What Really Happened At The Council Of Nicea

[rainerann]

Isaiah 42:10 and on talks about something beautiful. There is nothing beautiful about the fictional character Muhammad.

To sing a new song is also a reference to the psalms who frequently use this reference as a way of describing how god has transformed their perspective. This correlated with romans 12:2 and on and on and on the Bible explains Isaiah 42 within itself.

At no time are we left puzzled by what this means because we have nothing to compare this with, which would justifying suggesting a dependence on another source for understanding.

Psalm 40:3 “he puts a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our god; many will see and fear and put their trust in the lord.”

This is beautiful and describes something that does not require war and many of the battles in the bible did not require war like Jericho, the deliverance of the people from Egypt, the standoff with Sennacherib.

This new song is demonstrated in the account of disciples who were set free from prison and did not leave causing the guard to experience such fear that he was saved and his whole family was saved because of this.

This is not the same kind of fear that we see when another country surrenders to a larger and more powerful army invading the way the Arab empire did. There is really no difference between what the Arabs did in spreading Islam and colonialism. There is nothing holy or peaceful about it so it is not even possible to be associated with Isaiah 42 to anyone unless they also believe that other places should be taken by force and are trying to hide this.

If you are Muslim, conquering other places for the sake of Islam is supported which no other religion in the world supports. No one else believes that force is justified in spreading their religion.

Isaiah 42 is not possibly talking about a man like Muhammad who is said to have consummated a relationship with a nine year old.

Not Buddha, not Jesus, not confucious. No one else has to clarify that their spiritual leader is not a p***phile except Muslims because the creation of Islam is a corruption of Christianity. Therefore, there is no real account of the man known as Muhammad. Everything about him including his p***philia was made up to further a political agenda.

Just because some areas were able to defend themselves from the Islamic armies willing to kill them for idolatry does not mean that conquering through war was not the reason Muhammad was invented to begin with.

Just because some countries did resist Islamic overthrow so that Islam has fortunately been contained within the Middle East for the last several hundred years does not mean this was not the goal and the present jihad within the Islamic world could justify lying about this across all Islamic sects because it could be justified as a means of protecting oneself from persecutions.

Lying is justified in all islamic sects in time is war so it is quite frankly difficult to believe anything that anyone says about Islam because of this if you identify as a Muslim.

Just another reason Islamic doctrine is not in any way beautiful and does not in any way represent a new song that would permit something like this and change the original law which said Thou shall not lie period. Not in times of struggle or war. Never.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Thinking about Isaiah 42 a bit more....

Consider Zachariah 9

"9Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."

> Already happened.

"10And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth."

> Yet to happen.

I think one of the reasons the Jews rejected Jesus was that they couldn't see the gap between these verses...

Interestingly, in John 4 after Jesus had spoken with the Samaritan woman at the well, there is an echo of the Church age as an interlude in the message to the Jews.

"39And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did. 40So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days. 41And many more believed because of his own word; 42And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world."

2 Peter 3 states enigmatically, for those with ears to hear.

"8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Zachariah 9 goes on to mention, as far as I can tell, the only time the Lord blows a trumpet...

"The Lord will Save His People"

(Isaiah 45:14-25)

"14And the LORD shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning: and the Lord GOD shall blow the trumpet, and shall go with whirlwinds of the south."

Now is not a time to be quiet. It is a moment for decision. None of us know how long we have or how long before the last "trumpet sounds".

Valley of decision time.

 

[rainerann]

Good. And thank you. I wasn't meaning to upset anybody. I was sharing notes from my research. I am glad you appreciate it.

Well, again as it relates to the Septuagint, authors of the Jewish Encyclopedia acknowledge that early Christians were so accomplished at using it in the Greek-speaking world, including to convert Greek-speaking Jews to Christianity, that Jewish elites did an about face and forbade its use.

"At a later time—perhaps in the second century of the present era—a different view seems to have prevailed; and it was said that the day on which the Law was translated into Greek was as unfortunate for the Jews as that on which the Golden Calf was made (Soferim i. 8, 9). Even to teach children Greek was forbidden (Soṭah ix. 14) ... Evidently this change of view was occasioned by the rise of the Christian Church, which used the Bible only in the Septuagint Version."
Source​

I don't mean to interrupt, but are you serious? If you would like to challenge your notion that Muhammad never existed, I would suggest a good, thorough reading of Heinrich Graetz. You like old books and authors. He goes into some detail concerning the rise of Muhammad on the Arabian peninsula and of his, Muhammad's, that is, at times salty interaction with his Jewish cousins, especially those in Yathrib which became Madina. Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the Nicene Council, so apologies to @Red Sky at Morning.

Right, but is she collecting a historical account based on Islamic sources, because if he is, that is the problem that modern research is running into. There is nothing to corroborate the Islamic sources on the account of Muhammad, especially from the time that he was supposedly gone to Palestine. Muhammad means one who is continuously praised. That is how scripture describes Jesus. The Messiah is the final messenger according to the New Testament.

The Arabs did invade Palestine and there is no evidence that they were bringing the message of Islam when they did from modern investigations of the land. Biographies did not exist until a hundred years after the person who is known as Muhammad died.

The Quran could not be understood by itself requiring the creation of the Hadith. There are no original Hadiths from the time Muhammad supposedly lived. They all exist afterward and there is a plethora of "false" hadiths because they were created to support different political agendas. Islam is a political ideology. Opposing Islam is the same thing as opposing a communist type government.

This information is mainly based on a modern excavation of Israel. It would interesting to see what "evidence" there is of this person Muhammad if researchers were allowed to investigate Saudi Arabia. As it is, we are basically left to take the word of Islamic sources regarding the sequence of events that are more than often unreliable.

Based on what I know about the isolation of information and the absence of many freedoms that would generate an independant investigation, it is more than possible that new research questioning the existence of Muhammad is legitimate. It will take another 20 years to investigate the subject to gain a larger discussion on this, but migration into western countries is going to bring this about. In the meantime, there is more than one reason to consider the possibility to have merit and support the early beginnings of this research.

 

[Serveto]

He (Graetz) was a Jewish historian, who, not surprisingly, relied largely upon Jewish sources for his History of the Jews. From the Biblical Chronicles of the Kings, to Josephus, to Graetz, and now up to CNN (smile), Jews have been known to be notorious record keepers and excellent, if at times arguably biased, historians of their own experience. He is a so called "grandfather" of modern Jewish historians, so he doesn't provide the footnotes and other annotation one might like, but his books are full of details, and the details are not those of hadith.

 

[grateful servant]

 

[rainerann]

Right, you're saying that the reconstructed history of a Jewish historian from the 19th century on the history of the Jews from the time when Islam was established is valid because Jews are impeccable historians even though there is no source that we can cite from the Jewish source that he was getting his information from. There are also no available documents that we have access to that are from a Jewish perspective from this time.

So it is much more likely that Graetz is constructing a history of the Jews from the numerous references of the interactions with the Jews from the Hadiths and the biography that was created about Muhammad.

Without the ability to actually produce even one Jewish document from the time Islam was created to verify the countless interactions between Muhammad and the Jews, all of these references are from Islamic sources that are just as biased. They are not only biased, but they have very limited 3rd party research confirming this. There are walls preventing this lined with insults from the Muslim community for questioning how their account of history goes. There is nowhere near anything close to a scientific approach to proving any of the history circulating within the Islamic community. It is very possible that most of it is nothing more than propaganda that has not ever been exposed to an environment that allowed questioning to prove this.

Not to mention, tracing the history from what we were discussing Justin Martyr and then with the council of Nicea and the creation of the Catholic church. Many people believe Islam was created by the Catholic church. We have already discussed the possibility that the Jews were involved in corrupting the Catholic church.

So there is a trail where all these things are connected. One thing leads to another. Islam is the product of the initial attempts to omit verses so the spread of Christianity would cease. In the Bible, Jesus is the one who is praised. He is also technically the final messenger because he fulfilled the law along with countless other reasons that we could call Jesus the final messenger. We believe there is not going to be a prophet after him.

As a result, a 19th century Jewish historian does not impress me in light of the research that I have been reading about investigations of Palestine for evidence of the presence of Muhammad and Islam in Palestine even in the 8th century. There is no evidence of Islam for at least a hundred years after Muhammad is said to have died and the nation of Islam was created. Not one mention of a people in Palestine who followed a "prophet" named Muhammad, which is a cornerstone to introducing Islam. It is the most basic principle. There is no evidence that anyone was aware that the Arabs were people who followed a prophet named Muhammad. That is strange. It is legitimately strange paired with the fact that historians say that the earliest Quran predates the birth of Muhammad. Paired with the fact that Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity.

So I prefer to wait to see where these investigations lead rather than lean on history by a 19th-century Jewish historian when there are no available writings from a Jewish source from the time Islam began. If you had an actual reference to a document by a Jew from the time when Islam was created, that would make me question this. However, most people document history of this time and the relationship between Jews and Muslims from this time according to Islamic sources even when they are not Muslim. There has been no other information to go by. However, all that could change here very soon.

 

[elsbet]

Isaiah 42:12-13
They ascribe to Jehovah honour, And His praise in the isles they declare.
Jehovah as a mighty one goeth forth.

Jehovah is not in the Quran.