It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
We can break this down. Abraham had two sons, Issac and Jacob. One was responsible for creating Islam the other Judaism. Both are Semitic duo races and what they spawned as brothers together (in unison) their progeny; are "the two hate each other". What does that say about the brothers relationship (THANKS GUYS).
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Rex282
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: AnuTyr
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing
a reply to: AnuTyr
We can break this down. Abraham had two sons, Issac and Jacob. One was responsible for creating Islam the other Judaism. Both are Semitic duo races and what they spawned as brothers together (in unison) their progeny; are "the two hate each other". What does that say about the brothers relationship (THANKS GUYS).
That is not correct.Abraham sons were Ishmael and Issac .Issac's sons were the twins Esau and Jacob(who became Israel).There is NOTHING in the scripture that says Ishmael is the Father of the Muslims.That is the extrapolation of religious rhetoric...shame on you...
Nit pick my understanding of the Old Testament?.
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: jmdewey60
If you look up the word that Paul uses when he says that he was "a Hebrew of Hebrews", the definition in the lexicon is: "Definition: a Hebrew, particularly one who speaks Hebrew (Aramaic)."
I invite you to visit the following web page -- It cannot be copied or pasted but will solve your confusion.
_javascript:hyperlink()
The English translations say "Hebrew" simply because that was the word used by whoever wrote Acts, but any commentary will tell you that it does not mean what we think of as Hebrew today, but only meant to imply a distinctively Jewish way of speaking Aramaic.
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: jmdewey60
If you look up the word that Paul uses when he says that he was "a Hebrew of Hebrews", the definition in the lexicon is: "Definition: a Hebrew, particularly one who speaks Hebrew (Aramaic)."
I invite you to visit the following web page -- It cannot be copied or pasted but will solve your confusion.
_javascript:hyperlink()
Paul is the Hebrew of Hebrews? or Jesus? Jesus was a gnostic not a Christian; evidently Paul didn't know his place as a Jew; (thought outside the box and invented Christianity by accident in contrast to his heritage). Do Jews see Paul as a traitor (as the inventor of Christianity) more so than Jesus, a gnostic Essene (with a darn good message) that unfortunately became its figurehead?
Rex282: No nit picking here. I was simply pointing out the fact.It is written in the book of Genesis very clearly Abraham's sons were Ishmael and Issac. It also is very absent from any book of the old testimony that Ishmael has anything to do with Islam.The Muslims made that up.You are also free to make up whatever you want however it will most likely contradict the truth.
My truth is not YOUR TRUTH (so we will differ/a contradiction as you say) however; my truth is BETTER than yours.
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: jmdewey60
_javascript:hyperlink()
VHB: Paul is the Hebrew of Hebrews? or Jesus? Jesus was a gnostic not a Christian; evidently Paul didn't know his place as a Jew; (thought outside the box and invented Christianity by accident in contrast to his heritage). Do Jews see Paul as a traitor (as the inventor of Christianity) more so than Jesus, a gnostic Essene (with a darn good message) that unfortunately became its figurehead?
Rex282: Yahoshua was no more a Gnostic/Essene than he was a Christian.Reading between the lines will only make you more crosseyed.
If not a Gnostic or a Christian; how would you describe the Man/Master Jesus and do it without using any ministry (and that means no scripture or conjecture from others); from your heart to mine tell me.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: vethumanbeing
My truth is not YOUR TRUTH (so we will differ/a contradiction as you say) however; my truth is BETTER than yours.
Relativist Fallacy
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing
Okay, the link was very concise, apparently you never looked at it. Here are the brass tacks:
"True for you, but not true for me" = relativist fallacy. Objective truth is still the truth even if nobody believes it.
VHB:
If not a Gnostic or a Christian; how would you describe the Man/Master Jesus and do it without using any ministry (and that means no scripture or conjecture from others); from your heart to mine tell me.
NOTurTypical: Loaded question. The gospels claim to be historical accounts of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. So they can be used as historical documents for that purpose alone. You can reject the metaphysical aspects if you want though, because that falls outside of science and is religion.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing
I only said you (or anyone else) can deny the metaphysical aspects of the gospels 'if you want to' (not that you did per se), but since they claim to be historical accounts those claims can be used to determine historical accuracy. So if you disallow then at the onset then ask someone to proves something without using them for that specific purpose that would be a loaded question in your favor. That is why there are Atheist and Agnostic historians who don't deny a historical figure named Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago, while denying the miracles attributed to Him and the resurrection.
Do you have some other way to link to it because it is not working for me.
I invite you to visit the following web page
originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: SeedeDo you have some other way to link to it because it is not working for me.
I invite you to visit the following web page
OK, I just noticed that you re-did the link in another post.
The web site is obviously biased with an apparent agenda to get Christians to think that Hebrew is the "holy" language.
They are Sacred Language proponents.
I doubt that Hebrew even even existed before the Babylonian Captivity, and I think that it was invented specifically to construct what would pass as a holy book to convince the Persians of the legitimacy of the local deity of Zion as being a "Great God".
The cold, hard reality is that the only example of biblical Hebrew literature is the Bible itself.
The web page author is trying to present the idea that the rabbinic Hebrew of the Talmud, that did not even exist until after 70 AD, was somehow a spoken language in the general Jewish population.
It is preposterous, and I don't know why someone would promote it unless they are obsessed with the idea of making a "sacred language" even if it means lying to get it done.
I don't think that there really was a race, and even in Exodus, there was a lot of Egyptians who followed the Israelites, so there wasn't really a pure blood to start with.
. . . they welcomed this race to protect NOT ENSLAVE . . .
Or they just had a good method of making a type of poured concrete that looks just like it was quarried and shaped solid stone.
The Egyptians of that time period knew how to soften/change the molecular components of stone