Jesus was a Muslim

[hells_unicorn]

More significantly, did he like the boot-holes of little boys for his very own? Did he like to suck on weenies? Did he hate music? Did he have a tail? Was his tongue forked? Was his weenie teenie? Did he like things, often of large proportion, in his boot-hole? Did he hate women?

If no to even one of these, then Jesus was no Muslim.

This revisionist bull$#@! is so played, as is ignorance and good old fashioned plain-jane stupidity, all of which gushes from the Muslim world.

As much as I'm not a fan of the Roman Church, it should be noted that the Islamic world has a far worse problem with sodomy, pedophilia and bestiality, person for person. Actually, the Jehova's Witnesses have even worse issues with members of their ministry abusing children than Rome. These cults getting a pass by so-called "rational thinkers" strikes me as a tad irrational, not to mention hypocritical.

FWIW, I'd suggest you just put the people who know what they are talking about on ignore. It solves and simplifies living in a fantasy land where aliens talk to you.

Fixed for accuracy.

[osan]

As much as I'm not a fan of the Roman Church, it should be noted that the Islamic world has a far worse problem with sodomy, pedophilia and bestiality, person for person. Actually, the Jehova's Witnesses have even worse issues with members of their ministry abusing children than Rome. These cults getting a pass by so-called "rational thinkers" strikes me as a tad irrational, not to mention hypocritical.

You are not clear as to which "cults" and "rational thinkers".

As for me, I don't give a fart for any of them. I know "good" from "evil", "right" from "wrong". It seems clear that this is born into even the least intelligent among us and is pretty well beaten out of most in early childhood. Logic and reason are not required to have the ability to identify these notions, though they can be very helpful in placing them into a rational conceptual framework for the individual and to generalize it for groups.

To my mind "God", whatever in hell that term really means (if anything in its own rite), very clearly gives all individual men everything they need to live healthy, happy, worthwhile lives AS INDIVIDUALS. The company of one's fellows, while important, is by no means mandatory for such living. Happiness is as much a function of choice as it is of circumstance, all else equal. The "cultification" of "God" has been one of the great cluster-copulations of all time. I rapidly came to see in my readings as a much younger man that it is apparently a product of the Empire mind: God as emperor, a notion that limits and cheapens and profanes "God" with such deep and shameful shamelessness that I would not begin to be able to capture the truth in words. Most, if not all, that I see in these shameful desecrations of "God" are the products of the mindset that perforce sets one man above another in authority. How else could things have devolved?

Can anyone here really picture religion in the context of Empire as having evolved into a system of thought enshrining, praising, and perpetuating the glories of individual rights and freedom? How could it happen in a context of a "man at the top" telling all the rest what to do in an arrangement of authoritarian rule? What possible sense could that make for those who sought to perpetuate such social arrangements? Lets see how that would look: emperor sits high upon his throne, spewing mandate to the right, fiat to the left, before people whose religion teaches them the virtues of individuality, freedom, rights, and the true meaning of "equality" between men. Are the two not in ultimately violent, annihilative opposition? Seriously now - I put to anyone here to demonstrate how those two mental realities could possibly survive in the same world at the same time.

And so the tyrant of yore had to cause the devolution of human thought such that God becomes the ultimate tyrant, thereby resolving the conflict in question and lending excuse for the earthly tyrant's scheme of things. After all, at worst the tyrant models his architecture upon that of the Divine. How could one possibly argue against that? But more likely, as evidenced in our history in the West at the very least, the tyrant lays the claim that the tyrant God has commanded he reign under the conditions and circumstances set forth by his edict and enforced by his sword-endowed bully boys, the authority or even blame laid at "God's" feet and never at those of the actual robbing, enslaving, murdering bastard. "It is God's will", shrieks the charlatan-in-chief; the grand pick-pocket of your most fundamental and sacred birthright. Out and away it flies, most never noticing and those who do being too afeared or lazy to do anything about it.

That is the material and mental reality of most of the so-called "great religions" of the world, brought to you by the Empire mind: originator of tyranny designed to bring unto itself and its servants the glory it has unilaterally decided it so richly deserves in the form of roads, buildings, statues, and all other monuments large and small raised to that sacred end. Does there exist a better depiction of the West's notion of "Satan"? Just think about it before dismissing:

"Empire" is this mostly tacit concept that rolls around in our heads at the subconscious level. With it is conveyed a powerful set of assumptions so deeply seated as to be inaccessible to the minds of average men, and therefore unassailable. And yet, there it lives, like a great and bloodthirsty beast in a large and pitch-black cavern, the individual its minion who, if he serves in good faith, "shares" in the perceived glories of being a part of something more vast than himself (wink... nudge). Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that all the shiny bits, those "monuments", are not a huge part of the the great ego stroke that is part of the carrot that the Satan of Empire dangles before the individual, it's power far greater than that of the stick of the king's sword-besotted men. And yet this purported glory is all vapors and shades - not quite outright lies, but purest and most convincing deceit. There is no glory. There is only one's enslavement at the tips of the king's swords.

The disease of Empire and the concomitant state of rot that is its solitary product perforce led to the rise of the "great" religious cults. There was no other possible path, for the only way to have slaves in the longer term is to make them learn to revere their chains as something other than that, and to hold in bottomless fear and hatred the greatest gift bestowed them by the very God their religious conceptions have castrated and diminished into wretchedness: their innate sovereignty and all that it implies, both shiny-bright and scary-dark. The false religions of Empire are, in fact, tantamount to mental autoimmune diseases where one's own conceptual framework serves but to diminish and decay the quality of one's life - to hobble and thereby limit it so that the only possibilities for that poor and freakishly injured creature is a life of the narrowest and downtrodden sort, trudging through his days, head bowed in the impossible sadness of it all, sans the least clue as to why things are what they are. Can you depict a greater vision of hell? I can barely.

Empire raises us as foodstock, slowly consuming us over a lifetime, beginning with the mind, progressing through the body, and ending with the last of vestiges of our souls. That is the legacy we have inherited from our glorious ancestors; those who betrayed us, albeit perhaps unwitting, and whom we shall all join in the betrayal of the posterity yet to come. I can imagine no state more wretched than this.

There I go again, in digression. Please pardon my mental vomiting.

[Ronin Truth]

You are not clear as to which "cults" and "rational thinkers".

As for me, I don't give a fart for any of them. I know "good" from "evil", "right" from "wrong". It seems clear that this is born into even the least intelligent among us and is pretty well beaten out of most in early childhood. Logic and reason are not required to have the ability to identify these notions, though they can be very helpful in placing them into a rational conceptual framework for the individual and to generalize it for groups.

To my mind "God", whatever in hell that term really means (if anything in its own rite), very clearly gives all individual men everything they need to live healthy, happy, worthwhile lives AS INDIVIDUALS. The company of one's fellows, while important, is by no means mandatory for such living. Happiness is as much a function of choice as it is of circumstance, all else equal. The "cultification" of "God" has been one of the great cluster-copulations of all time. I rapidly came to see in my readings as a much younger man that it is apparently a product of the Empire mind: God as emperor, a notion that limits and cheapens and profanes "God" with such deep and shameful shamelessness that I would not begin to be able to capture the truth in words. Most, if not all, that I see in these shameful desecrations of "God" are the products of the mindset that perforce sets one man above another in authority. How else could things have devolved?

Can anyone here really picture religion in the context of Empire as having evolved into a system of thought enshrining, praising, and perpetuating the glories of individual rights and freedom? How could it happen in a context of a "man at the top" telling all the rest what to do in an arrangement of authoritarian rule? What possible sense could that make for those who sought to perpetuate such social arrangements? Lets see how that would look: emperor sits high upon his throne, spewing mandate to the right, fiat to the left, before people whose religion teaches them the virtues of individuality, freedom, rights, and the true meaning of "equality" between men. Are the two not in ultimately violent, annihilative opposition? Seriously now - I put to anyone here to demonstrate how those two mental realities could possibly survive in the same world at the same time.

And so the tyrant of yore had to cause the devolution of human thought such that God becomes the ultimate tyrant, thereby resolving the conflict in question and lending excuse for the earthly tyrant's scheme of things. After all, at worst the tyrant models his architecture upon that of the Divine. How could one possibly argue against that? But more likely, as evidenced in our history in the West at the very least, the tyrant lays the claim that the tyrant God has commanded he reign under the conditions and circumstances set forth by his edict and enforced by his sword-endowed bully boys, the authority or even blame laid at "God's" feet and never at those of the actual robbing, enslaving, murdering bastard. "It is God's will", shrieks the charlatan-in-chief; the grand pick-pocket of your most fundamental and sacred birthright. Out and away it flies, most never noticing and those who do being too afeared or lazy to do anything about it.

That is the material and mental reality of most of the so-called "great religions" of the world, brought to you by the Empire mind: originator of tyranny designed to bring unto itself and its servants the glory it has unilaterally decided it so richly deserves in the form of roads, buildings, statues, and all other monuments large and small raised to that sacred end. Does there exist a better depiction of the West's notion of "Satan"? Just think about it before dismissing:

"Empire" is this mostly tacit concept that rolls around in our heads at the subconscious level. With it is conveyed a powerful set of assumptions so deeply seated as to be inaccessible to the minds of average men, and therefore unassailable. And yet, there it lives, like a great and bloodthirsty beast in a large and pitch-black cavern, the individual its minion who, if he serves in good faith, "shares" in the perceived glories of being a part of something more vast than himself (wink... nudge). Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that all the shiny bits, those "monuments", are not a huge part of the the great ego stroke that is part of the carrot that the Satan of Empire dangles before the individual, it's power far greater than that of the stick of the king's sword-besotted men. And yet this purported glory is all vapors and shades - not quite outright lies, but purest and most convincing deceit. There is no glory. There is only one's enslavement at the tips of the king's swords.

The disease of Empire and the concomitant state of rot that is its solitary product perforce led to the rise of the "great" religious cults. There was no other possible path, for the only way to have slaves in the longer term is to make them learn to revere their chains as something other than that, and to hold in bottomless fear and hatred the greatest gift bestowed them by the very God their religious conceptions have castrated and diminished into wretchedness: their innate sovereignty and all that it implies, both shiny-bright and scary-dark. The false religions of Empire are, in fact, tantamount to mental autoimmune diseases where one's own conceptual framework serves but to diminish and decay the quality of one's life - to hobble and thereby limit it so that the only possibilities for that poor and freakishly injured creature is a life of the narrowest and downtrodden sort, trudging through his days, head bowed in the impossible sadness of it all, sans the least clue as to why things are what they are. Can you depict a greater vision of hell? I can barely.

Empire raises us as foodstock, slowly consuming us over a lifetime, beginning with the mind, progressing through the body, and ending with the last of vestiges of our souls. That is the legacy we have inherited from our glorious ancestors; those who betrayed us, albeit perhaps unwitting, and whom we shall all join in the betrayal of the posterity yet to come. I can imagine no state more wretched than this.

There I go again, in digression. Please pardon my mental vomiting.

+Rep!

[Jan2017]

The Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (or called The Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple in the East)
is a feast celebrated on November 21 by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

According to doctrine developed from non-scripture sources . . . Mary was consecrated to God at the Temple in Jerusalem -
I believe the same era/version of The Temple in Jerusalem as was the money changers episode of her son . . .



Mary’s presentation in the temple draws parallels to that of the prophet Samuel, whose mother Hannah who
like Jesus' Grandmother Anne was also thought to be barren, and who offered her child as a gift to God at Shiloh.

Mary remained in the Temple until her twelfth year, at which point she was assigned to Joseph as guardian.
According to Coptic tradition, her father Joachim died when Mary was six years old and her mother Anne died when Mary was eight.

^^^^I need a translation of the above^^^^

↓↓↓↓the exact opposite of the below↓↓↓↓

Mary wasn't raised in a synagogue.

[Muwahid]

What's interesting about it? Every Muslim on the planet believes that Jesus was a Muslim. Bahira/Sergius The Monk, the author of the Qur'an, essentially plagiarized the Bible and wrote Mohammed in as a prophet.

Such a ridiculous theory. Bahira only met Muhammad when he was a child, furthermore the Qur'an was written in 7 distinct Arabic dialects, did Bahira know all of them? And where are any historical records of him being present in the life of Muhammad during revelation?

[heavenlyboy34]

Who told you this? Consult this source and pay particular attention to the 5th paragraph. Being a cousin in Hebrew culture occurs both by blood and by marriage, and we have no positive indication that the relationship by Elizabeth and Mary was by blood. Tribes were not forbidden from intermarriage either, especially given that if Mary was actually descended from the Levites, then her marriage to someone of the House of David would constitute such a thing in and of itself.

Try not to believe the crap that gets thrown out by unbelieving Talmudic Jewish apologists, they are notorious liars.

This^^

[hells_unicorn]

Such a ridiculous theory. Bahira only met Muhammad when he was a child, furthermore the Qur'an was written in 7 distinct Arabic dialects, did Bahira know all of them? And where are any historical records of him being present in the life of Muhammad during revelation?

The Qur'an was rewritten multiple times after Muhammad had Bahira killed in order to cover up the origin of the Qur'an. We know for a fact that Muhammad didn't write the original one or any of the subsequent copies because he was an illiterate savage, so it is possible that the authors of the Hadiths were involved in this process, though naturally other parties are plausible. Furthermore, if there was any "revelation" given to Mohammed, it originally came from Bahira, who himself probably channeled it through his own innovative heresies that he imported from Nestorius.

P.S. - I am assuming that you are a practicing Mohammedan. If this is the case and you've already made your trip to Mecca, you might want to consider that the black stone that you spent some time caressing like a lover is the headpiece of a statue of Chabar/Kabar, the name given to Aphrodite in the then Hellenistic Arabian Peninsula. Given that you may have worshiped and kissed a pagan idol and support a sectarian group that requires this of all its members, would you care to explain to us how we are not worshiping the One True God aright?

[hells_unicorn]

You are not clear as to which "cults" and "rational thinkers".

There I go again, in digression. Please pardon my mental vomiting.

I elected to disregard the gibberish between these 2 sentences as I tend to leave others to their own private fictions when they've proven inseparable from them, especially the boring and self-aggrandizing one of modern skepticism. Nevertheless, you are right in your first assertion as I did leave out one cult from the equation, namely 20th century skepticism, which all but outdid the other mass-murdering cult (Rome) in its thirst for blood throughout Eastern Europe, Asia, South America and Africa, under the guise of "rationality" no less. Thank you for correcting me on that point.

And I will pardon your mental vomiting, I honestly tend to forget things when they are woefully vapid anyway.

[Muwahid]

The Qur'an was rewritten multiple times after Muhammad had Bahira killed in order to cover up the origin of the Qur'an. We know for a fact that Muhammad didn't write the original one or any of the subsequent copies because he was an illiterate savage, so it is possible that the authors of the Hadiths were involved in this process, though naturally other parties are plausible. Furthermore, if there was any "revelation" given to Mohammed, it originally came from Bahira, who himself probably channeled it through his own innovative heresies that he imported from Nestorius.

P.S. - I am assuming that you are a practicing Mohammedan. If this is the case and you've already made your trip to Mecca, you might want to consider that the black stone that you spent some time caressing like a lover is the headpiece of a statue of Chabar/Kabar, the name given to Aphrodite in the then Hellenistic Arabian Peninsula. Given that you may have worshiped and kissed a pagan idol and support a sectarian group that requires this of all its members, would you care to explain to us how we are not worshiping the One True God aright?

Ahahahahaha, what a nut job.

[heavenlyboy34]

I elected to disregard the gibberish between these 2 sentences as I tend to leave others to their own private fictions when they've proven inseparable from them, especially the boring and self-aggrandizing one of modern skepticism. Nevertheless, you are right in your first assertion as I did leave out one cult from the equation, namely 20th century skepticism, which all but outdid the other mass-murdering cult (Rome) in its thirst for blood throughout Eastern Europe, Asia, South America and Africa, under the guise of "rationality" no less. Thank you for correcting me on that point.

And I will pardon your mental vomiting, I honestly tend to forget things when they are woefully vapid anyway.

Encyclopedia Britannica's map of the Roman Empire(I assume this is what you're referring to) shows no territories in South America. Where did you get this?

[Jamesiv1]

Yo Muwahid!

Good to see you. I was hoping to see you post in this thread.

I've been reading "The Noble Quran" - nice! (could do without the anti-Christian appendix, though)

I was tripping when I figured out the page numbering is opposite of Western books lol

What are your thoughts on this bit?

What IS Islam?

The name "Islam" simply means "Self-surrender to the Will of God." It is the way of life that all Prophets through out history have taught, from those known in the Western world such as Abraham, Moses and Jesus to those sent to other parts of the Earth like Salih, Shu'ayb, and Luqman the African. The last and final Guide was Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him), who lived in sixth century Arabia.

A "Muslim,"(i,e. a self-surrendered one,) is a follower of this faith. Nearly one in every five persons alive today is a Muslim.

[hells_unicorn]

Encyclopedia Britannica's map of the Roman Empire(I assume this is what you're referring to) shows no territories in South America. Where did you get this?

I was talking about communism, which was influenced by 18th century/Enlightenment period rationalism with regard to the locations, not Rome which obviously didn't get to South America unless you include the Roman Church as part of the Roman Empire.

[hells_unicorn]

Ahahahahaha, what a nut job.

This is documented history, particularly in the case of the black stone, as noted by John of Damascus. The murder of Bahira is inferred from the same account, and is fitting given Mohammad's brutish ways. Giggle about it unto your own ignorance.

[Ronin Truth]

Well, at least that's not a Paulinist.

[GunnyFreedom]

When you can pass a camel through the eye of a needle.
Jesus wasn't a Muslim...he was a Capricorn.

Jesus was born during Tabernacles. In the solar calendar that means September.

[Ronin Truth]

Jesus was born during Tabernacles. In the solar calendar that means September.

December 25th, part of a solar solstice pagan holiday and celebration.

[Muwahid]

This is documented history, particularly in the case of the black stone, as noted by John of Damascus. The murder of Bahira is inferred from the same account, and is fitting given Mohammad's brutish ways. Giggle about it unto your own ignorance.

No it's not a matter of documented history. It's perhaps the most idiotic thing I've heard spouted on these forums. A complete fiction which you only believe because it suits your preconceived worldview.

[Muwahid]

Yo Muwahid!

Good to see you. I was hoping to see you post in this thread.

I've been reading "The Noble Quran" - nice! (could do without the anti-Christian appendix, though)

I was tripping when I figured out the page numbering is opposite of Western books lol

What are your thoughts on this bit?

What IS Islam?

The name "Islam" simply means "Self-surrender to the Will of God." It is the way of life that all Prophets through out history have taught, from those known in the Western world such as Abraham, Moses and Jesus to those sent to other parts of the Earth like Salih, Shu'ayb, and Luqman the African. The last and final Guide was Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him), who lived in sixth century Arabia.

A "Muslim,"(i,e. a self-surrendered one,) is a follower of this faith. Nearly one in every five persons alive today is a Muslim.

Hello

Yes put simply a Muslim is one who submits to the will of God, so naturally we believe all prophets and messengers to be Muslim in that sense. I hope you find in the Qur'an a similar message to that in the gospels. I've maintained for a while that there's not a large contrast between the two, where we diverge is where man became involved and established Churches and imposed doctrines upon people.

If one who is unbiased took the unadulterated words from the scriptures (Torah, Gospels, and Qur'an) I believe they would have no trouble believing they share a source of origin. They may differ but their demographics were different. From empowering the oppressed Jews, to correcting the Jews errors via Jesus, to Muhammad correcting the ways of the Christians who sought to make Jesus a God rather than a messenger and prophet of God.

[Natural Citizen]

If you're going to be an obtuse twit, just say so and I'll go about my business.

Well, that wasn't a very nice thing to say.

[erowe1]

Jesus was born during Tabernacles. In the solar calendar that means September.

I have heard this before. The argument for this that I recall went something like this:
The feasts of the Torah prefigure aspects of the ministry of Jesus.
The significant events of Christ's death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Holy Spirit all happened at the times of some of the major feasts.
John refers to the incarnation of Jesus by saying, "The Word became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us."
So the feast corresponding to Jesus' birth, and during which his birth must have happened, was the Feast of Tabernacles.

Do you have other reasons beyond those for thinking that?

[GunnyFreedom]

I have heard this before. The argument for this that I recall went something like this:
The feasts of the Torah prefigure aspects of the ministry of Jesus.
The significant events of Christ's death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Holy Spirit all happened at the times of some of the major feasts.
John refers to the incarnation of Jesus by saying, "The Word became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us."
So the feast corresponding to Jesus' birth, and during which his birth must have happened, was the Feast of Tabernacles.

Do you have other reasons beyond those for thinking that?

Well, the shepherds were out tending their flocks, which isn't a thing in December. Also, they were in town for the census, which happened at the New Year, which was like a week before Tabernacles.

[erowe1]

Well, the shepherds were out tending their flocks, which isn't a thing in December.

I've heard that too. But I don't believe it's true. Today you can find shepherds out in Israel any time of year. And it's not like we are bound to the choices of one time or another. We may just not be able to know when he was born.

Also, they were in town for the census, which happened at the New Year, which was like a week before Tabernacles.

I'm skeptical of this too, especially since, if there were any necessity of the census being at the beginning of the year, since it was legislated by Caesar Augustus, it would have been according to the Julian calendar, which begins with January around the same time as our modern Gregorian calendar.