Ban on angels, stars and other decorations on county Christmas trees
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20091221/NEWS/912219968/1349?Title=Ban-on-angels-stars-on-county-Christmas-trees
An angel and other religious symbols have been ordered removed from Christmas trees in government buildings in Sonoma County following a complaint.
Irv Sutley, a disabled 65-year-old Marine veteran of Santa Rosa who said the symbols were "extremely offensive" and part of the "cult" of Christianity was pleased with a subsequent e-mail sent by acting County Administrator Chris Thomas of Sonoma County, California to managers of all 26 county departments instructing them to remove religious symbols like angels and stars from holiday displays.
IF they can ban angels, and religious symbols, then they ahve to ban the tree as it is a pagan religious symbol.
It has long been known that those living north of Santa Barbara in Northern California are a little suspect. Mental illness is rampant in that half of the state. I did not see anything in the article that suggested the gentleman was a marine, only a veteran.
Larryj
In the article it said that the "symbols" need be removed so that "we can celebrate the season but not appear to endorse Christanity"....what a bunch of liberal nonsense. The reason we celebrate Christmas is the birth of CHRIST. Leave it to Kalifornia.
Doesn't it just make you want to punch their lights out? Seriously....we give more power to nut cases, and they just grab all the BS
and run with it. Others just sit back, shake their heads and sigh. Makes me MADDER than H - E - double sunshine.
Jo
What's bad is if I say that it's extremely offensive that they left them off as that shows that they're denying my chosen religion, you know they wouldn't put them back up. We do everything we can to please the atheist and all the other religions, but God forbid we should do anything that pleases the Christians.
Personally, I would like to see the look on their faces when they are standing before the Almighty, trying to convince Him that He doesn't exist.
Varmit......................++++++++++++++++100...
Quote from: larryJ on December 24, 2009, 12:03:38 AM
I did not see anything in the article that suggested the gentleman was a marine, only a veteran.
Larryj
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580959,00.html
I think some one should have this man committed. He is nuttier than a peach orchard boar.
How dare the officials take the request of ONE --one?? PERSON to do these removals , against the
wishes of all the rest? Something is very wrong with this picture. I'm surprised we aren't reading
where the county residents are rising up against this action. They should be.....
Quote from: Jo McDonald on December 24, 2009, 12:16:01 PM
I think some one should have this man committed. He is nuttier than a peach orchard boar.
How dare the officials take the request of ONE --one?? PERSON to do these removals , against the
wishes of all the rest? Something is very wrong with this picture. I'm surprised we aren't reading
where the county residents are rising up against this action. They should be.....
Jo, you have to remember where this is taking place. Christ told us things like this would happen, well, He didn't mention specifics but He did say that Christians would be hated. The trick is to not hate back. Which (and I am guilty of it) is hard to do.
I don't think i would equate hatred for christmas with hatred for christianity. As mentioned previously, christmas has very little to do with christianity or Jesus.
That being said, to answer the question of Sonoma, one word comes to mind, Wine.
Whatever. Lets just forget the fact that the majority of people the world over celebrate christmas to honor the birth of Christ.
Ah yes, another one looking for publicity. Just remember what Madeline Murray O' Hare managed to do. Rise above it. It's what's in our hearts that matters.
Quote from: Varmit on December 24, 2009, 03:29:25 PM
Whatever. Lets just forget the fact that the majority of people the world over celebrate christmas to honor the birth of Christ.
So the majority knows whats best? hmmm does that mean you also believe that Obama was the best choice for pres?
Thank you, Warph, I can always depend on you to keep me informed correctly.
Larryj
Quote from: Anmar on December 24, 2009, 04:41:25 PM
So the majority knows whats best? hmmm does that mean you also believe that Obama was the best choice for pres?
No. Anmar it doesn't. Don't be so dense. Aren't you always arguing that we should do "what is in the best interest of America"? Do really think that it is in our best interest to deny the majority the right to be able to celebrate what is recognized as one of their most sacred holidays? Espcially when you consider that only a small handful find it offensive? Is that how a "democracy" is supposed to work?..that the minority is able to dictate to the majority?
Quote from: Varmit on December 25, 2009, 08:17:23 AM
Is that how a "democracy" is supposed to work?..that the minority is able to dictate to the majority?
No! Democracy is Mob Rule. The way the liberals want it is, in all things except government they want it setup as minority dictates everything. Then when it comes to government the mob dictates how government is to be.
They say screw the constitution which prevents the mob rule from forcing government on the minority. Christmas is neither government nor subject to minority rule.
From the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/24/us/AP-US-Government-Christmas.html
SANTA ROSA, Calif. (AP) -- The top official in California's Sonoma County has rescinded a ban on stars and angels on Christmas trees in county buildings.
Following a barrage of criticism, (acting) Administrator Chris Thomas on Wednesday reversed his order banning the ornaments two days earlier. He apologized in an e-mail to employees for ''any inconvenience and disruption.'' (I have all ideas that acting ADM Thomas has just pissed his new position down the toilet)
''You are encouraged to use your best judgment with respect to appropriate decorations for our public spaces,'' Thomas wrote.
Thomas' ban order was prompted by a complaint from Santa Rosa resident Irv Sutley, who says the county should not show favoritism to any religion. Sheryl Bratton, an attorney for the county, had said the county risked a lawsuit even if the ornaments were legal.
Local church leaders spoke out against the ban, and at least one county employee openly defied the order. Public defender Barry Collins, who is Jewish, erected a Christmas tree adorned with a star in the lobby window of his office. He called the ban ridiculous and said his office's mission was to represent those whose Constitutional rights are infringed. (Way to go, people)
Thomas' decision came after county supervisor Shirlee Zane sent him an e-mail arguing the ban was a decision that should involve the full board of supervisors.
''The fact we have a star on the Christmas tree in front of the White House tells me this not a hard and fast issue,'' Zane said.
The Supreme Court has ruled that governments can display Christmas trees but cannot support Christian doctrine.
Sutley said he would consult with attorneys before deciding whether to sue. He called the reversal a ''real slap in the face to agnostics, atheists and every person who believes in the separation of church and state.'' (He wont sue... if he does he'd better move)
Billy, you totally missed the point. I think people should celebrate what they want. I know that Christmas has nothing to do with christianity, but i appreciate the time off to spend with family. Its not really offensive to me that anyone celebrates their holidays, and frankly i could care less.
The point is, just because 300 million people think Jesus was born on december 25th doesn't make it true, and its not. People need to go and read their bibles.
Anmar, regardless of when Christ was born, Dec. 25th is the day it is celebrated. Fact is, no one knows EXACTLY when that day was.
Quote from: Anmar on December 25, 2009, 07:34:35 PM
Billy, you totally missed the point. I think people should celebrate what they want. I know that Christmas has nothing to do with christianity, but i appreciate the time off to spend with family. Its not really offensive to me that anyone celebrates their holidays, and frankly i could care less.
The point is, just because 300 million people think Jesus was born on december 25th doesn't make it true, and its not. People need to go and read their bibles.
Does it really make a difference whether He was born December 25th or June 4th or October 15th? It's the fact that we do honor His birthday and celebrate the day He came to live a perfect life and die for our sins so that we might be reconciled to God and have life everlasting. We have only been celebrating His birth on Christmas day for 100's of years and so it matters not where Christmas actually started, but that it is a time when we as Christians do recognize His birth and His coming.
And if you think it doesn't have anything to do with Christianity, you need to read the news more. There isn't hardly a time goes by that there isn't a mention of someone somewhere trying to do away with something that has links to Christianity. From taking prayers out of schools to pushing Bible studies held by students off campuses to pulling the 10 commandments out of government buildings to trying to take "In God We Trust" off our money to taking the symbols of Christianity off Christmas trees. The more we allow to be taken away the more they will continue to do so.
It does matter when you start mixing pagan religous traditions with christianity, which is what christmas is really all about.
Quote from: Anmar on December 25, 2009, 10:27:36 PM
It does matter when you start mixing pagan religous traditions with christianity, which is what christmas is really all about.
Those traditions are only "mixed" if you allow them to be. I know that some consider the Christmas tree to be a pagan symbol, but not in my house. To us the tree represents the Cross on which Christ paid for our sins and gave us the gift of salvation. We teach our children that the reason we give gifts is to show our love to one another. To us, there is nothing pagan about Christmas.
I have to agree with Varmit on this. It hasn't been a pagan holiday for hundreds and hundreds of years. You know, when an animal has been wild and then kept and bred almost exclusively in captivity for so long, pretty soon it is no longer wild, but domesticated. Seems to me that Christmas has been a Christian holiday long enough now to no longer be considered a pagan holiday.
You can't change your religion to suit your individual needs.
Quote from: Anmar on December 26, 2009, 07:34:53 PM
You can't change your religion to suit your individual needs.
What the heck are you talking about? You make absolutely no sense.
Quote from: Anmar on December 26, 2009, 07:34:53 PM
You can't change your religion to suit your individual needs.
I'm not. And even if I were I believe that a persons walk with God is between that person and God.
But hey, since you brought it up...why have you remained silent on this until now? Why haven't you spoken up on this point sooner? Its not like you haven't had the oppurtunity to do so. Why haven't you spoken up on the so-called peaceful religion of Islam? Muslims, more than anyone, twist the koran to fit their needs, why haven't you spoken against them??
"Twisted" is a good term for them. Their god Allah does not even exist.
What about the Persians? Hate them too? Is there anybody you do like? Allah doesn't exists? Are you sure he wasn't there first? All set for another religious war?
Diane,
What the hell are you talking about ? "Was Allah there first " ? You mean before God ? Holy Moly, are you going to the same Mosque as Anmar ?
Quote from: redcliffsw on December 27, 2009, 08:08:58 AM
"Twisted" is a good term for them. Their god Allah does not even exist.
Provide concrete evidence that does not rely on writings of man.
careful jerry, the might call you a muslim too! watch out for xenophobes.
Quote from: jerry wagner on December 27, 2009, 01:27:57 PM
Provide concrete evidence that does not rely on writings of man.
Provide concrete evidence that he DOES exist that does not rely on the writings of man.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 27, 2009, 10:15:16 AM
What about the Persians? Hate them too? Is there anybody you do like? Allah doesn't exists? Are you sure he wasn't there first? All set for another religious war?
First of all, I have to ask just who the hell do you think you are? Anytime anyone says anything you take it to exteremes and quite frankly your "holier than thou" attitude grates on my last nerve.
As for the rest of your post...No. Allah does Not exist. Yes, I am sure that God (that being the Juedo-Christian God) is the only true God. Can I prove to you using "concrete" evidence, no. That is up for you to decide. Its called Faith. As for a religious war, we've been engaged in one since the beginning of time.
Anmar, just wondering, are you ever going to answer a question or just continue with your misdirection?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 27, 2009, 10:15:16 AM
What about the Persians? Hate them too? Is there anybody you do like? Allah doesn't exists? Are you sure he wasn't there first? All set for another religious war?
ROTFL uhmm Check your history. Allah is the moon god. Not the creator. The Muslims adopted the Chaldean i think it was moon god as their god. If i remember right, he is subservient to ba'al.
Quote from: jerry wagner on December 27, 2009, 01:27:57 PM
Provide concrete evidence that does not rely on writings of man.
Well its pretty simple....IF allah is who they say he is, then he should strike me dead for challenging him now shouldn't he?
I remember Elijah laughed at the people worshipping Ba'al and told them they should holler louder cause ba'al couldn't hear them.
Allah you are a panty waisted homo who like his prophet mohammed, loves pedophilia and raping women. Basically Allah is one of satans demons.
Now that ought to get his attention.
Listen you all. I didn't take this thread away from Sonoma County. Lighten up! As far as getting on your perfect' nerves, that's only one of the many services I can provide for you. I'm learning to be sarcastic too. Who the hell do I think I am? I'm just one more person who has the right to speak, or so you say. But when I do, you don't like it.Tough! I'm allowed my opinion too.
I'm really sorry you are so touchy that you don't understand my humor. You remind me sometimes of school boys on the playground deciding who to bully this week. Why do you feel you have to prove anything? You set the stage yourselves for the caustic nature of your conversations, speaking of holier than thou. Why don't you go shoot something, you'll feel better. Then you can say your violence was more honorable than his. Good grief.
Diane, you're right, I shouldn't have said that "who do you think you are" bit of my last post. I apologize. I may not like what you have to say but you do have the right to say it.
And THAT... Varmit .. is why I have you helping me in here.
You can dish it out.. but you can also take it...( or take it back). and apologize without excuses when you need to..
in my opinion.. its a good common sense human combination.
human defined as... mistakes are made by everyone.. Things are said that shouldn't be said by everyone at one time or another...
The kicker is that most only see others faults. They find excuses or blame for their own mistakes and fail to stand up and say.. .. I was an ass... I'm sorry.
Hopefully when all of us are allowed to say what we want in here.. we will be a big enough person to admit a mistake when we have made one. :)
(http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/sorry.gif)
(http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/yeahthat.gif)
Billy, if your question is, why haven't i spoken against muslims, its a pretty simple answer.
1. this thread isn't about muslims
2. nobody here is a muslim
3. most posters on this forum are too filled with hate to talk about muslims
4. most posters here don't know enough about islam to talk about muslims
Furthermore, muslims believe that they worship the same god as the christians and jews. I don't know where all this ba'al nonsense came from. Chaldea is an area in what is now iraq, and their civilation vanished long before islam came around.
Quote from: Anmar on December 28, 2009, 01:42:40 AM
Furthermore, muslims believe that they worship the same god as the christians and jews. I don't know where all this ba'al nonsense came from. Chaldea is an area in what is now iraq, and their civilation vanished long before islam came around.
yep we know. You don't know squat about allah.
According to Middle East scholar E.M. Wherry, whose translation of the Quran is still used today, in pre-Islamic times
Allah-worship, as well as the worship of Ba-al, were both astral religions in that they involved the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars (A Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran, Osnabruck: Otto Zeller Verlag, 1973, p. 36).
'"Allah" is a pre-Islamic name . . . corresponding to the Babylonian Bel' (Encyclopedia of Religion, I:117 Washington DC, Corpus Pub., 1979).
The word "Allah" comes from the compound Arabic word, al-ilah. Al is the definite article "the" and ilah is an Arabic word for "god." It is not a foreign word.
It is not even the Syriac word for God. It is pure Arabic. (There is an interesting discussion of the origins of Allah, in "Arabic Lexicographical Miscellanies" by J. Blau in the Journal of Semitic Studies, Vol. XVII, #2, 1972, pp. 173-190).
In the field of comparative religions, it is understood that each of the major religions of mankind has its own peculiar concept of deity. In other words, all religions do not worship the same God, only under different names.
The sloppy thinking that would ignore the essential differences which divide world religions is an insult the uniqueness of world religions.
Which of the world religions holds to the Christian concept of one eternal God in three persons? When the Hindu denies the personality of God, which religions do not agree with this? Obviously, all men do not worship the same God, or goddesses.
Note: Christians do not understand "the peculiar concept of one eternal God in three persons" but one eternal God with three major offices or dispensation claims.
The Quran's concept of deity evolved out of the pre-Islamic pagan religion of Allah-worship. It is so uniquely Arab that it cannot be simply reduced to Jewish or Christian beliefs.
Srkruzich, most Americans used to believe right along with you, but that's
probably been 100 years ago or so. It would be good if the country could
reclaim it.
The muslim religion is a man-made religion under satan.
Quote from: redcliffsw on December 28, 2009, 07:07:22 AM
Srkruzich, most Americans used to believe right along with you, but that's
probably been 100 years ago or so. It would be good if the country could
reclaim it.
The muslim religion is a man-made religion under satan.
I would say that most genuine born-again Christians do believe right along with him. Of course, there are a ton that claim it, few that actually are. And there are a ton of supposed Christians that believe that any religion that claims to know God are Christians, regardless of their doctrines or beliefs.
Varmit, thank you for the apology. I was just poking you guys because sometimes you get SO intense....and way off the thread subject. I could care less about what some of you feel about born again Christians VS Muslims etc. That is totally your business. But some of you seem so quick to try to create enemies where there are none. Such as on this forum. This is supposed to be a place for the exchange of ideas, but some seem to be stuck in a rut. You still haven't figured out that I often throw out questions for comment that in no way reflect my personal position, they are just for discussion or consideration.
How about what happened in Detroit? How about Switzerland banning minarets? There is a lot to speculate about and discuss.You are on a big anti Muslim kick and I understand that, but how does labeling me in some negative way move that along? I happen to be interested in politics but you won't let me be a part of it unless I simply become a "yes man'' (woman). Phooey on that. I'll just read and not comment except to myself.
Red, I'm sorry, I know you mean well, but most of the time I have no idea what you are talking about.
Steve, I speak arabic, i know where the word comes from and what it means. That doesnt change the fact that muslims believe they are worshipping the same god as the christians and jews. I didnt say they WERE, i said that this is what they believe. They do not believe in the trinity, but then neither do a lot of christians. In fact, many of the founders of this country didnt believe in a holy trinity. The jews don't believe in a trinity either. Jesus was jewish, right? hmmmm (Teresa, you need to add a smiley of a guy rubbing his chin)
The jewish and muslim concepts of god are pretty much exaclty the same. Its the evangelical/catholic concept of trinity that is out of whack with monotheism. This is mostly due to the fact that judaism and islam have not been changed from their original form, unlike christianity, which has been mauled by men in order to suit their needs.
The people whom you are trying to link, worshippers of ba'al and the like, did not speak arabic.
Quote from: Anmar on December 28, 2009, 11:14:40 AM
Steve, I speak arabic, i know where the word comes from and what it means. That doesnt change the fact that muslims believe they are worshipping the same god as the christians and jews. I didnt say they WERE, i said that this is what they believe. They do not believe in the trinity, but then neither do a lot of christians. In fact, many of the founders of this country didnt believe in a holy trinity. The jews don't believe in a trinity either. Jesus was jewish, right? hmmmm (Teresa, you need to add a smiley of a guy rubbing his chin)
The jewish and muslim concepts of god are pretty much exaclty the same. Its the evangelical/catholic concept of trinity that is out of whack with monotheism. This is mostly due to the fact that judaism and islam have not been changed from their original form, unlike christianity, which has been mauled by men in order to suit their needs.
The people whom you are trying to link, worshippers of ba'al and the like, did not speak arabic.
This is way off thread here, but can one truly be a Christian and not believe in the trinity? After all, Jesus WAS God and yet He prayed. So who was He praying to? Himself? And when He cried out "Abba Father", just who was He crying out to? And when God spoke after Jesus was baptized, who was speaking? And who came in the form of a dove? And just who is it that indwells each and every believer?
As far as the early Jews not believing in the trinity, I'm not so sure that's true. I'm not good with ancient Hebrew, Steve is much better than I am, but in the original texts, any word relating to God was actually a plural word, not a singular. I'll have to go refresh my Hebrew, but at any rate, in the OT texts, God is referred to as a plural rather than a singular, so it would seem that they did indeed believe that God was more than one.
I can't say that I personally know of any Christians that do not believe in the trinity. I know some that believe that Jesus was merely a good man and not God incarnate, but I don't consider them to be true Christians.
Anyway, just some random thoughts. :)
Sarah, the trinity wasn't originally part of the christian religion.
Furthermore, if you claim that anyone who doesnt believe in the trinity isn't a christian, you just condemned more than a third of this nations founders.
Quote from: Anmar on December 28, 2009, 02:06:32 PM
Sarah, the trinity wasn't originally part of the christian religion.
The trinity was spoken of in both the old and new testaments. So, if the apostles spoke of the trinity (not that exact word), it's an obvious doctrine and so, yes, was part of the Christian religion since the dawn of time.
its not in the Torah, the books were changed.
Also, christianity did not begin at the dawn of time, sorry.
Quote from: Anmar on December 28, 2009, 11:14:40 AM
Steve, I speak arabic, i know where the word comes from and what it means. That doesnt change the fact that muslims believe they are worshipping the same god as the christians and jews.
No their not. They do not worship the same god. They worship the moon god. The moon god is not El or Elohim. The moon god or allah is more closely associated with bel and ba'al which are false gods existing around the time . That is what i orignially said and still say. THey are NOT the same god as the jewish God or Christian God.
IN fact, Jews believe in the trinity. They believe in Genesis don't they? Genesis 1:1 and over 30 times in that one chapter The hebrew word for God is elohiym which means:
a) rulers, judges
b) divine ones
c) angels
d) gods
Also Psalm 110:1 specifically (its also OT and jewish) states that
Psa 110:1
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Well that seals it doesn't it? God was talking to Jesus Christ.
AND Then you have Daniel 7:13 where
Dan 7:13 ¶ I saw in the night visions, and,
behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
THIS CLEARLY states that Christ appeared and came to God (ancient of days)
Then you have Adonai which means Lord or literal translation, my masters.
QuoteI didnt say they WERE, i said that this is what they believe.
Most muslims will tell you that they worship the moon god. Secondly, islam didn't come around until 632 AD or somewhere about that date. Mohammed also borrowed a lot of text from the torah, talmud, the vedic verse, and several other religions. Many of the fables in the koran were from hinduism.
QuoteThey do not believe in the trinity, but then neither do a lot of christians. In fact, many of the founders of this country didnt believe in a holy trinity. The jews don't believe in a trinity either. Jesus was jewish, right? hmmmm (Teresa, you need to add a smiley of a guy rubbing his chin)
QuoteThe jewish and muslim concepts of god are pretty much exaclty the same. Its the evangelical/catholic concept of trinity that is out of whack with monotheism. This is mostly due to the fact that judaism and islam have not been changed from their original form, unlike christianity, which has been mauled by men in order to suit their needs.
I don't think so. The muslim copied a lot of the hebrew text and rewrote it to fit their agenda.
QuoteThe people whom you are trying to link, worshippers of ba'al and the like, did not speak arabic.
Does't matter. the so called allah came from cananite history. IT was a borrowed god.
Quote from: Anmar on December 28, 2009, 02:10:06 PM
its not in the Torah, the books were changed.
Also, christianity did not begin at the dawn of time, sorry.
Actually yes it did there anmar. Jesus is the second Adam. God set the path of christianity from the day Adam was created.
When he was cast out, man was given the promise of salvation through Christ. AFter christ came man was given the assurance of salvation by christ.
YOu can't separate christ from any part of the bible.
Also anmar how do you explain
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
And how do you explain
Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
And how do you explain that the Holy spirit came down upon the Kings of Israel?
theres the trinity
Quote from: srkruzich on December 28, 2009, 02:13:43 PM
Actually yes it did there anmar. Jesus is the second Adam. God set the path of christianity from the day Adam was created.
When he was cast out, man was given the promise of salvation through Christ. AFter christ came man was given the assurance of salvation by christ.
YOu can't separate christ from any part of the bible.
Oh well, you said what I was going to say. Christianity IS from Genesis 1:1. The OT is the foreshadowing of the sacrifice that God would send to reconcile sinful man back to Himself and the NT is the fulfillment of that. Back in the OT they were living under the Law and we are now under grace. Christianity at it's final place.
Steve, your nuts
If i want to know what a jewish person believes, i ask a jew. If i want to know what a muslim person believes, i ask a muslim. Jews tell me there is no trinity. Muslims tell me they worship the same god as christians and jews. What you and all your whacked out nut job experts have to say doesn't supercede what is common knowledge amongst the followers of judaism and islam.
Furthermore, there is no biblical evidence that supports your claims. You think that because god was spoken of as a plural is proof of trinity? not so. You think that because Jesus was called a lord proves divinity? not so. Jesus referred to his disciples as gods and lordly, that doesn't mean they were divine.
Someone once told me that the problem with christianity is that people are looking at a hebrew book with greek glasses. What this means is that the books were written for the jewish people, who culturally are really into parables, stories, and the speak a certain roundabout way. The greeks have a different culture, they are very precise and calculating, so they didn't get it. Throw in paul meddling with the teachings of jesus and you can start to see why nobody knows anything about what real christianity really was.
Quote from: Anmar on December 28, 2009, 02:21:34 PM
Steve, your nuts
If i want to know what a jewish person believes, i ask a jew. If i want to know what a muslim person believes, i ask a muslim. Jews tell me there is no trinity. Muslims tell me they worship the same god as christians and jews. What you and all your whacked out nut job experts have to say doesn't supercede what is common knowledge amongst the followers of judaism and islam.
Furthermore, there is no biblical evidence that supports your claims. You think that because god was spoken of as a plural is proof of trinity? not so. You think that because Jesus was called a lord proves divinity? not so. Jesus referred to his disciples as gods and lordly, that doesn't mean they were divine.
Someone once told me that the problem with christianity is that people are looking at a hebrew book with greek glasses. What this means is that the books were written for the jewish people, who culturally are really into parables, stories, and the speak a certain roundabout way. The greeks have a different culture, they are very precise and calculating, so they didn't get it. Throw in paul meddling with the teachings of jesus and you can start to see why nobody knows anything about what real christianity really was.
The trinity is referred to over and over and over again in the Bible. You don't see it? I'm sorry. :-( The Jews don't see it? Well, that's because they reject Jesus Christ and who He is. The Muslims? They don't know who God is, though they think they do. But their god has no semblance at all to the one true God.
You don't think Christianity has anything to do with the OT? I guess that depends on your definition of Christianity. If you believe that all it is is a bunch of church going Evangelicals and Catholics, well, then you're right. But at it's heart, Christianity is nothing but fallen sinful man being reconciled back into a one on one relationship with the Living God. And that is from the very beginning. shrug
Quote from: Anmar on December 28, 2009, 02:21:34 PM
Steve, your nuts
If i want to know what a jewish person believes, i ask a jew. If i want to know what a muslim person believes, i ask a muslim. Jews tell me there is no trinity. Muslims tell me they worship the same god as christians and jews. What you and all your whacked out nut job experts have to say doesn't supercede what is common knowledge amongst the followers of judaism and islam.
You are assuming that the ones you ask even know what they believe! I have found that most don't.
QuoteFurthermore, there is no biblical evidence that supports your claims. You think that because god was spoken of as a plural is proof of trinity? not so. You think that because Jesus was called a lord proves divinity? not so. Jesus referred to his disciples as gods and lordly, that doesn't mean they were divine.
I've given you nothing but biblical evidence. Go read the verses i posted. They specifically show that God is used in a plural form.
QuoteSomeone once told me that the problem with christianity is that people are looking at a hebrew book with greek glasses. What this means is that the books were written for the jewish people, who culturally are really into parables, stories, and the speak a certain roundabout way.
Sorry but i know exactly how it was written. They use synecdoche form of rhetoric to write. Unfortunately most people today unless your a lawyer don't have a clue how to understand this.
QuoteThe greeks have a different culture, they are very precise and calculating, so they didn't get it. Throw in paul meddling with the teachings of jesus and you can start to see why nobody knows anything about what real christianity really was.
Your Proof of meddling is?
Quote from: Anmar on December 28, 2009, 02:21:34 PM
If i want to know what a Jewish person believes, i ask a Jew. If i want to know what a Muslim person believes, i ask a Muslim.
Furthermore, there is no biblical evidence that supports your claims. You think that because god was spoken of as a plural is proof of trinity? not so. You think that because Jesus was called a lord proves divinity? not so. Jesus referred to his disciples as gods and lordly, that doesn't mean they were divine.
Someone once told me that the problem with Christianity is that people are looking at a hebrew book with greek glasses. What this means is that the books were written for the jewish people, who culturally are really into parables, stories, and the speak a certain roundabout way. The greeks have a different culture, they are very precise and calculating, so they didn't get it. Throw in paul meddling with the teachings of jesus and you can start to see why nobody knows anything about what real christianity really was.
I'm not getting into this conversation too deeply.. For my own self protection I keep my spiritual beliefs pretty close to my chest.. but...........................it hard to do that when I have so much I want to say...........................
On this small section of what Anmar just said... I'm standing with him...
Quote from: Teresa on December 28, 2009, 03:01:04 PM
I'm not getting into this conversation too deeply.. For my own self protection I keep my spiritual beliefs pretty close to my chest.. but...........................it hard to do that when I have so much I want to say...........................
:D I know you do teresa. :) I am not going to nail you for your beliefs, not nailing anmar for his cause i don't know what his beliefs are. I am just pointing out that islam as we all know is shrouded in lies and deceit to wage a 2 front war. One side says their a religion of peace the other says their all about killing the infidel and they do. The side that is "peaceful" is not peaceful. They want to bring about sharia law from within. Either way we are under attack as a society. They know they cannot win this war so they come here and try to gain enough converts ect to overwhelm our political system to turn things their way and vote in a government of sharia law. Its a insidious religion. Look at england, france, spain, their almost a muslim nation.
QuoteOn this small section of what Anmar just said... I'm standing with him...
I think that the majority of people that call themselves christian are doing so in name only. I think that the definition has gotten watered down. Just because we live in a Christian nation, doesn't mean everyone or even the majority are christians. We have those who think that if they do good their christian. But the problem is thats not the case.
On pauls meddling, its kinda hard though for paul to meddle with the 4 gospels, since he didn't write them as well as the OT. But i didn't quote anything from paul i think. I quoted David, and Daniel, and Moses, all those figures that it is established that the Torah and talmud all of that is solid and unchanged. It has never been changed and the jews are masters at keeping accurate accountings.
One doesn't need pauls writings to show it was from the beginning. IT was all about christ being the way to God from the beginning.
In the beggining was the word and the word was made flesh....
you can't put over a billion people into a single belief system and say "they" are all a certain way. There are good muslims, bad muslims, crazy muslims, smart muslims etc.
Furthermore, the texts that are attributed to certain authors weren't actually written by those people. Even the bible scholars agree on that.
Quote from: Anmar on December 28, 2009, 05:35:30 PM
you can't put over a billion people into a single belief system and say "they" are all a certain way. There are good muslims, bad muslims, crazy muslims, smart muslims etc.
Furthermore, the texts that are attributed to certain authors weren't actually written by those people. Even the bible scholars agree on that.
Uhmm God wrote every word in the book. He IS the author
Now they can't say that about the koran. Mohammed wrote it and a major chunk of it was plagerized from other religious beliefs like the hindu, buddist, ect
Now anmar how bout going back and answer the questions i asked. You always do that, when you can't explain something you misdirect or call someone nuts.
:o :o :o :o :o
I think you guys need a remedial course in religious history. Try going back and reading the fundamentals of the Koran. Learn about where the Muslim religion came from or started, supposedly. I say supposedly because nobody really knows for sure.
Muslims believe that Mohammad is a messenger from God. Just like Jesus, just like Abraham, etc. Mohammad and his followers put down what they believe God said to him, hence the Koran. Same for the Bible. The books of the Bible are writings handed down from those who received messages from God. The main difference between Muslim and Judeo-Christian religions is that Christians believe in the Holy Trinity and the Muslims do not. Of course, there are other differences, but it is like someone tells a story to two people and the story is handed down from both, but maybe in a different way.
Islam means peace. One of the teachings is that one should not be oppressive to others. Those Muslims who are terrorists do not practice their religion as they should. There are those of us who are Christians that do not faithfully follow the Ten Commandments, yet profess to be Christians.
Go back and read and learn more.
Larryj
Quote from: larryJ on December 28, 2009, 08:30:55 PM
I think you guys need a remedial course in religious history. Try going back and reading the fundamentals of the Koran. Learn about where the Muslim religion came from or started, supposedly. I say supposedly because nobody really knows for sure.
Muslims believe that Mohammad is a messenger from God. Just like Jesus, just like Abraham, etc. Mohammad and his followers put down what they believe God said to him, hence the Koran. Same for the Bible. The books of the Bible are writings handed down from those who received messages from God. The main difference between Muslim and Judeo-Christian religions is that Christians believe in the Holy Trinity and the Muslims do not. Of course, there are other differences, but it is like someone tells a story to two people and the story is handed down from both, but maybe in a different way.
Islam means peace. One of the teachings is that one should not be oppressive to others. Those Muslims who are terrorists do not practice their religion as they should. There are those of us who are Christians that do not faithfully follow the Ten Commandments, yet profess to be Christians.
Go back and read and learn more.
Larryj
I can tell you from personally knowing a Muslim that wasn't a terrorist, just your average Muslim that no, they are not peaceful to those that are not Muslims. There may be a few that are, but the religion in and of itself is not a peaceful religion.
Secondly, being a Christian isn't about following the 10 commandments and that's the whole point behind Christianity. It's about being forgiven, not following rules.
Quote from: srkruzich on December 28, 2009, 06:20:16 PM
Uhmm God wrote every word in the book. He IS the author
Now they can't say that about the koran. Mohammed wrote it and a major chunk of it was plagerized from other religious beliefs like the hindu, buddist, ect
Now anmar how bout going back and answer the questions i asked. You always do that, when you can't explain something you misdirect or call someone nuts.
Mohammed didn't write the koran, mohammed was illiterate. The Koran wasn't in written form until about 20-30 years after his death, it was compiled by the fourth caliph, Uthman. The bible however, wasn't written until hundreds of years after Jesus' death. The concept of trinity didn't even appear in ANY biblical writings until the third century, you should know this.
As for your other questions, i addressed them already.
@ Sarah, please read larry's post. some are nice, some are not, get over it.
You know what I find kinda funny? All the scholars, experts, historians, etc that say that the Bible is not accurate, or that the writings were twisted or whatever. Yet Christ tells us thourgh the Bible that the world will deny Him and His teachings. Yet we still get caught up in these conversations. Then you have those that say we all worship the same god. That is simply not true. There is NO Way that the muslim god is the same as the Christian God. You see, the Christian God had a son, His name is Jesus. The muslim god?...not so much. What Christians need to remember is that satans best trick is not in turning Christians away from God, but in convincing the world that satan doesn't exist.
Sarah, I agreed with you up until your last post. I don't think that being a Christian is about being forgiven, I think that being forgiven is about being Christian. Remember John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not persish, but have everlasting life. Notice you have to believe in order to be forgiven.
Then theres John 3:18 He that believeth on Him is not condemened, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believeth in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And thats all I am going to add to this thread.
Yeah Sarah, I agree. Srkruzich, you're doing good but I don't think they're
understanding you. There was a time in the past that I would not have understood
you and certainly I would have been agin what you are saying. Stay right in there.
Jesus existed before Abraham.
John 8: 58 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Sheep know their shepherd.
John 10: 25 - 30
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
I and my Father are one.
There's only one true God. You can say that Islam was "invented" too late and it can't be true religion - what's
so hard to understand about that?
Billy, good post for sure.
oh you 4 are impossible.
You're quoting a book that has been mangled and altered by thousands of different MEN,
you ignore your own scholars and experts when their opinions don't match yours,
you ignore history, and basic facts. Like the fact that trinity didn't exist for the first 300 years of christianity.
You even go as far as to ignore certain passages in the bible,
all just to make a point. The only point that you all are making is that you can't be reasoned with.
Quote from: larryJ on December 28, 2009, 08:30:55 PM
I think you guys need a remedial course in religious history. Try going back and reading the fundamentals of the Koran. Learn about where the Muslim religion came from or started, supposedly. I say supposedly because nobody really knows for sure.
It is a mishmash compilation of multiple religions. Some from the judaeo belief, some from hindu and some from buddist, and some from the canaanite religions.
QuoteMuslims believe that Mohammad is a messenger from God.
A prophet.
QuoteJust like Jesus, just like Abraham,
Abraham was not a prophet.
QuoteMohammad and his followers put down what they believe God said to him, hence the Koran.
Mohammad did not write the koran.
Muhammad died in 632. The earliest written material of his life is the sira of Ibn Ishaq (750), but Ibn Ishaq's work was lost. We only have parts of it available in quotation by Ibn Hisham (834). The hadith are even later. There are six authoritative collections of hadith: Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nisai. All are dated between 200 and 300 years after Muhammad.
Quote
Islam means peace.
Islam does not mean peace. Islam means complete submission to the will of Allah.
QuoteOne of the teachings is that one should not be oppressive to others. Those Muslims who are terrorists do not practice their religion as they should. There are those of us who are Christians that do not faithfully follow the Ten Commandments, yet profess to be Christians.
Go back and read and learn more.
Larryj
Well Christians do not go out and strap bombs to blow up innocents. Shrug. Kinda comparing apples to oranges there aren't ya.
Quote from: Anmar on December 28, 2009, 09:17:23 PM
Mohammed didn't write the koran, mohammed was illiterate. The Koran wasn't in written form until about 20-30 years after his death, it was compiled by the fourth caliph, Uthman.
Actually the koran wasn't in written form for 3 or 400 years after.
QuoteThe bible however, wasn't written until hundreds of years after Jesus' death. The concept of trinity didn't even appear in ANY biblical writings until the third century, you should know this.
Again go look at Gen 1:1, Dan 7:35 and lets see check out Psalm 110:1. The trinity is very much alive i those passages.
Quote from: Varmit on December 28, 2009, 09:19:50 PM
You know what I find kinda funny? All the scholars, experts, historians, etc that say that the Bible is not accurate, or that the writings were twisted or whatever. Yet Christ tells us thourgh the Bible that the world will deny Him and His teachings. Yet we still get caught up in these conversations. Then you have those that say we all worship the same god.
I would agree.
QuoteSarah, I agreed with you up until your last post. I don't think that being a Christian is about being forgiven, I think that being forgiven is about being Christian. Remember John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not persish, but have everlasting life. Notice you have to believe in order to be forgiven.
I agree with Sarahs line of thinking. I know her and She would agree with you on believing in him. What she is referring to is we are forgiven once we believe. The beginning in the OT to the end in the NT, man is saved only one way. By Grace through faith. The OT shows man is saved by his faith in christ to come and man today is saved by grace through the very same faith in the christ that has come.
Living christian is a hopeless task if we are to do it on our own. The only way we can is christ living through us.
I know NOTHING about the Muslims.. I don't proclaim to.. So I can't discuss what they believe etc..
I'm not the sharpest tack in the box either on Religious Dogma....
But I do know that the Bible has been taken away from.. added to and altered by the Catholics and others of long ago.. because it suited their purpose of control and fear over the people. It was also written 200 yrs after Jesus walked the earth.. I don't know of any person who can get a story right a week after they hear it let alone tell it right 200 years after it was passed down how many times.
The Bible is also written in parables.. Those parables are interpreted a million different ways and each person thinks that they have it right.. Baptists think the Methodists are going to hell .. The Mormons and the Catholics think that everyone but them are going to hell.. every man made organized religion has the mind set that they are the only ones who have it right. .. and everyone else on the planet is doomed.. *poppycock* :P
I don't think God gives an Angels Flip what church or tax exempt religion you go to..
I do think that he cares if you have been doing the best you can do.. love your fellow man as best as you can.. be the best person to yourself and those around you.
I'm not arguing religion with anyone.I don't think any one has the answers until we cross over to the other side and find out then what the real answers are.
People make it so difficult and complicated. It isn't! I don't need someones interpretation of a few books of the Bible to understand what it meas to love God and have the love of God (inside you) returned.
Quote from: Anmar on December 28, 2009, 10:03:27 PM
oh you 4 are impossible.
You're quoting a book that has been mangled and altered by thousands of different MEN,
Wheres your proof? I have compared the KJV to both the hebrew and greeks oldest documents known. They haven't changed. Wording is identicle.
Quoteyou ignore your own scholars and experts when their opinions don't match yours,
Which scholars. Your making a claim but your not posting the "supposed Scholars" that disagree.
Quoteyou ignore history, and basic facts. Like the fact that trinity didn't exist for the first 300 years of christianity.
Again I have shown you where it is. You refuse to read it. its plain as the nose on your face. Secondly, in order to grasp the trinity you would have to study the whole bible. The doctrine of the trinity starts in Genesis and ends in Revelation. So where are you getting this 300 years after christ stuff???
QuoteYou even go as far as to ignore certain passages in the bible,
Like?
Quoteall just to make a point. The only point that you all are making is that you can't be reasoned with.
You may have a point there, because I have the absolute source of truth and there is no way you can reason against truth. But i also have history to back it up too.
So Steve.. not to get in a huge argument..cause I don't want that.. but let me ask you this..
With all your scholarly knowledge..and all your history knowledge....
does that...in your opinion.. make any difference in what kind of a good or bad a person is? Does it make you any better or more righteous than say me.. who doesn't give a flip about who interprets what and why...?
Just curious.. Do you really think it matters in the long run? Do you think that your "source of truth" will get you where you need to be any better than "my source of truth"
which happens to be a one on one with God in any private secluded place?
I'm not jumping on you or attacking.. I'm just curious.. I've met a million so called "Christians"...that were devoted church goers and so called scholars of "the Word".. the kind that save you on Sunday and screw you on Monday..
I decided a long time ago to search within myself and find my own relationship with God..and I may be wrong.. but I think its worked out pretty well.. :)
Steve,
You're so full of crap i don't even know where to start. I will try to address every single one of your points, although i know it won't matter to you because talking to you is like talking to a wall. My hope is to address your misstatements for the people trying to follow along.
Your first point is that the koran was written 300-400 years after the death of the mohammad. This isn't true. the koran was put into written form by the fourth caliph Uthmān ibn 'Affān This occured between 645 and 650 AD. Uthman died in 656 AD. Mohammad died in 632. Some people say that Ali, who was mohammads cousin, kept a written koran from when mohammad was still alive. You cite that hadith were compiled 300 years after the death of mohammed. The hadith is not the Koran, their books are not like the bible. The hadith is a seperate entity and is more of a biography of mohammed. The koran is the religious text, not the hadith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_bin_Affan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koran
You say that most muslims will tell you they worship the moon god. bullshit. 15% of the population here is muslim. Believe me, you don't know what you're talking about. I've talked with many of them about their religion, I've been to the middle east, I've never heard any muslim say that ever. They all tell me that they worship the same god that christians and jews do. Just because you say moon god 20 times doesnt make it true.
Now, I said that the bible wasn't written until much later after the death of Jesus. Of course the old testament originated from the Torah, which predates jesus, but the new testament is what i'm referring to. The truth is, nobody knows exactly when it was compiled, however most scholars agree that it wasnt completed until 150 AD. You profess to believe that the king james version is the only correct version of the bible, fine. It was written in 1611. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
Why did they write a new version? because according to the reformation movement, the bible that ALL christians had been following for 1600 years was a bunch of garbage. Imagine that. So they all sat down and rewrote it according to what they thought it should look like. No dead sea scrolls, no lost manuscripts, nothing. In fact, it was done by committee. 47 old men got together, broke out into groups, and over a period of 8 years? went about re-writing the bible. At that time, there were dozens of different versions of the bible floating around. So what they did was took all these different bibles, picked the passages they liked best, and used that in their bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
http://www.comereason.org/theo_issues/theo025.asp
Now, here's were it really gets interesting. You claim that you have access to the oldest greek and hebrew documents known. You have been crying in post after post for me to cite my sources, here they are. Where are yours? Are you referring to the dead sea scrolls? because those are pretty much just old testament stuff, and they don't mention jesus at all.
Lets go down this little path. You see, another committee got together, and looked at the same "documents" that you looked at and they came up with their own revision of the bible. They call it the New International Version. This bible is the most accurate if you believe that the oldest source is the most accurate.
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/
Now you don't believe in this version of the bible. This version denies the trinity and the divinity of Jesus. that John 3:16, it doesn't say begotten, they changed it to unique. We already had this discussion so i won't get into it again. I believe begotten is a mistranslation, you don't Unfortunatly for you, the experts agree with me. In the 1973 version, of the NIV, the word "unique" is used. In 1983, it was changed again to "one and only" If you go out and buy this bible today, there's a little footnote at the bottom that says something along the lines of, this may also mean begotten, but we aren't sure. This little footnote was put in by ministers who went nuts when they foudn out that the whole basis of their religion just changed by getting a more accurate translation. Really, notice how you change one little word and the whole theory of the faith changes. And you want to use a book that has been changed hundreds of times to prove a point? In fact, the NIV in its forward admits that the bible is a gargled mess and they just did their best. The reverend JErry Falwell has been quoted as saying that he knows the bible has been changed and isn't accurate. To his defense, he was also saying that the bible's miracle was the effect that it has on people (he may have a point there, although it is arguable)
Now, you want to quote the bible to prove the trinity. None of your quotes prove a trinity. The word trinity is never used. That word never passes through Jesus' mouth.
You post a lot of passages saying that jesus was referred to as the son of god, or lord etc. My point is, everyone is the son of god in that sense, everyone is a lord in that sense. As i mentioned already, i guess you missed it, Jesus called his disciples gods. Furthermore, here are some quotes that show jesus was not god
# John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever; even the spirit of truth."
# John 17:1-3 Jesus prays to God.
# Hebrews 2:17,18 Hebrews 3:2 Jesus has faith in God.
# Acts 3:13 Jesus is a servant of God.
# Mark 13:32 Revelation 1:1 Jesus does not know things God knows.
# John 4:22 Jesus worships God.
# Revelation 3:12 Jesus has one who is God to him.
# 1stCorinthians 15:28 Jesus is in subjection to God.
# 1stCorinthians 11:1 Jesus' head is God.
# Hebrews 5:7 Jesus has reverent submission, fear, of God.
# Acts 2:36 Jesus is given lordship by God.
# Acts 5:31 Jesus is exalted by God.
# Hebrews 5:10 Jesus is made high priest by God.
# Philippians 2:9 Jesus is given authority by God.
# Luke 1:32,33 Jesus is given kingship by God.
# Acts 10:42 Jesus is given judgment by God.
# Acts 2:24, Romans 10.9, 1 Cor 15:15 "God raised [Jesus] from the dead".
# Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34 Jesus is at the right hand of God.
# 1 Tim 2:5 Jesus is the one human mediator between the one God and man.
# 1 Cor 15:24-28 God put everything, except Himself, under Jesus.
# Philippians 2:6 Jesus did not believe being one with God was possible
# Matthew 27:46: "Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?""
# Mark 15:34: "And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, "Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?""
Some random thoughts....
Jesus was not the second Adam, adam was married, had offspring, populated the earth and preformed no miracles.
The bible is more violent than the koran, and i will post again proving it.
The trinity was invented at Nicea, thought someone as "knowledgeable" as you are would have known that. Notice how it's not in the Torah, i wonder why?
Interesting article here about trinity... http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/the_truth_about/truth_about_64.htm
Let me also say this again, more than a third of the nations founders were dieists, they did not believe in the trinity or the divinity of jesus.
I hope i answered all of your questions and points, on my to do list is to show the violence in the bible, compare it to the koran.
For the record, I'm not muslim, I'm tired of being called that. I'm also tired of people demonizing and lying about a very large group of people because of the actions of a few. I believe that there is a lot of common ground to be found with the average muslim and in the best interests of a peaceful society, we should seek to understand instead of hate. I do believe that jesus existed, and i believe that he taught love, tolerance, and peace. He was persecuted and tormented to no end by polytheist romans and monotheist jews, yet he did not wage war against them. We have picked a fight with the muslim world, we started it. Now we want to be angry because they are fighting back? Thats very childish thinking.
Quote from: Varmit on December 28, 2009, 09:19:50 PM
You know what I find kinda funny? All the scholars, experts, historians, etc that say that the Bible is not accurate, or that the writings were twisted or whatever. Yet Christ tells us thourgh the Bible that the world will deny Him and His teachings. Yet we still get caught up in these conversations. Then you have those that say we all worship the same god. That is simply not true. There is NO Way that the muslim god is the same as the Christian God. You see, the Christian God had a son, His name is Jesus. The muslim god?...not so much. What Christians need to remember is that satans best trick is not in turning Christians away from God, but in convincing the world that satan doesn't exist.
Sarah, I agreed with you up until your last post. I don't think that being a Christian is about being forgiven, I think that being forgiven is about being Christian. Remember John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not persish, but have everlasting life. Notice you have to believe in order to be forgiven.
Then theres John 3:18 He that believeth on Him is not condemened, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believeth in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And thats all I am going to add to this thread.
I think you and I are saying the same thing. I know that one has to believe first, but my point was is that Christianity isn't about rules and obeying laws. I agree with what you said though. :-)
Teresa, good point there about the scriptures being altered.
Many of the bibles published these days are from corrupt texts.
The King James Bible is true. NIV and most others are not.
It's a mess out here in the so-called Christian churches and the
bibles are an indication of the confusion and un-belief. But, we
still ought to find the truths and support 'em.
Quote from: Teresa on December 28, 2009, 11:41:37 PM
I know NOTHING about the Muslims.. I don't proclaim to.. So I can't discuss what they believe etc..
I'm not the sharpest tack in the box either on Religious Dogma....
But I do know that the Bible has been taken away from.. added to and altered by the Catholics and others of long ago.. because it suited their purpose of control and fear over the people. It was also written 200 yrs after Jesus walked the earth.. I don't know of any person who can get a story right a week after they hear it let alone tell it right 200 years after it was passed down how many times.
The Bible is also written in parables.. Those parables are interpreted a million different ways and each person thinks that they have it right.. Baptists think the Methodists are going to hell .. The Mormons and the Catholics think that everyone but them are going to hell.. every man made organized religion has the mind set that they are the only ones who have it right. .. and everyone else on the planet is doomed.. *poppycock* :P
I don't think God gives an Angels Flip what church or tax exempt religion you go to..
I do think that he cares if you have been doing the best you can do.. love your fellow man as best as you can.. be the best person to yourself and those around you.
I'm not arguing religion with anyone.I don't think any one has the answers until we cross over to the other side and find out then what the real answers are.
People make it so difficult and complicated. It isn't! I don't need someones interpretation of a few books of the Bible to understand what it meas to love God and have the love of God (inside you) returned.
Teresa - Amen :angel:
Quote from: Teresa on December 29, 2009, 12:27:07 AM
So Steve.. not to get in a huge argument..cause I don't want that.. but let me ask you this..
With all your scholarly knowledge..and all your history knowledge....
Teresa I am no scholar nor history phd, i love to read. And my favorite read is ancient civilizations such as the River Indus peoples.
Quotedoes that...in your opinion.. make any difference in what kind of a good or bad a person is?
You know i'm just saying you can be a mother teresa, and if you don't believe in him, it won't grant you entrance to heaven. She's about the only one i can think of right now that lived a good life.
QuoteDoes it make you any better or more righteous than say me.. who doesn't give a flip about who interprets what and why...?
I'm not religious. I am far from it. I don't believe in religion. I believe that God came down through his son, and allowed his son to die on the cross to give mankind the gift of salvation. ITs up to man to accept the gift.
QuoteNo i'm not better than you. Were all sinners.
QuoteJust curious.. Do you really think it matters in the long run? Do you think that your "source of truth" will get you where you need to be any better than "my source of truth"
which happens to be a one on one with God in any private secluded place?
Actually i have a one on one with God he talks to me all the time. :) But the problem is that there are many imitators of God that will lead people astray. I think it was Varmit or Red that said, the greatest thing satan has ever done was to convince people he doesn't exist.
I'm not jumping on you or attacking.. I'm just curious.. I've met a million so called "Christians"...that were devoted church goers and so called scholars of "the Word".. the kind that save you on Sunday and screw you on Monday..
I decided a long time ago to search within myself and find my own relationship with God..and I may be wrong.. but I think its worked out pretty well.. :)
I understand that. THe thing is that one thing that christian belief teaches is that God wants a one on one personal relationship to us. His relationship with us is not one of Big God grovelling subject, but one of Father Son Father daughter type relationship. Think of the most perfect relationship between a father and son or daughter.
Quote from: srkruzich on December 28, 2009, 11:33:10 PM
It is a mishmash compilation of multiple religions. Some from the judaeo belief, some from hindu and some from buddist, and some from the canaanite religions.
A prophet.
Abraham was not a prophet.
Mohammad did not write the koran.
Muhammad died in 632. The earliest written material of his life is the sira of Ibn Ishaq (750), but Ibn Ishaq's work was lost. We only have parts of it available in quotation by Ibn Hisham (834). The hadith are even later. There are six authoritative collections of hadith: Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nisai. All are dated between 200 and 300 years after Muhammad.
Islam does not mean peace. Islam means complete submission to the will of Allah.
Well Christians do not go out and strap bombs to blow up innocents. Shrug. Kinda comparing apples to oranges there aren't ya.
Christians certainly have strapped bombs to blow up innocents..... ever heard of Ireland?
Also, the hands of the Christians are not clean..... the crusades ring a bell? how about the witch hunts? I could continue but I think the point is made.
Quote from: redcliffsw on December 29, 2009, 08:46:05 AM
Teresa, good point there about the scriptures being altered.
Many of the bibles published these days are from corrupt texts.
The King James Bible is true. NIV and most others are not.
It's a mess out here in the so-called Christian churches and the
bibles are an indication of the confusion and un-belief. But, we
still ought to find the truths and support 'em.
It's not the NIV is corrupt, but it is not a word for word translation. It's a thought for thought translation and then there's the Living Bible that isn't really a translation at all, but rather a paraphrase. I use KJV, NIV, Living Bible along with a couple of others. But there are some Bibles out there that have totally changed the meaning of some words for whatever reason and those I stay away from.
Quote from: Anmar on December 29, 2009, 01:51:28 AM
Steve,
Your first point is that the koran was written 300-400 years after the death of the mohammad. This isn't true. the koran was put into written form by the fourth caliph Uthmān ibn 'Affān This occured between 645 and 650 AD. Uthman died in 656 AD. Mohammad died in 632. Some people say that Ali, who was mohammads cousin, kept a written koran from when mohammad was still alive. You cite that hadith were compiled 300 years after the death of mohammed. The hadith is not the Koran, their books are not like the bible. The hadith is a seperate entity and is more of a biography of mohammed. The koran is the religious text, not the hadith.
Some sources claim the first complete version that is used today is 3 -400 years after mohammed but this one source shows fragments exist of some texts as early as 100 years later.
Two ancient copies of Koran that are in existence are the Samarqand MSS is in Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul. What many Muslim's do not know, is that because these two manuscripts were written in a script style called "Kufic", practicing Muslim scholars generally date these manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after Muhammad died. Had these two manuscripts been compiled any earlier, they would have been written in either the Ma'il or Mashq script style. John Gilchrist, in his book, "Jam' Al-Qur'an" came to this same conclusion. (John Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989)
Now we do have one ancient copy of the Koran written in the Ma'il style of script, that is housed in the British Museum in London (Lings & Safadi 1976:17,20; Gilchrist 1989:16,144). But scholar Martin Lings, who was not only a practicing Muslim, but also a former curator for the manuscripts of the British Museum, dates this manuscript at 790 AD, making it the earliest. On the other hand Yasir Qadhi notes one Islamic Masters/PhD scholar who believes the Samarqand MSS is the 'most likely candidate for the original'.
It is unknown, even by Muslims that authorities will not release photographs of the ancient Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul and so there are no known studies on it. This is why the Muslim apologist, M. Saifullah had to state "Concerning the Topkapi manuscript we are not aware of studies done it." (Who's Afraid Of Textual Criticism?, M. S. M. Saifullah, 'Abd ar-Rahman Squires & Muhammad Ghoniem) What is in this manuscript that Muslims are afraid to let the world see? After all in Qur'an 2:111 it says "Produce your proof if you are truthful."
Even the earliest fragmentary manuscripts of the Koran are all dated no earlier than 100 years after Muhammad died.
Add to this the fact that there is no archeological evidence dated at the time when Muhammad was alive, by way of artifact, manuscript or inscription has ever been found were Muhammad is actually referred to as "a prophet".
If you don't believe me, listen to faithful Muslim, Ahmad Von Denffer, in his book, Ulum al Quran, in a chapter called, Old Manuscripts Of The Qur'an, "Most of the early original Qur'an manuscripts, complete or in sizeable fragments, that are still available to us now, are not earlier than the second century after the Hijra. [or 800 AD] The earliest copy, which was exhibited in the British Museum during the 1976 World of Islam Festival, dated from the late second century.' However, there are also a number of odd fragments of Qur'anic papyri available, which date from the first century." (Grohmann, A.: Die Entstehung des Koran und die altesten Koran- Handschriften', in: Bustan, 1961, pp. 33-8)
Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_bin_Affan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koran
You do realize that wiki is edited by whomever wants to edit it. Thats not a reliable source.
QuoteYou say that most muslims will tell you they worship the moon god. bullshit. 15% of the population here is muslim. Believe me, you don't know what you're talking about. I've talked with many of them about their religion, I've been to the middle east, I've never heard any muslim say that ever. They all tell me that they worship the same god that christians and jews do. Just because you say moon god 20 times doesnt make it true.
Of course they will claim to you that they worship the same God. This is a PR campaign.
The truth is in history on this. Their use of the crescent moon is the symbol of the moon god. Allah was the name a pagan diety of Quresh tribe which had three daughters, Allat, Uzza and Manat. After islam Mohammed named the islamic diety as Allah.
Now since we know that the god allah originated from the quresh tribe, that coincides with the lineage of the tribe which dates back to ishmael. Ishmael is the son of Abraham who BTW is from UR of the chaldeans, and there you get the connection with allah being the moon god.
QuoteNow, I said that the bible wasn't written until much later after the death of Jesus. Of course the old testament originated from the Torah, which predates jesus, but the new testament is what i'm referring to.
Well you didn't say the NT you said the bible. I have been posting and quoting OT text
Gen Daniel and Psalms are in the OT not the NT.
QuoteThe truth is, nobody knows exactly when it was compiled, however most scholars agree that it wasnt completed until 150 AD.
It wasn't complete til around 125 ad since John had not completed revelations til 90 years after christ returned to heaven. so give it 25 more years to be compiled and thats pretty much as close as one can get to the original.
QuoteYou profess to believe that the king james version is the only correct version of the bible, fine. It was written in 1611. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
It is the closest translation, of the original greek and hebrew texts into english that we can get. Tynesdale or wycliff is pretty close but they include the apocrypha as actual biblical text i think.
QuoteWhy did they write a new version? because according to the reformation movement, the bible that ALL christians had been following for 1600 years was a bunch of garbage.
Which bible did they rewrite?? Your talking about the kings scholars rewriting it? What about Martin luthors translation?
QuoteImagine that. So they all sat down and rewrote it according to what they thought it should look like. No dead sea scrolls, no lost manuscripts, nothing. In fact, it was done by committee. 47 old men got together, broke out into groups, and over a period of 8 years? went about re-writing the bible. At that time, there were dozens of different versions of the bible floating around. So what they did was took all these different bibles, picked the passages they liked best, and used that in their bible.
??? What are you talking about?
Interestingly enough, while the KJ scholars primarily used tynesdales translation over 80% of his translation, and the rest through careful study of other texts, you can look at the kjv translation and word for word match it to the greek, it is the same. The only possible discrepancies might be punctuation. So to say they copied from whatever looked good is pure bunk
QuoteNow, here's were it really gets interesting. You claim that you have access to the oldest greek and hebrew documents known. You have been crying in post after post for me to cite my sources, here they are. Where are yours? Are you referring to the dead sea scrolls? because those are pretty much just old testament stuff, and they don't mention jesus at all.
Textus receptus
QuoteLets go down this little path. You see, another committee got together, and looked at the same "documents" that you looked at and they came up with their own revision of the bible. They call it the New International Version. This bible is the most accurate if you believe that the oldest source is the most accurate.
Yep and it is so politically corrupted that it is not worth wiping ones butt with. The latest revison going on right now is to make it politically correct and gender neutral. Quite frankly the more they revise it, the more worthless it becomes.
QuoteNow you don't believe in this version of the bible. This version denies the trinity and the divinity of Jesus.
AND Thats what makes it worthless. When your originals do not deny the trinity or the divenity of christ why would this version be more accurate?? Again you go back to the original greek, and the divinity of Christ is very solid and proclaimed in it. Even Christ himself said he was God.
Quotethat John 3:16, it doesn't say begotten, they changed it to unique. We already had this discussion so i won't get into it again.
that is not what the greek says.
it says begotten (mo-no-ge-nā's)
mo-no-ge-nā's means
1) single of its kind, only
a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
Now the root words that make up mo-no-ge-nā's are
mo'-nos and gē'-no-mī
mo'-nos means
1) alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone,
only, merely
And gē'-no-mī
1)
to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made
so unique is not what the translation would be.
QuoteI believe begotten is a mistranslation, you don't Unfortunatly for you, the experts agree with me.
Wiki and the NIV folks are not the experts.
QuoteThe reverend JErry Falwell has been quoted as saying that he knows the bible has been changed and isn't accurate. To his defense, he was also saying that the bible's miracle was the effect that it has on people (he may have a point there, although it is arguable)
Jerry was a idiot too. Always inserted his foot into his mouth.
QuoteNow, you want to quote the bible to prove the trinity. None of your quotes prove a trinity. The word trinity is never used. That word never passes through Jesus' mouth.
How do you explain God saying Let US make man in OUR own image.
Now thats about as plural as one can get.
Lets do the hebrew.
Gen 1:26 elohiym `amar `asah 'adam
tselem dĕmuwth radah dagah yam `owph shamayim bĕhemah 'erets remes ramas 'erets
Note the word highlighted in red means our image. Not counting asah which means let us make.
QuoteYou post a lot of passages saying that jesus was referred to as the son of god, or lord etc. My point is, everyone is the son of god in that sense, everyone is a lord in that sense. As i mentioned already, i guess you missed it, Jesus called his disciples gods. Furthermore, here are some quotes that show jesus was not god
bar 'elahh means son of God which refers to christians. Secondly when God refers to believers he says sons of God. Third, christ himself said he is God.
The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "T
ruly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple. (John 8:57-59)
Here he says he was before Abraham, so that in itself out of his mouth says he is God. He existed before he was born into a human body.
"
I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because
You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)
EVEN THE JEWS recognized that he said he is God.
And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me.
And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." (John 12:44-46)
And so when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments, and reclined at the table again, He said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and
Lord; and you are right,
for I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:12-14)
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "
Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip?
He who has seen Me has seen the Father (John 14:6-9)
Quote# John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever; even the spirit of truth."
# John 17:1-3 Jesus prays to God.
# Hebrews 2:17,18 Hebrews 3:2 Jesus has faith in God.
# Acts 3:13 Jesus is a servant of God.
# Mark 13:32 Revelation 1:1 Jesus does not know things God knows.
# John 4:22 Jesus worships God.
# Revelation 3:12 Jesus has one who is God to him.
# 1stCorinthians 15:28 Jesus is in subjection to God.
# 1stCorinthians 11:1 Jesus' head is God.
# Hebrews 5:7 Jesus has reverent submission, fear, of God.
# Acts 2:36 Jesus is given lordship by God.
# Acts 5:31 Jesus is exalted by God.
# Hebrews 5:10 Jesus is made high priest by God.
# Philippians 2:9 Jesus is given authority by God.
# Luke 1:32,33 Jesus is given kingship by God.
# Acts 10:42 Jesus is given judgment by God.
# Acts 2:24, Romans 10.9, 1 Cor 15:15 "God raised [Jesus] from the dead".
# Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34 Jesus is at the right hand of God.
# 1 Tim 2:5 Jesus is the one human mediator between the one God and man.
# 1 Cor 15:24-28 God put everything, except Himself, under Jesus.
# Philippians 2:6 Jesus did not believe being one with God was possible
# Matthew 27:46: "Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?""
# Mark 15:34: "And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, "Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?""
Your quotes are taken way out of context. Try going back and checking out the passage to get context.
QuoteSome random thoughts....
Jesus was not the second Adam, adam was married, had offspring, populated the earth and preformed no miracles.
Jesus is betrothed, and won't marry his bride til he comes again.
I never said Adam was jesus. So Adam wouldn't preform miricles. I SAID that Jesus is the Second Adam.
QuoteThe bible is more violent than the koran, and i will post again proving it.
quite the opposite. The jews never promoted the concept of convert or die. Wars happened.
Most of the wars were perpetuated by the ammorites and descendents. God had told the jews to kill the ammorites but some bleeding hearts didn't do what God said so were left with the violence even til this day.
QuoteThe trinity was invented at Nicea, thought someone as "knowledgeable" as you are would have known that. Notice how it's not in the Torah, i wonder why?
The trinity was never invented. The trinity is proven through the whole bible, the OT and the New, it is a Doctrine of the whole bible not just a part of it. So Nicea could not invent it. The niceans only handled the NT.
QuoteLet me also say this again, more than a third of the nations founders were dieists, they did not believe in the trinity or the divinity of jesus.
so? I think there were a couple of athiests in there too.
QuoteI hope i answered all of your questions and points, on my to do list is to show the violence in the bible, compare it to the koran.
Please point out the violence perpetuated by christ.
QuoteWe have picked a fight with the muslim world, we started it. Now we want to be angry because they are fighting back? Thats very childish thinking.
No we didn't. The muslim world has been at war with christians and jews since 632 ad
Quote from: jerry wagner on December 29, 2009, 09:20:28 AM
Christians certainly have strapped bombs to blow up innocents..... ever heard of Ireland?
Well catholic church has been in apostacy for a very long time. And they perpetuated the war in the beginning between anyone not catholic and themselves.
QuoteAlso, the hands of the Christians are not clean..... the crusades ring a bell?
Done by a apostate church, catholics.
Quotehow about the witch hunts? I could continue but I think the point is made.
Not really. You see you have a period of darkness because the church at the time was trying to do what islam is trying to do. I'm not talking about christian churchs,but the catholic church. The catholics were pretty much going with the concept of convert or die. Same as Islam. It didn't work then.
The christians emerged from that era and grew because they kept the faith.
Like I said~~ you can't argue religion..
Steve.. No one will ever change your mind..as no one will ever change mine.. :)
I do agree about the Catholic Church..
but on the general belief system...
If your way works for you and you are a better person for it... then you are accomplishing what God intends..
I think that is how we as a human race should deal with all the different ways of belief..
Now... on the other hand.. if what a person is doing ISN'T making them a better person.. then I'd say a whole lot more to them.. :police:
And I also think I am done with this subject... :)
Our best days have been with the King James Bible. It's God's
preserved Word. These modern versions are corrupt and more
are coming on the market or being revised to make a few more
dollars. Years ago, folks did not need an "easy-reader" bible to
interpret the KJB for themselves, so why should we need or
trust an NIV or living bible today? The KJB ought to be all we
need.
new bibles are being released because the KJV isn't accurate. They rewrote it without the manuscripts. Now, new things are being found that prove the innaccuracy of the bible, which is why they released the NIV.
Quote from: Anmar on December 30, 2009, 01:17:49 PM
new bibles are being released because the KJV isn't accurate. They rewrote it without the manuscripts. Now, new things are being found that prove the innaccuracy of the bible, which is why they released the NIV.
Actually, that is totally incorrect. The NIV isn't even a word for word translation, unlike the Kings James Version. The NIV was developed to help understand verses and most NIV Bibles are Schofield study Bible's with footnotes and annotations to make things clearer. The NIV is a good stand alone Bible, but most people I know use it along side the KJV Bible and the New American Standard Bible. The NIV had nothing to do with inaccuracy, but rather modern day language. The New American Standard was used to even further expand on words and is also an excellent study Bible. There are also newer Bibles that are "politically correct" in their wording. Most people cannot possibly use just a KJV Bible and get all the indepth meaning in most verses. Most people use more than one version along with study aids to get in depth into verses. So, before we go accusing of inaccuracies, make sure you know what you're talking about.,
Quote from: Anmar on December 30, 2009, 01:17:49 PM
new bibles are being released because the KJV isn't accurate. They rewrote it without the manuscripts. Now, new things are being found that prove the innaccuracy of the bible, which is why they released the NIV.
There are no inaccuracies in the kjv. it is a word for word translation of the greek and hebrew. Can't be any inaccuracies if its a word for word translation of the originals.
IF you REALLY want to know where and why the NIV was created, you can read it here: http://www.biblica.com/niv/background.php (http://www.biblica.com/niv/background.php)
There are many Biblical translations. None are meant to "correct inaccuracies in the KJV, but to put it into modern language or to be "politically correct" or to appeal to some special interest group, like "women's Bibles" or "Bibles for married couples" etc.
Quote from: srkruzich on December 30, 2009, 04:37:50 PM
There are no inaccuracies in the kjv. it is a word for word translation of the greek and hebrew. Can't be any inaccuracies if its a word for word translation of the originals.
It can't be, the first manuscript wasnt discovered until after the KJV was written.
Quote from: Anmar on December 30, 2009, 04:47:21 PM
It can't be, the first manuscript wasnt discovered until after the KJV was written.
Are we talking about the OT or the NT?
Quote from: Anmar on December 30, 2009, 04:47:21 PM
It can't be, the first manuscript wasnt discovered until after the KJV was written.
Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the
King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe.
I am really impressed with the specificity and detail of the posts. Makes for interesting reading. Indepth knowlege of the topics discussed.
Quote from: Sarah on December 30, 2009, 04:55:23 PM
Are we talking about the OT or the NT?
both, the first discovery was made in 1628. KJV was finished in 1611.
What's the name of the manuscript(s) discovered?
Also, i was looking at this moon god myth. It appears that Steve has been borrowing from Robert Morey. Morey's book has been refuted and proven to be poor scholarship. He manipulates quotes, a muslim scholar took the time to refute his book. It's quite long, so i'll just copy/paste some of the stuff and provide a link. Warning, if visiting a muslim website makes you cry, you shouldn't click the link.
QuoteHow Morey Quotes Professor Goon
Let us now discuss these deceptive methods in some detail. I quote below from Morey's book to see how he argues that Allah was the Moon-god. After we read this I will point out with the help of Allah several of Morey's deceptive methods working together:
According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Goon pointed out, "The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God." The Moon-god was called al-ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names. The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day. Professor Goon goes on to say, "Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah, became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being" (Morey, pp. 10-11).
There are several problems in this short passage from Morey's book.
The first problem is that Morey has so misquoted Professor Goon that he makes the quotations say the opposite of what Goon actually said. Notice that he quoted Goon twice. According to Morey's footnote, both quotes come from Carleton S. Goon, Southern Arabia, (Washington, D.C. Smithsonian, 1944) p. 399. Very impressive! But I was able to locate these quotes in Professor Goon's book and I found that Morey clipped them out of a larger paragraph. He deceptively left out a crucial part, and separated the other two parts as though they were two unrelated quotes. Here is what Goon actually said:
The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God, but early in Arabian history the name became a general term for god, and it was this name that the Hebrews used prominently in their personal names, such as Emanu-el, Isra- el, etc., rather than the Ba'al of the northern semites proper, which was the sun. Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being (Carleton S. Goon, Southern Arabia, (Washington, D.G. Smithsonian, 1944) p. 399).
This quote from Professor Goon does not say what Dr. Morey wants to use it for, so he applied the following methods to bend it out of shape: a) He quoted the first sentence to show that the name Il or Ilah was the Moon-god of Arabia up to the time of Islam's revelation. Read Goon's statement:
"The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God, but early in Arabian history the name became a general term for god .... "
Now read Morey's quotation of that statement:
"The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon god."
Morey uses this quote to support his case that up to the time of Muhammad (pbuh) the name Allah was the title for the Moon-god. To accomplish his sin, Morey chopped the sentence in half to exclude the word "but" and everything that follows that conjunction. He did not even bother to place three dots to indicate that he has left out some words.
A second problem with Dr. Morey's approach here is that he left out of ProfessorGoon's statement what would disprove Morey's most important argument against the God of Islam. Morey is proud of repeating that Allah is not the God of the Bible but the Moon-god of pre-Islamic Arabia. It would have been inconvenient for him to repeat what Goon had said as follows: ... "and it was this name that the Hebrews used prominently in their personal names, such as Emanu-el, Isra-el, etc..." Morey would not let his readers understand that according to Professor Goon the same name which in South Arabia was used for the Moon-god was also used in Hebrew names like Emanu-el which Morey considers a name for Jesus.
A third problem is that Morey so separated two clipped pieces from Goon's writing and so interwove them with his own words that Professor Goon's meaning is lost and Morey's own meaning dominates the text. This way it appears that Goon is supporting Morey while he is not. Whereas, for example, Professor Goon's last statement is supportive of the fact that Allah is not a Moon-god but rather "the Supreme Being," Morey's placement of it within his own text will convince a less than careful reader that Goon agrees with Morey's Moon-god-in-Islam theory.
A fourth problem is that Morey does not expect his readers to spot logical fallacies in his writings. When he claimed that the title of the Moon-god was "al-ilah" he quoted Goon in his support as saying that "Il or Ilah" was originally a phase of the Moon God. Morey did not expect his readers to notice that "al-ilah" is not the same as "Il or Ilah." But even readers who are unfamiliar with the Arabic language can notice two things:
1. the words are spelt very differently, and
2. Morey's second quote from Goon exposes the error. There, Goon says that "Ilah became Al-Ilah" in Muhammad's teachings. Obviously, then, al-ilah was not the Moon-god according to Goon but only according to Morey. Goon would be shocked to see his writing misquoted in Morey's fashion.
QuoteHow Morey Quotes Caesar Farah
Let's look at another passage from page 13 of Morey's book where he quotes, this time from Caesar Farah:
Islamic scholar Caesar Farah concluded "There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed on to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews." (Parah p. 28).
Please compare this quote with the entire paragraph where Morey said he quoted it from. Here it is reproduced from Caesar Farah's book:
Allah, the paramount deity of pagan Arabia, was the target of worship in varying degrees of intensity from the southernmost tip of Arabia to the Mediterranean. To the Babylonians he was "IL" (god); to the Canaanites, and later the Israelites, he was "El"; the South Arabians worshipped him as "llah, " and the Bedouins as "al-llah" (the deity). With Muhammad he becomes Allah, God of the Worlds, of all believers, the one and only who admits no associates or consorts in the worship of Him. Judaic and Christian concepts of God abetted the transformation of Allah from a pagan deity to the God of all monotheists. There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that "Allah" passed to the Muslims from Christians and Jews. (Farah p. 28).
The first problem with Morey's quote is that he so separated the last sentence from the rest of the paragraph, that he made it say something different from what it used to say in the context of that paragraph. Such out-of-context quotations is a common ploy of Morey.
A second problem is that Morey referred to Caesar Farah as an "Islamic Scholar." Morey tries to bolster the authority of his quoted authorities by giving them adjectives as above. If by "Islamic" readers think that Caesar Farah is a Muslim, Morey has no motive to correct such a misunderstanding. And if challenged, he could say he meant "scholar of Islam." Then he should say what he means.
A third problem is that Morey left out the important discussion from Farah's book. That passage was saying that the God who was called Ilah in South Arabia was called El by the Israelites. This fact would have ruined Morey's entire Moon-god-in-Islam theory, so Morey conveniently concealed it. Why should Morey let his readers know that according to two of the gospels, Jesus was on the cross calling out to El who, if Morey is right, is the Moon- god of Islam?
QuoteConcealed Evidence
Morey makes much of archaeological findings in South Arabia at Qataban, Timna, and Marib. So he speaks of
"thousands of Sabean, Minean,and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated" (Morey, p. 7).
Wow! Except that I noticed he did not bother to quote from these inscriptions or tell us what they say. Instead, he immediately moved on to describe findings in other areas. Hmn. This is quite unlike Morey. I am sure that if he has some solid evidence he would jump on it. Why so quiet about the translated inscriptions?
One possible reason is that Morey heard about these but knows not what they say. Another possibility is that Morey found them inconvenient. I much prefer the first possibility, but in any case the findings are inconvenient for Morey. The inscriptions just do not gel with Morey's Moon-god-in-Islam theory. The translated inscriptions are compiled in the book we already referred to: The Ancient Near East, vol. 2, by James Pritchard. These inscriptions show that the Moon-god was not Allah, but Anbay,'Amm,'lyn, and Waddum. Sabaean inscriptions from Mareb show that they worshipped Attarand Waddum (see Pritchard, vol. 2, p. 230). Minaean Inscriptions mention Wadd, Waddum and Attar. Although their lunar god was Waddum, they also sacrificed to Attar (Pritchard, vol. 2 p. 235). Hadrami inscriptions, as we have already learnt from Morey's book, reveal that the name of the Moon-god in that region was Sin. Pritchard's collection of inscriptions confirms this, Sin was "the principal Hadrami lunar god" (Pritchard, vol. 2, p. 238). Here, however, we catch a glimpse of the identity of the god Attar we heard about from the Sabaean and
Minaean inscriptions. One inscription here reads: ... to Sin, He of'Ilum, and to Attar, his father" (Pritchard, vol. 2, p. 238).
Quite revealing! This shows that the Moon-god Sin had a father Attar who was also a god. So for these people the Moon-god was not the high god. This again disproves Morey. Morey kept telling us that the Moon-god was the high god among the pagans. Now we know that he was not only different in name from the high God Allah but that he also had a father. Allah, of course, was never believed to have a father. A Qatabanian inscription from Timna recognizes the god `Anbay (Pritchard, vol. 2, p. 238). And this `Anbay is "the moon divinity `Anbay" (Pritchard vol. 2, p. 236). Another god `Amm is also mentioned (p. 237). One Qatabanian rock inscription is quite revealing. It shows the name of a previously unknown god written as `lyn, consonants only. What vowels should complete that word? Pritchard and his contributors observe that `lyn may be graphically compared with the divine epitheton in the Old Testament, `elyon (`lywn; e.g., Dt 32:8); (Pritchard, vol. 2, p. 239).
So the God of the Bible was worshipped here too. Would Morey make this clear?
As promised, the link: http://www.beautifulislam.net/christianity/robert_moreys_moon_god_myth.htm
I have no idea who this fella is.
Just going by some simple facts of lineage.
The simple fact is that Allah is NOT the same god as Christian and Jewish God. Lets start with the fact that when Jesus came to us, the NT is a continuation of the OT. It is the OT fulfilled as all parts of the NT agree with the OT.
With the Koran, it does not agree with the OT whatsoever. There is no salvation for man in it.
Another thing in the Koran that makes absolutely no sense, is it is a sin to have orgies, drink wine ect but if you kill infidels and die, you get to go to heaven and have all the sex orgies you want and get drunk.
SO if its a sin here why isn't it a sin there. Go figure.
Mohammeds life itself is that of a tyrant and a pedophile, as well as a murderer and thief. God only sent his righteous men to give his word in the OT. In Islam, allah sent the worst of the worst.
Do a one on one comparison of God vs Allah and you will find they can't be the same god.
One thing that the judaeo/christian God has that the Allah god doesn't have is that EL has been around since the beginning of time and Allah is only 1400 years old according to you.
Quote from: Anmar on December 30, 2009, 09:36:19 PM
both, the first discovery was made in 1628. KJV was finished in 1611.
Well, the NT Steve already gave an answer for, but the OT was copied and kept with the Jews on scrolls. You would have to understand something about Jews to understand the significance of God choosing them to keep His word. When they copy something they are EXACT. When a Jew sat down to re-write a scroll, every single letter, every symbol, and every punctuation had to be exact. If even one letter of the scroll was off, then the whole thing was considered useless and tossed out. It took a considerable amount of time to write and check a scroll. Everything had to be exact. Even now, from some of the first scrolls that they've found, they match word for word. That's pretty amazing. No one copies scrolls like the Jews do.
Good one on the NIV.
Correction or Corruption?
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:4qiroYgZ6OYJ:www.tbaptist.com/aab/correctioncorruption.htm+niv+corruption&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Quote from: srkruzich on December 31, 2009, 06:51:00 AM
I have no idea who this fella is.
Just going by some simple facts of lineage.
The simple fact is that Allah is NOT the same god as Christian and Jewish God. Lets start with the fact that when Jesus came to us, the NT is a continuation of the OT. It is the OT fulfilled as all parts of the NT agree with the OT.
With the Koran, it does not agree with the OT whatsoever. There is no salvation for man in it.
Another thing in the Koran that makes absolutely no sense, is it is a sin to have orgies, drink wine ect but if you kill infidels and die, you get to go to heaven and have all the sex orgies you want and get drunk.
SO if its a sin here why isn't it a sin there. Go figure.
Mohammeds life itself is that of a tyrant and a pedophile, as well as a murderer and thief. God only sent his righteous men to give his word in the OT. In Islam, allah sent the worst of the worst.
Do a one on one comparison of God vs Allah and you will find they can't be the same god.
One thing that the judaeo/christian God has that the Allah god doesn't have is that EL has been around since the beginning of time and Allah is only 1400 years old according to you.
i think your arguments come from a bunch of slander. The only historical information about mohammed comes from muslims, and if those things were true, i don't think they would be saying them. Furthermore, this isn't according to me, i'm quoting someone else, i didn't write it, a muslim scholar did. The scholar is saying that he was called this name in arabic for 1400 years, not that he existed for 1400 years. he says Allah translates to The God in arabic, which it does. in fact, arab christians call god Allah too, it just how the word God translates into arabic.
Quote from: Anmar on December 31, 2009, 11:37:02 AM
i think your arguments come from a bunch of slander. The only historical information about mohammed comes from muslims, and if those things were true, i don't think they would be saying them.
Again, Islam is a relative newcomer.
QuoteFurthermore, this isn't according to me, i'm quoting someone else, i didn't write it, a muslim scholar did. The scholar is saying that he was called this name in arabic for 1400 years, not that he existed for 1400 years. he says Allah translates to The God in arabic, which it does. in fact, arab christians call god Allah too, it just how the word God translates into arabic.
First of all, since God has over 639 names, and Allah only has 99 names, if Allah is the same god as The christian/jewish God wouldn't he have the same number of names?
Secondly, why is it you are more willing to accept that their god is the same god? Allah has NONE of the characteristics of Elohiym.
Quote from: redcliffsw on December 31, 2009, 10:54:33 AM
Good one on the NIV.
Correction or Corruption?
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:4qiroYgZ6OYJ:www.tbaptist.com/aab/correctioncorruption.htm+niv+corruption&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
There are some that are staunch KJV readers only, in fact, there was a church that around Halloween was doing a "burn" of every version of the Bible except KJV Bibles saying they were evil. It takes all kinds.
Nothing wrong with being staunch KJB.
And Halloween is paganism.
We ought to take a stand for what's right, don't
ya think?
Quote from: redcliffsw on December 31, 2009, 07:34:04 PM
Nothing wrong with being staunch KJB.
And Halloween is paganism.
We ought to take a stand for what's right, don't
ya think?
Right is not just your opinion but what is in the eye of the beholder. We ought to stand for tolerance of other people and stop trying to force your beliefs on others.
But what happens when those "other" people are wrong in our eyes?
Quote from: redcliffsw on December 31, 2009, 07:34:04 PM
Nothing wrong with being staunch KJB.
And Halloween is paganism.
We ought to take a stand for what's right, don't
ya think?
Uhm, I think there's a huge difference between someone believing that Halloween is wrong and believing that someone that reads a translation other than the KJV is wrong. Sort of like comparing apples and oranges.
I am not a staunch KJV reader. I memorize verses out of the KJV usually as it's a little more poetic sounding and easier for me to memorize, but as far as study Bibles go, I always use the Schofield study Bible in NIV translation. My advice to people wanting to really get into indepth study is to use several translations side by side along with a good Concordance and other study aids. And use the cross references. I have seen more people take more verses out of context because they refuse to cross reference them. Am I a staunch KJV Bible? Absolutely not. I think there are translations out there that are better than others, but is it a matter of right and wrong? No. You're not going to go to hell just because you read an NASB or an NIV or the Living Bible or whatever. As long as it's not a Mormon Bible or a JW Bible, the Holy Spirit can use any of them to teach.
QuoteYou're not going to go to hell just because you read an NASB or an NIV or the Living Bible or whatever.
Thank you.
Quote
the Holy Spirit can use any of them to teach.
Again, Thank you.
I guess if one wants THE most accurate Bible there is in English then one really wants to read an "interlinear" Bible which I have and you can get. It's the NT written in Greek with the literal English translation right below it. It's a "parallel" Bible and mine has the greek, with the English translation right below it word for word along with the parallel of the NIV and KJV Bibles on the opposite page. You can't get any more accurate than that without being able to read Greek. :P
Quote from: Mom70x7 on January 01, 2010, 08:22:45 AM
Thank you.Again, Thank you.
:)
I don't believe in making people feel guilty for reading something other than a KJV Bible. My husband has an extremely hard time understanding a KJV Bible. A lot of people do and it uses words that we just don't use in common speech any more. There are a lot of good translations out there. To nail people down to one translation is unnecessary. I bought my husband a NASB and he's quite happy with it. :-)
Sarah - I agree. :D
Years ago, folks did much better with one translation, the KJB, before the
modern day bible publishing and marketing. I'd rather have a difficult time
understanding the KJB than to use the NIV or any of the corrupt easy readers.
NIV is owned by Zondervan. Zonderman is owned by HarperCollins. And
HarperCollins is owned by the News Corporation. I was not familiar with
the News Corporation until now - here, take a look at their website:
http://www.newscorp.com/
Look at the other books these outfits are publishing - it's no wonder they
don't like the KJB and thus promote their "own" watered-down version,
named the NIV.
For example, here's one, a HarperCollins book:
http://www.harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780380015399
What else these guys are involved?
Quote from: redcliffsw on January 01, 2010, 06:43:17 PM
Years ago, folks did much better with one translation, the KJB, before the
modern day bible publishing and marketing. I'd rather have a difficult time
understanding the KJB than to use the NIV or any of the corrupt easy readers.
NIV is owned by Zondervan. Zonderman is owned by HarperCollins. And
HarperCollins is owned by the News Corporation. I was not familiar with
the News Corporation until now - here, take a look at their website:
http://www.newscorp.com/
Look at the other books these outfits are publishing - it's no wonder they
don't like the KJB and thus promote their "own" watered-down version,
named the NIV.
For example, here's one, a HarperCollins book:
http://www.harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780380015399
What else these guys are involved?
Redcliff, I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with you on this point and so we're going to have to part ways agreeing to disagree.
So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? These and other questions will haunt us mere mortals until the end of times. Nobody knows the answers for sure and those who proclaim soveriegn knowledge are hippocrits at best. Enough already. Whatever man can do for improvement is a good thing, (I got that from Martha Stewart BTW). The origin of a book or books make no difference, so long as they are used for the good of man and his offspring.
Quote from: redcliffsw on January 01, 2010, 06:43:17 PM
Years ago, folks did much better with one translation, the KJB, before the
modern day bible publishing and marketing. I'd rather have a difficult time
understanding the KJB than to use the NIV or any of the corrupt easy readers.
NIV is owned by Zondervan. Zonderman is owned by HarperCollins. And
HarperCollins is owned by the News Corporation. I was not familiar with
the News Corporation until now - here, take a look at their website:
http://www.newscorp.com/
Look at the other books these outfits are publishing - it's no wonder they
don't like the KJB and thus promote their "own" watered-down version,
named the NIV.
For example, here's one, a HarperCollins book:
http://www.harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780380015399
What else these guys are involved?
Oh, and just for your information:
Zondervan started as a publishing company in 1931. It published the Berkeley Bible in 1959, the Amplified Bible (which by the way is another excellent study Bible), in 1965 and the NIV New Testament in 1973 and the complete NIV in 1978. Now here comes the interesting part...................... Zondervan was not bought out by HarperRowCollins publishing until 1988. 10 years AFTER the NIV was already completed. Zondervan was originally started as only a Christian publishing company. And although they were bought out by HarperRow, they continue their own identity as a Christian bookseller and also published Rick Warren's books, "A Purpose Driven Life" among others.
is that the same newscorp that runs fox news and is owned by rupert murdoch, an australian jew?
Quote from: sixdogsmom on January 01, 2010, 07:15:21 PM
The origin of a book or books make no difference, so long as they are used for the good of man and his offspring.
Well, that is the crux of the matter isn't it? The Bible isn't for the betterment of man but for the glory of God through man following the teachings of Christ. Man and all his works, no matter how good, equal nothing without God.
It appears that Zondervan is not a "Christian" publishing company. At best, it might be called
a religious publishing company. I've never been a fan or a follower of Rick Warren and I don't
give a hoot about his book. In my opinion, he's just another big dog evangelical and he is a
true matching partner for Zondervan to market religious stuff that is watering-down Christianity
in this country.
Quote from: Varmit on January 01, 2010, 11:36:28 PM
Well, that is the crux of the matter isn't it? The Bible isn't for the betterment of man but for the glory of God through man following the teachings of Christ. Man and all his works, no matter how good, equal nothing without God.
Very true. :-)
Quote from: redcliffsw on January 02, 2010, 06:36:18 AM
It appears that Zondervan is not a "Christian" publishing company. At best, it might be called
a religious publishing company. I've never been a fan or a follower of Rick Warren and I don't
give a hoot about his book. In my opinion, he's just another big dog evangelical and he is a
true matching partner for Zondervan to market religious stuff that is watering-down Christianity
in this country.
I have not read Rick Warren either, but I am very aware of who he is. But you Redcliff, are being stubborn and that's alright. You read what you feel is right, but it's not a matter of right and wrong and no one is "sinning" because they read something else and I'm leaving it at that.
Quote from: Sarah on January 02, 2010, 08:09:41 AM
I have not read Rick Warren either, but I am very aware of who he is. But you Redcliff, are being stubborn and that's alright. You read what you feel is right, but it's not a matter of right and wrong and no one is "sinning" because they read something else and I'm leaving it at that.
LOL she's got a point there red :P
Who were those people were who created the NIV? Scholars, they are called. and it would be
a good idea to know about them too. Zondervan must have thought them to be in line with
their own thinking - certainly to market the thing and sell the "new" bibles. Zondervan seems to
be holding back on information about the whole NIV scenario.
Meanwhil;e, here's a short video that points out some things about the NIV. Since I don't have
an NIV, I couldn't check what he's talking about.
The NIV Is NOT An Updated KJV! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzQOR6HgiGo
Since I've been away for the holidays, this has turned into an interesting thread. Steve, you're right when you say "....that (Islam's) Allah is NOT the same God as Christian and Jewish God."
Question: Is Allah of Islam the same God of the Bible? Nope, afraid not. Long before Muhammad was born, Arabic Christians were already referring to God as Allah and millions continue do so today. BUT.... the Allah of Islam however is definitely not the God of the Bible. For while Muslims passionately defend the unity of God they patently deny His tri-unity. Thus, they recoil at the notion of God as Father, reject the unique deity of Christ and renounce the divine personhood of the Holy Spirit.
First, while the Jesus taught his disciples to pray "Our Father in heaven," devotees of Muhammad find the very notion offensive. To their way of thinking, calling God, "father" and Jesus Christ, "son" suggests sexual procreation and according to the Qur'an: "it is not befitting to the majesty of Allah that He should beget a son ...Allah "begetteth not, nor is he begotten"(sura 19:35; 112:3).
The Bible however does not use the term begotten with respect to the Father and the Son in the sense of sexual reproduction but rather in the sense of special relationship. Thus when the Apostle John speaks of Jesus as "the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14), he is underscoring the unique deity of Christ. Likewise, when the Apostle Paul refers to Jesus as "the firstborn over all creation" he is emphasizing Christ's preeminence or prime-position as the Creator of all things. Christians are sons of God through adoption; Jesus is God the Son from all eternity.
Furthermore, Muslims dogmatically denounce the Christian declaration of Christ's unique deity as the unforgivable sin of shirk. As the Qur'an puts it, "God forgiveth not the sin of joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this (sura 4: 116). While Muslims readily affirm the sinlessness of Christ they adamantly deny His sacrifice upon the cross and subsequent resurrection. In doing so, they deny the singular historical fact which demonstrates that Jesus does not stand in a long line of peers from Abraham to Muhammad but is God in human flesh.
The Qur'anic phrase, "Allah raised him up" (sura 4:158) is taken to mean that Jesus was supernaturally raptured rather than resurrected from the dead. In Islamic lore, God made someone look like Jesus and this look-a-like was crucified in his place. In recent years, the myth that Judas was crucified in place of Jesus has been popularized in Muslim circles by a late medieval invention titled The Gospel of Barnabas. Against the weight of history and evidence the Qur'an exudes, "they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them" (sura 4:157). http://www.submission.org/suras/sura4.html
Qur'an states: And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.
Finally, in addition to rejecting personal distinctions between the Father and Son, Islam renounces the divine personhood of the Holy Spirit. Far from being the third person of the Triune God who inspired the canon of Scripture, Islam teaches that the Holy Spirit is the archangel Gabriel who dictated the Qur'an to Muhammad over a period of twenty-three years. Ironically, while the Holy Spirit who dictated the Qur'an is said to be the archangel Gabriel, Islam identifies the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus in John 14 as Muhammad. The Bible however roundly rejects such corruptions.
Biblically the Holy Spirit is neither an angel nor a mere mortal rather he is the very God who redeems us from our sins and will one day resurrect us to life eternal.
1 John 2:23 says, "No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also."