Malvisguy212's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Malvisguy212's Profile › Malvisguy212's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 (of 366 pages)
 Christianity Etc › Re: I Predicted South Africa’s Xenophobic Attacks – TB Joshua by malvisguy212: 7:42pm On Apr 17, 2015 |
Rilwayne001:Paul never told anyone to lie, if you preach christ in false motive or not, the good thing is that the gospel has been preach ,Value the truth of the gospel even more highly than you value the attitudes of those who preach it. That is what Paul is saying in Romans3:7 But this is different; Bukhari 5.59.369: Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then ALLOW ME TO SAY A (FALSE) thing (i.e. to DECEIVE Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may SAY IT.” Muhammed allow lies in other to killed thoes who stand in his name. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: I Predicted South Africa’s Xenophobic Attacks – TB Joshua by malvisguy212: 6:32pm On Apr 17, 2015 |
Rilwayne001:the quranic Jesus ? Because Jesus in the bible never say we should lie for him. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: I Predicted South Africa’s Xenophobic Attacks – TB Joshua by malvisguy212: 6:29pm On Apr 17, 2015 |
Abuamam:very funny. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 3:30pm On Apr 17, 2015 |
EzioAuditore:why not? To hide the truth from them? Will you tell your kid muhammed marry Aisha at the age of 6 and consummate the marriage when she was 9? The song of solomon is a moral lessons, the man did not sleep with other woman and the woman was loyal to the man, the man cherish her body so much that why he described it. Do you want me to prove to you Islam sanctioned inces't ? I will provide evidenced if you want. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Not Tarqiyyah Is What Islam Preahces by malvisguy212: 12:56pm On Apr 17, 2015 |
Abuamam:answer my question, without truth can lie be manifest? Just like without the law you cannot know sin does that mean the law is bad? When a man heart turn cold, true seems like lie to him.answer my question and you will see the clear picture of what Paul is saying. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 12:51pm On Apr 17, 2015 |
EzioAuditore:All true prophets of God must establish who they are. Every single one of the true prophets who were descendants of Isaac and Jacob came from families who were already worshippers of the true God. They all worshipped the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. As for Muhammad, his parents were Arab pagans and so were his grandparents. Additionally, Muhammad himself was a pagan until the time of his alleged “calling as a prophet” by Allah. Is it not strange that after choosing every single one of His prophets from families who were already true believers, God would now choose a pagan worshipper who came from a pagan family as his prophet? We do not think so. That is why it should not surprise us to find many pagan rituals in the religion of Islam. Muhammad incorporated them into the religion of Allah. Therefore, to accept Islam is to accept paganism and its lone stone-kissing prophet. And as the Qur’an itself testifies clearly in Surah 29:27, Muhammad simply cannot be a prophet of the true God. Galatians 4:22-28: It is written that Abraham acquired two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman; but the one by the slave woman was actually born in the manner of FLESH, the other by the free woman through a PROMISE…Now we, brothers, are children belonging to the promise the same as Isaac was. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 9:25am On Apr 17, 2015 |
EzioAuditore:you are not interlingent, your knowledge of the quran is sooo weak.if you are brave enough you will know the meaning of prophethood and offspring. Surah 29:27: And (as for Abraham), We bestowed upon him Isaac and (Isaac’s son) Jacob, and caused PROPHETHOOD and revelation to CONTINUE among his OFFSPRING. The lineage of prophethood are from Isaac and Jacob, it is only in the offspring prophet shall arise. Muhammed is from ishmael, and ishmael who is the elder,is name is missing here, if a name should be missing it soppose to be Isaac, but no, ishmael name is missing because God had no covenant with ishmael, non of your brother were able to answer this, they all ignore it, some twist it. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 8:59am On Apr 17, 2015 |
EzioAuditore:jumping from one question to another?okay this verse disqualified muhammed as a prophet; Surah 29:27: And (as for Abraham), We bestowed upon him Isaac and (Isaac’s son) Jacob, and caused PROPHETHOOD and revelation to continue among his offspring. Surah 29:27 mentions that Prophethood and Scriptures came uniquely through the seed of Isaac and Jacob. It speaks of the prophetic office as having been entrusted to Isaac and Jacob and their descendants. And Allah also declared in the above Qur’anic verse, that the prophethood would “remain” in the lineage of Isaac and Jacob. In other words, anyone claiming to be a prophet of God must be born in the Prophetic Race. Since the Qur’an states that prophethood belongs exclusively to the lineage of Isaac and Jacob, we must then ask whether Muhammad was born in the line of the prophets. In other words, was he born in the Prophetic Race? Muslims scholars claim that Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael. But Ishmael is entirely excluded in the prophetical line in Surah 29:27. If Allah intends to include Ishmael, his name would be placed before Isaac, as he was older than Isaac by fourteen years. But as it can be noted, Surah 29:27 completely omits any reference to Ishmael, raising the question as to why he was totally ignored if he was as important as Muslims claim him to be. Thus, the Qur’an clearly teaches that the prophetic line came through Isaac – not Ishmael. If Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael, then he cannot be a descendant of Isaac at the same time, given the fact that Ishmael and Isaac are half-brothers. Thus, it is evident that Muhammad is not a descendant of Isaac. As Muhammad was neither a Jew nor a descendent of Isaac and Jacob, this automatically disqualifies him as a prophet of God. Since according to both the Bible and the Qur’an, all the true prophets came in the line of Abraham through Isaac, then Muhammad cannot be a prophet of the true God. In fact, this is in harmony with the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:21. Genesis 17:21: “However, my covenant I shall establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this appointed time next year.” If Ishmael rather than Isaac was chosen or included in the origin of the prophets, why was there only one alleged prophet from the line of Ishmael? Guess who that lone prophet was? Yes, it was Muhammad – a non-Israelite. The rest – Moses, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Jonah, Joel, Jesus and many others – were all Israelites. All these prophets were descendents of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob just as it is sworn in Surah 29:27. Why did all these prophets come from the line of Isaac, with the exception of Muhammad who descended from Ishmael? Why was Ishmael’s name left out at the most significant moment when the Qur’an revealed the lineage of the prophethood? Did not Allah know that his greatest prophet would be born through the lineage of Ishmael? The following Surahs also concur with Surah 29:27. Surah 45:16: And verily We gave the Children of Israel the Scripture and the Command and the Prophethood, and provided them with good things and favoured them above all peoples. (Pickthall) |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 8:45am On Apr 17, 2015 |
EzioAuditore. The Song of Songs is a poem about love.it was not a spiritual book infacte God name was only mention once in it,the reason is in the bible is because it hold the perfect idea of a married couples. The main speakers are a man, and the woman whom he loves. At the start, the couple are not yet engaged. The woman is not sure about the man. She twice sends him away. She does not want to share his life. But in the end, she learns to trust him. They marry. She is ready to become a mother. And she is glad to work with him. Her attitudes have become mature. Actually, Solomon was not a good model for a husband. He had many wives. He married these women for political reasons. For example, he wanted his country to be at peace with Egypt. So he married the daughter of the king of Egypt. We do not know whether Solomon really loved all these women. But the woman in the Song of Solomon was different from these other women. Solomon loved her deeply. She really was special to him. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 8:12am On Apr 17, 2015 |
EzioAuditore:to your post or to copy and paste post from conspiracy theory? Uptil today Christianity will always have enemy,if I should copy and paste muhammed evil deed from the quran and hadith this thread will be to small. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 8:07am On Apr 17, 2015 |
EzioAuditore 10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah." Acharya now adds in her latest work the titles creator of the world, God of gods, the mediator, mighty ruler, king of gods, lord of heaven and earth, Sun of Righteousness. We have several titles here, and yes, though I searched through the works of Mithraic scholars, I found none of these applied to Mithra, other than the role of mediator (not, though, in the sense of a mediator between God and man because of sin, but as a mediator between Zoroaster's good and evil gods; we have seen the "sun" identification, but never that title) -- not even the new ones were ever listed by the Mithraic scholars. There is a reference to a "Logos" that was taught to the Mithraic initiates [MS.206](in the Roman evidence, which is again, significantly after the establishment of Christianity), but let it be remembered that "logos" means "word" and goes back earlier in Judaism to Philo -- Christians borrowed the idea from Philo, perhaps, or from the general background of the word, but not from Mithraism. 11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ. 12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter. We'll consider these two together. The Iranian Mithra had a few special celebrations: a festival on October 8; another on September 12-16, and a "cattle-pairing" festival on October 12-16 [MS.59]. But as for an Easter festival, I have seen only that there was a festival at the spring equinox -- and it was one of just four, one for each season. In terms of Sunday being a sacred day, this is correct [Cum.MM, 190-1], but it only appears in Roman Mithraism, and the argument here is apparently assuming, like Cumont, that what held true for Roman Mithraism also held true for the Iranian version -- but there is no evidence for this. If any borrowing occurred (it probably didn't), it was the other way around. 13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved." It took me some digging to discover the actual origin of this saying. Godwin says that the reference is from a "Persian Mithraic text," but does not give the dating of this text, nor does he say where it was found, nor is any documentation offered. I finally found something in Vermaseren [Verm.MSG, 103] -- the source of this saying is a medieval text; and the speaker is not Mithras, but Zarathustra! Although Vermaseren suggested that this might be the formula that Justin referred to (but did not describe at all) as being part of the Mithraic "Eucharist," there is no evidence for the saying prior to this medieval text. Critics try to give the rite some ancestry by claiming that it derives from an Iranian Mithraic ceremony using a psychadelic plant called Haoma, but they are clearly grasping at straws and adding speculations of meaning in order to make this rite seem similar to the Eucharist. This piece of "evidence" is far, far too late to be useful -- except as possible proof that Mithraism borrowed from Christianity! (Christianity of course was in Persia far earlier than this medieval text; see Martin Palmer's Jesus Sutras for details.) The closest thing that Mithraism had to a "Last Supper" was the taking of staples (bread, water, wine and meat) by the Mithraic initiates, which was perhaps a celebration of the meal that Mithra had with the sun deity after slaying the bull. However, the meal of the initiates is usually seen as no more than a general fellowship meal of the sort that was practiced by groups all over the Roman world -- from religious groups to funeral societies. [MS.348] 14. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration." This is rather a confused statement, for it compounds an apparent falsity (I have found no indication that Mithra's "sacrifice" was annual, rather than a once-in-the-past event); it uses terms from Judeo- Christian belief ("passover", "atonement"  to describe a rite fromMithraism, without showing any similarities at all. I see this as little more than a case of illicitly applying terminology, and until more detail is provided, it can be regarded as little else. 15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ." In response to this, I need to say that if Golding had some Mithraic scriptures in his possession, he needs to turn them over to Mithraic scholarly community at once, because they will want to know about them. Ulansey [Ulan.OMM, 3] tells us that "the teachings of the (Mithraic) cult were, as far as we know, never written down" and we "have been left with practically no literary evidence relating to the cult which would help (us) reconstruct its esoteric doctrines." So where is Golding getting this from? (A reader also noted that Paul is alluding the the Old Testament book of Numbers; so how does that square with a Mithraic origin for this verse?) 16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'" Other critics add their own idea: Like Christians, Mithraic initiates called each other "brother" [Frek.JM, 67]. Both claims are true, but quite simply, so what? The use of familial terms within religious societies is a universal, and that's no surprise, because familial terms are the most useful for expressing endearment or commitment. Indeed, "kinship terminology" was used in Greco- Roman antiquity for fellows of the same religion or race, as well as of friends, allies, and even prospective guests [Keener commentary on Matthew, 370n]. (I have seen no evidence that the Pater Patratus "always lived" at Rome, but even if he did, this would be of no moment: As the leading city of the Empire, where else would this person most likely have headquarters? This means no more than mainline churches all having headquarters in New York, or all foreign countries having embassies in Washington. Beyond that, we hardly need to defend "borrowing" when what is at stake is a church organizational structure that came into being many years after apostolic times.) |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 8:03am On Apr 17, 2015 |
EzioAuditore 4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality. This one is no more than a guess, although probably a good one: As one Mithraic scholar put it, Mithraism "surely offered its initiates deliverance from some awful fate to which all other men were doomed, and a privileged passage to some ultimate state of well-being." [MS.470] Why is this a good guess? Not because Mithraism borrowed from Christianity, or Christianity borrowed from Mithraism, or anyone borrowed from anyone, but because if you don't promise your adherents something that secures their eternity, you may as well give up running a religion and go and sell timeshares in Alaska! In practical terms, however, the only hard evidence of a "salvational" ideology is a piece of graffiti found in the Santa Prisca Mithraeum (a Mithraist "church" building, if you will), dated no earlier than 200 AD, that reads, "And us, too, you saved by spilling the eternal blood." [Spie.MO, 45; Gor.IV, 114n; Verm.MSG, 172] Note that this refers to Mithra spilling the blood of the bull -- not his own -- and that (according to the modern Mithraic "astrological" interpretation) this does not mean "salvation" in a Christian sense (involving freedom from sin) but an ascent through levels of initiation into immortality. 5. He performed miracles. Mithra did perform a number of actions rather typical for any deity worldwide, true or false, and in both his Iranian and Roman incarnations. But this is another one of those things where we just say, "What's the big deal?" We agree with Miller: It must be remembered that SOME general similarities MUST apply to any religious leader. They must generally be good leaders, do noteworthy feats of goodness and/or supernatural power, establish teachings and traditions, create community rituals, and overcome some forms of evil. These are common elements of the religious life--NOT objects that require some theory of dependence...The common aspect of homo religiosus is an adequate and more plausible explanation than dependence. Of course, our pagan-copycat theorists are welcome to try and draw more exact parallels, but as yet I have seen no cited example where Mithra turned water into wine or calmed a storm. 6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace. This description is rather spun out into a sound-alike of Christian belief, but behind the vagueness lies a different story. Mithra did not "sacrifice himself" in the sense that he died; he was not the "great bull of the Sun", but rather, he killed the bull (attempts to somehow identify Mithra with the very bull he slayed, although popular with outdated non-Mithraists like Loisy and Bunsen, were rejected by Vermaseren, who said that "neither the temples nor the inscriptions give any definite evidence to support this view and only future finds can confirm it" [Verm.MSG, 103]; it was not for the sake of "world peace" (except, perhaps, in the sense that Cumont interpreted the bull-slaying as a creation myth [Cum.MM, 193], in which he was entirely wrong). Mithra could only be said to have "sacrificed himself" in the sense that he went out and took a risk to do a heroic deed; the rest finds no justification at all in modern Mithraic studies literature -- much less does it entail a parallel to Christ, who sacrificed himself for atonement from personal sin (not "world peace" .7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again. 8. His resurrection was celebrated every year. I have to classify these two as "ringers" -- I see no references anywhere in the Mithraic studies literature to Mithra being buried, or even dying, for that matter [Gordon says directly, that there is "no death of Mithras" -- Gor.III, 96] and so of course no rising again and no "resurrection" (in a Jewish sense?!) to celebrate. Freke and Gandy [Frek.JM, 56] claim that the Mithraic initiates "enacted a similar resurrection scene", but their only reference is to a comment by Tertullian, significantly after New Testament times! Tekton Research Assistant Punkish adds: The footnote is for Tertullian's Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 40 which says, "if my memory still serves me, Mithra there (in the kingdom of Satan), sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown"...so their argument relies on Tertullian's memory, and it isn't the initiates but Mithra who does the celebrating and introduces an *image* of a resurrection! How is that at all related to initiates acting out a scene? Wynne-Tyson [Wyn.MFC, 24; cf. Ver.MSG, 38] also refers to a church writer of the fourth century, Firmicus, who says that the Mithraists mourn the image of a dead Mithras -- still way too late! -- but after reading the work of Firmicus, I find no such reference at all. 9. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion. Only the third aspect has any truth to it as far as I can find from Mithraic studies sources: The lion was regarded in Roman Mithraism as Mithra's "totem" animal, just as Athena's animal was the owl and Artemis' animal was the deer [Biv.PM, 32]. Since Mithra was a sun- god, there was also an association with Leo, which was the House of the Sun in Babylonian astrology. But aside from this evidence all being post-Christian, one may ask what the big deal is. Do we expect the Christians or the Mithraists to say, "Darn, we can't use the lion, it's already taken by the other guys?" Should Exxon give up their tiger because of Frosted Flakes? But if you really want to get technical, Jesus owned the rights to the lion symbol as a member of the tribe of Judah long before Mithras even appeared in his Iranian incarnation (Gen. 49:9) . There are other associations as well: In the Roman material, one of Mithra's companions in the bull- slaying scene is a lion; the lion is sometimes Mithra's hunting and feasting companion; Mithra is sometimes associated with a lion- headed being who is sometimes identified as the evil Zoroastrian god Ahriman [MS.277]; one of the seven stages of initiation in Mithraism is the lion stage. Mithra is only called a lion in one Mithraic tale (which is part of Armenian folklore -- where did the writers of the NT pick that up?) because as a child he killed a lion and split it in two. [MS.356, 442] |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 7:55am On Apr 17, 2015 |
[quote author=EzioAuditore post=32804578]The thing is, are you Christians even sure you are worshipping Jesus or a pagan freemasonry God? Have you heard of One eyed Horus, the Egyptian God? Born of a virgin? On December 25th? Also known as the SUN god? You go to church on SUNday? Horus was also CRUCIFIED! Horus the one eyed God, symbol of the anti Christ and the free masons! Wake up! You're worshipping a false god! Or is it Krishna, the Indian God! Born on December 25, also born of a virgin? Lmao! Don't even think that they came after Jesus, all these Gods precede Jesus' existence. Clearly for you, there is a difference between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is not the same as Jesus of Nazareth. Why is there always a SUN behind the image of Jesus in churches? Why are you worshipping a pagan Sun GoD? Please read this beautifully written article from a neutral point of view and if you're still a Christian afterwards then I pity your life. Please click on the link below, are you ready to see the truth about the fake Jesus you worship, or will you continue to dwell in your darkness, if you're ready and that you're confident about Jesus being your lord, read this. God: Attis Born of a virgin Born on December 25th Crucified Dead for 3 days Resurrected God: Krishna Born of a virgin Star in the east Performed miracles Resurrected God: Dionsyus Born of a virgin Born on December 25th Performed miracles, including turning water into wine Referred to as the "King of Kings" Referred to as "Gods only begotten son" Resurrected God: Mithra Born of a virgin Born on December 25th 12 Disciples Performed miracles Dead for 3 days Resurrected Sunday is day of worship for Mithra And the most striking and seemingly the base for all other mythologies: God: Horus Born on December 25th Born of a virgin Star in the east Adored by 3 kings Teach at 12 Baptized at 30 12 Disciples Performed Miracles Known as "Lamb of God", "The Light" Crucified Dead for 3 days Resurrected All these pagan Gods came before Jesus! Is the Jesus Christ you worship a fictional lie and different from Jesus of Nazareth? The most striking similarity is that which he shares with Horus, the one eyed SUN god. I smell the Devils work in your religion, deception is his strong suit, just like that he has you worshipping a pagan God! Shame on you! @ me if you're still a Christian. [/quote1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds. This claim is a mix of truth and obfuscations. Let's begin with the December 25th part by noting Glenn Miller's reply, which is more than sufficient: "...the Dec 25 issue is of no relevance to us--nowhere does the NT associate this date with Jesus' birth at all." This is something the later church did, wherever they got the idea from -- not the apostolic church, and if there was any borrowing at all, everyone did it, for Dec. 25th was "universally distinguished by sacred festivities" [Cum.MM, 196] being that it was (at the time) the winter solstice. Next, the cave part. First of all, Mithra was not born of a virgin in a cave; he was born out of solid rock, which presumably left a cave behind -- and I suppose technically the rock he was born out of could have been classified as a virgin! Here is how one Mithraic scholar describes the scene on Mithraic depictions: Mithra "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix." [MS.173] Mithra was born a grown-up, but you won't hear the copycatters mention this! The rock- birth scene itself was a likely carryover from Perseus, who experienced a similar birth in an underground cavern. (Ulan.OMM, 36) I'll add here that it is no help to appeal to similar abuses of the term "virgin" by church writers who tried to force an illicit parallel between Jesus and Adam. All they're doing is abusing and misusing the term the same way that "copycat" theorists are. So likewise, later instances of syncretism are of no value for the case (e.g., the infant Jesus depicted within an egg shape, which reflects the church's assumption of symbols as the "winner" in an ideological struggle -- see below on art). That leaves the shepherds, and this is one that is entirely true; although the shepherds did more than "attend" (unlike Luke's shepherds, they were witnesses to the birth; there was no angelic mediator), they also helped Mithra out of the rock, and offered him the first-fruits of their flock -- quite a feat for these guys in any event, considering that Mithra's birth took place at a time when (oops!) men had supposedly not been created on earth yet. [Cum.MM, 132] But the clincher here is that this scene, like nearly all Roman Mithraic evidence, dates at least a century after the time of the New Testament. It is too late to say that any "borrowing" was done by the Christian church -- if there was any, it was the other way around; but there probably was none. ]2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master. Aside from the fact that this is what we would expect from any major leadership figure, especially in a religious context ("He was a great god -- he taught us nothing!" , I haveto say that this looks to be the first of several outright "ringers" in the set. I have found nowhere any indication that Mithra was a teacher, traveling or otherwise. (He probably could be called a "master," but what leading figure would not be? And a master in what sense? This is rather a vague parallel to draw!) At any rate, since there is no evidence for this one in any of the Mithraic literature, we issue our first challenge to the pagan-copycat theorists: How is it shown that Mithra was a "great traveling teacher"? What did he teach, and where, and to whom? How was he a "master" and why is this a similarity to Jesus? 3. He had 12 companions or disciples. I have seen this claim repeated a number of times, almost always (see below) without any documentation. (One of our readers wrote to Acharya asking for specific evidence of this one...she did not reply, although she had readily replied to a prior message.) The Iranian Mithras, as we have seen, did have a single companion (Varuna), and the Roman Mithra had two helper/companions, tiny torch-bearing likenesses of himself, called Cautes and Cautopatres, that were perhaps meant to represent the sunrise and sunset (whereas "Big Daddy" Mithra was supposed to be noon), spring and autumn, the stars Albedaran and Antares [Beck.PO, 26] or life and death. (Freke and Gandy attempt to link these twins to the two thieves crucified with Jesus! - Frek.JM, 51 - because one went to heaven with Jesus [torch up] and one went to hell [torch down]!) Mithra also had a number of animal companions: a snake, a dog, a lion, a scorpion -- but not 12 of them. Now here's an irony. My one idea as to where they got this one was a picture of the bull-slaying scene carved in stone, found in Ulansey's book, that depicts the scene framed by 2 vertical rows with 6 pictures of what seem to be human figures or faces on each side. It occurred to me that some non-Mithraist perhaps saw this picture and said, "Ah ha, those 12 people must be companions or disciples! Just like Jesus!" Days later I received Freke and Gandy's book, and sure enough -- that's how they make the connection. Indeed, they go as far as saying that during the Mirthaic initiation ceremony, Mithraic disciples dressed up as the signs of the zodiac and formed a circle around the initiate. [Frek.JM, 42] Where they (or rather, their source) get this information about the methods of Mithraic initiation, one can only guess: No Mithraic scholar seems aware of it, and their source, Godwin, is a specialist in "Western esoteric teaching" -- not a Mithraist, and it shows, because although writing in 1981, well after the first Mithraic congress, Godwin was still following Cumont's line that Iranian and Roman Mithraism were the same, and thus ended up offering interpretations of the bull-slaying scene that bear no resemblance to what Mithraic scholars today see in it at all. To be fair, though, Freke and Gandy do not give the page number where Godwin supposedly says this -- and his material on Mithraism says nothing about any initiation ceremony. However, aside from the fact that this carving is (yet again!) significantly post-Christian (so that any borrowing would have had to be the other way around), these figures have been identified by modern Mithraic scholars as representing zodiacal symbols. Indeed, the top two faces are supposed to be the sun and the moon! (See also a similar carving herein) |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 7:41am On Apr 17, 2015 |
Empiree:mock me , the time is coming when you will know that you have been worshipping satan in disguise. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Not Tarqiyyah Is What Islam Preahces by malvisguy212: 7:37am On Apr 17, 2015 |
Abuamam:I ask you a simple question, can truth be ESTABLISHED without lie? What is the opposite of truth? If there is lie do not exist, can we know truth? Paul speak as a man and the bible say All men are sinner. God warn aheb in chronicle but aheb refused to heed to God warning and God Allow the lying spirit to deceive him, are you not a muslim? Am sure you have commit sin before, why did your allah allow you to sin?. In the case of aheb God told him the vision of his death if he did not repent but he refused hence God judgment on him. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Not Tarqiyyah Is What Islam Preahces by malvisguy212: 1:29am On Apr 17, 2015 |
Abuamam In chronicle 18 God had warn ahab and prophesied his death if he continue his evil, and in 1king22 God fullfiled his promise,if Ahab wanted to repent he would have fear God and repent but he dint, God permit the lying spirit because ahab chose evil instead of good. Jesus don't want to go openly because his time had not yet come, I don't expect a muslim to understand the nature of God, how God relates to his children. Romans 3:7 was a question, can you quote the lie Paul tell? This is what Paul is saying in Romans 3:7, that if God is glorified through the sins of men, how did God is glorified throw sins of men? For every miracle that is performed on a sinner or witches, God is glorified here, Paul is a sinner, and he speak as a sinful man, infacte here what Paul say in verse 5; Romans3:5 But if OUR unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) Paul speak as a human here, the word" OUR" include his(Paul) unrighteousness and verse 4 say every man is a liar, the main point of this teaching is this, PAUL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS GLORIFIED GOD how? Roman3:4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." meaning without the lies of men God TRUTH cannot be Established, can truth exist without lie? I repeat, This is what what Paul mean in philipphians Paul is saying ; Value the truth of the gospel even more highly than you value the attitudes of those who preach it. This is different from taqiyyah, the op say taqiyyah is all about fear. So don't justified taqiyyah with what Paul is saying here. As truthman say, why the complained about Paul? Did Allah not know that Paul is an important figure in Christianity? Why did he silent over Paul? Paul preach 100 of years before muhammed yet the quran made no mention of him, why? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 11:08pm On Apr 16, 2015 |
truthman2012:God bless you. Hope your day went well? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 11:05pm On Apr 16, 2015 |
EzioAuditore you copied from the hadith to proved to us that muhammed performed a miracle? Sahih bukari and muhammed, who is lying here? Muhammed say he could not performed miracle sahih bukari say he did. More than twenty Qur’anic passages show that whenever Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries to perform a single miracle, he either remained silent or said that he could not do so because he was no more than just an ordinary human being. The most explicit of these passages is in Surah 17:90-93: They said, “We will not believe you unless you cause a spring to gush out of the ground. “Or unless you own a garden of date palms and grapes, with rivers running through it. “Or unless you cause masses from the sky, as you claimed, to fall on us. Or unless you bring GOD and the angels before our eyes. “Or unless you own a luxurious mansion, or unless you climb into the sky. Even if you do climb, we will not believe unless you bring a book that we can read.” Say, “Glory be to my Lord. AM I ANY MORE THAN A HUMAN MESSENGERS?”(Khalifa) |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 10:55pm On Apr 16, 2015 |
EzioAuditore:your post is full of error, the bible is not about Jesus, Jesus did not write any book, he preach and the disciples and witnesses wrote it down, but muslims claimed the quran is a revelation from Allah, how can you write a story which everybody know very well and you called that a revelation? Revealed what we already knew ? Read the story of Isaac and ishmael from the bible and quran and judge which is more understanding. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Not Tarqiyyah Is What Islam Preahces by malvisguy212: 10:46pm On Apr 16, 2015 |
vedaxcool:you quoted the betrayal of peter to supports your lies.it was satan that enter peter. Luke 22:31 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. Infacte satan ask for permission before doing this.the prophecy must be fullfiled however Jesus assured peter; Luke 22:32 32 but I have prayed for you(peter) that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” You don't know what Paul is saying, Paul is saying ; Value the truth of the gospel even more highly than you value the attitudes of those who preach it. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Not Tarqiyyah Is What Islam Preahces by malvisguy212: 10:25pm On Apr 16, 2015 |
Abuamam:the reason why Jesus went to the festival secretly is because the pherasses are looking for a way to killed him, if Jesus went openly the crowds would sing hossana to him, they would praised him just as they did during his crucifixion; John7: 12" Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.” So you see, the crowd are waiting for his arrival, this will gives the religious leader enough reason to crucified him, but his time has not yet come,that why he went unnoticed. Infacte in verse 29 and 30 when his present is being notice, Jesus told them that he was from God; John7: 29-30 but I know him because I AM FROM HIM and he sent me.” 30 At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not YET COME. If Jesus had went openly the crowd would praised him as there king, do you think herod would find this pleasing? No.read what the pherasses say here: John7: 32 The Pharisees heard the crowd whispering such things about him. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees sent temple guards to arrest him. Why? Because only their king deserve this praised, but the crowd praised Jesus even more. Jesus has not been glorified yet so his time has not come; John7:37-39 37 On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”[ c] 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, SINCE JESUS HAD NOT YET BEEN GLORIFIED. In 1kings 22 it was the lying spirit that come fort to deceive ahab by dwellings in his false prophet, God don't dwell in a false prophet.God allow the spirit to lie to ahab. This is what Romans 1:7 is saying 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Soo what your point? Philippians 1:15-18 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Abuman,have you ever hered the saying"do what I say but don't do what I do?" that what Paul is saying here, infacte Jesus say something similar to this , when he say to his disciples "he who is not against me is for me" a sinner can preach the word of God, the good thing about this is that the gospel has been preach, so the in a real sense , what Paul is saying here is this; Value the truth of the gospel even more highly than you value the attitudes of those who preach it. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 9:07pm On Apr 16, 2015 |
EzioAuditore:Mohammed was not a true prophet. And I say that because, you see, the true prophet must receive a direct call from God, especially if he will be the founder of a religion. Mohammed is the founder of Islam. Moses received a direct call from God. Mohammed didn't receive a direct call from God. The story is very interesting. He was in the cave of Hira, outside of Mecca, and there, a spirit appeared to Mohammed. And then, the spirit squeezed Mohammed very tightly, that he thought that he was going to die. And the spirit said to Mohammed, "Read." Mohammed was illiterate, he could not read. And he said, "I cannot read." Then the spirit squeezed him more tightly that he thought he was going to die. And the spirit said to him, "Read!" "I cannot read," Mohammed answered. Then the spirit squeezed him more tightly. He was afraid that he was going to die. And he said, "Read!" He said, "What shall I read?" The words should be recited because he could not read. How could you command someone who doesn't know how to read, read? You say to him, "Recite!" And then he said, "What shall I read?" And he said, "Read, in the name of thy Lord, who created man from the clot," etc, etc. So the Quran is not the invention of Mohammed. The Quran was given to him by that spirit who appeared to him at the cave of Hira. The Muslims say, that the spirit was Gabriel the angel. They say the angel Gabriel is the spirit who appeared to Mohammed at the cave of Hira , and he squeezed him tightly. But listen, when you go the Bible, Gabriel appeared to many people. Gabriel appeared to Daniel, and Daniel was scared. And he said, "Do not be afraid, Daniel." Then he appeared Zecharia, the father of John the Baptist. And he was afraid, and Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid, do not be afraid." Then he appeared to Mary. And Mary was troubled, and Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid." But that spirit who met Mohammed and squeezed him, left him very troubled. He was scared to death. And when he went back to his wife Khadigah, he said, "I am scared, I am scared! I am trembling?" She said, "What?" He said, "I don't know, I don't know. I am afraid that I am possessed." Then she took him to a bishop in Mecca, by the name of Waraka Bin Nawfal, who was her cousin, and she told him about what happened. And this Waraka, the bishop of the Amunit cult in Mecca said to her, "Oh, be quiet. Be quiet. Mohammed will be the prophet of the Arabs." So the one who declared Mohammed a prophet was the bishop of Mecca. And that is the historical fact. So the Quran is not the invention of Mohammed. It was dictated to him by that spirit. And I want to tell you something, it's not a miracle, because any book would not be a miracle. Any book, you know, Homer wrote the Iliad, and Odyssey, it's not a miracle. Shakespeare wrote many books, it's not a miracle. Plato wrote many books, not a miracle. The books cannot be a miracle because if I cannot understand the language, I cannot confirm if it's a miracle or not. The miracle is to raise somebody, to heal somebody, to give the sight to somebody, these are miracles! But to tell me that a book is a miracle, I don't buy that! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 8:53pm On Apr 16, 2015 |
EzioAuditore:muslims claimed the quran is a revelation from Allah, but your post indicate without the hadith the quran cannot stand on his own. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 1:25pm On Apr 16, 2015 |
EzioAuditore:I was expecting you to quote the quran instead you quote the hadith but if christians quote the hadith you will complained it a weak hadith |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 8:54am On Apr 16, 2015 |
EzioAuditore:who persecuted the Arab? Is it the christians or Jews? Muhammed forced the pagan to submit to his family gods called Allah. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 8:50am On Apr 16, 2015 |
EzioAuditore:where in the quran it gives the law to protect slaves? The quran does not teach love towards unbelievers let alone slaves.the slaves in the quran is still the same practice today until you provide evidence for your claimed. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Lying Deity by malvisguy212(op): 8:29am On Apr 16, 2015 |
malvisguy212: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 8:27am On Apr 16, 2015 |
EzioAuditore:listen, Moses era was a time when the isrealite were held in bondage, in the old kings fight war and the prophet stand as spiritual leaders to the kings, during the time of Moses,there is no king at that time for them, Moses was there leader and spiritual leader at the same time. It was after the isrealite settled and appoint a king the kings fought war for them. David whom the quran callled prophet was not a prophet but a king, it was Samuel the prophet who anoint David. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 8:19am On Apr 16, 2015 |
EzioAuditore:do you read what I said?slavery in the old testament was different from the Islamic slavery,there is voluntary slavery where someone will want to work for money or wife,example was Jacob ,he volunteers to work so that he could Mary the woman he love. This are the law to protect someone who volunteers to be slave; 1. "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished." ( Exodus 21:20) "If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." (Exodus 21:26-27) "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." ( Exodus 21:12) 2. "Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves. (Exodus 23:12) 3. Do not slander a slave to his master, Or he will curse you and you will be found guilty. ( Proverbs 30:10) 4. 'Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. ( Leviticus 19:20) 5. "You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. ( Deuteronomy 23:15) But the slaves in the quran, Allah made it lawful for muhammed and his companion to have se'x with them. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 7:32am On Apr 16, 2015 |
emusmith:when the thread are in this section muslims read it and attempt the question, as long as muslims are allow to coment here and create topics, they see here just like there section. If you decided to take my thread to the Islamic section, then the mod in that section should unban me so that I can ask my question. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Was Jesus Naive To Have Said This? by malvisguy212: 7:28am On Apr 16, 2015 |
EzioAuditore:Abraham a Jew, God convent was with him,it was through him that God will fill up the world, being chosen is like a curse to the Jews, because God will not give way to there sinful pleasure, that why the Jews keep on disobeyed God and God always punished them, you live in this world were you are fallible to sin, and God chose you, is like an uphill task. First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today - in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed: "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." ( Exodus 21:16) So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor. So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party. Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath, slander a slave, have sex with another man's slave, or return an escaped slave. A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first. In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave". |
. malvisguy212 dare not decipher EzioAuditore's posts. It will take him 40 days and 40 nights.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 (of 366 pages)