered. with the world pretending their grandfather and grandmother's name is jesus when it ain't. because this is the same story, again from G-D here in IT. with you all pretending your the truth of g-ds as commanded by mr lizard lips again.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#184206 Aug 3, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am saying that there in nothing that says Adam and his mate will return. If you think I'm wrong, then quote the verses and prove me wrong.
<quoted text>
Yes, and if you think I am wrong, then quote the verses that say this and prove me wrong.
<quoted text>
The Torah is a series of books given to Moses long ago. There is nothing at all that says the Torah will be given over and over again. The same Torah that was given long ago is merely read and re-read, even today. That's it. If you want to prove me wrong, then quote the verses that prove me wrong.
<quoted text>
There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures that tell us that Jesus was the return of Adam. If you think there are and want to prove me wrong, then quote the verses that prove me wrong.
<quoted text>
I do not denounce the Torah at all, I denounce YOUR inventions that are not in the Torah.
<quoted text>
I am not in the Torah, the Torah is a book. I am in this present life at this present moment.
<quoted text>
I have nothing to do with any subtle beast, this is merely your own invention. If anybody does, perhaps it's you and this beast is responsible for masquerading as God and deluding you.
<quoted text>
There is nothing that says the ENTIRE world is going to hell. Nothing. This is ALL your invention. Some people will not. If you want to prove me wrong, then show me the verses that say EVERYBODY is going to hell (except of course you). It's simply nowhere to be found except for in your delusional head. As far as hell goes, don't be surprised if you end up there for masquerading yourself falsely and telling false stories. I doubt that God likes that very much.
rabbee: your delusion is wrong, because it says so in TheTorah. that adam and his mate, shall always be returned after the death here in TheTorah. call G-D a liar with all your blasphemy all you want, but your still bearing false witness. and i have given to you the verses that you continually reject - "(and G-D said, "Let US make Adam in OUR IMAGE, after OUR LIKENESS. They shall rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of the sky, and over the animal, the whole earth, and every creeping thing that creeps that creeps upon the earth.")" or "A Prophet from your midst, from your brethren, like ME shall HaShem, your G-D, establish for you - to Him shall you harken.". do you really honestly thing, G-D is a liar and giving a different story today? if G-D Says THEY give only TheTorah. then THEY are still giving only this. G-D is not about to give any other story without including The-Story of Adam in IT.

how many more times do you want for me to post this proof in TheTorah? for you to only, reject TheWord of G-D.

"(and G-D said, "Let US make Adam in OUR IMAGE, after OUR LIKENESS. They shall rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of the sky, and over the animal, the whole earth, and every creeping thing that creeps that creeps upon the earth.")" or "A Prophet from your midst, from your brethren, like ME shall HaShem, your G-D, establish for you - to Him shall you harken."

"(and G-D said, "Let US make Adam in OUR IMAGE, after OUR LIKENESS. They shall rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of the sky, and over the animal, the whole earth, and every creeping thing that creeps that creeps upon the earth.")" or "A Prophet from your midst, from your brethren, like ME shall HaShem, your G-D, establish for you - to Him shall you harken."

"(and G-D said, "Let US make Adam in OUR IMAGE, after OUR LIKENESS. They shall rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of the sky, and over the animal, the whole earth, and every creeping thing that creeps that creeps upon the earth.")" or "A Prophet from your midst, from your brethren, like ME shall HaShem, your G-D, establish for you - to Him shall you harken."

it is not going to change, to suit your delusion. no matter how many more times, i post The-Words of G-D.
Anonymous

Dhaka, Bangladesh

#184208 Aug 3, 2013
he is my god allha.

Say (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)):He is Allh,(the) One.
Allh-us-Samad.(The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks).
He begets not, nor was He begotten;
He begets not, nor was He begotten;
112:(1-4)

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#184209 Aug 3, 2013
THE YAJURVEDA AND THE GOSPEL OF JOHN JOHN:

1) "In the beginning was the Word (Vaak), and the Word (Vaak) was with Brahma, and the word (Vaak) was Brahma"

(Prajapati vai idam agra asit, Tasya vak dvitiya asit, Vag vai paramam Brahma)-

Source: Krishna Yajurveda, Kathaka Samhita, 12.5, 27.1

2) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Source: The New Testament, Gospel of John 1.1

It's obvious that the author of the Gospel of John was influenced by Vedantic thought.

However, the Vak or Primal Vibration of the Vedanta is not the same Vak or Word of the NT since the NT reaches up to the 4 cosmic plane, the higher vital, while the Vak of the overmind of the Vedanta begins from the 9th cosmic plane and extends upto the 12th cosmic plane.

PS: Brahma is the manifested Overmind Cosmic Consciousness-Force Principle connected with the manifestation of the cosmic mind, cosmic vital, cosmic subtle physical and cosmic gross physical planes. The quadruple Overmind planes number 9 to 12 in the cosmic hierarchy.

Source: Krishna Yajurveda, Kathaka Samhita, 12.5, 27.1

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#184210 Aug 3, 2013
typo - THE YAJURVEDA AND THE GOSPEL OF JOHN:

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#184211 Aug 3, 2013
QUALIFIED NON-DUALISM IN THE NT:

1) "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you."

- John 14:20

2) "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

- Ephesians 4:5-6

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#184212 Aug 3, 2013
The nondualism of Jesus was of an ordinary vital nature - union in consciousness of the Son's consciousness with the consciousness of the Father (typal being of the cosmic vital plane) on the plane of the cosmic vital consciousness with the Son being a manifestation or an embodiment of the Father.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#184213 Aug 3, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
THE YAJURVEDA AND THE GOSPEL OF JOHN JOHN:
1) "In the beginning was the Word (Vaak), and the Word (Vaak) was with Brahma, and the word (Vaak) was Brahma"
(Prajapati vai idam agra asit, Tasya vak dvitiya asit, Vag vai paramam Brahma)-
Source: Krishna Yajurveda, Kathaka Samhita, 12.5, 27.1
2) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Source: The New Testament, Gospel of John 1.1
It's obvious that the author of the Gospel of John was influenced by Vedantic thought.
However, the Vak or Primal Vibration of the Vedanta is not the same Vak or Word of the NT since the NT reaches up to the 4 cosmic plane, the higher vital, while the Vak of the overmind of the Vedanta begins from the 9th cosmic plane and extends upto the 12th cosmic plane.
PS: Brahma is the manifested Overmind Cosmic Consciousness-Force Principle connected with the manifestation of the cosmic mind, cosmic vital, cosmic subtle physical and cosmic gross physical planes. The quadruple Overmind planes number 9 to 12 in the cosmic hierarchy.
Source: Krishna Yajurveda, Kathaka Samhita, 12.5, 27.1
rabbee: well apparently the jews, christians, and muslems, are not the only ones, who can screw up this story. as if they, are not enough. so according to your version, which one am i again as the father of all on earth? i guess you have your own, false name like jesus for me?
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#184214 Aug 3, 2013
the only chance adam might have, to meet a woman by the name of eve. is if this lying world uses, another bogus name for chaooah.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#184215 Aug 3, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no and no! I was not talking about any gospel.
I was referring to your response to Rabbee. You wrote:
"Bottom line is that you can quote nothing to back your assertions up.
There are no specific verses that say that Adam will keep returning.
There are no specific verses that say that Adam and Jesus are the same person.
There are no specific verses that say we have all repeated the same exact things three times over."
So, when we ask you to show when and where Jesus said that he was the son of God, God in flesh or God in person, the Father and God, shouldn't we say the same things that you told Rabbee?
That is what I meant, because you have no specific verses and nothing in the scripture to back your assertions at all. Right?
In the NT Jesus is called the last Adam. Both Adam and Jesus have been reincarnated but they're two different people. They're both on the side of the enemy, and Jimmie is neither one of them. There is supposed to be a single seed of Adam, this is his counterfeit messiah who he appeared to and commissioned. Genesis 3:15. "...I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed...". In the next generation, it was Cain and Abel and then Seth. Genesis 4:25 "...For God, said she, has appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew". Jesus does fulfill the criteria of the seed of Adam and his new name is Bill. Rev. 3:12 "...and I will write upon him my new name".

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#184216 Aug 3, 2013
John 1:1 made extremely easy to understand

In the beginning, God was the only word. It was all about God.

There was only God in the beginning.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#184217 Aug 3, 2013
bmz wrote:
John 1:1 made extremely easy to understand
In the beginning, God was the only word. It was all about God.
There was only God in the beginning.
Exactly. John 1:1.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Take away the capital letters, and maybe you have something.:-)
God has no beginning, therefore in the beginning cannot mean God's beginning. It also cannot mean the Word's beginning, because the Word was WITH God 'in the beginning.' The word was already there, in the beginning. Certainly it speaks of the beginning of something, and that beginning was not referring to God or the word, which was with God and was God. Interesting.

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#184218 Aug 3, 2013
CouldThisBeTrue wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. John 1:1.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Take away the capital letters, and maybe you have something.:-)
God has no beginning, therefore in the beginning cannot mean God's beginning. It also cannot mean the Word's beginning, because the Word was WITH God 'in the beginning.' The word was already there, in the beginning. Certainly it speaks of the beginning of something, and that beginning was not referring to God or the word, which was with God and was God. Interesting.
Interesting indeed.

It is noon here and must be midnight over there, so good night to you.

Will write later after I come back.

Good night.
Bruce Springsteen

Saint Albans, WV

#184219 Aug 3, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Good motivational song for a pyromaniac. LOL!!
What makes this video special is Courteney Cox!

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#184220 Aug 3, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: well your not being true to G-D, can make all the false witness accusations you want. you have not stood in the presence of G-D, and heard the judgment of this whole world and their grandmother again. i already told you, it's too late for you to be redeemed.
tell all the lies, from the subtle critter of the field you want. you can claim, your not here in TheTorah from G-D all you want now. your blasphemy is your to own in eventual oblivion. the problem of this world is not civil disobedience against the beasts, it is civil obedience with the subtle talking critters again. in their battles, of civil subtle talking critter vs the other civil talking critters.
and you have made it clear, your on the side of some subtle talking critters. while you falsely accuse me, while your obamanation and it's false going san hedreen is going down the drain. and here you are defending them, with your also disbelief in G-D.
You are a LIAR rabbee!

The Torah you speak of does not exist!
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#184221 Aug 3, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no and no! I was not talking about any gospel.
I was referring to your response to Rabbee. You wrote:
"Bottom line is that you can quote nothing to back your assertions up.
There are no specific verses that say that Adam will keep returning.
There are no specific verses that say that Adam and Jesus are the same person.
There are no specific verses that say we have all repeated the same exact things three times over."
So, when we ask you to show when and where Jesus said that he was the son of God, God in flesh or God in person, the Father and God, shouldn't we say the same things that you told Rabbee?
But those things can be produced from the Gospel of John. That's why I brought John up. This is the Gospel that gives Christians those ideas. I didn't ask rabbee for EXACT words, like you clowns do, just verses that can back his assertions up in some way. Get it now? Get why I brought the Gospel of John up? Christians don't just invent those ideas out of thin air like rabbee invents ideas, there are scriptures that give them these ideas. If you don't believe in their legitimacy, that's a different matter.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#184223 Aug 3, 2013
CouldThisBeTrue wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. John 1:1.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Take away the capital letters, and maybe you have something.:-)
God has no beginning, therefore in the beginning cannot mean God's beginning. It also cannot mean the Word's beginning, because the Word was WITH God 'in the beginning.' The word was already there, in the beginning. Certainly it speaks of the beginning of something, and that beginning was not referring to God or the word, which was with God and was God. Interesting.
It's amazing that BMZ doesn't see what any common sense person should see. He actually thinks this is saying that God had a beginning.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#184224 Aug 3, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: well apparently the jews, christians, and muslems, are not the only ones, who can screw up this story.
I think you do a better job at that than anybody

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
Million-Mummy Cemetery Unearthed in Egypt Dec 23 Binders Full of W... 2
Tonga's Nukuleka, the birth place of Polynesia (Jan '08) Dec 23 iSland Olosega 1,971
Video: Drone footage shows damage Greenpeace di... Dec 21 Cordwainer Trout 2
Tonga May Have Been a Vast Seafaring Empire Dec 16 uiha 5
Stonemason James Vieira of Ashfield studies &#x... (Dec '12) Dec 9 sam 5
Alleged Dead Sea Scrolls Looters Indicted Dec 9 How Stuff Works 1
Oldest Metal Object in Middle East Discovered Dec 8 Bill 1
More from around the web