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.

 

You know what they always say: One man's Messiah is another's Dajjal.

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Regarding Dajjal, let me show you a Hadith....


Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 71 :: Hadith 627Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "Neither Messiah (Ad-Dajjal) nor plague will enter Medina."Medicine


But then....look at this Quran verse


Surat At-Tawbah 9:31 They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.


Hmm, big problem here, if the same Arabic word is used for Messiah, the Quran calling Jesus the Messiah, then the Hadith saying that Al Masiah is the Dajjal, there's a huge disconnect.

Oh no! "Christ" and "Anti-Christ" use the same word, "Christ"! There is a huge disconnect!

Al-Masih ad-Dajjal (Arabic: المسيح الدجّال‎, translit.: Al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl; English: "the false messiah")
Al-Masih Ibn Maryam (Arabic: المسيح بن مريم, translit.: ʿAl-Masīḥ ibn Maryām; English: the messiah, son of Mary)
SUCH A HUGE DISCONNECT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO!
edit on 11-6-2015 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-6-2015 by babloyi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: babloyi

Again, YOUR translators need to get it right.

Take it up with them, because THEY are the ones who are in error..not me. I can only tell you what the translators say.

Would you say then that the translators are corrupting Quran?



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy
My translators? I don't pay either of them, but in both quotes (not showing in my quote of your post, but easily enough accessible) that you posted, it very clearly states who they're talking about. "Messiah (Ad-Dajjal)" and "Messiah, the son of Mary". Does that confuse you somehow? Only someone who REALLY REALLY REALLY wants to find something wrong where there is nothing wrong would be able to mix that up.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: WarminIndy
My translators? I don't pay either of them, but in both quotes (not showing in my quote of your post, but easily enough accessible) that you posted, it very clearly states who they're talking about. "Messiah (Ad-Dajjal)" and "Messiah, the son of Mary". Does that confuse you somehow? Only someone who REALLY REALLY REALLY wants to find something wrong where there is nothing wrong would be able to mix that up.


Then your translators (yes, yours because they translate your religious texts) should have used a different word. If that's not what Mohammed meant, then find the scholars and thrash them soundly for presenting the English with a translation of errors.

See, Christians do it all the time with each other, we fight over the Greek and Hebrew words to find the nearest meaning, and we don't have to be scholars and we don't have to kill each other over it. Not one single Christian on these threads threaten each others lives over a mistranslated word.

But since you have a ruling body of imams and scholars translating for you what the Quran says and you guys must be able to pick and choose verses according to whatever imam you like, then that must surely be a convenience for you guys who can argue whether or not you are allowed to drink beer or how much you pay the prostitute in mutah marriage.

Is that really why you like Islam so much, because it allows you mutah marriage and death to infidels for eating pork, but you can be allowed because you might be forgiven for it simply by being Muslim?

Exactly what attracts you to Islam anyway?

You spend a lot of time defending Quran that is apparently mistranslated wrong. So which imam should I grab by the collar and ask him exactly what does it mean by this...


2:191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.


I'm now pretty sure that is an error in translation from Sahih. And I'm pretty sure that meant killing in a metaphorical way, because surely it is an allegory because you wouldn't kill anyone in the name of Islam. Good for you that you wouldn't, but how are you going to convince the other 1.6 billion Muslims who take this literally?

I think you must be one of those Muslims who like the idea of being able to wear a cool little hat and grow your beard long and not wear pants above your ankles, and have wives when you want and not eat pork and not drink beer, because it must be way cool to go to masjid and take your sandals off and prostrate yourself (without passing gas) because that cry from the minaret to call you to prayer has such a beautiful rhythm.

I don't know why you want to be Muslim or what you get out of it, but how are you convincing the others who take everything literal?

Dajjal, that's the anti-Christ, that's the one we were warned to avoid, because Dajjal wants everyone to worship him. And Dajjal will kill you if you don't. In fact, Dajjal will have you beheaded if you don't. And exactly WHO beheads people for a religion?

1.6 billion Muslims say beheading is the appropriate sentence for being kafir, but don't tell us it isn't right, you tell your Muslim brothers and sisters that the Quran really didn't mean that.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Then your translators (yes, yours because they translate your religious texts) should have used a different word. If that's not what Mohammed meant, then find the scholars and thrash them soundly for presenting the English with a translation of errors.

But that IS what was meant. What was meant is crystal clear. What is written is what is attempted to be communicated. It is only by attempting to twist the meaning that you could possibly reach any other. How would anyone be confused as to what was being said?

To be clear, since you keep going on and on and on about translations and how mistranslation is not your fault, I'm not saying there is any mistranslation. I'm saying you're suffering from broken reading comprehension.


originally posted by: WarminIndy
See, Christians do it all the time with each other, we fight over the Greek and Hebrew words to find the nearest meaning, and we don't have to be scholars and we don't have to kill each other over it. Not one single Christian on these threads threaten each others lives over a mistranslated word.

I don't remember killing or threatening you over these words. Just pointing out the absurdity. I suspect no one in the history of the universe has been confused by those two passages before this thread (congratulations, I guess?), never mind threatened anyone.


originally posted by: WarminIndy
Is that really why you like Islam so much, because it allows you mutah marriage and death to infidels for eating pork, but you can be allowed because you might be forgiven for it simply by being Muslim?

Yes, you have got it exactly right! Everyone who has a belief system different then you is actually secretly evil! Only YOUR side is right! How could I possibly want to be a muslim, if not for evil reasons and personal gain? You're so perceptive and open-minded!


originally posted by: WarminIndy
2:191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

How very typical of you to quote that! I suggest you go to a site with the Quran's translation, and not whatever hate-blog you got that from (and I am absolutely certain you did, because if you had gotten it yourself, you would have read the line before and after) read even the line before and after that. Then perhaps you can grab yourself by the collar and ask yourself what on earth you are doing.
edit on 11-6-2015 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: babloyi

Then you never read my links, do you.

Hmm, since I posted only Islamic sources, except the United Nations one, and never do I post from blogs, I guess then that those Muslims got it wrong also and are filled with hate.

No dear, you aren't evil, but I don't think you know the actual history of your religion. It actually is Arianism, a Christian heresy. Every word, surah and ayat are Arianism.

That makes you a Christian, defacto, by default, even if it is heretical, you follow Arianism.

Arianism

Would you care to discuss this doctrine of Arianism? Islam is that, therefore making Muslims Christians.

Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica 8 Read View History Edit Feedback Read More: Christianity religion heresy Sabellianism Monarchianism semi-Arianism Anomoean monophysite Arianism, a Christian heresy first proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. It affirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being. Arius’ basic premise was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent and immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent, cannot be God. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated, so the Son cannot be God. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable, being represented in the Gospels as subject to growth and change, cannot be God. The Son must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence.


Does that not sound like Islam?



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy
Posted only Islamic sources? At exactly which Islamic source did you find verse 191 of the 2nd Surah of the Quran, yet it didn't have verse 190 or 192 (or 189, 193, etc.)? I can't tell which hate-blog it is from, sorry, because you didn't provide a link with it, only external tags.

And saying this in the utmost seriousness, I seem to be knowledgeable about Islam at several orders of magnitude greater than you seem to be, at least according to what evidence you provide to me. And I do not say this to insult you, just to point out that you don't seem to understand Islam at all. Yet you do talk an awful lot about it.

Also, do you think you are insulting me by calling me a Christian?
A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, and I'd be glad to be numbered among those. Arianism, while nontrinitarian, attributes something more than simple humanity (and Prophethood) upon Jesus. If I had to choose, I'd go with some other unitarian branch.

Now are YOU a Christian, or do you follow a "heresy" as well?



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Sorry I got the century wrong, I will be more prudent next time. But you actually made my point. The bible doesn't translate to begotten.

The NT translates better to only one or unique one. This translation agrees with the Koran.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

So how is it impossible for God to say be, and Jesus became that, in the womb of Mary? Have you limited God's ability?


Because that is not what the Bible says. And the Koran explains the birth of Christ even further. According to the Koran Jesus spoke to Marry while still in the womb. And while still an infant in a crib he spoke to Marry's relatives to assure them she was a virgin and he was sent from God.

If you could accept the Koran as the final testimony to the Jews, then you could accept the beautiful things the Koran has to say about Mary and our Messiah. The Son of God, the only one made by the word of God, who is the word of God, Jesus Christ our Holy Spirit within.


edit on 11-6-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: Isurrender73

The Quran mentions several times that God has not begotten a son and that there's nothing remotely similar to him. God is one, all-knowing, all-powerful and all-merciful This means that Isa/Jesus cannot be the son of God.


God said let their be light. This light was his son. His son is not begotten, because begotten is a 13th century word that translates to a human sexual type of birth.

So Jesus is not begotten, nor is he equal to his father. But Allah is his father. And Jesus/YHWH who molded the bird out of the dust and blew into it life also formed Adam out of dust and blew into him life. This according to the Koran, although mistranslated by some.

Jesus is the only son who God said "Be". We are son's of our king, our messiah, Jesus Christ. If we are obedient to the Holy Spirit we are adopted into the kingdom of heaven and accepted as children of Allah.

This is how to reconcile the three Abrahamic faiths.


This is how to reconcile the three Abrahamic faiths?

You don't make stuff up to do that since it is obvious that other than trying to relate some historical characters together, nothing else fits.


YHWH / Elohim is definitely not Allah and even causal observation will reveal that.

And Jesus / Yashua HaMashiach is definitely not Isa

Allah originated from Baal and the usual Babylon mystery religion.
edit on 11-6-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Ok, You can tell over a billion people that.

I prefer to believe that the religions were founded by prophets, therefore the texts must be able to be reconciled.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: infolurker

Ok, You can tell over a billion people that.

I prefer to believe that the religions were founded by prophets, therefore the texts must be able to be reconciled.


You can't reconcile things that are not reconcilable.

Example - How do you reconcile the abortion topic? It is either life or it isn't. The arguments and positions are completely at odds with one another. Same as this.

When your religious text tells you that God will punish sinners for their transgressions after this life, you find it a little easier to turn the other cheek. When your religious text tells you that God the father sent his son to die for your sins and to ignore the world and accept Jesus as the way to eternity.

When your religious text glorifies conquest over the non-believer and instructs you to punish sinners yourself in this world then violence is the righteous path. When the afterlife promised is "rewards of the flesh" it counters everything in polar opposition to that of Jesus.

edit on 11-6-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)







 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join