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
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    salamtek reacted to Hameedeh in King Abdullah Dead   
    Eid Mubarak.
  2. Like
    salamtek reacted to Son of Placid in Your Scores   
    I didn't know anyone was keeping score.
    What do they mean?
  3. Like
    salamtek reacted to baqar in Happy Birthday   
    To Brother Netzari
    31  December 1985
    And happy New Year to  all members of this forum and this site 
  4. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from Chaotic Muslem in The Two Occultations In The Midrash   
    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.
  5. Like
    salamtek reacted to Son of Placid in What Did Jesus Say On The Cross   
    I always get a kick out of those who insist on Jesus linguistic limitations while their own Holy Quran says he could speak as an infant. 
    Of course, if you're all wrapped up in hadith and other stuff rather than the Quran itself you're likely to miss a few things. 
  6. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from hasanhh in Confectionary Question:   
    The ones that are alcohol free could be distilled by alcohol, and then purified. By then, technically, it's alcohol free.
    I use stevia and monkfruit. Both are better than most marketed sweeteners, whether natural or made. I used Splenda a while ago and it tastes chemical-like, I don't know why it's so popular, but I'm thinking it has something to do with the fact that it both markets itself as a "natural" made from sugar product and because it's so cheap. A bag thats equal to 10lbs of sugar costs about 6 dollars.
  7. Like
    salamtek reacted to baqar in What Did Jesus Say On The Cross   
    Thank you 
    I think it is a futile exercise. People could spend their time more fruitfully.
  8. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from baqar in What Did Jesus Say On The Cross   
    If you read carefully, that's not what I claimed.
    You claimed
    Go read Psalm 22.
    What I got from that is that you're saying that these are the only 2 options. You're giving a false dilemma, which is a fallacy.
    For the 5th time, Jesus is quoting a Psalm that says that he will be crucified (pierced my hands and feet), how the Jews curse curse at Jesus, mock him, divide his clothes and gamble for them, etc.
    You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. I've explained the significance of this Psalm thrice now, and I also asked where, if anywhere, was I not clear with that.

    Why would it be fair? No, I agree with you on the point that people take the Quran out of context constantly to make a mockery out of it. Atheists do this to the Bible too, as do some Muslims.
    The problem, then I would say, with the idea that Jesus is giving a "metaphor". Jesus says "Why have you forsaken me" in the same way, conjugation and structure as the Psalm I'm giving everyone. I think I verified this by pointing out both the OT and NT, where it says
    Given that Alahi and Al mean the same thing, the Psalm says [ܠܡܢܐ ܫܒܩܬܢܝ] and Jesus says [ܠܡܢܐ ܫܒܩܬܢܝ]. Since you can't read Aramaic (assuming) can you agree that they at least are the same?
    I also explained how the Alahi and Aeli part is a negligible for the fact that Aramaic differs with dialects, but amazingly, it's the same part, in both in the OT and when Jesus quotes it in the NT.
    Jesus is saying he's the fulfillment of this prophecy, contained in the entire Psalm.
  9. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from rafidhi1986 in What Is Your Opinion On Mormon's Bible?   
    Although I view them as a favorable bunch of people, I do not think that the Book of Mormon has any standing in the historical record (for reasons recounted by andres) and improbable (rafadhi). They also believe that God is 3 separate "gods", God being divided into a third of three, which is heresy in both Islam and Christianity. I have a book of Mormon in Arabic in my house FWIW and it's surprisingly easier to read than the English version. I take it with a grain of salt: this is the same guy (Joseph Smith) who bought the Egyptian Book of the Dead and claimed it was a portion of suhuf Ibrahim that was written in Reform Egyptian, translated it and was made a mockery of in the late 19th century/early 20th century.
    Bottom line: He was a storyteller, and apparently convinced a great deal of people. Mormons do have a high regard for Muhammad, though.
  10. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from labaikYaZahra in How To Lose Weight   
    I remember being 200lbs (something along the lines of 90kg), and now I'm 150. Everyone's advice on here is sound; the best way to lose weight is to watch what you eat. I'll be the first to admit it's not easy, but cleaning up your diet makes you feel on top of the world for some reason, and after a while it gets easier. If you do it long enough, smaller portions actually fill you up the same way huge portions did. I haven't worked out a day in my life (which I regret because at 6'1/185cm I'm on the thin side), and I was still able to lose weight. Notice how I said I still lost weight, you should definitely both diet and exercise, but that is up to you.
    If it's because you have trouble keeping track of your calories, there is an application called MyFitnessPal, and it works pretty well to keep track of your calories. It's a bit difficult trying to enter in kabob, tika, biryani, etc but you can type in restaurants in your area's kabob and just go from that, because that's what I do. You could also weigh your food before you eat it if you want to be 100% sure, and the best thing is that it keeps track of all your calories and tells you when you're over your calories. Another "trick" is to use colorful plates (tricks your mind into thinking you're eating a lot), and a small spoon and plate.
    I also recommend taking fish oil (the kind that doesn't taste like fish when you burp, and a multi vitamin to make sure you're getting all the vitamin and minerals you need to process the food properly. Also when I was dieting, I ate something like 6tbsp of butter a day and I still lost weight. The secret is not watching fatty foods, but watching your overall caloric intake. Be careful not to lose to much weight in a short period of time because your skin won't rebound as quickly and you'll "sag" and have extra skin left over.
    Best of luck.
  11. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from HamzaTR in Martyrdom Operation In The Bible   
    Samson was not a good person, he disobeyed God numerous amount of times, killed people to steal from them and just generally abused what God gave him because he could. They supposedly praised and thanked their gods, mocked God (in one interpretation; they made Samson their clown, claimed that their god was greater than God), and from that Samson prayed that his life be ended. He was hearing what they were saying, and said" Let me die with the Philistines" as both revenge for his eyes, and as a way of killing those who mocked both him and his Lord.
    None are coming to mind, but Samson went down with his captors and humiliators. Although he had many sins, God still gave him one last chance to repent.
  12. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from Netzari in Martyrdom Operation In The Bible   
    1) The tradition is that the oral law was brought down with Moses along with the written torah.
    2) Muhammad was Hanif (monotheistic), not pagan.
    3) You're right. There were gentiles, after all in the land of Israel. But he also had a brit milah, and at 12, he was obviously studying torah. How much more Jew-y can someone be?
    4) and the proof you have that Abrahamic faith was deviated from is?
    5) There is no such thing as taking rabbi's in place of God. That is something the Quran is disputed about (also Jews worshipping Ezra as the Son of God, etc).
    6) Last statement is a weak basis.
    We don't question Allah on steps, we question him to know him better. It's not like we deny God. Goy means nation, goy haqadosh means holy nation, and is a title used for Jews: they call themselves goy, not to mention someone is cursed when they don't speak the truth. I don't know about your religion, but we're not allowed to lie for the sake of ourselves or others. Iblis never questioned God, rather, he refused to obey God: I hope you don't believe those are not the same thing. Do you question someone who doesn't exist, or exists?
    Yes, Abraham questioned God, he said, God, if there are 10 good people in Sodom, will you keep the city, for their sake. God agrees. Not to mention when Abraham was in Iraq (modern day, but Mesopotamia) he didn't know God from an early age. He questioned what was worthy of worship, and came to a belief in an unmoved mover, and that mover is worthy of worship. Muhammad also questioned whether or not he was a prophet in Sunni Islam (these are the hadiths I found, he was about to commit suicide).
    You want to try again?
    Most narrators in the gospels are Jewish too, as are who they speak about, with the exception of Pontius Pilate and the Gentile woman, the Samaritan woman, etc. You still had the upper hand of guessing that from the Bible, the character would almost certainly be Jewish.
    This is because the Jews are "stiff-necked", this is also another supposed reason God chose them, because they would be hard to convince, as a proof to the world of his existence.
    Saudi Arabia also has a "Samson option" of sorts in the works, and although they don't speak for Shia's as a whole, far be it from any Muslim to not call them Muslim. If your concern relies in a contemporary state, they are not the only ones doing this. Who cares how you derived that he is a Jew, it just shows how deep your hatred for Jews is.
    Go read Dr. Rowling's book.
    No one knows which Jesus was this Jesus, not even Jews. Some of them say it could be, others say there was other Yesu's that made people worship Canaanite gods (etc), so no one can know for sure. Even the names aren't spelt correctly, ישוע Yeshoa (Jesus) does not make ישו=Yeshu. Yeshu could be anyone, there's a letter ع missing in the Talmud of Jesus' name.
    You're refering to the acronym ימח שמו וזכרו. Yeshu is an acronym, but it's not an acronym that stands as Jesus' name. There's no consensus. You have no argument, case closed.
  13. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from Netzari in Martyrdom Operation In The Bible   
    Jews could have been Muslims up until the time after Jesus, then it was Christians who were Muslims and then Muhammad came and that's the definition of Islam today. This is what baqar has lead me to believe, that at a point, being Jewish was being Muslim. Even our people (Arab Christians/Assyrians/Syriacs and the like) before Muhammad were considered Muslims. Therefore, Jesus was not only Jewish in faith, but also in ethnicity (meaning descended from Issac, Abraham, David, etc)
  14. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from Ali Musaaa :) in Crucifiction Of Jesus   
    Josephus mentioned him as a miracle worker (about 50-60 years, not a century and a half later). Josephus is the best known Jewish historian, so this claim falls flat. Not only that, but the Talmud mentions Jesus as Yeshu haNatzori or Joshua the Nazarene. It's up to you to prove they were interpolations.
    So did Jews.
    Santa is a completely Western thing. We didn't have Santa in Iraq until Britain took over in the 20th century.
    Jesus=Joshua=God saves. His name in Aramaic is esho3. I think you've riding a hype that over before it began. It's easy to say all of this when you rely solely on an English speakers perspective. Think about his name in Arabic. يسوع. There's no reference to Zeus, not in Arabic, Aramaic, English or any other language.
    Jesus is far from a myth.
  15. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from Netzari in Drugs!   
    from [Khirsha], it can mean (along with deaf) something to do with magic involving putting stuff together (like Shakespeare's "eye of newt and toe of frog") (note, in old Hebrew, חָרַשׁ can mean to put together, forge, develop, devise), when plural, it means magic involving amulets, incantations, charms, and is a more traditional idea of magic in relation to Middle Eastern thought, like vain repetition, which Jesus forbids.
    There is no direct meaning of it being done as a pharmacology as we know it today,as what the Greek implies, but it can definitely mean putting together herbs, animal parts, etc for the purpose of circumventing God's will, so the word doesn't stray too far off from the Greek version of John's Apocalypse. Essentially, it is magic with some assembly required, and the ending [hon] means those who practice it. Medicine in today's Aramaic is [darmana] (maybe Turkish/Persian/Greek) or in older terms [basmana] which means something that makes you get better, from [basm], to heal.
    I've heard a secularist Jew explain to me that, due to hunger, the Jews ate mushrooms which caused them to hallucinate seeing God, not an uncommon symptom, but a common is hearing God.
  16. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from Netzari in Shayateen/shadim/shadayeh: Demons   
    It's important to stress just how important it is to say this. Many people that claim to have paranormal experiences that involve demons say that they try to ignore it at first. After a couple of attempts at ignoring, it becomes strong and is able to do things such as make objects move (and hit you) or push you down stairs, etc in order to make you acknowledge it.
    Even the spirits that you test could prove impossible to tell. There's a story that comes to mind told to me about the Ben Ish Chai (Kabbalah Institute) in Baghdad probably around 100 or so years ago. There was a boy who, at 5-6 years of age, knew the Torah perfectly, and recited lines from the Talmud, and when his families Rabbi asked how is it he knows this, he stated "Because Eliyahu/Elijah tells me so". They took him to a rabbi at the Ben Ish Chai, the rabbi there also believed that it was Eliyahu. He later took the boy elsewhere, and the rabbis there told him the same thing, it's Eliyahu. The rabbi became so convinced that it wasn't Eliyahu, that he devised a plan to get rid of this entity. He wrote down a parashat about demons and told the boy to explain it to him. "Eliyahu" was saying "no I must go, I have to go" and it never came back again. There was also a worry that the boy would die from Ayin Hora/3eyn alHasad/Evil eye, so it was better to exorcise him of this demon, than to keep it. This is just how good demons are at mimicking.
    Even testing the spirit can lead to bad outcomes: what if it turns out to be a demon?
    I suppose the only test could be to see if what the spirit is saying is matching with scripture. But I agree, it's something you should acknowledge, but not play into. You also should not try to control them, bring them up from the dead, etc.
  17. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from Fatima Hussain in Is The Pope Catholic?   
    The results mirror homosexual acceptance in the United States. Do you think US Catholics are the only Catholics in the world? Most gays that go to Catholic churches are celibate, but they're still turned away from the community because it's harsh. Personally, I think that gays who chose to be celibate should be able to be accepted as part of the Catholic community, but not everyone (including my parents, aunts uncles, etc) share this belief.
  18. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from Fatima Hussain in Is The Pope Catholic?   
    لك رايك ولي راي
    To you is your opinion, and to me is mine.
    It's pretty apparent you've made up your mind, baqar, which is what I was saying, and I don't see how I could (or should) convince you otherwise.
  19. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from Fatima Hussain in Is The Pope Catholic?   
    I didn't say you're lying, maybe you've got it wrong. If I believed you were lying, why would I encourage you to keep an open mind? Secondly, I don't think I could prove you were lying even if I wanted to try. Me claiming you're lying would detract nothing from what you've said. If you really believe what you are saying, you're not lying. Just because you've interpreted something without knowing what interpretation implies doesn't mean I'm saying you're lying.
    Staying on subject, you've interpreted something based on maybe a few articles you've read, which can claim anything they want but not something you've read that would detract from your interpretation, such as homosexual relations being ignored by this pope. Having male/male intercourse is not an act of good will; it's quite the opposite.
    Can you explain to me how this is not an interpretation; rather, how it is just a comment?
    I don't mean to offend you, and I'm not calling you a liar, maybe it's something you've misunderstood, but the way you've commented is a form of interpretation.
  20. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from Fatima Hussain in Is The Pope Catholic?   
    Which is why he was criticized when he said that statement for voting against gay marriage in Brazil? It goes without saying that it is a sinful act. I don't think anyone interpreted him to say gay sex is a-ok with him.
    He is very kindhearted, as this is the Christian way. Jesus also says "don't judge or you will be judged", and that "he who has not sinned should throw the first stone". He's humble but not meek (at least in today's sense of the word). If you believe he is meek and a people pleaser, recall that Jesus says the meek are blessed because they will be the inheritors of the earth. If you don't find enough reason, at least keep an open mind. If it's for a lack of what he didn't say that startles you, then changing your mind is not something that I feel anyone can or should do. Rather, keep your interpretation, but realize that it is not a widely accepted one, that's the best I think I can say about this.
  21. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from Fatima Hussain in Is The Pope Catholic?   
    Homosexual acts are a sin. The state of being a homosexual (in other words, a man who likes men) is not. As a matter of fact, when the Vatican read off their drafts earlier this week, they still believe that couples who are gay can cohabit and even have domestic unions, but there can be no sex in these partnerships, and must be chaste and celibate. There is no way around this. You're no one to judge who someone is because you don't know their secrets. There are gays who are celibate. It's not like it's impossible.
    If he is fit or not, who are you or I to judge?
  22. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from Fatima Hussain in Is The Pope Catholic?   
    You guys, don't worry and calm down. Gay marriage is still a big no  the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
    Go ahead and read what is being attributed to him and what he actually said.
    All this was from was a satire blog. He never said Adam and Eve were a fable. Snopes actually covered on the topic of this awhile ago.
  23. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from notme in Is The Pope Catholic?   
    Homosexual acts are a sin. The state of being a homosexual (in other words, a man who likes men) is not. As a matter of fact, when the Vatican read off their drafts earlier this week, they still believe that couples who are gay can cohabit and even have domestic unions, but there can be no sex in these partnerships, and must be chaste and celibate. There is no way around this. You're no one to judge who someone is because you don't know their secrets. There are gays who are celibate. It's not like it's impossible.
    If he is fit or not, who are you or I to judge?
  24. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from Chaotic Muslem in The Paraclete   
    This problem can be addressed by changing the mood of the verb. Takpir is future in Hebrew (you change zaman), while in Arabic, takfir is reflexive (change in mood). Once you change the moods, the basis for the Semitic root theory becomes a weak as a form of comparison. If you're still having doubts as to what I'm saying, let me give you a different example.
    أكلت لبن. Every Arab knows what liban is, right? It's yogurt, (but it can mean milk)
    אוכלת לבן. [okhelet liban] I ate liban (literally). Liban here does not mean yogurt. It means white.
    You see in Hebrew, they've taken לבן to mean white instead of what our liban is, that is to say, yogurt. There is a slang word in modern Hebrew that is lebneh, but that's because it is an Arabic loan word (want to guess which Arabic?) and also heroin, however, I'm digressing from the subject. Liban means white. In Arabic, the word for egg shares the same eptymology for the word for white [أبيض]. You can't say, in old Hebrew [okhelet liban]. It's like saying اكلت ابيض، it makes no sense. But both are the same root exact root, with the same exact pronunciation (unlike kpr/kfr), but they mean different things. By default, like I said, this is a very good way to go by things; yet, if this is a root that is exactly the same pronunciation-wise, but mean 2 different things, what makes you think that spelled the same, sounds different would be the same? If you want to go into your theory that prq=فرق in Arabic, it's up to you to lead to conclusive evidence for such a statement.
    They don't mean the same thing, and if there are other structures of the verb فرق in Arabic (like فريق) you want to go in, you first have to admit that فرق and فريق don't mean the same thing, essentially conferring with what I'm saying (changing the structure of the verb is detrimental to comparison) and rejecting that فرق means split, within the context of Aramaic.
    Okay, maybe you missed the point with this one? What I'm saying is that even if Arabic and Hebrew shared a same root, same meaning, same pronunciation, it does not mean that it is the same in other languages. My example was giving the meaning in Hebrew and Arabic because they mean close, so while newspaper is common in Arabic for صحف, it carries a similar meaning in Hebrew. But the word does not exist in Tigre, another Semitic language. It exists only as a f3l, and that f3l means to read. I was trying to get at the fact that just because it's similar in Hebrew/Arabic (they're both nouns, and can share a similar meaning, because which came first, Abraham or a newspaper?), it carries a similar meaning, but not the same when taken into the full Semitic spectrum.
    Yes, cross linguistic comparison is fun. He didn't speak of a curse removal when referring to the paraclete?
  25. Like
    salamtek got a reaction from Netzari in The Paraclete   
    Something close to it, but not really. Paraq and parak may be false cognates in Aramaic and Greek, thus it means something similar in two seemingly separate languages. For example, something that was funny to me knowing Aramaic growing up is that Spanish and French (literally any Romance language) uses "di" or something similar to it to mean of. In Aramaic, "d" also means of. For example, in Aramaic [rukha diQudsha] means Holy Spirit (literally, "spirit of holy), also spirito de santo, in Italian carries the same meaning, although is now considered archaic.
    Another possibility is that it is Aramaic, and that the Greeks have taken the word to mean something else. Paroq, has many meanings, but it means savior by way of helping. The example I gave above is the most direct meaning. If someone would like to claim the word is Greek, and not Aramaic, there' a problem, and I give he argument very straightforward so it might have been easy to miss, so let me go into that for a second: There is no way that kappa (K in Greek) would be written in Aramaic as qof, without there need to be a reason for it. As I said before, Paroqid Nepshathan is a common line in the Syriac worship service. I have never once in my life seen a word go from Greek (it's common in the Talmud, and even our books), to Aramaic and there be a change in the pronunciation of the transliteration.
    The Greeks may have developed on the concept of parakletos, as a matter of fact, it's well documented they have, because their definition of it excels the standard meaning of the Aramaic root. But the word itself is a part of the Aramaic lexicon.The ending (lota) is also Aramaic. For example, [shinlotha] in Aramaic comes from [shineth] sleep, and [lota], which means a -er, like a sleep taker; i,e someone who sleeps, but it's a stronger verb than that, as if to say all they do is sleep. If you notice in the Greek, letos is not a valid word ending, therefore the root in Greek is [parakle/παράκλη], not in Aramaic [ܦܪܩ] paraq. And the Greek mimics the Aramaic ending, while Greek itself has no such ending of [lota]. The closest is [tos] and that is a grouping of words.
    Even if one could provide a source that demonstrates such a thing occurring, that doesn't take away that:
    1) the word is a 3 letter root (typical of Semitic languages) {ܦܪܩ}
    2) contains letters only available in Semitic languages, ܩ
    3) that it is still a word that is used today in Aramaic
    One needs to answer all these pieces of evidence before even trying to present an alternative view.
    Note: in Modern Hebrew, which has lost pronunciation of the letter qof, a K can be substituted. This isn't until Hebrew was revived, however. Kof itself was used (as it should) to denote the sound kappa, and sometimes even gamma if it was a soft kof (this in Aramaic, kof rakikhta).
    Let me just say that, while I have no doubt the word is Aramaic, the Greek language may have borrowed the word, and expanded on it. It seems like this is the most likely.
    Salam 3leyk ya 3zizi Chaotic! Long time no see!
    I see yo are taking things from an Arabic linguists perspective. This generally is a keen approach to studying the different Semitic languages, but let's take a look at why it's not always the best  approach. You speak Arabic, so this should definitely be a breeze to explain.
    Let's look at a different example:
    (كفر)=  verb
    (כפר)= verb
    Both are verbs, and they both have a very similar pronunciation. Hebrew written, it's [kappir] (if someone wants to correct me, I'm going off no niqqud here) and in Arabic it's [kafara]. Kafara means to disbelieve (ex. إن الذين كفروا ). In Hebrew, it means to atone, and we see this on the Jewish holiday of [יוֹם כִּפּוּר] Yom Kippor. It is well documented that in Judaism, Kippor means atonement. Jews also do this ritual where they kill a white rooster, but just prior to killing it they transfer their sins to it. This is called Kapparot ( כפרות‎). This is a summary of it, I'm sure it sounds much less unusual when explained. Therefore, even thogh they are the same roots (that is kpr/kfr), they mean two totally different things.
    Another example of this is in both Arabic and Hebrew, in relation to another Semitic language, Tigre. צחפ/صحف and SHf all have something to do with reading. In Arabic, it means newspaper, in Hebrew, it means a manuscript/codex, and in Tigre, which is a S. Semitic language, it means to read. All these words, although they are related to each other, don't necessarily mean the same thing.
    Therefore, it's not a matter of misquoting or misinterpretation. I don't know how much clearer Jesus could have been about the Holy Spirit being the paraclete then saying "The Paraclete Holy Spirit..." If you want to have your own interpretation, there's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to say something that is against what Jesus is clear on.
  • Create New...