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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#193760 Oct 27, 2013
Seeker wrote:
And MAAT, your angle keeps changing and it changes so much that it is hard to keep up with. You were pointing out earlier how the Saducees didn't believe in resurrection at all and that was why they were asking Jesus about marriage to catch him and make his idea look silly. They weren't asking about the nature of resurrection and they had no idea that he was going to say what he said. They were questioning about resurrection itself as if it is a silly idea, not the nature of it. They were trying to say the idea is silly by raising the problem that would happen if people were resurrected as to which of the 7 would be her husband after being resurrected. And you seemed to be on board with their point of view. You suggested that the idea of resurrection was a Greek idea. Now you don't seem to be on board with them, and the point now is all about the nature of resurrection rather than resurrection itself. So NOW it's the NATURE of the resurrection that is now the point and now THAT is being used to show Jesus was espousing Greek ideas. But even that is not true as this can be found in Hebrew ideas.
Hey the man asks and speaks...about winged angeloi.
I told you before : do not bother.

Greek or not, it's a point we can never get confirmed unless we could travel back in time.

If we include the question on the women the message is essentially that in heaven no dead people can be found, all are alive.
(easy interpretation, and i shows that the sadducees were allready aware of the arguement and prepared to have a good laugh, they get a non-sequitur.) But as i wrote their is an issue of the law being revoked.
Would (if we presume him real) Jerusalem not have been destroyed if he had not provoked them?

And what salvation but for 7 hypothetical jews!
And noone have seene nor hearde anything yet.
A god-awfull lot of wars and bloodshed, yes.

I like to go on fishing trips too, but my stance would be kind of comparable with the sadducees given all the hate spouted freely and unthinkingly.

But that is not entirely right. This time i'm not using the greek orignal, or as close too, text, but as is!!!
So i can imagine the translators trying to add head and foot to the translatin and logic dictating an ever closer resemblance to the text as it is now.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#193761 Oct 27, 2013
Seeker wrote:
And MAAT, your angle keeps changing and it changes so much that it is hard to keep up with. You were pointing out earlier how the Saducees didn't believe in resurrection at all and that was why they were asking Jesus about marriage to catch him and make his idea look silly. They weren't asking about the nature of resurrection and they had no idea that he was going to say what he said. They were questioning about resurrection itself as if it is a silly idea, not the nature of it. They were trying to say the idea is silly by raising the problem that would happen if people were resurrected as to which of the 7 would be her husband after being resurrected. And you seemed to be on board with their point of view. You suggested that the idea of resurrection was a Greek idea. Now you don't seem to be on board with them, and the point now is all about the nature of resurrection rather than resurrection itself. So NOW it's the NATURE of the resurrection that is now the point and now THAT is being used to show Jesus was espousing Greek ideas. But even that is not true as this can be found in Hebrew ideas.
I should make it clearer, something like winged angels is foreign to them.

messengers in heaven...??? None know what that is like, apart from not having to marry, nor be forced into marriage, even though those men are as real as even with unchanged nature.(different use of the word)

But i maintain that it might have been a dispute, it became ever more intangible as there was no possibility of an actual heir of the house of David, male nor female having the option of giving birth.

But again sticking to the NT as is, there is no reason to walk away. Later plenty are provided.

So far so good. well in the greek text this would not be an option.
Then we use logos f.i. as Heraclitus meant it, and read that the old god is dead because he lacks spunk.
A real mess, not making sense at all, untill you notice the verses that are connected resurrection and salvation and the new god with his ahmad./advocate.
That seems to be the only message. Then include the question and read that old god is out on a raft.
At the end we end up with trinitarian ideas. Bus those are absolutely not jewish. Though the god Baal fits the picture as does Mithra and others.
So that is the search. In greek practices threes were perfectly natural as Agricultural deities f.i. so back into the past.
And Athanasius must have figured the same.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#193762 Oct 27, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Well at least now we are talking about what the verses really mean.
<quoted text>
It did not say that he confused them or else there would be more questions from them. I don't know exactly why, but apparently they understood what he was referring to
<quoted text>
This is from the article I quoted.
"The next Enoch apocalypse (Ethiopic Enoch, xci.-civ.) looked for a resurrection of the righteous, but as spirits only, without a body (comp. ciii. 3, 4). A later Enoch apocalypse (Ethiopic Enoch, xxxvii.-lxx.) expresses the conviction that both the righteous and the wicked will be raised (comp. li 1, 2; lxii. 15, 16), and that the spirits of the righteous will be clothed in a body of glory and light.
The author of the Slavonic Book of Enoch (Book of the Secrets of Enoch, xxii. 8-10) believed in a resurrection of spirits, without a body. He nevertheless believed in a spiritual body, for he describes the righteous as clothed in the glory of God. The authors of the Book of Jubilees and the Assumptio Mosis believed in a resurrection of the spirit only, without a body (comp. Jubilees, xxiii. 31 et al., and Assumptio Mosis, x. 9).
All these believed that the soul would sleep in Sheol till the judgment,"
<quoted text>
Nowhere is his resurrection talked about as what will happen to people on the last day.
Those are all later texts. And most have vague references to a year that was specific for them, but not to us.
You keep qouting things that were writtne much later, that can not be authoritative.

Did i give the source?
http://www.livius.org/saa-san/sadducees/saddu...
That contains all that is known about them, from the maccabees till 70 CE the destruction of the temple.
I quoted the relevant ones.

This all there is.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#193763 Oct 27, 2013
Shiraz

Amsterdam, Netherlands

#193764 Oct 27, 2013
Love the different as well.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#193765 Oct 27, 2013
Shiraz wrote:
Love the different as well.
da's mooi.
Welcome.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#193766 Oct 27, 2013
Anasthasius also known as athanasian creed later, as in the 5th century.
MOD SOD TOPIX. it's as if it is not registering.
---
Legontos matt 22:31 with a capital letter because it's orphaned in the christian translation. If we look at the greek and use the cut-off point we have legontos a verb without a subject.
Matt 22;31-32
Legontos
Ego emein o theos Abraam kai o theos isaak kai o theos iakôb: ouk estin theos [o] nekron alla zôtôn.
he/they were saying
I I BE god of Abram and of Isaak and of jacob:
not being god [of] death but alive.

Christians translate it thus:
The saying
I AM the god of Abraham and the god of Isaak and the god of Jacob?[God]is not of [the] dead but [god] of the living.

The other options takes Jesus resurection and salvation away, they argue who's HE?:
The saying
I AM the god of (forefathers)? HE is not of death but god of life.

The questionmark leading to the idea that yhvh 's funeral was planned in either christian version.
But the version with HE is better if go with the christian use of reading Jesus as Jahweh is salvation.
And various verses alluding or outright stating this concept.
Even though life can also be read as be more rebellious, don't take this roman by proxy occupation lying down.
But he had a parsha discussed just before about dead jewish women being resurrected when they arrive in heaven -ouranos.

Ouranos our archetypical raingod

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#193767 Oct 27, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/judaism/T...

Seeker you also still have to address a post.

While i go and relax and leave transformations for another day.
hostis-also translated as victim.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193769 Oct 27, 2013
MAAT wrote:
But the Sadducees already had a different view, so this could be expected.
And a bit of rudeness was what they were used to themselves.(non authorative source)
So what was muzzling them?
His overwhelming presence?
Maybe the fact that he gave them an answer they didn't consider? I don't see any place where he told them to shut up.
MAAT wrote:
Nah, i figure they had heard it all before except the angels, though Messenger was a common term.
Then they would have continued to try to poke holes in what he was saying as they were trying to do in the first place.
MAAT wrote:
Nothing to be muzzled about nor to be astonished about
Notice we've suddenly acquired a crowd. Matt.22:33
30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[b]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching."
Does astonished mean confused?
MAAT wrote:
The sadducees here in this version that I I BE is dead, the forefathers and the strict law do not count. Well to be that outspoken in public would make peole draw breath.
Source please?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193770 Oct 27, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are all later texts. And most have vague references to a year that was specific for them, but not to us.
You keep qouting things that were writtne much later, that can not be authoritative.
The article that I referenced is quoting or referencing pre Jesus Judaism and is from a reliable Jewish source itself. So what are you talking about?
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Did i give the source?
http://www.livius.org/saa-san/sadducees/saddu...
That contains all that is known about them, from the maccabees till 70 CE the destruction of the temple.
I quoted the relevant ones.
This all there is.
What does that have to do with what I am saying?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193771 Oct 27, 2013
MAAT wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/rel igion/judaism/TT8JHO8GH6HK7IJP A/p9135#c193727
Seeker you also still have to address a post.
While i go and relax and leave transformations for another day.
hostis-also translated as victim.
The link you gave leads to the top of a page, not a specific post. I found post 193727 and it is a post my BMZ. Is that the post you meant?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193772 Oct 27, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I should make it clearer, something like winged angels is foreign to them.
Now it is winged Angels, even though that was neither mentioned by Jesus or the Hebrew sources I referenced. So your point keeps on getting adjusted as needed as the circumstances change. And i think that will continually happen as each error gets unraveled. So I think I've had enough at this point, as nothing can ever be established one way or the other with someone who is willing to do that. If someone is willing to do that, then the sky is the limit, if someone can keep adjusting what they say as the circumstances dictate. There is no limit.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
messengers in heaven...??? None know what that is like, apart from not having to marry, nor be forced into marriage, even though those men are as real as even with unchanged nature.(different use of the word)
But i maintain that it might have been a dispute, it became ever more intangible as there was no possibility of an actual heir of the house of David, male nor female having the option of giving birth.
Aren't these the problems that the Saducees saw about the concept of a physical resurrection rather than a spiritual one? If it is a spiritual one, then they have their answer, which is probably why they never asked any more questions because they expected Jesus to answer about the logical problems that a physical resurrection would have, rather than a spiritual one. So if you are on board with a physical resurrection, then maybe you should answer the questions of the Saducees that they asked Jesus, because he answered them in a different way than you could if you are on board with a physical resurrection.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
But again sticking to the NT as is, there is no reason to walk away. Later plenty are provided.
So far so good. well in the greek text this would not be an option.
Then we use logos f.i. as Heraclitus meant it, and read that the old god is dead because he lacks spunk.
A real mess, not making sense at all, untill you notice the verses that are connected resurrection and salvation and the new god with his ahmad./advocate.
That seems to be the only message. Then include the question and read that old god is out on a raft.
At the end we end up with trinitarian ideas. Bus those are absolutely not jewish. Though the god Baal fits the picture as does Mithra and others.
So that is the search. In greek practices threes were perfectly natural as Agricultural deities f.i. so back into the past.
And Athanasius must have figured the same.
You really make a lot of unsubstantiated theories up. And for some reason you REALLY need it to always point back to the Greeks. No matter what your theory is or how you piece it together. And when anybody tells you otherwise, you either ignore it, or reformulate your point to make it come right back to the Greeks from a different angle, after the other one has been shown as questionable. It takes an agenda to behave that way.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193773 Oct 27, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
it's an unholy muddle.
maybe understood by the era they were living in...to by all means not forget to mention christian sources.
Which had been the norm since 1090 CE.
BMZ
That is not from the Scripture. What does the Tanakh say?

MAAT

it's an unholy muddle.
maybe understood by the era they were living in...to by all means not forget to mention christian sources.
Which had been the norm since 1090 CE.

MAAT as long as you continually criticize the NT without applying the same logic to the Quran, this guy is going to praise you and feed your ego to the end of the earth. But don't dare to start being analytical about the Quran, or you will find out what is really going on behind all of this ego feeding praise he is giving you. He is playing you like a fiddle. And I am still waiting to find out who the author of much of the Torah is, given the format in which it was written, but you don't seem to be willing to apply the same rules and analytical glasses to that as you are more than willing, or even bent on applying to the NT. That;s no big deal. You are allowed to do whatever you feel like here, but it is duly noted.

Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193774 Oct 27, 2013
MAAT wrote:
I could pick this apart in many ways, but conversation with you is already too complex and your stances keep changing, so I don't even want to get into this with you right now.

But I will bring up one point. Yes, the Hebrew scriptures say young woman rather than virgin, but would you care to explain to me how a birth would be seen as a "sign" unless there was something very unusual about that birth? Why would a "young" woman giving birth be a sign in of itself unless there was something very unique about that birth that made it different than all of the other young women giving birth at that time? Is everybody just supposed to ignore that a birth in of itself is being called a sign? What sign would a normal birth in of itself be giving? What is the sign behind a young woman merely doing what many other young woman did?
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#193775 Oct 27, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I could pick this apart in many ways, but conversation with you is already too complex and your stances keep changing, so I don't even want to get into this with you right now.
But I will bring up one point. Yes, the Hebrew scriptures say young woman rather than virgin, but would you care to explain to me how a birth would be seen as a "sign" unless there was something very unusual about that birth? Why would a "young" woman giving birth be a sign in of itself unless there was something very unique about that birth that made it different than all of the other young women giving birth at that time? Is everybody just supposed to ignore that a birth in of itself is being called a sign? What sign would a normal birth in of itself be giving? What is the sign behind a young woman merely doing what many other young woman did?
Very good questions, Seeker. They are useful to those who desire truth. I have not been following the exchanges but I believe that I know the word in dispute. So, ask her if the word has been applied to virgins. The answer is YES and so it does not exclude virgins.

I have had the same debate with her fellows and it is the same nonsense.

Take the words KNOW or KNEW they do not mean SEX but the bible uses them to mean sex. Here is one such example, "And Adam KNEW Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord."
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#193776 Oct 27, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I could pick this apart in many ways, but conversation with you is already too complex and your stances keep changing, so I don't even want to get into this with you right now.
But I will bring up one point. Yes, the Hebrew scriptures say young woman rather than virgin, but would you care to explain to me how a birth would be seen as a "sign" unless there was something very unusual about that birth? Why would a "young" woman giving birth be a sign in of itself unless there was something very unique about that birth that made it different than all of the other young women giving birth at that time? Is everybody just supposed to ignore that a birth in of itself is being called a sign? What sign would a normal birth in of itself be giving? What is the sign behind a young woman merely doing what many other young woman did?
Also when it exposes their false doctrines they will call you a literalist.

Ask her if she accepts that God has a FACE, BACK etc?

Compare her answer to her approach on the matter that you are discussing with her. Also compare her beliefs to what is plainly stated in the scriptures.

One example taken from Exodus 33 and it involves Moses wanting to see God's face.

When the passage is read it will be observed that God did not deny that He had a FACE. Instead, He basically said that He had a FACE.What He told Moses was that he could not see it and LIVE.

How could Moses see a FACE that does not exists?

Ask her to explain the full text. Let her tell you that FACE, BACK, HAND does not mean what it says.

"You cannot see My FACE. For no man can see Me and live!” 21 Then the Lord said,“See, there is a place beside Me. You stand there on the rock. 22 While My shining-greatness is passing by, I will put you in the large crack of the rock. And I will cover you with My HAND until I have passed by. 23 Then I will take My hand away and you will see My BACK. But My face will not be seen.”"
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#193777 Oct 27, 2013
Best of luck, Seeker. You will need it.
warner

London, UK

#193778 Oct 27, 2013
HughBe wrote:
Best of luck, Seeker. You will need it.
To look at God's face would be similar to looking at the Sun in the sky without sunglasses, after looking at the brightness you are left blind! We can imagine what God looks like but even Moses was not allowed to see His face! The scripture is clear, but to ask Seeker to explain it when it is clear what it says, is ridiculous! Seeker knows God has a face and the nearest she/he can get to how God looks is, He will look like Jesus, but Jesus did not have a portrait drawn/painted, so who really knows? I know someone who knows what Jesus looks like, but l won't tell you his name! Muslims/ Mohammadians will probably think God looks like Mohammad but again there is no portrait, so it's your imagination!

I think that you want to ask Seeker what God looks like, but is Seeker a Prophet greater than Moses? Sometimes, you ask Christians ridiculous things!

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193779 Oct 27, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I could pick this apart in many ways, but conversation with you is already too complex and your stances keep changing, so I don't even want to get into this with you right now.
But I will bring up one point. Yes, the Hebrew scriptures say young woman rather than virgin, but would you care to explain to me how a birth would be seen as a "sign" unless there was something very unusual about that birth? Why would a "young" woman giving birth be a sign in of itself unless there was something very unique about that birth that made it different than all of the other young women giving birth at that time? Is everybody just supposed to ignore that a birth in of itself is being called a sign? What sign would a normal birth in of itself be giving? What is the sign behind a young woman merely doing what many other young woman did?
See, a virgin woman who gives birth a child couldn't be a sign for the simple reason that no one can prove she was virgin. All the people can think she did it with someone without telling to her parents and then told us she gave birth to a child by being virgin.

In that age as now if a young girl, say a teenager, gives birth to a child and she claims to anyone she is virgin,(no sex with anyone) then would you or any one else believes to her or would you think she lied, she did it with someone and deny it?

Furthermore the virginity of a person is something intime and it cannot be verified by people, therefore virginity as a sign doesn't make much sense. A sign should be something that anyone can see and verify without a doubt.

What the 7th chapter of Isa says is that after the birth of that child, born from a young woman, will happen what was supposed to happen.

An important note, when Yeshua was born the two countries that were against king Ahaz were destroyed?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193780 Oct 28, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
See, a virgin woman who gives birth a child couldn't be a sign for the simple reason that no one can prove she was virgin. All the people can think she did it with someone without telling to her parents and then told us she gave birth to a child by being virgin.
In that age as now if a young girl, say a teenager, gives birth to a child and she claims to anyone she is virgin,(no sex with anyone) then would you or any one else believes to her or would you think she lied, she did it with someone and deny it?
Furthermore the virginity of a person is something intime and it cannot be verified by people, therefore virginity as a sign doesn't make much sense. A sign should be something that anyone can see and verify without a doubt.
What the 7th chapter of Isa says is that after the birth of that child, born from a young woman, will happen what was supposed to happen.
Well since this woman was never identified, how would anybody be able to know a birth as a sign when so many women gave birth? Also, I believe that a woman could be identified as a virgin if she still is one by checking if the hymen is still present.
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
An important note, when Yeshua was born the two countries that were against king Ahaz were destroyed?
16 Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.

All that it says is that this will happen before the child knows to refuse evil and choose good. There's no time frame really given at all as to when this child will be born. None of it is conclusive as Isaiah was very cryptic. He probably should have at least said who this child would be born to or said something like the daughter of a King or whatever. Otherwise, the birth cannot be a sign because using your same logic, nobody could recognize it as a sign and nobody could know which child is the sign.

But at least according to the story of Jesus, some immediately recognized his birth as a sign of the coming Messiah. At least according to the story.

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 Stone tools prove humans at work 15,000 years ago (Mar '11) Feb 9 BINGO FART 3
News Did Ancient Greeks Sail to Canada? Feb 6 Vasily Ivanov 1
News Ruins of historic mission ranch among few remai... (Dec '09) Feb 1 NEWS FART 2
News Shawn Vestal: When cows were the cornerstone of... Jan 28 jarrfan 1
Scota origin? - mother of Scotland Jan 26 cecelia hall 1
News India is on the hunt for 24 - untraceable' hist... Jan '18 Archaeonaut 1
Meteorite Uses Since Ancient Times Jan '18 John 1
More from around the web