Google Earth proves Muhammad-Islam

page: 19
25
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Lets ask them




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





The gist I get from the OP is that it's not Mohammed's truthfulness confirmed, because Mohammed, by the OP's logic, could not have known the proper direction by himself. I don't subscribe to that notion, by the way - I see no reason that Mohammed would not have known the proper direction. It has been established that he had a life early on as a successful trader and traveler, and one cannot do that with a poor sense of direction. Take that for what it's worth from a traveler.


It is different traveling on a trade route and know where you are going as opposed to knowing precisely where to aim. Sure you can take a highway all the way from NYC to seattle and know that you will end up in seattle but would you know which direction to precisely aim the construction of one building?

I have shown you the poor quality maps that they had. Do you have some evidence that would lead us to believe he had other maps that we are not privy to?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Lets ask them


That's not something you should put past me - ask THE_PROFESSIONAL - HE knows I'm not quite right!



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


It's not all that different. I've done a lot of cross-country travel, off the roads, and can tell you it's just a matter of selecting the proper landmarks to make sure you are staying lined up correctly. If you are aware of "trade routes" and how they work, you'll understand better. trade routes are not paved highways with road signs. They are usually what amounts to woven, interconnected pathways. You may have 8 or 10 going in the same general direction, which branch off to other places, and merge back into the main line of drift.

Traveling along those sorts of caravan paths, especially in deserts, can be an adventure in itself, because land marks are few and far between. You have to use stars, sun, moon, etc. a lot in conjunction with the landmarks in order to keep the landmarks lined up correctly. it's no coincidence that astronomy was pioneered in desert areas, with it's birth as a science being in Sumeria/Iraq.

people think of trading paths, caravan routes, and things like the Ho Chi Minh trail through Laos as a roadway, but they're not. They're more like a series of landmarks, and the "path" itself is not a beaten trail, it's a series of landmarks that the traveler chooses how own path between.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


reply to post by nenothtu
 




Viewpoints are important


Going back to the Eid example, in America there are many who view the sacrifice as no sacrifice at all, but an instance of animal cruelty under the laws. Does that invalidate the Eid sacrifice or what it commemorates? Because it has been legalistically determined to not be a "sacrifice"?


This is not about "viewpoints". Going by the christian scriptures... we can see that the OT animal sacrifices (on which rests the christian theology of Jesus "sin sacrifice") were always ritual. They were carried out under the supervision of a religious priest... involved the use of consecrated items...and most importantly was dedicated to a deity.

However, the biblical narrative of Jesus' sacrifice shows that it was NOT a "sin sacrifice".... because there were no priests or consecreated tools. Neither was it dedicated to any deity. Instead it was simply a routine Roman execution without the "ritual".

The christians have injected a ritualistic meaning to Jesus' death and woven an elaborate theology around his death.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



I've not made that determination for myself, because frankly none of those passages are important to me in reaching a conclusion on this matter


Actually it is important...because it all pertains to the role and definition of the messiah (from the christian perspective). You seemed to be interested in the definition of "messiah" a few pages ago.

Remember, "messiah" was originally a concept of the Old Testament people...and NOT the christians.
So lets stick to the definition of "messiah" as defined by the OT people....

We see that
a)the messiah was to be a normal human being and NOT divine.
b)the messiah's role was not to be a sin sacrifice.

The muslims who believe the messiah is not divine, sticks to the definition of "messiah" as defined by the people who originally had the concept of "messiah". (Jews reject the messiah, but thats a different story.)

The christians, however believe the messiahs role was to be a sin sacrifice and also that he is a part of God or God himself....meaning they have altered the original meaning of "messiah".






So enlighten me - why DID they slaughter bulls, heifers, goats, lambs, and even birds like doves on their sacrificial altars?


The purpose of an animal sacrifice did have something to do with cleansing "sin".

Unlike Jesus' sin sacrifice, these slaughters involved rituals and priests and consecrated objects.


Christianity relies on the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament to substantiate their "sin sacrifice" theololgy. Which is why christians draw parallels to the Old Testament sin sacrifices and Jesus "sin sacrifice"... because they believe it all foreshadowed Jesus sin sacrifice.



edit on 4-6-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
The idea that receiving paranormal information makes someone "right" or "superior" is fallacious. .All it does is make them channelers.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

This is not about "viewpoints". Going by the christian scriptures... we can see that the OT animal sacrifices (on which rests the christian theology of Jesus "sin sacrifice") were always ritual. They were carried out under the supervision of a religious priest... involved the use of consecrated items...and most importantly was dedicated to a deity.


Of course it's about viewpoints. It's ALL about viewpoints. You are taking a legalistic Jewish viewpoint, and attempting to apply it to a Christian spiritual viewpoint, in an attempt to negate and deny the Christian viewpoint altogether. One must wonder if you attempt to use Jewish religious law to validate ALL your arguments, or simply the ones it suits you to employ it in.



However, the biblical narrative of Jesus' sacrifice shows that it was NOT a "sin sacrifice".... because there were no priests or consecreated tools. Neither was it dedicated to any deity. Instead it was simply a routine Roman execution without the "ritual".


The Messiah himself fulfilled the role of priest and performed the consecrations and dedications, so it's hardly accurate to say those elements were absent.



The christians have injected a ritualistic meaning to Jesus' death and woven an elaborate theology around his death.


Again, that depends on whether you give credence to the Bible, or simply want to pick and choose the portions you want to validate, and toss the rest out with the bathwater.

I agree that many Christians have woven an elaborate theology around the event, most of which is decidedly unbiblical, but the elements to account for an atonement sacrifice are all there in the Bible. It's simply a matter of how much validity you assign to the Christian book.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by nenothtu
 



I've not made that determination for myself, because frankly none of those passages are important to me in reaching a conclusion on this matter


Actually it is important...because it all pertains to the role and definition of the messiah (from the christian perspective). You seemed to be interested in the definition of "messiah" a few pages ago.

Remember, "messiah" was originally a concept of the Old Testament people...and NOT the christians.
So lets stick to the definition of "messiah" as defined by the OT people....

We see that
a)the messiah was to be a normal human being and NOT divine.
b)the messiah's role was not to be a sin sacrifice.


Actually they are NOT important to me in determining that role, and I've not taken them into the account at all. If you insist, however, in applying them, you will need to demonstrate where your points a) and b) are specified in them. Where, for example, do you believe that it specifies that the messiah id not to be divine, and where does it specify that he will not be a "sin sacrifice"?



The muslims who believe the messiah is not divine, sticks to the definition of "messiah" as defined by the people who originally had the concept of "messiah". (Jews reject the messiah, but thats a different story.)


I'm willing to entertain that notion, but have yet to see any evidence put forward to support that contention.



The christians, however believe the messiahs role was to be a sin sacrifice and also that he is a part of God or God himself....meaning they have altered the original meaning of "messiah".


Some do seem to suffer under the trinitarian delusion. Again, where does it specify that the messiah is forbidden to be a "sin sacrifice"?




So enlighten me - why DID they slaughter bulls, heifers, goats, lambs, and even birds like doves on their sacrificial altars?


The purpose of an animal sacrifice did have something to do with cleansing "sin".


So they were "sacrifices", and they "had something to do with cleansing sin", but they were NOT "sin sacrifices"?





Unlike Jesus' sin sacrifice, these slaughters involved rituals and priests and consecrated objects.



Would the messiah not be a holy man? Would the things he consecrates somehow remain unconsecrated because a pagan Roman magistrate failed to consecrate them as well? Are the rituals and prayers of the messiah to no effect, then, because Romans failed to recognize them?

Are the prayers and rituals of a Muslim ineffective because someone else would fail to recognize them?



Christianity relies on the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament to substantiate their "sin sacrifice" theololgy. Which is why christians draw parallels to the Old Testament sin sacrifices and Jesus "sin sacrifice"... because they believe it all foreshadowed Jesus sin sacrifice.



Christians draw those parallels because they are grasping at straws, failing to acknowledge the power inherent in the gospel. They think that they must somehow verify the gospels and validate them to the Jews by going back to the Jewish books, in the same way that Muslims think they must verify and validate Mohammed to Christians by citing Christian passages and claiming they apply to Mohammed. Muslims, however, are somewhat more hampered in that effort by claiming that the Christian books in existence now are not "correct", then trying to justify their assertions by appealing to those same "incorrect" books.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Lets ask them


That's not something you should put past me - ask THE_PROFESSIONAL - HE knows I'm not quite right!






lol.... I would do it, I can even telecommunicate with the animals... I KNOW what they will say... (after they answer of course!)

hahahaha



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Where, for example, do you believe that it specifies that the messiah id not to be divine, and where does it specify that he will not be a "sin sacrifice"?]


The messiah being "divine" and a "sin sacrifice" are christian concepts.
You know that the Christians came much later later and they modified the original concept of a human "messiah" to make him a "sin sacrifice" and "God".

So when a christian speaks of "messiah", we know they are referring to a concept that the jews originally defined. So its best to go by the jewish definition of "messiah".

--------------------------------------------------------------

"The muslims who believe the messiah is not divine, sticks to the definition of "messiah" as defined by the people who originally had the concept of "messiah". (Jews reject the messiah, but thats a different story.) "


I'm willing to entertain that notion, but have yet to see any evidence put forward to support that contention.


Its simple.... the jews defined the messiah as a normal human and NOT divine....
And if Jesus is THE messiah... then muslims who accept Jesus "the messiah" understand him as a normal human and NOT divine.

Its the christians who wrongly believe that the messiah was supposed to be divine, (though they accept Jesus as messiah.) So christians are in no position to question the jewish definition of "messiah" being human.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Would the messiah not be a holy man? Would the things he consecrates somehow remain unconsecrated because a pagan Roman magistrate failed to consecrate them as well? Are the rituals and prayers of the messiah to no effect, then, because Romans failed to recognize them?

Are the prayers and rituals of a Muslim ineffective because someone else would fail to recognize them?


The messiah is a holy man, but not divine.

Go over the NT account of Jesus crucifixion one more time.
NOT ONCE does he say anything about his death being a sin sacrifice.
edit on 5-6-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

The messiah being "divine" and a "sin sacrifice" are christian concepts.
You know that the Christians came much later later and they modified the original concept of a human "messiah" to make him a "sin sacrifice" and "God".

So when a christian speaks of "messiah", we know they are referring to a concept that the jews originally defined. So its best to go by the jewish definition of "messiah".


That does not explain where the specific prohibitions AGAINST that concept are to be found.

--------------------------------------------------------------



Its simple.... the jews defined the messiah as a normal human and NOT divine....
And if Jesus is THE messiah... then muslims who accept Jesus "the messiah" understand him as a normal human and NOT divine.


Again, where can I find that Jewish definition?



Its the christians who wrongly believe that the messiah was supposed to be divine, (though they accept Jesus as messiah.) So christians are in no position to question the jewish definition of "messiah" being human.



NO ONE can question it until SOMEONE can point it out. Until it is pointed out as being in existence, it does not stand in need of being questioned.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Would the messiah not be a holy man? Would the things he consecrates somehow remain unconsecrated because a pagan Roman magistrate failed to consecrate them as well? Are the rituals and prayers of the messiah to no effect, then, because Romans failed to recognize them?

Are the prayers and rituals of a Muslim ineffective because someone else would fail to recognize them?


The messiah is a holy man, but not divine.

Go over the NT account of Jesus crucifixion one more time.
NOT ONCE does he say anything about his death being a sin sacrifice.
edit on 5-6-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


Of course it does, explicitly. I'll point out where just as soon as you tell me how much of the Bible you believe to be "genuine" and not "corrupted".

Furthermore, you seem to be moving the bar and requiring "divinity" of a messiah, or of any one capable of consecrating a sacrifice. Which of the Jewish priests who consecrated sacrifices were "divine"?

Although Christians tend to conflate the two, divinity is a separate issue from an atonement sacrifice.

I like your style. I gave you a star there for the bold effort!





edit on 2012/6/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Again, where can I find that Jewish definition?


Ask the jews... if you are really interested in the jewish definition of the messiah.
Christianity relies on the jewish concept of "messiah".

SInce they came much later, Christians are in NO position to define the messiah as a "sin sacrifice" or as God himself.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





Furthermore, you seem to be moving the bar and requiring "divinity" of a messiah, or of any one capable of consecrating a sacrifice. Which of the Jewish priests who consecrated sacrifices were "divine"?


I'm not moving the bar.. I'm referring to the christian perception of the messiah.
They believe the messiah is not only a "sacrifice" but also "divine".

Do YOU think they are wrong?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Again, where can I find that Jewish definition?


Ask the jews... if you are really interested in the jewish definition of the messiah.


I'm asking you, because it is you who have made the claim, not a Jew. I've not spoken to a Jew in around 8 years, and have none handy whom I can ask.



Christianity relies on the jewish concept of "messiah".

SInce they came much later, Christians are in NO position to define the messiah as a "sin sacrifice" or as God himself.


Christians are in a position to define their own religion as they wish. It is "non-Christians" who are in no position to define it FOR them.

Likewise, Christians are in no position to define Islam on behalf of Muslims. Only Muslims are in the position to define their own religion.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

Do YOU think they are wrong?



I don't define their own religion for them.

Since you asked, no, I am not a Trinitarian. There is only one God, and the means by which he manifests himself are entirely up to him.

I am not consulted in his decisions.



edit on 2012/6/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Alhumdulillah! I can't wait to share this with Muslim brothers and sisters that I know.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
I don't doubt that muhammad was real. Yes was he a prophet ahead of his time like Jesus. But personally I don't think he is that significant.





new topics
top topics
 
25
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join