Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 256266 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.

Seeker

Lowell, MA

#192138 Oct 15, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong place and frankly one of your links brought it up.
I suggest starting here.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TT8...
pg 9037 though you might have brought it up in the post i quote that might have been on one of the former pages.
You Seeker hold the position that there is no difference between the OT and the tanakh.
That has nothi8ng to do with Jesus' apostles calling him Lord or Adonai. Why are you trying to divert?
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
One of your links brings up adonai.
Not before you brought it up first. I would never bother to bring up Adonai unless someone chose that as the actual word for Lord. I used the word Lord. You make absolutely no sense, and either your miond in disheveled or this is a purposeful and willful diversion to confuse things.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians read this as lord.
One translation of a torah verse even has The lord of Lord the LORD.
According to the newest living translation committee we are supposed to use it like that.
But to make it short. I am not the originator of the issue, but rather follow suit where you took of.
Yes, I asked why Jesus' apostles called him Lord, and said that this means God in the Hebrew tradition, whether it is a euphemism for it or not, and I asked why he never rebuked them for calling him that. And you tried to correct me in your response by saying that the word is Adonai, and it merely means master or rabbee. But it doesn't merely mean that and even the article you provided clearly says that.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I linked to wiki, the simplest source, because it allready disagreed in the detail.
It did NOT at all. Look at what I re-quoted from your own copy and paste above.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
For some reason i can not get you to understand that:'placeholder' or 'pseudonym' OUT OF REVERENCE, are definitely not the same as christians or messianics reading Adon=LORD THUS Jesus allover the place.
But I wasn't even the one who brought the word Adonai up in the first place. YOU were. You brought it up to suggest that this was the word being translated and that it actually does not mean God, it means master or rabbee. It's all in writing. I never even said what word they were translating to arrive at Lord. YOU did. And now the deck gets reshuffled. I feel like I am playing one of those street corner shell game scams, where the ball keeps magically moving to a different shell.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#192139 Oct 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
What does this have to do with what we were talking about? How did we end up here?
ÈEDUUCAATIUUN

When you start posting : JESUS IS LORD
http://defendingcontending.com/2010/10/04/jes...

in the gospels... suddenly became alloever the place, as it does for most christians.

You can not take adonai simply to mean elohim, unless used in some form of judges and elders.
But as far as g-d goes i'm not entirely convinced.
That's not my discussion with you, but in general about the use.

Frankly the discussion started about apostles, ahmad, paracletos and wondering whether Jibreel is some sort of apostle given the greek words meaning apo-from stole-it sent.
Well messanger getting a broad use also.
And angels(wrong word/term closer to djin or spirit)- Messengers are also called elohim.

So god is everywhere...too much :))
--

So we are still in the same discussion but try to be more discrete.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#192140 Oct 15, 2013
MAAT wrote:
http://hermeneutics.stackexcha nge.com/questions/4360/where-d oes-the-tanakh-differ-from-the -christian-old-testament
In this site you posted you ignored the EXPLICIT nature of the question.
As did one of the people answering it.
You took his reply as gospel...no difference.
I will tell you that apart from the differences in what books are used and the name of god there still are at least 70,000 differences.
70,000 differences? Would you care to substantiate that?
MAAT wrote:
Well this is in short the discussion.
OK, so let's change back to the other topic and sweep your mistakes under the rug. I get it. If you didn't want to talk about my inquiry about why Jesus' Apostles called him Lord, which meant God in Hebrew tradition, then you shouldn't have responded to it in the first place. If you never wanted to talk about Adonai, then you shouldn't have been the first person to bring it up and suggest that it only means Master or Rabbee as to suggest that Jesus' Apostles were not referring to him as God, as per the Hebrew tradition and euphemism.

I think that after getting a whiff of your tap dancing and diversions, it seems pretty pointless to discuss much else with you. The bar will always move or there will be a diversion as soon as you run into a problem. I get it now.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#192141 Oct 15, 2013
From that same mormon site ( From joseph Smith, vile stuff like: The native americans are slave because jesus apeared in America to tell the white man to be lord in his name...yep those mormons)

•King David •Matthew 22:43-45; Mark 12:36-37; Luke 20:42-44—He said to them,“How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying:‘YHVH said to my Lord,“Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’? If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?”

•John the Baptist •John 1:22-23—Then they said to him,“Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” He said:“I am ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight the way of the LORD,”’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”

---Isaiah definitely did not mean Jesus.
Nor does Davids example apply in any way.
---

The only way to get to the title lord is via the word Adonai.

Maybe i'm going to fast but i gather most understood that right away. That would be the source and only accepted source.

If i write baal-lord, all hell breaks loose with christian denials.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#192142 Oct 15, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
ÈEDUUCAATIUUN
You can not take adonai simply to mean elohim, unless used in some form of judges and elders.
This is from the link YOU posted.

"Hebrew tradition makes Adon "lord" or Adonai "my lord" an epithet of the God of Israel, depicted as the chief antagonist of "the Ba`als" in the Tanakh. The epithet came to be used as an euphemism to avoid invoking the deity's proper name, Yahweh."

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#192143 Oct 15, 2013
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/wildca...

just one site mentioning several good sources.

Mind it is not giving 70,000 + examples.
What you should search/google for
is Textual criticism of the bible.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#192144 Oct 15, 2013
MAAT wrote:
F
The only way to get to the title lord is via the word Adonai.
Then why did YOU bring up Adonai in your response to me noting that they called Jesus Lord and why did you try to say that it merely means master or rabbee? You don't even remember the things you say, but fortunately, it's all in writing. Your logic is all over the map.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#192145 Oct 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
This is from the link YOU posted.
"Hebrew tradition makes Adon "lord" or Adonai "my lord" an epithet of the God of Israel, depicted as the chief antagonist of "the Ba`als" in the Tanakh. The epithet came to be used as an euphemism to avoid invoking the deity's proper name, Yahweh."
epithet...euphemism

and what did i say about wiki? Just the most simple general source of knowledge, with discussionpages also!
Even they make it Obvious that it is a placeholder.
It's not Adon and adnai allover the bible.
Talk about another big difference between torah/tanakh and OT.
Furthermore if you allready count the NT along, 70,000 is nothing.

Now compare that with Jesus is lord, allover the place...

So the question would still be why mormons can not make distinctions?

Or rather when, and under what circumstances did Adonai (plural Majestic i think hebrew for christians termed it) come to be used?
And why did christian correctors think the word should thus be interjected everywhere?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#192146 Oct 15, 2013
MAAT wrote:
http://www.answering-islam.org /authors/wildcat/nt_criticism_ issues.html
just one site mentioning several good sources.
Mind it is not giving 70,000 + examples.
What you should search/google for
is Textual criticism of the bible.
You said there are at least 70,000 differences between the Old Testament and the Tanakh, and now you give me an article that mainly talks about discrepancies in the New Testament. You make absolutely no sense at all. Don't you even read what you type? Again, your logic is all over the map and keeps shifting in a very bizarre way.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#192147 Oct 15, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
epithet...euphemism
and what did i say about wiki? Just the most simple general source of knowledge, with discussionpages also!
You don't quote something and then trash the source you chose to quote. Again, you make absolutely no sense at all.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Even they make it Obvious that it is a placeholder.
It's not Adon and adnai allover the bible.
Then why did you even bring the word Adonai up in response to me saying the Jesus' Aposteles called him Lord, meaning God? Once again, you make zero sense at all.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk about another big difference between torah/tanakh and OT.
Furthermore if you allready count the NT along, 70,000 is nothing.
So this is the second time you have now said your are speaking about differences or discrepancies between the tanakh and the OT, and yet you link an article that talks about discrepancies between different book of the NT. Once again, you make zero sense at all. And we know we are never going to find any source in the world to substantiate your 70,000 figure. At this point, I am beginning to discover that you are not merely trying to be evasive or playing confusion games, your mind is actually very disheveled.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Now compare that with Jesus is lord, allover the place...
So the question would still be why mormons can not make distinctions?
Or rather when, and under what circumstances did Adonai (plural Majestic i think hebrew for christians termed it) come to be used?
When his Apostles called him that.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
And why did christian correctors think the word should thus be interjected everywhere?
Maybe because they translated from the word Adonai as you even first suggested? If you were not suggesting that, then why did you even bring that word up? I just said the word Lord, and you brought up Adonai to correct me and tell me that it merely means master or rabbee as to suggest that they weren't calling him God. So why did you do that?

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#192148 Oct 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did YOU bring up Adonai in your response to me noting that they called Jesus Lord and why did you try to say that it merely means master or rabbee? You don't even remember the things you say, but fortunately, it's all in writing. Your logic is all over the map.
The latter first.
No it is not. What is annoying however, is the need to backtrack and read also all sites given.
And in the Original the distinction woud not be so hard to make.

I would say that you Seeker veered of the discussion about paracletos and messengers to end up with this question of which the importance alludes me...master or rabbee.
So i would say that you took the freedom to bring it up and therefore i'm allowed the fredom to speculate.
Or i could simply have said that it is totally irrelevant since it's lord alavro anyway, so who gives a shite about what those verses might have meant once.
Unless your stuck in tadpole water and the intricacies of an Aramaic learned (since he went to jeruzalem, education being easy in those days) Samaritan (since they spoke Aramaic just as Samaritans did) Jesus that goes to visit his hometurf.

You gave a verse...did the person speaking mean master or rabbee?
According to you that latter was not the case.
Then to demonstrate you brought up that mormon website with lord any which way.
But where does the use of 'lord' come from?
That's also the NT question thus.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#192149 Oct 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
You said there are at least 70,000 differences between the Old Testament and the Tanakh, and now you give me an article that mainly talks about discrepancies in the New Testament. You make absolutely no sense at all. Don't you even read what you type? Again, your logic is all over the map and keeps shifting in a very bizarre way.
We are now mainly discussing the NT ( I usually try to avoid it) but let's build up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticis...

https://www.google.nl/search...

any and all on TC on the OT.
Also how to know what is the Original tekst (that question was posed somewhere)
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#192152 Oct 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, their story makes Jesus out to be a tricky, deceiving coward, even though they are supposed to hold Jesus in respect.

And they don't even realize that. It never occurs to them. So what I said is actually correct or else the implications of their weaved stories would have occurred to them and they never would weave such insulting stories. But if anybody said that Muhammad ever made deals and went into hiding and had someone else killed for him, they would go ballistic.

So nope, everything I said was true and is being proven right now.

There are no words such as "objectivity" or "consistency" in the Muslim dictionary. I have many years of experience on forums like this, and it is a very consistent pattern with them.

This behavior isn't just found here, it is found on every single Muslim forum I have ever been on. There is something unique about Islam that makes them this way. As I always say, it can't be a genetic thing, so it must be an Islamic thing.
It is not our story, Seeker. The absurdities in the Bible show Jesus more than that. The gospels show Jesus avoiding answers and instead gibving off-topic answers. That is not our fault.

I quote from your scripture and eyt not a single christian is able to refute.

Let me test your honesty and integrity right now:

If you check out the footnotes printed in various versions of the Bible, the footnotes say that the sentence in Luke 23:34 was not present in the ancient manuscripts. It was added later.

Did I cook up this story? Having read your scripture, I know many verses which were not even present in the ancient manuscripts.

Now be honest and tell me why should anyone believe that Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", when the ancient manuscripts do not have that sentence?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#192153 Oct 15, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
The latter first.
No it is not. What is annoying however, is the need to backtrack and read also all sites given.
And in the Original the distinction woud not be so hard to make.
I would say that you Seeker veered of the discussion about paracletos and messengers to end up with this question of which the importance alludes me...master or rabbee.
That is what you said that caused me to bring up the point of his apostles calling him Lord.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TT8...
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
So i would say that you took the freedom to bring it up and therefore i'm allowed the fredom to speculate.
Or i could simply have said that it is totally irrelevant since it's lord alavro anyway, so who gives a shite about what those verses might have meant once.
Unless your stuck in tadpole water and the intricacies of an Aramaic learned (since he went to jeruzalem, education being easy in those days) Samaritan (since they spoke Aramaic just as Samaritans did)
So Jesus was a Smaritan? I already quoted you the verses that clearly say he was not.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus that goes to visit his hometurf.
You gave a verse...did the person speaking mean master or rabbee?
According to you that latter was not the case.
Correct.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Then to demonstrate you brought up that mormon website with lord any which way.
We can even use the link you posted where it clearly said that Adonai was used as an epithet or euphemism for the Hebrew God, Yahweh. It clearly said that on the link YOU posted. Don't you even read the links you post before you post them?
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
But where does the use of 'lord' come from?
That's also the NT question thus.
Well, as soon as I raised the issue of his Apostles calling him Lord, YOU raised the word Adonai and tried to suggest that it merely means master or rabbee. So I guess, at that point, you thought their translation came from the word Adonai and you tried to suggest that Adonai only means master or rabbee so that you could correct me when I said that they meant God when they called him Lord. Otherwise, you would have never even mentioned the word, because I never mentioned it until you did. So YOU were the one who was first to suggest where they got their translation from. But now the deck has been reshuffled once again. I think that's enough for me. All you are going to do is to keep trying to change things and confuse things that you YOURSELF did. If someone is willing to stoop to that, then this can go on forever.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#192154 Oct 15, 2013
MAAT wrote:
From that same mormon site
I only used the Morman site because it was the first one that I found that listed the instances where they referred to Jesus as Lord, but it quoted the verses accurately. So as long as it does that, it doesn't matter whether it is a Morman site or not. Again, more diversions.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#192155 Oct 15, 2013
I'm reading back in this thread.
In any case not the page you gave!

So stop protesting so much but help clear this up.

What i do know is that adonai is usually translated as lord or master, never as rabbee or elder or Judge or Messenger.(if so that would be wrong)

One more little thing, or rather 2.
You embarked on the discussion as to whether OT and the HB were the same.
Any and all here have said they are not.
----
Did david actually say this and how do we conclude it was from the spirit or even the holy spirit:

He said to them,“How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,…(Matthew 22:43).

David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:“‘The Lord said to my Lord:“Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet”’(Mark 12:36).

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#192156 Oct 15, 2013
Titles don't matter, deeds do.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#192157 Oct 15, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not our story, Seeker. The absurdities in the Bible show Jesus more than that. The gospels show Jesus avoiding answers and instead gibving off-topic answers. That is not our fault.
I quote from your scripture and eyt not a single christian is able to refute.
Let me test your honesty and integrity right now:
Whoa whoa whoa, wait a second. There is no mention of anybody being drunk or given alcohol. So why didn't the person scream "I'm not Jesus". Anybody about ready to get executed would have screamed that even if they were beaten up. Also, why would the Sanhedrin want Jesus to go free instead of a Jewish rebel? The Romans didn't even know who Jesus was and didn't care. It was the Jewish Authorities that wanted him crucified because of the claims he was making and because he was highly critical of them. Why would the Romans insist that Jesus go free? Anyway, here are the actual verses.

13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them,“You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.”[17][a]

18 But the whole crowd shouted,“Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!” 19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)

20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting,“Crucify him! Crucify him!”

22 For the third time he spoke to them:“Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.”

23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will.

And if this guy was not an extremely good look alike, how did Mary Magdalene get fooled? Do all people with dark hair and maybe a beard all look the same to her? Ridiculous.

Look, you were the one who made the story up, so you are now going to have to answer for it and defend it. I did not ask you to make these ridiculous stories up.

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#192158 Oct 15, 2013
Adonai = God, Lord.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#192159 Oct 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Well for someone who is here in TheTorah, you sure do a good job of ignoring the Torah.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
It says they sewed leaves together so it is meant to be literal. Why do you try to twist the Torah to suit your own needs?
rabbee: TheTorah consists of leaves, that are sewed together.

and in the first accounting, the fig leaves has to do with the leaves of a new testament from the more subtle than any other beast of the fields. that they were made, to feel naked without.

and in the second accounting of adam and his mate is from G-D: it says G-D made for adam and his mate garments of skin. and anyone who has TheTorah knows it is made, from animal skin.

and it would appear, that you are the ones using a twisted version of TheTorah, to see what somebody else wants you to see.

as you also falsely claim that man is made in The-Image of G-D. when it, does not even say that. and is too obvious that none of you, are The Image of G-D today. neither jew, christian, muslim or other pagan, is any where close to The OUR IMAGE, and LIKENESS of G-D. it only says Adam is made in The OUR IMAGE, and LIKENESS of G-D, aka the fake name jesus christ. Who G-D had put to death because there was, nobody here in TheTorah again.

and so no! i do not believe, that G-D has gotten this story wrong. that you all have been misled, to get wrong again.

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 India is on the hunt for 24 - untraceable' hist... Mon Archaeonaut 1
Meteorite Uses Since Ancient Times Jan 3 John 1
King Tut's Dagger was Made From a Meteorite Jan 3 John 1
Grid Gardens Dec '17 kingoftheamericas 2
News Saudi prince throws his weight behind archaeology Nov '17 LUKE 2
Protuberances on ancient stonework as a global ... Nov '17 cecelia hall 1
News Team excavates sod house near Iqaluit, with sit... Nov '17 Time Change Weekend 1
More from around the web