Proof ancient Jews worshipped Christ

Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907
With all due respect I posted a thread about ancient Jews u came in and started attacking the thread.

Ur trying to get Christians to stop talking about their faith or evidence for their faith it's not going to happen ur free to think whatever nonsense u like. Such as what u just posted which is the most rediculous thing I've heard.
title of that thread 'ancient jews used to worship Jesus'
in the video, the guy shows a 3rd to 4th century synagogue and says 'they worshipped here'.

see the difference?


i'm not trying to make you stop talking, just stop with the bsing. For example now you're claiming what i posted was 'the most ridiculous thing ive heard'. how is that ridiculous? it is a fact that St Augustine was the key reason behind the trinitarian doctrine. i bet you never heard of him because that is how you plebian christians operate.
you dont know your own religion and the key figures behind the development of christianity.
you don't even get it..
the incarnation of the logos, is quite literally hinduism that made it's way into greek philosophy via persian philosphy, merged with egyptian mythology and finally into jewish thought via Philo.

the philosophers planted the seeds and religion was the result. the idea of the Word/Logos incarnating in the flesh is an ancient idea.
the incarnations of Vishnu (the same concept as the logos) eg krishna, rama.
 
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
2,133
title of that thread 'ancient jews used to worship Jesus'
in the video, the guy shows a 3rd to 4th century synagogue and says 'they worshipped here'.

see the difference?


i'm not trying to make you stop talking, just stop with the bsing. For example now you're claiming what i posted was 'the most ridiculous thing ive heard'. how is that ridiculous? it is a fact that St Augustine was the key reason behind the trinitarian doctrine. i bet you never heard of him because that is how you plebian christians operate.
you dont know your own religion and the key figures behind the development of christianity.
you don't even get it..
the incarnation of the logos, is quite literally hinduism that made it's way into greek philosophy via persian philosphy, merged with egyptian mythology and finally into jewish thought via Philo.

the philosophers planted the seeds and religion was the result. the idea of the Word/Logos incarnating in the flesh is an ancient idea.
the incarnations of Vishnu (the same concept as the logos) eg krishna, rama.
U know if u repeat the same thing over and over again it doesn't make it true right.

I'm not debating the trinity with u. The text old test and new forces u to accept the trinity. Now we go round in circles its ur problem u have rejected Christ who he is and his purpose for being here.

That is ur problem stop trying to make it other people's.

I think it's because it scared if ur wrong about Jesus which u are. Ur in alot of danger. Get right with the one true God Jesus Christ
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907
U know if u repeat the same thing over and over again it doesn't make it true right.

I'm not debating the trinity with u. The text old test and new forces u to accept the trinity. Now we go round in circles its ur problem u have rejected Christ who he is and his purpose for being here.

That is ur problem stop trying to make it other people's.

I think it's because it scared if ur wrong about Jesus which u are. Ur in alot of danger. Get right with the one true God Jesus Christ
you're the one running away from a discussion with 'im not debating the trinity with you'.
sorry but Jesus directly proved the trinitarian doctrine wrong.

the son can do nothing of his own except through the father
the holy spirit is less than the son


the issue here is you attacked muslim belief first, ive come in proving that muslims believe in the correct version of Jesus and dont follow the roman pagan stuff you do. trinitarianism has no part of monothiesm.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907
I'm not sure many muslims believes the crucifixion

I'll quote a verse that's very relevant to this

And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.
(سورة المائدة, Al-Maaida, Chapter #5, Verse #48)


historically christians lived as minorities amongst muslims, but muslims didnt live amongst christians so much.
as a result, i imagine if there was any christian-muslim dialogue/debate, it would have been poorly managed, essentially a bullying session. I don't think the ave muslim had any real understanding of christianity anyway and vice versa.


I'm fond of studying the beliefs and understanding of past muslims, i've studied sufi islam esp because it's a treasure trove of information. However i value that im living in the age of information and have access to a wider range of material. I don't need to blindly accept something because an 8th century arab/persian bloke said it..to me, he is not any better than i. that is not ego, it is just the fact that every one of them were fallible humans who often said something stupid.

Perfect example
the term 'Word of Allah' to describe Jesus and no other messenger/rasul. no one else has that..and there is no hadith that details what this one means. What happened instead was there was a split amongst early muslims a couple of centuries in...when discussing the idea of 'the eternal word of Allah'.
they basically thought 'the Word' means 'the Quran and more specifically the Divine scriptorium eg the archetype containing all things within it, akin to code of creation based on which in modern times sufis view reality as a program'.
So one side says ''eternal Word of Allah means the Quran wasnt created' the other side says 'no it had to be created as it is post-causal'.
this bunch of guys go on debating through books and discussions for centuries right until the current era where i saw a pakistani 'sufi' sheikh write a book on this topic..suffice to say it was pure crap. Not a single one of them directly acknowledged that 'the eternal Word' has it's contexts from the Gospel and thus greek philosophy, persian and finally hindu philosophy.
these muslims didnt get that part. Still the sufis arrived at many 'truths', shared understanding of metaphysics albeit with diff interpretations from the hindus...so there are many overlaps between sufism and advaita vedanta in text form.


example of this right now
nice to see these ppl have this grand discussion...and not one of them knows 'The eternal Word of Allah' is the Logos/Image of God which is the universal consciousness and exists eternally eg isnt 'created'..it is not a reference to the Quran.

furthermore, the idea of God co-existing eternally with 'another' eg the universal consciousness..is not contradictory at all.
For example, there is nothing past present and future that hasnt existed in the knowledge of Allah, eternally..and yet it's existance itself is due to that knowledge, that is to say, our true state is 'eternally with Allah' not as a post-causal being.
this is where sufi islam touches on these truths but gets in trouble eg 'the unity of being'..

still my overall point is to show you that the ave muslim is ignorant and need not be.

Another issue is that in the lifetime of Mohammad, any translation or interpretation of the bible would have to come from individual jews/christians. How could it be trusted?
today i can go on biblegateway or on jewish sites, or even the catholic and read the masoretic text, compare with the greek septaguint. i can compare translations, i can even read the transliteration for the OT to see the hebrew wording, often it matches arabic or is that similar that i can tell the little nuances apart, i can spot inconsistencies in translations and interprations.

Yet, the same is true for the Quran's translations, they all diff and often times there are errors. prophet Mohammad was saying to his muslims 'trust only the Quran 100%, you dont know if what you're reading from the people of the book (when translated into arabic) is truely the Word of God. you could read something and it is actually from God and reject it, or you can read something and it is not from God and accept it (eg you cant be sure) so just say 'i believe in what Allah revealed'.

does that make any sense? so based on that, historically the ave muslim had no reason to study these topics.

Furthermore i genuinely see the mythos aspect of religion, the inherent wisdom in what is given. For example Genesis contains many scientific errors, yet it is mythos 'truth' due to the wisdom and intent ini t. Imagine speaking to hundreds of thousands of wandering israelites in the desert..and sharing modern astronomy and physics with them, what do you imagine that would do to their faith?'
eg religion has to cater to the lowest common denominator, that's why it is dumbed down.

Now to answer you on the crucifixion..my understanding

1)
the Quran says
And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: "They are dead." Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.
(سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #154)

the reason why they are living is because they already put their carnal nature (the serpent) to death in God's cause. the Soul experiences death in barzakh/hades/sheol when it is bound to the earth to the extent of one's carnal attachments. This imprisonment is 'death'. Everyone will awake on the day of judgement to be judged, so clearly everyone isnt permanently dead but is experiencing a dead state, imprisonment and suffering in the grave.
in islam the souls of the martyrs are alive and free. islamic tradition says they are like birds flying in paradise in total bliss already awaiting the day of judgement.

now extend this to Jesus and the crucifixion...
at the very least, if one was to believe in it, then he was absolutely a martyr..
we both know the Cross symbolises the death of the serpent anyway..so this was the same thing as martydom. So it was not possible for 'them' to kill Jesus. Hence
'so it was made to APPEAR TO THEM' eg they witnessed the body and said 'yup, he's dead and not coming back'.
the same as the slain/martyrs...they appear dead to the physical senses and yet, they're alive
'though ye perceive it not'.

2)
there is only one verse in the entire Quran on this
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
(سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)


see when muslims typically quote this..they clearly quote only a part ofi t, the middle part..and leave out the first and last part.

the first is that 'they said in boast' is not just anyone...

it isnt even the pharisees...it's the sadducee's who disbelieved in the concept of life after death and only believed in the physical reality. The pharisees believed in reincarnation btw, so they wouldnt imagine Jesus as 'dead', only the sadducees.


18 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection[c] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

26 Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[d]?
27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”




3)
yes, christianity does say 'Jesus died for our sins' but the emphasis of his 'death' is not a reference to his spirit but to the carnal aspect of Jesus, the serpent.
hence

14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him


in Acts 2, Peter said


22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25 David said about him:

“‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,
27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’[e]
29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.


this is exactly what the Quran concludes, without going into specifics. i dont think the specifics of this topic would be understood by arabs back then and certainly not today..that's the mythos aspect of religion.
God could have shown them all the truth and detailed this topic, but it's also a test between 3 religions on what version of truth they accept and why.

personally i feel my viewpoint is the best one as it doesnt skip any part of the Bible.

Again going back to the verse

but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

the irony is that the muslims themselves are in conjecture even with the other Quranic verse i quoted on martydom. They are missing the point and do not get it. In fact they've even gone as far as to believe in the 'swap/substitute theory'.

4)
btw the truth is a muslim is not allowed to say
'THIS is the meaning of this verse' so whilst i have an interpretation, i am not bound to it. im just open minded.
as much as im dissing islam, in sufi tradition there used to be a time, 1000 yrs back, where an 'alim' (someone who understands the Quran, usually in more than one language) was not considered an alim unless he had at least 9 different interpretations of each verse. Do you get that? they were told to be open minded and accept that they can be wrong, therefore to have a wider range of possibile interpretations giving them better chance.

those muslimsw ould have been accomodating of my views.
we live in the post-modern era of mass printing, media, youtube. the side that got in first hijacked it. likewise when muslims 'mine' for data from the past, they tend to only seek that which confirms their own views anyway.
imagine written material, tafseers from earlier muslims contradicting modern narratives? it would get blanked.



4) on the swap theory..this one is flipping beautiful, it is so dumb and it exposes the muslim side

basically the Gnostic apocalypse of Peter..
it talks about how the physical 'likeness of Jesus' ie his flesh form, was mistaken for his spiritual form and hence 'it was the substitutde put to death'

you can just imagine some muslims reading this text and derping their way to the literal belief that judas was put on the cross, was given 'the likeness of Jesus so the jews thought it was Jesus'.

this goes so deep that one muslim quran translator (Mohsin khan) even conned his way into selling it as THE Quran directly, like this

157. And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Îsa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them [the resemblance of 'Îsa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)], and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Îsa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) عليهما السلام]:

maybe now having read this, you can understand how brainwashing happens and it is obv these people have deliberately lied based on nothing but stupidity. im certain these ppl are demonic, knew what they were doing and proceeded just for the sake of ego. dawah pride in the post-modern era. like the hyde park muslims...
you have one of em on here faking his 'interest in islam' to sell a fake conversion story.
i swear, islam has been hijacked..

and they say im not the muslim.


Not only did muslims do that..they even beautifully manufactured a new forged biblical text, 'The gospel of barnabas' which conveniently gives a crappy pro-muslim type message and then they allconclude 'look this is from the real gospel that they hid from us'.


finally...
here is an apocryphal text, Wisdom...written before Jesus, probably in the hellenistic era, the author was unknown.
consider what ive said...consider what the Quran says aswell as the context of the sadducee perspective which ive highlighted..and then read the first 3 chapters of this text


im having a problem with protestants refusing to accept this book. the irony is that it confirms their view and actually shows the muslim side a more detailed take on the crucifixion that actually unites the 2 perspectives..
furthermore the church fathers historically praised this text..and it was part of the bible in the time of Jesus, so everyone from John the baptist to Jesus to mary, peter, paul etc literally used to read this text..
and today the protestants are too pig headed to even open it and read it.
it is shocking how annoying people have become, refusing toe ven reading something that offers deeper insight and is something Jesus himself used to read and knew about.
i also think it is very convenient that the jews later Xd out this text. clearly hiding something.
chapter 2 and 3 esp sum up exactly what i believe. btw i discovered this yrs after id already formed my views. this was a great find for me.
i wish everyone knew about it..given it was older than Jesus, chapter 2 was def a prophecy.
 

Wigi

Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
891
personally i feel my viewpoint is the best one as it doesnt skip any part of the Bible.
i swear, islam has been hijacked..

and they say im not the muslim.
Hold on, that's actually the first time that I read a sufi muslim approach.
I have a lot to digest but something bugs me right now and it's how do you go from this :
furthermore, the idea of God co-existing eternally with 'another' eg the universal consciousness..is not contradictory at all.
For example, there is nothing past present and future that hasnt existed in the knowledge of Allah, eternally..and yet it's existance itself is due to that knowledge, that is to say, our true state is 'eternally with Allah' not as a post-causal being.
To this :
trinitarianism has no part of monothiesm.
I mean the Bible's Triune God literally embodies that and in fact John 1 literally says the Word of God was with God and the Word was God. I believe muslims are mistaken about Jesus and everything they know about christians is mostly misconception, partly because of Christian's inability to perfectly describe God's attributes with mere words .
Simple put the Holy Spirit reveals it to you after you repent with a genuine conversion (not that catholic toddler baptism) and then you're no longer in the dark, it becomes clearer and you see. It is a truth revealed at a spiritual level it's not really something you grasp with accumulated knowledge I can't word it any better.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907
Hold on, that's actually the first time that I read a sufi muslim approach.
I have a lot to digest but something bugs me right now and it's how do you go from this :


To this :


I mean the Bible's Triune God literally embodies that and in fact John 1 literally says the Word of God was with God and the Word was God. I believe muslims are mistaken about Jesus and everything they know about christians is mostly misconception, partly because of Christian's inability to perfectly describe God's attributes with mere words .
Simple put the Holy Spirit reveals it to you after you repent with a genuine conversion (not that catholic toddler baptism) and then you're no longer in the dark, it becomes clearer and you see. It is a truth revealed at a spiritual level it's not really something you grasp with accumulated knowledge I can't word it any better.
I really appreciate the genuine reply man.
The answer is that the Son/Logos/Image/Universal consciusness represents the Immanence of God.
Within the Logos, is every single thing, the entire creation, all things..
call it the multiverse, call it the universe itself, call it whatever you want..
understanding the subtle difference between the TRancendent nature of God and the Immanence expressed through the Logos on the primary level and then the post-causal at the secondary level is a key point to understanding monothiesm.

Hence the statement
The Word WAS WITH GOD
the Word IS GOD
the former refers to the Trancendent aspect of God via the left brain approach, logic..
the latter refers to the Immanent aspect of God via the right brain aproach, the mystical side.

the latter is what the jewish people were lacking. they had the theology of monothiesm, they had the book and the law, what they lacked was the personal inner connection to God via His immanence.
it's like if a muslim believes in Allah as an idea...basically out of sight out of mind, vs someone who has a very present perception of God that is personal. Aperson of that kind can 'see God in all things' (ie the single eye). Not all the ti me but in specific moments. in islam, this one is called Ihsan and is the 'highest level of faith'. That's because the left side is passive in it's relationship with God's Trancendence eg it deals with the divine decree. The right side is active and deals with our freewill and our journey upwards back to the Logos itself, akin to the drop merging back with the primordial water.
In islam there is a balance between the 2 that's necessary

https://twitter.com/DienBenA

Imam Malik (r) said, “Whoever studies jurisprudence (fiqh) and didn’t study tasawwuf will be corrupted; and whoever studied tasawwuf and didn’t study jurisprudence will become a heretic; and whoever combined both will be reach the Truth.” the scholar’Ali al-Adawi , vol 2

this left/right brain perspective is the same in hinduism and the same in kabballah, and taoist philosophy eg yin yang.


According to Christian theology, the transcendent God, who cannot be approached or seen in essence or being, becomes immanent primarily in the God-man Jesus the Christ, who is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity. In Byzantine Rite theology the immanence of God is expressed as the hypostases or energies of God, who in his essence is incomprehensible and transcendent. In Catholic theology, Christ and the Holy Spirit immanently reveal themselves; God the Father only reveals himself immanently vicariously through the Son and Spirit, and the divine nature, the Godhead is wholly transcendent and unable to be comprehended.

this is consistent with my beliefs.

in fact, the underlying truth is perfectly expressed in islam, in a different way

Bismillah IrRahman IrRaheem
this statement is uttered by muslims all the time, read up on it, muslims say these words with everything (that is, everything positive, they wouldnt say it when sat on the toilet, this is also to an extent, an extention of the 'single eye' approach eg there are times we're not really trying to think of God, when sinning or doing something private.
so muslims regularly utter this statement..

it means
In the name of Allah
the All-Merciful
the Bestower of Mercy

that is, the second one is a representation of God's Immanence on the eternal level..
the third one is a representation on the microcosmic/post causal state eg where the primary quality of Mercy is expressed (as in creation).

i think of it where Zero/0 represents ifinity...
and causation/creation represents 1 and from it, all numbers, expressed.

0 contains everything in it and is absolutely perfect. Why is it necessary for causation? do the numbers need to be expressed in order to grasp the concept of infinity?
that there is the mystery of creation
i love to read material on this from diff pov's. Eg the tao te ching is one of my fav ones

The Tao is called the Great Mother: empty yet inexhaustible, it gives birth to infinite worlds. It is always present within you. You can use it any way you want.

The Tao is infinite, eternal. Why is it eternal? It was never born; thus it can never die. Why is it infinite? It has no desires for itself; thus it is present for all being

Every being in the universe is an expression of the Tao. It springs into existence, unconscious, perfect, free, takes on a physical body, lets circumstances complete it. That is why every being spontaneously honors the Tao. The Tao gives birth to all beings, nourishes them, maintains them, cares for them, comforts them, protects them, takes them back to itself, creating without possessing, acting without expecting, guiding without interfering. That is why love of the Tao is in the very nature of things.


now withstanding the fact that everyone has their own different interpretation, the tao is not different to the Logos/vishnu to me.
it also explains that there are 2 aspects of the Tao, the unknowable and the known.



now about the 'personal connection with Jesus via the holy spirit'.
nice idea...say i accept the above christian view of the Son and holy spirit as representations of the Immanence of God and dont confuse them for 'the Trancendent Father' knowing that the Son and holy spirit on their own, are nothing (Jesus said so)...

i still have to have this connection to Jesus through a church system. The so called 'branches'.
how am i connecting with a branch when i cant find it?
besides, seeking 'the holy spirit' is misleading because even with the right intent, there is no preventing our own darker thoughts and entities from leading us astray.
i believe the original christians had this connection but by the time islam came, that christian era was finished.
Just like the israelites were once under God's grace, living in faith..once they lost that in egypt, then Moses came with the law.
so i dont think we should be banking on this personal connection when it isnt there.
Even Jesus said he will reject many.

in Genesis 1, it is kind of mixed up and confusing, but it is detailing the metaphysical descent of consciousness.
it says 'in the beginning God created the heavens and earth' but what follows is more of an explanation of that process, eg it doesnt begin where 'the earth and heaven already exist now and everythin gelse camelater'.

The Spirit of God hovered over the WATERS
that's the same idea, the waters being the primordial water, once again the universal consciousness. in egyptian mythology and in hinduism this is how it is referred to as aswell, (look up Nu/in egyptian mythology).#
the holy spirit proceeded from the Son.
the spirit of God/the holy spirit represents the intelligence behind causation, the Holy Spirit...'the first and the last' (which connects with the left/right down/up i was talking about).

in egyptian mythology and in hinduism, this 'stepping out of the waters' was only symbolically described as a boat carrying 7 figures...
Nu along with 7 spirits..
that represents the '7 holy spirits'.
in hinduism it is the 7 rishis
in zoroastrianism, they are the 7 amesha spenta
the same idea does exist in some sufi circles..and i think it is fascinating that muslims wound up making such statements of their own accord centuries ago...when it isnt directly mentioned in the Quran or hadith.
i would read such things and wonder 'how did they arrive at this?' and then find that christianity tends to confirm it in a different manner.

itisnt a mere coincidence...the holy spirit does represent the causal process, the first emerging from the macrocosm.
the holy spirit also links the microcosms back to the macrocosm.
this again is a sufi belief where the holy spirit is called 'the sirr ul asrar' (the secret of secrets which is a sufi book). Basically the holy spirt represents Wisdom itself which is the foundation of creation. in islam, this 'wisdom' is called the 'nur-e-Mohammad' (the light of Mohammad or The Mohammedan reality), 'the first thing Allah created was My light (wisdom) from His light'.
of course this also links to john 16 because the Quran is from the holy spirit..and Mohammad fulfilled that part 'bringing all the truth, telling you what is to come, condemning theworld of it's sin'. islam is the only religion that is actively fighting the nwo elite.

just as the holy spirit connects the microcosms back to the macrocosm, you can see in Mohammad how he was a microcosmic expression of Jesus eg in mecca he was the 'suffering servant/passive' and then he went to madina to become the 'davidic king'. i do believe it's why many muslims mak e the mistake of taking prophecies about Jesus and saying 'it is Mohammad', it just represents the smaller scale of what Jesus is doing. they are like the tree and the fruit, which belong together. there's a lot more in this idea.

a fascinating christian text written by a christian mystic called Madam Guyon is about her journey, which she describes the soul as a 'river' making it's way back to the ocean. she explains the same 'yin/yang' with 3 different approaches, the passive, active and middle. she practiced quietism which was the passive path, as opposed to the catholic church which pushed the active right side path linking it to Jesus.
Her path, of complete submission ironically is the path Jesus practiced on his first stay eg the suffering servant.

She gave up the 'self' in submittion to God's will. in doing so, she experienced a spiritual death of the ego..she struggled heavily.
it was more like the drop/river evaporating and returning as rain to the ocean...rain representing Mercy.
it was a fascinating book if you're interested
the idea isd the same in taoist philosophy where yin leads to yang and vice versa..

dont get me wrong, the active path, in christianity, is upwards, but it isnt individual..is a collective/unity based path..afterall it leads to unity of consciousness.
the sufi tariqah's are the same in theory.

my only conclusion based on everything ive seen, is that..despite the best intentions..i doubt Jesus really does give a fk tbh. no offense. if he is happy to torch a load of 'believing' christians to death because 'i never knew you' (ie he won't have gnosis of them, they were not part of the 'true vine) it means they spent their life in vain believing to have a connection to Jesus through the baptism, yet having nothing.
the fact that sin is so prevalent in the world..when christianity preaches conquest, the death of the serpent etc..makes no sense.

maybe im wrong and the eastern orthodox church, or some small few within it, are aligned with the truth? but otherwise i feel most arent..in fact many are alredy worshipping iblees in private. there are many sufis like that who are running sufi orders but have already made deals with iblees and just fk it up (like the pharisees).
personally i prefer just to do my own thing...and ultimately, i believe we will all be judged fairly..that the way the scripture talks about God being cruel and throwing humans to hell, is not really true and it was just symbolic language.

for example
in the Quran, paradise is described as beautiful gardens with flowing streams of water, with trees and fruit..
this is symbolic language..
the flowing stream of water represents the lifeforce/prana/chi energy within us that is an extention of the Divine breath (which btw Jesus also represents in islam, the second heaven, the etheric plane, which links to birth/fertility/the baptism etc...jesus literally was the fountain of life). the stream having free flowing water is about us gaining control over our lifeforce...eg like having blocked chakras/energy centers, to the extent of our carnal attachments.
the garden represents the heart and our intentions, the seeds..
seeds of faith, trees of faith, fruit of faith etc. it's not hard to grasp.

hell to me just represents all our our earthly/carnal attachments.

btw i have covid right now, the MODI variant. im pakistani and know that if it came from pak, the media would trash pakistan like they do. so im calling it the modi variant.
mate, im feeling absolutely shit rn. body aches, headache, fever, dizzy etc. the whole family has it, all the kids.

i dont see why purification in the 'fire' should be any worse than how im feeling rn.
yes, religion has it's 'mythos' but ironically, i feel like a true insaan/human, must be brave enough to challenge God on cruelty to have that respect..but it is not really about 'God' it is about defeating our own inner voice that creates our own internal threats.
religion is that inner voice expressed on the collective scale. As soon as humans began to meditate on the idea of God and attained gnosis in their own limited understanding of reality (eg the geocentric world view, the small universe) that that voice came out as 'God'.

you cant tell me Yahweh the jealous God who plays hide and seek with adam and even..regrets making humans...is the correct version. religion is about the human experience and our evolution towards enlightenment..
i believe the scriptures are not to be taken at face value all the time and we should be open minded.
That is why in the Quran, Allah always says
THE SCRIPTURE AND THE HIKMAH/WISDOM (which again is the link to the holy spirit anyway).
the book, Secret of Secrets
it was basically telling us that we all have this connection to the Ruh al quddus(the holy spirit) through the sirr ul asrar within us.
in Rev 2 we are told that the holy spirit gifts 'the morning star' (as in this wisdom). the morning star is not lucifer, in isaiah it was only used in jest/mockery towards the so called wise king of babylon. the morning star is the inner guidance/wisdom granted by the holy spirit.

now earlier i said 'we dont have this connection' and that's because whilst the sirr ul asrar is a nice idea in islam, the reality is there are many many levels below that we cant even surpass...least of all the astral plane which is our carnal nature. come on man...lust alone is hard to control, let's be real. people seek the holy spirit but they still remain sex addicts. the only way pple ventually overcome addictions is when their senses are so weakened they no longer have the same level of sensitivity. they then go through a process of depression too.
christianity/the holy spirit is no quick fix. ive often researched christian forums for ppls experiences, they are no different to anyone, suffering from sin.
the only diff with muslims is that they know they're sinful, but then they seek forgiveness from God each day and acknowledge their sin.

that inner garden/paradise...even when the river is rotten and the soil is full of weeds and serpents and whatever else, the light still remains in a person, that there is the 'mustard seed worth of faith' that will move mountains. i suppose, all that comes with it, the process of torment, hell fire or suffering in the world, barzakh etc, in the end that light and the underlying faith cannot die. so i have confidence in that more than i do myself or 'the holy spirit' per se.



check these verses in the Quran

1. By the heaven and the Morning Star
2. - Ah, what will tell thee what the Morning Star is!
3. - The piercing Star!
4. No human soul but hath a guardian over it.
5. So let man consider from what he is created.
6. He is created from a gushing fluid
7. That issued from between the loins and ribs.
8. Lo! He verily is Able to return him (unto life)
9. On the day when hidden thoughts shall be searched out.
10. Then will he have no might nor any helper.
11. By the heaven which giveth the returning rain,
12. And the earth which splitteth (with the growth of trees and plants)
13. Lo! this (Qur'an) is a conclusive word,
14. It is no pleasantry.
the 'gushing fluid' whilst referring to semen, on the surface, is also symbolising the metaphysical descent and that we are literally creating from the bottom (int he physical world) and then our journey is back up..

but it is also a reference to the emergence of the Spirit, the drop from the primordial water.

the holy spirit 'the first and the last'

'hidden thoughts shall be searched out'


Perverse thoughts, however, separate people from God, and power, when put to the test, confounds the stupid.
4 Wisdom will never enter the soul of a wrong-doer, nor dwell in a body enslaved to sin;
5 for the holy spirit of instruction flees deceitfulness, recoils from unintelligent thoughts, is thwarted by the onset of vice.
6 Wisdom is a spirit friendly to humanity, though she will not let a blasphemer's words go unpunished; since God observes the very soul and accurately surveys the heart, listening to every word.


By the heaven which giveth the returning rain,

this actually connects back with what Madam Guyone spoke of..eg the journey back to the primordial water, suppose we experience hell fire, it is a process of annahilation (sufis like ibn arabi had this view esp, they viewed hell as a process of purification, not necesserily 'good' but that ultimately everyone would return to back 'home'
in this case the rain represents the evaporation of the water...in te heart...purification and returning back home.

'the earth which splitteth' eg the tilling of the soil (the heart) represents a difficult process when you submit to God eg the dark things buried in your heart that you wanted to cover up and heal, wind up veing forced onto the surface, bringing about all manner of torment. this is indirectly also what madam guyon was referring to. yet she was a saint in my eyes...imagine the torment if a sinner like me?


wouldnt it just be easy for me to say 'yeh, Jesus, im connected with Jesus so it's all good'
no, the only way that's possible is if the heart absolutely perfectly reflects Jesus, as a mirror. that means total devotion, forgetting the entire world for Jesus'

i wont kid myself, i dont know Jesus, i know him as a theory, a concept, but i doubt a single soul in the world today knows the real Jesus. the 'true vine' was closed permanently when islam came, it's why islam had to come..because trinitarianism killed it.
just as paul argued that the circumcision was dead on account of peoples sins...then the 'grace and faith' that the cross represented, is also a dead symbol.

to me that path is closed. i dont take it at face value, eg if Jesus was literally saving the whole world, where are there almost 2b muslims, 1b hindus, 1.3b athiestic buddhist/taoist types etc?
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
2,133
What do you think about the Christ [4] ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied.
43
He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him `Lord'? For he says,
44
"`The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."' [5]
45
If then David calls him `Lord,' how can he be his son?"
46
No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions

In this verse Jesus is literally saying he is lord and that David called him so in the spirit in the Psalms.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907
What do you think about the Christ [4] ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied.
43
He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him `Lord'? For he says,
44
"`The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."' [5]
45
If then David calls him `Lord,' how can he be his son?"
46
No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions

In this verse Jesus is literally saying he is lord and that David called him so in the spirit in the Psalms.
this is what i mean.
i directly brought this up and you chose to ignore my point.

ADONAI (The Lord) said to my adoni (lord)...
Jesus is adoni, not Adonai...


you don't even know the basics of your bible. pathetic.
 
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
2,133
PSALM 22 CAN ONLY DESCRIBE JESUS
In light of these apparent facts, how can anyone rationally believe that David is simply talking about himself?

Let’s just do a simple recap here:

✅ Jesus cried out “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me”, applying the Psalm to himself. (Psalm 22:1)
✅ He was publicly displayed as a failure, openly scorned and mocked. (Psalm 22:6-8)
✅ He was poured out like water. (Psalm 22:14-15)
✅ His bones were disjointed.
✅ His heart “melted like wax” on the cross.
✅ He suffered extreme exhaustion and thirst.
✅ His hands and feet were pierced. (Psalm 22:16)
✅ His executioners gambled over his garments. (Psalm 22:18)
✅ His deliverance from death led to the conversion of many Gentiles and future generations. (Psalm 22:27-31)
 

Nikōn

Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2021
Messages
571
I mean the Bible's Triune God literally embodies that and in fact John 1 literally says the Word of God was with God and the Word was God.
That is just the Logos, logos ("The word") is just speech/discourse if you know your Greek. In middle platonism and neoplatonism the logos came to be some kind of metaphysical emanation from "the One" but that's another bag of eggs.
The Bible does not have a triune God, you must be reading something else. A sane person will not go away from reading the Book of Deuteronomy thinking that we are supposed to believe in some kind of "triune god"
 
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
2,133
The precise identity of the “angel of the Lord” is not given in the Bible. However, there are many important “clues” to his identity. There are Old and New Testament references to “angels of the Lord,” “an angel of the Lord,” and “the angel of the Lord.” It seems when the definite article “the” is used, it is specifying a unique being, separate from the other angels. The angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God (Genesis 16:7-12; 21:17-18; 22:11-18; Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8). In several of these appearances, those who saw the angel of the Lord feared for their lives because they had “seen the Lord.” Therefore, it is clear that in at least some instances, the angel of the Lord is a theophany, an appearance of God in physical form.



The appearances of the angel of the Lord cease after the incarnation of Christ. Angels are mentioned numerous times in the New Testament, but “the angel of the Lord” is never mentioned in the New Testament after the birth of Christ. One possible difficulty is that the angel who appears to Joseph in a dream in Matthew 1:24 is called "the" angel of the Lord. However, this angel is clearly the same one appearing in verse 20, which calls him "an angel." Matthew is simply referencing the same angel he had just mentioned. There is also some confusion regarding Matthew 28:2, where the KJV says “the angel of the Lord” descended from heaven and rolled the stone away from Jesus’ tomb. It is important to note that the original Greek has no article in front of angel; it could be “the angel” or “an angel,” but the article must be supplied by the translators. Other translations besides the KJV say it was “an angel,” which is the better wording.

It is possible that appearances of the angel of the Lord were manifestations of Jesus before His incarnation. Jesus declared Himself to be existent “before Abraham” (John 8:58), so it is logical that He would be active and manifest in the world. Whatever the case, whether the angel of the Lord was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ (Christophany) or an appearance of God the Father (theophany), it is highly likely that the phrase “the angel of the Lord” usually identifies a physical appearance of God.
 
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
2,133
The central figure in the Old Testament, though not mentioned by name, is Jesus Christ. Jesus explained this to his disciples after his resurrection. Luke tells us that “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” Jesus “interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27)

Jesus even says the OT is about him.

And yet infinityloop here maintains Jesus never taught he was messiah.
 
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
2,133
That is just the Logos, logos ("The word") is just speech/discourse if you know your Greek. In middle platonism and neoplatonism the logos came to be some kind of metaphysical emanation from "the One" but that's another bag of eggs.
The Bible does not have a triune God, you must be reading something else. A sane person will not go away from reading the Book of Deuteronomy thinking that we are supposed to believe in some kind of "triune god"
Oh brother



So Allah if u trace the linguistics back was tied to the moon God.

So Allah's a moon God right ?
 
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
2,133
Oh brother



So Allah if u trace the linguistics back was tied to the moon God.

So Allah's a moon God right ?
Btw I love how u try to imply that if he just knew enough he would see your conclusion

Like the reason you believe what you believe Wigi is because your uneducated
 

Nikōn

Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2021
Messages
571
so we are three parts but GOD who said i created you in my image isn't hmmm....
We are not 'three parts', we are a Soul in a Body.

Plus a comparison between Genesis 1&2 shows that the "image" is a reference to Ruach (Spirit/Breath) and not physical appearance.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
וַיִּ֩יצֶר֩ יְהֹוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֗ם עָפָר֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה וַיִּפַּ֥ח בְּאַפָּ֖יו נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים וַֽיְהִ֥י הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה
 
Top