Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Religion
    بيني وبين الله

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

salamtek's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Hi Chaotic! I can tell you right now that we follow both Peter and Paul, which are the leaders of the Roman church. Peter visited modern day Iraq and gave his blessing to the churches. 1 Peter 5:13 The Pesheta is a Nestorian text, and many churches in Sham and the Arabian Peninsula were Nestorian or part of the Western (Catholic and Orthodox) Church. The Nestorian church stretched from Syria to Japan, so it covers a lot of ground. The earliest versions of the Pesheta (khubarus codex) we have already has Paul in it. If you follow the link you'll see on Romans 1:1 The Church of the East's bishops (Assyrians) commonly make their names Paulus. An example is the Bishop Paulus Benyamin or Paul Benjamin. Contrary to what you posted, Paul has a rich history within the Church of the East, and is certainly accepted as an apostle of Jesus.
  2. Jesus references the Psalm, he's saying it so that they could know that he is the messiah. Many Christian bibles only come with the word, there is no tafsir anywhere. Luckily, I have a Catholic Bible, and they're known for including tafsirs in most of their Bibles. If by corresponds you mean reference, it is here.
  3. Depending on the Jew, they do. Many Jews don't even study Jerusalem Talmud, and the ones that do complain that it's too hard to understand (which I can attest to, past 3 words I have difficulty). Even Christians to some extent, there is a conversation that takes place between Satan and God, when he exalts Job in front of Satan in Job 1:8. There is a meeting. We don't know when it is...but according to Jewish tradition, Job's suffering began after rosh hashannah, and ended that year the evening before rosh hashannah, so around 353 days. fromyomkippur-rosh hashannah is one option (probably an older one), but the most common (from the religions texts ive read) is 1 year. Anyway, it furthered my point that at most, spiritual beings (Angels by way of Satan, and demons, spirits) can only know less than one year in advance (not 365 days, but a Jewish year, either 353-383 days), and that the angels couldn't have questioned God on what they didn't know, since Hezekiah would have still been years away from becoming king, not to mention taking the gold off of the Holy Temple and give it away.
  4. It's through discussion we understand differences and similarities, through transfer of one message to another. I would not know that Islam is split into Sunni and Shia if it wasn't through discussion, and many would think that all Muslims are terrorists if it wasn't for discussion. There is a place for it; can you think of a better place than a interfaith dialogue board? I believe that something can't be a curse and a blessing. If something is both, then it just is. What you do with it depends on your desires, it's a neutral medium: neither a curse nor blessing. The only non-trinitarian Christians I've come across are Jehovah Witnesses, so I wouldn't think the questions on trinitarianism would come from Christians (no more than a peep, in reality). I affirm it's a mystery and it's holiness is uncompromisable to the human mind. It's fine...I use the speech to text option on my computer and sometimes it drops whole words or uses punctuation oddly. Yes, Jesus will come back on the Mount of Olives, and he will split it so that the east and west with go one north and one south and that's the starting point for the resurrection, emanating outwards. From there, he will establish the Kingdom of God on earth, prior being spiritual as the Body of Christ in the Church. The concept of (Shia) Islamic salvation rests on Imam al-Hujjah, not Jesus. Whether he has been born or not is subject to debate, so I won't go into that. The Islamic concept of Messiah (as Jesus) varies with each madhab (I see Sunni's especially talk about Jesus and his role as messiah) so that's also not something I want to go into. There are only 3 messiahs in Judaism that I can think of (right now), and all of them have been/will be kings. Which messiahs do you speak of, specifically? Messiah does not equal the word for salvation. Jesus means God saves, messiah means oil, as the anointed, correct. We believe it's been fulfilled, but we have yet to experience the second coming. What I was getting at is that it proves the Messiah will be the king of the Jews. They wouldn't have put that on him if he didn't claim to be the messiah. I did not mean that in some way he being mocked is a prophecy.
  5. Then the Word is eternal, and by default is God. Jesus' body is not of issue until the resurrection, in which case, he already achieved everlasting life via the body. You've probably made up your mind on Jesus' split natures, so any amount of convincing is probably beyond my reach. I suppose we must agree to disagree.
  6. Could you explain what you mean? Because God gave him rights to said authority. Not only that, but his lineage will in fact have the throne of Israel, as from his lineage, the Messiah will come. God is not inferior to David. God's "lineage" is so because we anthropomorphize God. God isn't a human to have a "lineage", not a human to have a wife...Jesus is his "son" because humans cannot comprehend the holiness of God, nor his plan, so he gives them in simple terms so that it's easier to understand: we call that a Mystery. It's the same with a trinity, we cannot comprehend it, it's divinity is out of our reach. It's a "mockery" because the sign emphasizes the point that the messiah would be a king.
  7. a) Since Jesus was legally Joseph's son in the kingly line, Jesus was and is legally entitled to the throne of David. b] Not only that, but Mary is Joseph's far relative, so the kingly line would still be in Jesus' lineage. c) King Jeconiah (from Joseph's side) would invalidate his right to rule.
  8. There's no guarantee Jesus was the angel in the burning bush. Where do you find your sources that the Logos was speaking? The torah says Moses was too afraid to look into the fire, and that YHVH spoke. Jesus was God on earth, not human turned into God. He is also descended of King David, so is called "King of the Jews". During his crucifixion it was written atop him "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews". So he was a king, so you can't say in the next breathe "the government is not on his shoulders". If you accept Jesus as your savior, how are you reconciling this with Isaiah 43:11, that there is no savior but God? Jesus' name means God Saves, not directly "savior". Je=ye=saves hoshua=saves, but in Aramaic it's eesho, written yod-shin-wow-ayin, instead of yod-he-wow-shin-ayin. Even rabbi's that diagree that the person being spoken of in Isaiah as "Immanuel" was called later "maher"baz". This only proves my point that Immanuel was a title. Jesus was as physical as he was spiritual. He is fully human and fully God. If Jesus wasn't human he couldn't suffer. If he wasn't God, he couldn't bring people back to life, nor would God have said "This is my Son" to a crowd of witnesses.
  9. I know that in Jewish lore, the messiah needs to be born from the house of David...and he is part of something called the 36 Secret Righteous ones. There will come a time when the messiah is destined to arrive, and this specific person (1 out of the 36), will be formed by God into the messiah after his birth, hence the "disappearing from sight" because the messiah will be so much more divine than a human will be. (There's a story about one of the Jewish sages going into a cave and he became so holy, so he went back into the cave for a month to de-holify...this is only a fraction of the messiah). When he speaks, all the evil people in the world will die (about 2/3rds), and those not dead will be examined harshly. In that generation, the messiah will be born, and developed into the messiah.
  10. Technically, there are 36 (lamadvavniks) possible candidates for a messiah in each generation. They are also the reason God keeps the world from destruction. Most Jewish commentators believe that these are 3 separate children...Rashi believes that they are 1 child and 1 like-son (Shear-Yashuv). You're also forgoing the fact that the Septuagint translated it as parthenos, and 70 Jewish religious leaders translated it as this. As I've said, in double prophecy, it's not contingent solely on the Hebrew, as it might have used documents that are now lost to time. It could have very well meant almah as a young girl, married, or a virgin. The Judaic-Greek translation says parthenos 200 years before Christ, so there can be. 1)no possibility of interpolations and 2) the possibility that Isaiah gave this to mean something, and that it was later interpreted by Jewish sources as a messianic prophecy. Yet still, we don't know the mother of this savior (not even her name), or if it is Maher, and we are stuck on an infinite loop of it being what Rashi says contradicting the opinion of other rabbis. For each different face, there's a different opinion, I suppose. If this person was "supposed" to be messiah, as Rashi interprets Isaiah, where is Isaiah's lineage to David? If it doesn't exist, there's a problem. If one wants to say "Immanuel is Maher" then one can see that Immanuel is a title, and cannot be his actual name. The part where I pointed out Rashi just states that it was to be taken as a messianic prophecy, and this has been taken into consideration by Jews as late as Rashi's time. You can assume that the idea that this is a messianic prophecy comes from before Rashi, because this, in a way, is adding to torah, which is a sin. From this we know that at one point, Jews believed that the Messiah will be born of a virgin and have the title Immanuel. Lastly, Rashi's interpretation can't the last answer on this. How did the angels know that Hezekiah, at his young age, will rip the treasures of beit hamikdash and give them as a peace offering to a king? Angels can only know so far ahead into the future...in the presence of the Most Holy, the praise him with song, they don't have time to question God while complimenting him on how wise he is. They don't know what comes in the far future, but what is heralded in the Court of Heaven (which any spiritual being can hear), according to the Zohar. Angels are robots, they carry out the will of God. They question too? Even Satan when God tests Job did not know that he would still worship God. According to Jerusalem Talmud, Satan and God meet every Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, so his suffering lasted a little more than 10 days, and Satan doesn't know the outcome of God testing Job. Another opinion according to Zohar is that they meet once a year. We know that 10 days is at least the min, one year max. Court of Heaven may only release rulings (or as little as, by some opinions) in advance of one year (or ten days). Hezekiah was a child, so they couldn't have known his desecration of the temple How could the angels have questioned God on something they don't know? Angels question God when, before the hymns they sing to praise him or after calling him wise? Satan would have not known Job's outcome for at least a year, which is why God tests Job to prove a point to Satan You've delved in the topic a little too much, as I just stated that he alludes to knowledge that it (Immanuel) was a messianic prophecy...there are conflicting opinions about the rest.
  11. That's not to say I believe in their interpretation. It's just that its been answered by Christian mystics, which answers 2 questions N had.
  12. There was this one..I can't remember exactly the quote, but it was something along the lines of "You don't know you're going to die in the same land you were born" or something to that effect. If you can help me find the quote (English/Arabic), I'd appreciate it!
  13. Again, its a mystic thing and how I've heard their argument explained. I'm not sure if it was changed by God in the "imprint" stage. This argument was given by people who obviously knew Kabbalah so I can't say I'm 100% sure I even have the explanation right...but there were early Christian mystics that were Jewish because Christianity and Judaism were the same religion until around 400.
  14. Since you say first, etc, I'll address them as points: 1) Why would God break his own law? For us, it a law. We've interpreted it as a law. We understand God through anthropomorphisms. He's not a human that he should follow them. In the way we understand "the Son of God" is also an anthropomorphism, as is the mystery of the Trinity. 2) There's an answer for this done by Christian mystics. When Jesus was to be born, an angel took the semen of Joseph, presented it before God, and this is where God blessed it and said "you will be Jesus, the Messiah and Son." He had an angel announce it to her. She accepted (magnificat), He then allowed for the conception of Mary with Joseph's now blessed seed (via Holy Spirit), still without sexual union. Apparently, this is taken direct from Jewish Kabbalah, where the semen of the father is taken and the future of the baby is imprinted by God. Therefore not only does the bloodline exist, but Jesus is the son of both Joseph and God. God through word, Joseph through seed. We later see that through a crowd, like Sinai, God says "This is my Son". We have matter transfer from heaven to Mary, and an angel that announces it to her, and later confirmation of Mary's story "God did it" when God himself speaks to a crowd. 3) Joseph consented, after he struggled with her story for a bit. Your entire argument is that there are 2 virgin births (I think). We have one...Jesus, the son of God, born of Mary. Where is the second one? Rabbis constantly say that it could have either been Ahaz's wife (which Rashi disagrees with) OR it was a relative. You say it is prophetess, the wife of Isaiah. If this is what Rashi says, I'm poised to believe you on the Jewish interpretation of this, however, it's not the Christian one. Rashi in 7:14 spoke about the messiah. What's Maher's lineage is that of David, if so? I don't understand how Rashi reconciles Immanuel with Maher, after he says that this is a Messianic prophecy, and then says that Maher is the fulfillment of this prophecy...so then he's the messiah. But the Israelis faced slavery after his birth. Am I missing something or is there a discrepancy? It's been suggested that the Septuagint was made with certain sources in existence that may not be available today. παρθένος is the one used in 7:14. Not only that, but Proverbs 30:14 in Hebrew & Greek How is it that Almah in one place is translated something and in another parthenos? A virgin birth, everyone is amazed at. Just a month ago snakes were born from parthenogenesis...partheno (u/s) like virgin. Why is Immanuel's mother Jane Doe? If you want to say this is the messiah, as Rashi interprets 7:14, where is his genealogy to David? Either he fails or this is a different prophecy: Why did Maher fail as Messiah, as in every Jews interpretation of Messiah?
  15. Yes, it's an attack to the person instead of the argument, which is what you did. No, I said that Jesus said it on the cross and listed the correct interpretation of it. I claimed Jesus said this, and was referring to Psalm 22. He did not say it independently, I said this constantly while I was talking with CM. x (Protestant) x (Catholic) x (Orthodox) I'm saying the same thing they're saying. Don't call me buddy, I have better things to be called then by a person with poor manners "buddy". Because this is what the Church has taught since Christ's time. When Muslims interpret it to mean that God wasn't Jesus, they're arugment 1) STILL does not disqualify Jesus as God. 2) rests solely on misinterpretation. What are you talking about? You're right, I would because you've taken an interpretation out of context. It's like me saying "Kill all those who are kuffar" in Quran، and then point out "لقد كفر الذين قالوا إن الله هو المسيح ابن مريم". You completely miss what I meant, not only that, but this had lead to how many Christians being killed by terrorists these past couple of decades? Read within context. I can even post a page out of the bible that shows the reference to Psalm 22. We don't believe a man to have been God, but God to have been man. To the 3 parts, they're not parts, but persons. Wow, there's that condescending tone again... This just goes to show you're ignorance of Christianity.
  • Create New...