The Bright and Morning Star "Mary" Queen of Heaven and husband Allah

reply to post by BIHOTZ


so I just wanted to add what I have read on the subject today....

All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon have adopted (in one form or another) a Trinity doctrine or a triad or trinity of gods. Long before the Christian era, numerous variations of the trinity existed, and they were found in a host of pagan religions and mythologies. As with so many other pre-Christian traditional customs and practices, the revival of this doctrine in the Christian era was predictable. It was essential that followers be able to see Christianity – their 'new' religion – in familiar terms.

There is no evidence the Apostles of Jesus ever heard of a Trinity. The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word Trinity itself, nor such language as one in three, three in one, one essence or substance or three persons, is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient Church, taken not from the Bible but from classical Greek philosophy.

Long before the founding of Christianity the idea of a triune god or a god-in-three persons was a common belief in ancient religions. Although many of these religions had many minor deities, they distinctly acknowledged that there was one supreme God who consisted of three persons or essences. The Babylonians used an equilateral triangle to represent this three-in-one god.

The Greek triad was composed of Zeus, Athena and Apollo. These three were said by the pagans to 'agree in one.' One of the largest pagan temples built by the Romans was constructed at Ballbek (situated in present day Lebanon) to their Trinity of Jupiter, Mercury and Venus. In Babylon the planet Venus was revered as special and was worshipped as a Trinity consisting of Venus, the moon and the sun. This triad became the Babylonian holy Trinity in the fourteenth century before Christ.

The modern belief in the trinity originated in the 4th century at the Council of Nicaea in approximately 325 C.E. King Constantine, the Roman Emperor and an adherent to paganism, presided over the Council. Its main purpose was to unite the Roman Empire by achieving agreement on Christian doctrine. This would promote a universal consolidation within the church.


The Encyclopedia of Religion Vol. 15 1987 admits: 'Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.'

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: 'The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.'

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: 'Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.'

The Encyclopedia Britannica 1976 observes: Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.'

Protestant theologian Karl Barth (as quoted in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology 1976) similarly states: 'The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible lacks the express declaration the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence.'

www.2001translation.com...

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by anonomorphic
Mr. Lone Wolf, What religion do you subscribe to? What is your label?

What i am is not relevant, this thread is about Mystery Babylon and me unveiling the "Mystery" of the sungoddess and moongod.

Its relevance couldn't be more important, Your arguing this to be truth, so why not be open and truthful?

Why are you so eager to see one's personal beliefs? If Lone Wolf doesn't want to discuss that part, why do you insist? Geez, do you want to know his security number, while you are at it?

I'm not really eager and there's no need for his security number, however my point still stands as this thread is discussing systems of belief and the Thread was authored by a human, humans have beliefs and when discussing or trying to argue certain beliefs it would help to know what beliefs a person holds before trying to argue someone elses

reply to post by BIHOTZ


You're spending a lot of energy Googling stuff from anti-trinitarian websites. Have you looked at the comments section of my profile and researched the verses yet? THIS is also a teaching I recommend by a world-renowned bible teacher/commentator.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


that is just one example. I actually heard this first from a Jesuit priest I used to sell wine for mass to. He was very insightful though he always left me with more questions than answers.

I will take a look at what you have offered.

EDIT: I think that site is PRO-Trinitarian. I will look for unbiased sources. I think there is allot of vested interests by people within the religious community to win favor for their particular ideas they have invested lifetimes in. I like history. I don't think Jesus ever even spoke about a trinity or that sort of relationship with God....Again, I will take a look at what you offered, though it seems a little one sided. I like history and facts.

Thank you though

reply to post by InhaleExhale


In logic a person's bias and background is irrelevant to truth. Forming a pre-opinion based upon that criteria is called a "circumstantial ad hominem" argument. It's best to evaluate the info and never inquire of or factor in someone's bias to prevent that from happening even at the subconscious level.

Stop worshiping Mary. She just a person.

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

that is just one example. I actually heard this first from a Jesuit priest I used to sell wine for mass to. He was very insightful though he always left me with more questions than answers.

I will take a look at what you have offered.

Thank you. At minimum you will understand where I swing my bat from.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

In logic a person's bias and background is irrelevant to truth. Forming a pre-opinion based upon that criteria is called a "circumstantial ad hominem" argument. It's best to evaluate the info and never inquire of or factor in someone's bias to prevent that from happening even at the subconscious level.

I would say its quite the opposite, because truth is personal, there is no universal truth, there might be a collective truth that a majority of people conform to, however ones experiences in life are what lead a person to believe. so in conclusion the OPs bias and background play a great relevance as what they are posting I assume they believe in and are not just trying to spew disinfo.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by queenofangels_17

 

I didn't say hadith 9:5 i said hadith 9:4.

Hadith 9:4 Hadith 9:4 "Wherever you find infidels kill them; for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."

I have already told you that there is nowhere in the Holy Qur'an that orders the killing of infidels without a cause. Infidels lived peacefully side by side with the believers even in the time of the Prophet Muhammad.

Allah advised the Muslims who are fighting in the battles to discriminate and ascertain before killing someone in the battlefield..

4:94 O ye who believe! When ye go forth to fight in the way of Allah, be careful to discriminate, and say not unto one who offereth you peace: "Thou are not a believer;" seeking the chance profits of this life so that ye may despoil him. With Allah are plenteous spoils. Even thus (as he now is) were ye before; but Allah hath since then been gracious unto you. Therefore take care to discriminate. Allah is ever informed of what ye do.

If every Muslim will follow that Hadith and ignore the Holy Qur'an's pronouncement about that matter then, that would speed up depopulation, don't you think? Imagine you met someone in the street and he asks you what your religion is and you answered " I'm a Christian", and this someone is a Muslim, and with that Hadith in mind, would'nt he suddenly pull out a knife and kill you, just because you're a Christian, it doesn't matter if your not fighting him in religion, it's enough that you're not a Muslim and that makes you an infidel, and therefore killing you will give him a reward on the Day of Ressurrection ? Thanks be to Allah that your fear is unfounded Notur and you are safe from us, but ask yourself if you're safe from Allah?

17:68 Feel ye then secure that He will not cause a slope of the land to engulf you, or send a sandstorm, upon you, and then ye will find that ye have no protector?

34:9 Have they not observed what is before them and what is behind them of the sky and the earth? If We will, We can make the earth swallow them, or cause obliteration from the sky to fall on them. Lo ! herein surely is a portent for every slave who turneth to Allah repentant. -

22:1 O mankind! Fear your Lord. Lo! the earthquake of the Hour (of Doom) is a tremendous thing.

Say Notur, if you truly believe in God, Your Creator, then hear this.. :

6:151 Say: Come, I will recite unto you that which your Lord hath made a sacred duty for you: that ye ascribe no thing as partner unto Him and that ye do good to parents, and that ye slay not your children because of penury--We provide for you and for them--and that ye draw not nigh to lewd things whether open or concealed. And that ye slay not the life which Allah hath made sacred, save in the course of justice. This He hath commanded you, in order that ye may discern

reply to post by queenofangels_17


well there is an instance where Muslims are told to protect Christians and their houses of worship. It is a letter given to the monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai valley.

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."
English translation from 'Muslim History: 570 - 1950 C.E.' by Dr. A. Zahoor and Dr. Z. Haq, ZMD Corporation.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Actually in Hebrew God was El or Eloh. In Aramaic God was Elah or Elaha.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

Interestingly, when Muhammad died, he said he could feel his sorta being severed.

That comes from Tafsir Tabari. Congratulations, though, you manipulated the hadith to try to prove your point.

What the alleged hadith says is

The messenger of God said during the illness from which he died - the mother of Bishr had come in to visit him - "Umm Bishr, at this very moment I feel my aorta being severed because of the food I ate with your son at Khaybar."

Food doesn't cause an artery to be severed. What he was saying was that he was in extreme pain.

The Quran verse says

"And if the apostle were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart"

His artery wasn't cut. He merely said it felt like it because of the pain he was in.

Also the hadeeth mentions a different word in Arabic than the verse. The Hadeeth mentions: "Abhar" and the verse mentions: "Wateen". So first of all, we need to establish that we're talking about the same thing (aorta), but we're not. I have reviewed a couple of dictionaries, and in one of them (Taj Alaaroos) it says that "abhar" is a connecting line that extends from head to base of a human. That's doesn't sound like an aorta to me.

Finally, can you please tell me what the classification of the hadith is? Has it been ruled accurate or sound or satisfactory? Or was it ruled weak or rejected?

reply to post by BIHOTZ


Thanks for the link, Bihotz.

Peace!

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

In logic a person's bias and background is irrelevant to truth. Forming a pre-opinion based upon that criteria is called a "circumstantial ad hominem" argument. It's best to evaluate the info and never inquire of or factor in someone's bias to prevent that from happening even at the subconscious level.

I would say its quite the opposite, because truth is personal, there is no universal truth, there might be a collective truth that a majority of people conform to, however ones experiences in life are what lead a person to believe. so in conclusion the OPs bias and background play a great relevance as what they are posting I assume they believe in and are not just trying to spew disinfo.

Sorry, that is another fallacy. The idea that truth is relative or there is no universal truth is called the "relativist fallacy." If it's disinfo and not truth it cannot stand on it's own two feet anyways. Google "circumstantial ad hominem" and see for yourself if you question me.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Actually in Hebrew God was El or Eloh. In Aramaic God was Elah or Elaha.

So now you are going to teach me Hebrew and Aramaic? When Christ said "Eli, eli, lama sabacthini!" at the cross why did those who were in attendance think He was calling for Elijah (Eliyahu)? Please tell me what "Eliyahu" means in Aramaic, it's a consecrated name. "El" in Hebrew is just a generic title "god". Nondescript.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Actually in Hebrew God was El or Eloh. In Aramaic God was Elah or Elaha.

So now you are going to teach me Hebrew and Aramaic? When Christ said "Eli, eli, lama sabacthini!" at the cross why did those who were in attendance think He was calling for Elijah (Eliyahu)? Please tell me what "Eliyahu" means in Aramaic, it's a consecrated name. "El" in Hebrew is just a generic title "god". Nondescript.

Actually, yes I am because I know it. It's funny because I see you on here playing "Debater 101" trying to school people to fallacies and then you are committing one right there. Why can't I teach you about Hebrew and Aramaic? Because I'm not a Christian?

I'm sorry but your whole reply was completely pointless. First you are condescendingly implying that I cannot teach you Hebrew and Aramaic and then you start talkinga bout Elijah.

None of what you said has anything to do with the FACT that in Aramaic the word for God is Elah or Elaha which sounds extremely similar to the Arabic "Allah."

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


Next lesson. I never said you cannot teach me Aramaic "because you are not a Christian", that's a straw man argument, so stop. And when pointing out the other member's use of a fallacy I did not refer to my own authority and in fact told him to verify it himself and not take my arbitrary word for it. So let's cut the games shall we?

El is an ancient name, generic not proper, for "god". (Lower case g). Eli in Aramaic with the "i" attached makes it possessive. "My god". Elijah's name in Aramaic is Eliyahu which means "My god is Yah" ( Yah is short for YHVH/ Yahweh). When on the cross Christ exclaimed in Aramaic: "Eli, eli.. lama sabacthini". Those in attendance who weren't well versed in the Aramaic asked of the Pharisees and scribes if He was calling for Elijah. (See: Matthew 27:46-47, and Mark 15:35-36)

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Then why did you say it such a condescending way? Your statement implied that it was ludicrous for me to try to teach you Hebrew and Aramaic

El may be a generic term for "god" but the PROPER is Eloh (in Hebrew) and Elah (in Aramaic). Just like how in Arabic the generic is "ilah" and the proper is Allah.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


The proper Name in both Hebrew and Aramaic is YHVH. What did you find out when you looked at the verses I gave above? You may be thinking of "Elohim" in Hebrew and Paleo-Hebrew but that is still a generic title not a proper name. "gods/supreme ones".

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Eli is not Aramaic, its Hebrew : /

or rather, Yiddish....

I have actual Assyrian friends from Iraq who speak Aramaic, they are Christians and use the word "Allah" to represent 'God Almighty"

And if you google English-Aramaic dictionary and go into P e s h i t t a . o r g' s website, you'll see I'm not the one who invented this language...the words you're looking for are: Elah/ meaning 'god' and Al Elah/El Elah meaning 'the God'

So the word 'Eli' in Aramaic would be: 'Elahi' meaning, 'my God'

Since Aramaic is the mother of both Hebrew and Arabic in terms of language formation, there is bound to be similarities in the way Hebrew and Arabic uses words.