Grand Ayatollah: Jesus An illegitimate Child.. (In The Bible?)

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteHat



“The ignorant Christians burn the Quran and don’t understand that the result will be that Jesus becomes an illegitimate child.”


That was funny.
Jesus life was long over and the New Testament was complete when the Quran was written; they didn't contribute with anything to the compilation of the Bible or to the Jesus story. They twisted their own version of an existent gospel, probably to get more credibility for their new prophet. And now they pretend to be somehow contributed to the "legitimacy" of Jesus.
I wouldn't waste my time following statements like these.


I just found some Jewish Rabbinical writings concerning this "Bastard" individual.. if those writings are real, then what the Ayatollah states is correct and he is trying to claim that Islam solidified and gave greater Truth still to the Idea of Jesus Christ "The Prophet".. (In Aramaic, God is spelled Allaha-- and if you have ever listened to Aramaic it is actually pretty much Arabic..) In any case, Muslims accept J.C. but ONLY as prophet, and not as God or Lord. They also accept the V. Birth but you guys probably already know this-- It's The JEWISH community and Rabbinic Thought that discredited the belief in the miracle or divinity of J.C. Here is an excerpt to a link I recently found, in hopes of figuring out where this Ayatollah Khorsani was coming from with the statements that he made:

"The evidence of the Rabbis"


The Jewish records of the Rabbis are of extreme importance in determining Gospel origins and the value of the church presentation of the virgin birth story of Jesus Christ. A common appellation for Jesus in the Talmud was Yeshu'a ben Panthera, an allusion to the widespread Jewish belief during the earliest centuries of the Christian era that Jesus was the result of an illegitimate union between his mother and a Roman soldier named Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera.


The Talmud enshrines within its pages Jewish oral law. It is divided into two parts, the Mishna and the Gemara. The first discusses such subjects as festivals and sacred things. The Gemara, is basically a commentary on these subjects. When the Talmud was written is not known. Some authorities suggest a date of 150-160, around the same time the Christian Gospels began to emerge, while others say 450.


The Talmud writers mentioned Jesus' name twenty times and quite specifically documented that he was born an illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panthera, nicknamed the "Panther". Panthera's existence was confirmed by the discovery of a mysterious tombstone at Bingerbrück in Germany. The engraving etched in the headstone read:

Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera, an archer, native of Sidon, Phoenicia, who in 9AD was transferred to service in Rhineland (Germany). 1

This inscription added fuel to the theory that Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and the soldier Panthera. Classical scholar Professor Morton Smith of the Columbia University USA, described the tombstone as possibly `our only genuine relic of the holy family.' 2 In many Jewish references, Jesus was often referred to as 'ben Panthera', 'ben' meaning, 'son of'. However cautious one ought to be in accepting anything about Jesus from Jewish sources, in the matter of Jesus 'ben Panthera', the writers seem more consistent than the men we now call the church fathers.


Scholars, for centuries, have discussed at length why Jesus was so regularly called ben Panthera. Adamantius Origen, an early Christian historian and church father (185-251), recorded the following verses about Mary from the research records of a highly regarded Second Century historian and author named Celsus (c. 178):

Mary was turned out by her husband, a carpenter by profession, after she had been convicted of unfaithfulness. Cut off by her spouse, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard; that Jesus, on account of his poverty was hired out to go to Egypt; that while there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing.3

Later, in passage 1:32, Origen supported the Jewish records and confirmed that the paramour of the mother of Jesus was a Roman soldier called Panthera, a name he repeated in verse 1:69. Sometime during the 17th Century, those sentences were erased from the oldest Vatican manuscripts and other codices under church control. 4


The traditional church writings of St Epiphanius, the Bishop of Salamis (315-403) again confirmed the ben Panthera story and his information was of a startling nature. This champion of Christian orthodoxy and saint of Roman Catholicism frankly stated:

Jesus was the son of a certain Julius whose surname was Panthera. 5

This was an extraordinary declaration simply recorded in ancient records as accepted church history. The ben Panthera legend was so widespread that two early stalwarts of the Christian church inserted the name in the genealogies of Jesus and Mary as a matter of fact.


Enlarging on that statement, this passage from the Talmud:

Rabbi Shiemon ben Azzai has said: I found' in Jerusalem a book of genealogies; therein was written that Such-an-one (Jesus) is the bastard son of an adulteress. 6

'Such-an-one' was one of the well-known substitutes for Jesus in the Talmud, as has been proved and admitted on either side. Shiemon ben Azzai

HERE IS THAT LINK!!! www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
edit on 25-9-2012 by tony9802 because: err




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Persia's Ayatollah as a rank by itself is already a blasphemy to the prophet Muhammad, who left no heir nor appointed any leader, even when he had all the time to do so. He was the last prophet and messenger sent to Earth.

Anyone else is only a liar and will lead his followers to doom. What he preaches only prove his own blasphemy.

Furthermore, regardless of who our Messiah is, it is the Message from our Creator, known by many names across time and space, with its central tenats similar in all mainstream religions, that is more important, not the messenger. So too prophet Muhammad and true muslims, who range from Sultans to roadsweepers who believe and try to follow that shepard boy's messages from Allah for centuries.
edit on 25-9-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sailor Sam

Originally posted by WhiteHat



“The ignorant Christians burn the Quran and don’t understand that the result will be that Jesus becomes an illegitimate child.”


That was funny.
Jesus life was long over and the New Testament was complete when the Quran was written; they didn't contribute with anything to the compilation of the Bible or to the Jesus story. They twisted their own version of an existent gospel, probably to get more credibility for their new prophet. And now they pretend to be somehow contributed to the "legitimacy" of Jesus.
I wouldn't waste my time following statements like these.


He did not say that Jesus burnt the Q'uran, he says Christians do.
And Jesus was not a christian, he was a jewish rabbi with some radical ideas. These ideas later formed the basis of the (non-jewish) christian religion.


Jesus was a Judahite, from the tribe of Judah. "Judaism" was not and is not the faith of the Hebrew scriptures. The faith expressed in the entire Bible, from first to last page, is announced in Genesis:
Adam - Man
Seth - Appointed
Enosh – Mortal
Kenan – Sorrow
Mahalalel – The blessed God
Jared – Shall come down
Enoch – Teaching
Methuselah – His death shall bring
Lamech – Despairing
Noah – Comfort and rest

"Christ" from page one. Thinking that the Saviour of the world is just a "Jewish rabbi with some radical ideas" is the single biggest falsehood that a man can believe. The above should clearly show that you hold serious error as truth.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteHat
 



That was funny.
Jesus life was long over and the New Testament was complete when the Quran was written; they didn't contribute with anything to the compilation of the Bible or to the Jesus story. They twisted their own version of an existent gospel, probably to get more credibility for their new prophet. And now they pretend to be somehow contributed to the "legitimacy" of Jesus.


What's funnier is that these "learned Muslim ayatollah's" are like the clergy in the Middle-Ages. Omitting information as they deem fit. The Qur'an also says it is good for Muslims to read the Bible, yet, most of them act like it's rat poison. Is it a case of all these Muslims not sticking to their books or is it a case of most of these Muslims not being able to read the Qur'an - and relying on their preachers and ayatollahs, which are obviously dumb and ignorant, for their religious beliefs? (Quite blasphemous - which I'm sure is punishable with death in their backward judicial systems)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tony9802
This is an article from www.wnd.com and I thought it was very interesting; (The moderators may move this wherever they feel is most appropriate..) I will quote Ayatollah Khorsani because he states something that I am interested in discussing, so here is the quote: “Hey, clueless pope who has chosen silence (on the Muhammad video), answer this: If there was no Quran, then as the Bible and the Torah have it, Jesus the son of Miriam is a bastard and a bastard will be forbidden from the heavens of God, and so the high place of Jesus is due to the existence of the Prophet Muhammad as the last prophet by God,” Khorasani said.

Here is the news article link to read in it's entirety: www.wnd.com...

What I want to know for those of you who might be able to answer the question, where is it written in the Bible that Jesus Christ was born a bastard? I know that there are writings in the Talmud, but I haven't seen this one in the Bible; Thanks,



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by tony9802
 


Reading through the comments, I started feeling like this Third World War is going to be soo soo terrible simply because these 3 faiths weren't able to arrive to harmonious conclusions academically about texts writings and literatures.. in some instances, even though I am not Pro-Islam, many of the things that are written in The Koran, remind me of the Old Testament, and I think they are both very scary books-- The New Testament feels good with benevolent teachings, but at the same time it's very easy to use these very same benevolent writngs to harm and injure people (gays, or abortion folks..). The Koran also opposes gays, and outlaws Abortion, both of these are written in their texts so I don't see much difference between Torah and Koran. To me these two could very well be teachings of the same authors-- the only thing different is the Voice or Tone of Voice of The Old Testament and The Koran--
edit on 25-9-2012 by tony9802 because: error



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Furthermore, regardless of who our Messiah is, it is the Message from our Creator, known by many names across time and space, with its central tenats similar in all mainstream religions, that is more important, not the messenger. So too prophet Muhammad and true muslims, who range from Sultans to roadsweepers who believe and try to follow that shepard boy's messages from Allah for centuries.
edit on 25-9-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)


"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12- That name is Christ Jesus.

"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

He lived, died and was resurrected to sit at on the throne at the right side of Our Father in Heaven. There is only one message from mankind's Creator. There is no "central tenant" of His Truth in other religions.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Furthermore, regardless of who our Messiah is, it is the Message from our Creator, known by many names across time and space, with its central tenats similar in all mainstream religions, that is more important, not the messenger. So too prophet Muhammad and true muslims, who range from Sultans to roadsweepers who believe and try to follow that shepard boy's messages from Allah for centuries.
edit on 25-9-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)


"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12- That name is Christ Jesus.

"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

He lived, died and was resurrected to sit at on the throne at the right side of Our Father in Heaven. There is only one message from mankind's Creator. There is no "central tenant" of His Truth in other religions.



Jesus Christ wasn't always good you know, the biblical writings are beautiful but some things that are said in the Book are also bad; Here is an example: And here is the LINK: www.religioustolerance.org...

There is a passage in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) where Jesus is reported as having insulted a woman. He referred to her as a dog, implying that she was sub-human.

Interpreting Matthew 15:22-28 literally:

She was described as a Canaanite. However, Mark 7:25-30 identified her as Greek/Syrophenician. She had pleaded with Jesus to cure her daughter who she believed was possessed by a demon. He first ignored her, but then explained that he was sent only to bring the Gospel to the Jews, not to the Gentiles such as she. Jesus cruelly replied to the desperate mother that it was not right for him "to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs." i.e. it is not appropriate to take the Gospel, which was intended only for the Jews, and offer it to Gentiles as well -- here described as sub-humans. (Observant Jews in the 1st century CE often referred to all Gentiles contemptuously as "dogs.") She quipped back to Jesus that even the "dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Jesus relented and -- because of the mother's faith -- remotely cured the daughter of demonic possession.

Jesus' response to the woman was uncharacteristic for him. As noted above, he often deviated greatly from Jewish tradition at the time and treated women as equals. Here, he appears is that he rejected the woman because of her race or her culture of origin, not because of her gender. Another possibility is that he responded to her in a tongue-in-cheek fashion rather out of anger or callousness.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now this video is incredibly well researched and though it has a protestant against catholic slant, which I found really silly stuff, it does show the agenda.

The Vatican had a great deal to do with the formation of ISLAM.


Hadith & Qur'an PROOF the Vatican created Islam

According to the Islam faith, Mother Mary was the Virgin Birth, and they seemed to respect Catholicism alot, Catholic Church's and Mosques side by side, quite common feature trhoughout history.

They have incorporated into Islam, the alternative (I call that Peter, not Paul) Christianity, the none Roman kind. Now protestants equate this with something its not, for in reality Christ was the head of the Nazarenes, basically gnostic Essene. So was Peter and James. But not Paul, Paul worked for Rome and was labeled a trojan horse by Luke, who wrote the story:

www.thenazareneway.com...


Acts 20:4-6: "[Paul] was accompanied by Sopater, son of Pyrrhus of Beroea…these went ahead and were waiting for us at Troas…where we stayed for seven days."



One of the early translators did a strange thing with the name, Pyrrhus: He omitted it! And the King James Version did the same.



Who was Pyrrhus to the Greeks? Pyrrhus, The Fool of Hope, was a story Plutarch wrote and titled at about the same time Luke's gospel was being penned. It includes the following:



"Pyrrhus also sent some agents, who pretended to be Macedonians. These spies spread the suggestion that now the time had come to be liberated from the harsh rule of Demetrius by joining Pyrrhus, who was a gracious friend of soldiers."



"And so without fighting, Pyrrhus became King of Macedonia…" (Emphases added.)


And those gnostic stories seemed to have been a part of the middle east prior to Islam and incorporated into Islam, to pacify the people around them, before gradually creating a more and more militaristic Empire form that is not really a religion but a fascist tool.

Catholic Church wanted Jerusalem, and all the other Christians gone. And Islam was the tool!

Mohummud was a title, not a name, and Islam never ever used crosses, or images of their "prophet".

Yet when they took over parts of Europe, the coins there, have the title on one side, and a man with a cross on the back.

Remember Peter and Paul. 2 died on the cross, Christ and Peter.

I don't mohammud existed, and think this guy had a lot to do with the real religions of the land, at that time:

www.sacred-destinations.com...

Peter, not Paul.

So the Grand Ayatollah can put this in his mystic pipe and smoke it.

I don't like negative fascists who harm women and children. Put all women under the nuns robe, oh really?
edit on 25-9-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Photo of Muhammad: Robert Spencer


NOTES:

---The Arab empire minted coins in the 640's and 650's AD. Just 20 years after the conquests began.

---The coins actually say mohummad so people actually think ....there's your whole thing.

But if you turn the coins over...they have 2 things about them: first an image of a ruler, and Islam forbids images, and the ruler is carrying a CROSS.

(Muslim doesnt accept the crosses, and in Islam, Jesus is a prophet who will break all crosses when he comes back)

So I don't think this Ayatollah is telling the truth about anything. I mean, pretty sure they're all filled in on everything, on the top, and that means he's a very dark and sinister man and needs to makes some major U-Turns, and start to go towards: Truth, Love and Equality.
edit on 25-9-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by tony9802
 


Let us have a definition of "bastard" as it is stated in parsi hebrew and arabic.
If they all revert to mean "a child born outside of marriage", then what the ayatollah said is true.
Joseph and Mary were not married were they, just "betrothed to be married"?
If Jesus is indeed the son of god, then he is not the son of Joseph, even if Joseph and Mary were married at the time of his birth, he could be considered a "bastard".
It is a very technical question, take emotion out of it and lets look at the evidence.

edit on 25-9-2012 by Sailor Sam because: (no reason given)


Okay, this is getting interesting.. wikipedia en.wikipedia.org... states MAMZER is the word for Bastard and here is what they have to say: it is someone born of adultery or someone born of incest..wow.

The Hebrew noun mamzer (Hebrew: ממזר‎) in the Hebrew Bible and Jewish religious law, is a person born from certain forbidden relationships, or the descendant of such a person. A mamzer is someone who is either born of adultery by a married Jewish woman and a Jewish man who is not her husband, or born of incest (as defined by the Bible), or someone who has a mamzer as a parent. The mamzer status is not synonymous with illegitimacy, since it does not include children whose mother was unmarried.

Mamzer is also a colloquial pejorative term in Hebrew and Yiddish for an unpleasant person, or in friendly way, a clever person.

2. Hebrew Bible usage

The term occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible, the first time in Deuteronomy 23:3[4] (which is Deuteronomy 23:2 in the non-Hebrew versions). The Septuagint translates the term mamzer as son "of a prostitute" (Greek: ek pornes),[5] and the Latin Vulgate translates it as de scorto natus ("born of a prostitute"). In English, it is translated as "bastard".
edit on 25-9-2012 by tony9802 because: error



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tony9802
 

When Jesus was arguing with the Pharisees, they retorted "we are not illegitimate children" (ouch!)

Of course Jesus was a bastard child, but that's what God chose, and I'm sure it helped serve to make Jesus who he was and to propell him on a quest to relate to his heavenly father and to be born of the spirit, not of the flesh.


"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:" 1 Corinthians 1:26-28

for more, follow the thread linked in my signature.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 

They even rewrote the story of the Woman at the Well to refer to Mohammed, and ascribe the words of John the Baptist about the one who was coming that he was unfit to undo his sandal strap, to Jesus in reference to Mohammed, and, according to one their perverted writings called the Gospel of Barbabas, Judas, not Jesus, went to the cross instead because they say he looked just like Jesus, and there are words in the Quran saying that Jesus was NOT crucified. It's all just one holy or unholy mess, probably launched against the Arab's by the church as the first global psy-op, which has now clearly gotten way out of hand and has over the centuries. The Quran even makes more mention of Jesus' mother Mary than the Bible does, figure that one. All because of Ismael the black sheep of the family, and Judas, that's what it comes down to imho.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Here, let me sort this out: All children have two parents. That's the way it is. If one pretends he didn't do the dirty deed, it was still done. Evidence: the child. Now, it doesn't matter whether the father acknowledges this or not. It doesn't matter whether the parents are married or not. It doesn't matter if the two are married to other people or if she was raped or any other circumstantial conditions around the conception of said child. The child is present and therefore as legitimate as anyone else. You are not a lesser person for your parents' issues, nor are you greater for their attending a ritual that may or may not last until dawn. The fact is that people are all legitimate beings.

End of Sermon.


Muslims believe in the virgin birth. It's in the Quran. The question we should ask- has the Ayatollah read the Quran?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by LeSigh
 


Yes, they do. Very Roman Catholic of them, along with their nuns attire forced on sexually abused women.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
They're like oh YA, well YOUR guy was an illegitimate child, so there!


Why doesn't it bother us though, or most of us (can't speak for the fundy literalists)?


I'll take Jesus myself, and that he most certainly was a illegitimate child only shows the greater degree of his heroism in terms of his overcoming all things.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


These look like interesting videos; I'll have to finish watching them.. in the meantime I did read a Forum on DavidIcke's webpage that likewise posted a similar video-- it's possible right? Why not..



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by LeSigh
 


Yes, they do. Very Roman Catholic of them, along with their nuns attire forced on sexually abused women.


More Byzantine, actually. Islam was originally considered a Christian heresy and not a separate religion when it first appeared (see St. John of Damascus). Muhammad obviously had contact with Christians. How they prostrate during prayer facing East? Orthodox Christians do it. How mosque architecture looks today? It's because they took over churches to make their first mosques. In more than a few churches they just added minarets and plastered over the icons. Actually, Islam has more in common with Christianity than the LDS faith. And yes, Abayas look remarkably similar to the dress of Orthodox Christian nuns.

ETA: And the Protestants were influenced by Islam. You have Islam to thank for iconoclasm. Islam was quite influential in that regard.
edit on 25-9-2012 by LeSigh because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Wow!! This is looking like a VERY interesting video.. I'll have to dig into those coins from the 640's and 50's--
Nice find, and thank you for sharing..



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I have a question.....WHY DO YOU REFRENCE THE TALMUD AND NOT THE TORAH?
THE TORAH IS WHAT NORMAL JEWS GO BY NOT THE TALMUD


The Talmud is basically Junk because in the Torah it states the Talmud is not to be followed if i remember correctly.
edit on 25-9-2012 by yuppa because: for BIG clarity.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join