1
   

Are Muslims the "Chosen People" of GOD?

 
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:37 am
ali--

What do you mean to accomplish here? There's no way you can think that you are going to convert anyone, so what's your point? Are you trying to make us kill ourselves?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:50 am
BOOM!
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:50 am
I wonder why that keeps happening?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:58 am
Ali on another thread not sure where, you asked me what was found at the Great Mosque at Sana'a. My post got lost so I post it again

My initial reaction is two fold. First my suggestion (to find out) was to Raul not Ali. Secondly I dont like being shouted at (WHY THE CAPS?). But as you did use the word 'please', I will type out for your elucidation a couple of paragraphs from the Newstatesman magazine dated 10th Dec 2001.

Quote:
With no contemporary Muslim sources to refer to, a group of young historians working under the brilliant linguist Professor John Wansbrough at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in the seventies developed new scholarly techniques, drawing heavily on earlier biblical scholarship. Following Wansbrough's lead, they decided to look at the Koran as a literary text, to compare it to other devotional writings of the period and to look at internal clues to its origin. They found that it owed much to Judaism, especially the Talmud, a collection of commentaries and interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. They concluded, tentatively, that in the form that survives, the Koran was compiled, if not written, decades after the time of Mohammed, probably by converts to Islam in the Middle East, who introduced elements from the religions previously dominant in the region. Drs PC and MC, also working at SOAS at the time, provided an even more devastating analysis by looking at the only surviving contemporary accounts of the Islamic invasion, written in Armenian, Greek, Aramaic and Syriac by Middle Eastern witnesses to the rise of Islam. They found that Islam, as represented by admittedly biased sources, was in essence a tribal conspiracy against the Byzantine and Persian empires with deep roots in Judaism, and that Arabs and Jews were allies in these conquering communities.

Apparent support for their conclusions came from finds made during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a in Yemen, where labourers working in the roof discovered fragments of Korans that are among the oldest in existence. German scholars who studied the manuscripts discovered that some of the Koranic writing diverges from the authorised version, which by tradition is considered the pure, unadulterated word of God. What's more, some of the writing appears to have been INSCRIBED OVER EARLIER, "RUBBED-OUT" VERSIONS OF THE TEXT. This editing supports the belief of Wansbrough and his pupils that the Koran as we know it does not date from the time of Mohammed. AP, professor of Islamic history at the University of Victoria in Canada, and the author of a revisionist history of Islam published by Routledge, said: "The Sana'a manuscripts [are] part of the process of filling in the holes in our knowledge of what might have happened".


I have refered by initial only to certain people...I dont know why I should feel protective in this way...of course their work is in the academic domain.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 10:09 am
echi
I am no fan of Islam. However what he is doing is no different from what many of the devout Christians do on the forum. Proselytize and prove the impossible that Islam is the only true religion. What is good for the goose is good for the gander

Bang
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 10:47 am
au1929--

I don't know. I think it is different. At least by degree. Ali won't even try to have a discussion.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 10:58 am
Tell you what...let me figure out how to get my cubs through college, have a comfortable retirement, afford my rising insurance costs, replace my ailing van so I can get back and forth to work and know I'm always going to have three hots and a cot no matter what, and then maybe I'll worry about who the chosen people are and what they're chosen for. Meanwhile I've got more pressing issues.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 10:59 am
echi
It depends on which side of the fence you sit. Some of the posts extolling Christianity are no different from that which ali has delivered. Proselytizing is as offensive to me whether it be by Christians, Moslems and I would say Jews except that we do not proselytize
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 11:02 am
why not?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 11:06 am
Why not what?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 11:08 am
dont Jews proselytise?
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 11:10 am
au1929 wrote:
echi
It depends on which side of the fence you sit. Some of the posts extolling Christianity are no different from that which ali has delivered. Proselytizing is as offensive to me whether it be by Christians, Moslems and I would say Jews except that we do not proselytize


Yeah, I agree with you on that point. And I guess you're right... he's pretty much doing the same thing as the Christians. There's just so much MORE of it. It's freaky.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 11:17 am
Steve (as 41oo)
We do not. If one wants to convert to Judaism it has to be by there own decision. I would also add it is not an easy conversion. As for why not? I can't answer that adequately therefore I will not even attempt to.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 11:21 am
ok thanks anyway
0 Replies
 
ali87
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 01:46 pm
gungasnake wrote:
This is worth repeating. Jesus himself said it best about clowns like Muhammed (pbullshit):

Quote:


15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.



The fruits of I-slam are writ large in the pages of history books, maps, and newspapers alike. Nobody should need to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.




THEN GO SUCK ON "THE JESUS OF THE BIBLE'S" GRAPES
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 01:48 pm
I answered your question about Sana'a Ali, care to comment?
0 Replies
 
ali87
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 01:49 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Ali on another thread not sure where, you asked me what was found at the Great Mosque at Sana'a. My post got lost so I post it again

My initial reaction is two fold. First my suggestion (to find out) was to Raul not Ali. Secondly I dont like being shouted at (WHY THE CAPS?). But as you did use the word 'please', I will type out for your elucidation a couple of paragraphs from the Newstatesman magazine dated 10th Dec 2001.

Quote:
With no contemporary Muslim sources to refer to, a group of young historians working under the brilliant linguist Professor John Wansbrough at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in the seventies developed new scholarly techniques, drawing heavily on earlier biblical scholarship. Following Wansbrough's lead, they decided to look at the Koran as a literary text, to compare it to other devotional writings of the period and to look at internal clues to its origin. They found that it owed much to Judaism, especially the Talmud, a collection of commentaries and interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. They concluded, tentatively, that in the form that survives, the Koran was compiled, if not written, decades after the time of Mohammed, probably by converts to Islam in the Middle East, who introduced elements from the religions previously dominant in the region. Drs PC and MC, also working at SOAS at the time, provided an even more devastating analysis by looking at the only surviving contemporary accounts of the Islamic invasion, written in Armenian, Greek, Aramaic and Syriac by Middle Eastern witnesses to the rise of Islam. They found that Islam, as represented by admittedly biased sources, was in essence a tribal conspiracy against the Byzantine and Persian empires with deep roots in Judaism, and that Arabs and Jews were allies in these conquering communities.

Apparent support for their conclusions came from finds made during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a in Yemen, where labourers working in the roof discovered fragments of Korans that are among the oldest in existence. German scholars who studied the manuscripts discovered that some of the Koranic writing diverges from the authorised version, which by tradition is considered the pure, unadulterated word of God. What's more, some of the writing appears to have been INSCRIBED OVER EARLIER, "RUBBED-OUT" VERSIONS OF THE TEXT. This editing supports the belief of Wansbrough and his pupils that the Koran as we know it does not date from the time of Mohammed. AP, professor of Islamic history at the University of Victoria in Canada, and the author of a revisionist history of Islam published by Routledge, said: "The Sana'a manuscripts [are] part of the process of filling in the holes in our knowledge of what might have happened".


I have refered by initial only to certain people...I dont know why I should feel protective in this way...of course their work is in the academic domain.




fair enough, now let me ask you a question:


OK, NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS TO ME?


IF THE QURAN IS "STOLEN" FROM THE BIBLE THEN HOW DO JUSTIFY THIS:

btw this is just one of the many flaws in the bible

the bible claimed noah's flood to have been all around the world, while the quran claimed it was much like a local flood and it was only the area that noah and his people lived, not "THE WHOLE WORLD" as the bible claimed. i didnt know back then 1400 years ago they had arab geologist with high tech!

and today geology and archeology proved bible's claims about the flood wrong and proved quran's right.


science proved that the flood was a local flood, as quran calimed, not "the whole world" as the bible did!!

THEN IF THE QURAN WAS STOLEN FROM THE PAST WHY DID THEY CHANGE THAT? HUH?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO ME?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 01:57 pm
ali87 wrote:
"Zoroaster had one God and I find him to be a very interesting character indeed. "

YES HE WAS MY PROPHET WAAY BEFORE JESUS WAS BORN, AND HE TAUGHT HIS PEOPLE TO BELIEVE IN ONE GOD, but "PAUL" NOT "JESUS" TAUGHT IDOL WORSHIPPING, SO THERFORE ILL TAKE MY DEAR PROPHET THAT CAME BEFORE JESUS, RATHER THAN CHRISTIANITY. I WILL TELL YOU AGAIN PERSIANS HATED CHRISTIANITY SO MUCH BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WAS CORRUPT AND THEY WERE A CIVILIZED NATION, WHEN JESUS'S PEOPLE WERE LIVING ON TREES AS MONKEYS AND SWIMMING IN THEIR DADDY'S SACKS PERSIA WAS CIVILIZED, READ ABOUT BAGHDAD "THE CITY OF LIGHT" PERSIANS CAME AND FLOURISHED THAT CITY. THEY HAD KNOWLEDGE AND THEY SAW THE UGLY TRUTH IN CHRISTIANITY.


THEY HATED IT SO MUCH AND THEY EVEN HAD A "HOLY **** WAR" WITH THE ROMANS OVER IT.


Yes Zoroaster was a great prophet.

I would like you to show me one place where Paul the apostle in any way shape or form taught idolatry in the new testament of the Bible. That is where you and radical Islam (if they believe Paul worshiped idolatry) are dead wrong... No where in the entire writings did Paul ever tell a single Christian to worship Jesus...

Here is where your teachers are "guessing" about the Bible and they have "no" idea what they are talking about. You believe these false teaching about the Bible rather than looking for yourself, that is not very smart or scientific.

These false teaching just teach hate. Just like the Christians who believe Jesus is God and pray to him do not read the Bible but listen to the teachings and traditions of men who do not even know what Paul really had to say about idolatry.

Also Nimrod who founded Babylon with his father Cush was one of the worst idolaters that ever lived. He was an early king of Babylon in modern day Iraq. I would not be too proud about that. His religion was also borrowed by the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans and even the Norse. In fact we can thank Babylon for the majority of idolatry in our world today... The Islamic Persians when the were fighting the Greeks were only fighting a system that initially started in their own back yard.

All you have to go do is dig in the desert in Iraq/Iran and you will find your own idolatry... LOTS OF IT. Before you go pointing your finger at Christians whose leader, Paul, directed us to only worship ONE God in spirit you might realize you have three fingers pointing back at yourself.

The Hebrews never made a religion out of idolatry. Only the "fallen" of the Hebrews left the faith of monotheism to worship idols.

Nimrod of Babylon on the other hand openly worshiped in idolatry and infected the world (Greeks, Romans etc) with it. I would not be very proud of that.

The Romans were corrupt and it was the paganism of Nimrod/Babylon/Iraq that corrupted them...

Ephesians 4:2-16
2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Paul the Apostle wrote there is one God... now where do you find idolatry in that?

Your "teachings" of the Christian Bible are simply WRONG. Why don't you try reading it yourself for a change rather than teaching what others tell you who don't know what they are talking about.

Just because many Christians have decided to worship Jesus does not mean that is what the Bible has instructed them to do... think about that.

It was Paul who forbid the worship of statues/idols in Rome on Mars hill. He pointed out they had a tribute to the "unknown God" on Mars hill and that they had been worshiping the true God and not knowing it. This nearly cost him his life at the time for standing against relic worship and the statues of Diana. This relic worship came from Babylon...

You have your religious facts backwards my friend...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 02:00 pm
ali87 wrote:

THEN GO SUCK ON "THE JESUS OF THE BIBLE'S" GRAPES


There is no need of this... Is this what your Islam has taught you? Intolerance and hate?

If so you can keep it I don't want it.. more like sour grapes...
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 02:09 pm
ali87 wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Ali on another thread not sure where, you asked me what was found at the Great Mosque at Sana'a. My post got lost so I post it again

My initial reaction is two fold. First my suggestion (to find out) was to Raul not Ali. Secondly I dont like being shouted at (WHY THE CAPS?). But as you did use the word 'please', I will type out for your elucidation a couple of paragraphs from the Newstatesman magazine dated 10th Dec 2001.

Quote:
With no contemporary Muslim sources to refer to, a group of young historians working under the brilliant linguist Professor John Wansbrough at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in the seventies developed new scholarly techniques, drawing heavily on earlier biblical scholarship. Following Wansbrough's lead, they decided to look at the Koran as a literary text, to compare it to other devotional writings of the period and to look at internal clues to its origin. They found that it owed much to Judaism, especially the Talmud, a collection of commentaries and interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. They concluded, tentatively, that in the form that survives, the Koran was compiled, if not written, decades after the time of Mohammed, probably by converts to Islam in the Middle East, who introduced elements from the religions previously dominant in the region. Drs PC and MC, also working at SOAS at the time, provided an even more devastating analysis by looking at the only surviving contemporary accounts of the Islamic invasion, written in Armenian, Greek, Aramaic and Syriac by Middle Eastern witnesses to the rise of Islam. They found that Islam, as represented by admittedly biased sources, was in essence a tribal conspiracy against the Byzantine and Persian empires with deep roots in Judaism, and that Arabs and Jews were allies in these conquering communities.

Apparent support for their conclusions came from finds made during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a in Yemen, where labourers working in the roof discovered fragments of Korans that are among the oldest in existence. German scholars who studied the manuscripts discovered that some of the Koranic writing diverges from the authorised version, which by tradition is considered the pure, unadulterated word of God. What's more, some of the writing appears to have been INSCRIBED OVER EARLIER, "RUBBED-OUT" VERSIONS OF THE TEXT. This editing supports the belief of Wansbrough and his pupils that the Koran as we know it does not date from the time of Mohammed. AP, professor of Islamic history at the University of Victoria in Canada, and the author of a revisionist history of Islam published by Routledge, said: "The Sana'a manuscripts [are] part of the process of filling in the holes in our knowledge of what might have happened".


I have refered by initial only to certain people...I dont know why I should feel protective in this way...of course their work is in the academic domain.




fair enough...



OK got that boys and girls? Ali has read the above, and comments "fair enough" (Thats all he has to say, he goes on to ask another completely different question about the Flood)

By "fair enough" Ali is clearly in general in agreement with the Newstatesman article.

So he accepts the Koran was not written in the time of Mohammed. That the text of the Koran now is not the same as the original, and that Islam itself is a bastardised version of Judaism.

Excellent we are making progress Ali.

[Regarding the Flood, I couldnt give a damn if the bible was referring to the whole world, part of the world, or just to Noah's boating arena.]
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 06:26:43