₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
1. If it could mean both, then which meaning do you apply, when? That is the issue here, is it not?

2. Elijah was taken by the chariot of Israel, according to Elisha who witnessed the events, not God's Chariot.

3. OK!

4. Wrong! That is the religious notion or way of digesting what is plainly stated.

5. In both Psalm 11 vs 4 and Isaiah 66 vs 1, we are instead told that the heavens are YHWHS throne; Isaiah suggests that His feet rest on the earth— his footstool. To add to it, Psalm 11 vs 4 indicates that YHWH is inside of his holy temple, which was on earth at the time in question. So, is YHWH's dwelling place in the Old really a place beyond this earth or a place that includes this earth?

Another point to note when you read the rest of Isaiah 66 vs 1, see YHWH asks for the place of His rest, the house that was promised Him on this earth — His dwelling place —by the people of Israel.

Imagine a person sitting on a throne with his foot resting on a footstool. Would you conclude that the footstool on which he rests his feet exists in a place outside of the person's immediate space?

In much of the Old Testament, the dwelling place of YHWH included His temple... Psalm 11 vs 4 states this, and Jesus Christ of Israel confirmed this. 🥱🥱🥱

You inquire about which meaning is applicable in a given context, and the text itself provides the answer. The narrative context determines meaning rather than personal preference. In 2 Kings 2:11, the elements are clearly defined and build upon each other. Divine fire, a heavenly chariot, a whirlwind, and the phrase Elijah went up into shamayim. This context cannot refer to weather or air; it indicates a divine realm. Elisha’s statement about the chariot of Israel is a misunderstanding. That phrase (2:12) expresses Elisha’s metaphorical sorrow over Elijah’s significance to Israel, rather than redefining how Elijah was taken away. The means of transport is specified in 2:11, not by Elisha’s lament.

Psalm 11:4 and Isaiah 66:1 do not introduce confusion; they clarify it. Heaven is depicted as a throne, while Earth serves as a footstool, indicating distinct and hierarchical realms. God's presence in the temple shows presence rather than a physical relocation. Solomon makes this clear when he states, Heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you (1 Kings 8:27). Isaiah’s question, Where is the house you will build for me? criticizes the notion that God’s dwelling is limited to Earth. The analogy of a footstool is misguided; a footstool shares authority with the throne but not its location.

In summary, the text clearly states that Elijah went up into heaven. To deny this requires ignoring the narrative, the language, and the theological implications, which is not a matter of following the context but rather avoiding it.

Kobojunkie:
1. The supposed absence of a pattern IS NOT permission to inject your personal or religious delusions between those lines. Again, nowhere in that verse is it indicated that Enoch was taken off this planet, absolutely none. 🥱🥱

2. The Greek work translation DOES NOT imply leaving the earth, though. Moving one foot from point A to point B is also a change of location. If you read carefully, it could also be used to indicate a change of order. Sure, the writer in Hebrews claims Enoch did not experience death, but nowhere in that is it implied that Enoch was taken to heaven to be with God. That claim comes wholly from religious dogma. 🥱🥱

3. Wrong! That response of yours, again, is of religious dogma. 🥱🥱

4. I can reject it simply because the passage suggests none of what you claim. I don't have the same religious need you have to inject your personal delusions, which you folks refer to as interpretations — literally made up nonsense— because I don't do religion and all of the bullsheet that comes with it. 🥱🥱

1. You say no verse says Enoch left the earth, but Genesis 5:24 says, God took him, and Hebrews 11:5 says he was translated so he would not see death. If God took him to avoid death like everyone else, then where did he go? You reject the idea of heaven but don’t offer any other option. Floating in the air? Hiding in a cave? Your position doesn’t make sense.

2. You say translation doesn't mean leaving earth, but if that’s true, where is Enoch now? If he was translated and didn’t die, but still stayed on earth, then he would have lived for over 5,000 years without dying. There’s no record of that anywhere, in the Bible or in history. The text clearly shows that being taken by God means being taken out of the mortal world that means not staying on earth.

3 and 4. You call this religious dogma, not based on the text, but actually, you are the one ignoring what the text clearly says. It says he walked with God, was taken, was not found, and didn’t see death. Every part points to God removing him from the earth. Your argument says Enoch was taken by God, avoided death, but still somehow stayed here. That just doesn’t add up.

Calling a proper study of the Bible delusion while giving no real answer isn’t an argument. It’s just denial.

So where is Enoch now? Try to answer that without saying heaven while still making sense of the text. You can’t do it.

lawani:
Today there is no set of central beliefs that is common to all Christian sects despite that the world is a global village. How much more in the world of the seventh century?.Despite the agreement at Nice, there would still have been groups that continued to do their thing just as it is today.
A proof that Mohammed was a Christian is that there was a Mohammed a Christian in the Byzantine empire who I have once read about. What this means is that Mohammed is probably a Christian baptismal name that was adopted by the Prophet of Islam. I hope you know that Mohammed was not his original name? The only other Mohammed I have heard of was a Byzantine Christian. I read a quote from him that I can not remember now

If you say Mohammed is not the most idolized person ever, he would still be among the first three but I think considering all the daily rituals involving billions of people that he is associated with, he should be number one


This is a thread I found discussing the origin of the name Mohammed on Quora


https://www.quora.com/Was-there-anyone-named-Mohammed-before-the-prophet-of-Islam

Before conversions started, the only reasons nations fought wars was for territory. We had no reasons to fight or hate each other over God. There was therefore peace in that respect unlike now

I should respond fully to you but will hold because you fail to do what wouldn't necessitate all this talk. Where is the proof Muhammad pbuh was once a Christian then broke or branched off?

Saying Muhammad was a Christian name is a spectacular leap from zero evidence but saying you once read about a Byzantine Christian of same name without a reference is not proof. Muhammad praiseworthy in Arabic and is not a baptism name. What will it have meant in any of the Byzantine languages?

Your Quora link discusses name etymology, not proof Muhammad practiced Christianity.

honesttalk21:
1. You say no verse says Enoch left the earth, but Genesis 5:24 says, God took him, and Hebrews 11:5 says he was translated so he would not see death. If God took him to avoid death like everyone else, then where did he go? You reject the idea of heaven but don’t offer any other option. Floating in the air? Hiding in a cave? Your position doesn’t make sense.
2. You say translation doesn't mean leaving earth, but if that’s true, where is Enoch now? If he was translated and didn’t die, but still stayed on earth, then he would have lived for over 5,000 years without dying. There’s no record of that anywhere, in the Bible or in history. The text clearly shows that being taken by God means being taken out of the mortal world that means not staying on earth.
3 and 4. You call this religious dogma, not based on the text, but actually, you are the one ignoring what the text clearly says. It says he walked with God, was taken, was not found, and didn’t see death. Every part points to God removing him from the earth. Your argument says Enoch was taken by God, avoided death, but still somehow stayed here. That just doesn’t add up.
➜ Calling a proper study of the Bible delusion while giving no real answer isn’t an argument. It’s just denial.
➜ So where is Enoch now? Try to answer that without saying heaven while still making sense of the text. You can’t do it.

1. God took Him and Where did Enoch go? is not enough data for you or anyone to then conclude that he must have gone to a place called Heaven which you religious folks then imagine exists outside of the earth's atmosphere. There are so many places here on earth that he would have gone if we were asking where did Enoch go? But the leap to conclude it must have been heaven... has to be substantiated, and so far, there is no evidence of that ever taking place. 🥱

2. That is the million-dollar question. Where did Enoch go? No one knows so far. The claim that he went to heaven is unsubstantiated. The absence of an answer is not a good enough reason to insist on an obviously invalid delusion. 🥱🥱

3. Wrong! None of those statements points to God removing Enoch from the earth.

4. Nothing proper about obvious religious bullsheet!

5. Simple! YHWH is written to have moved him, so if you want to know where He is, you simply have to ask YHWH to tell you where He moved Enoch. Insinuating that Enoch must have been moved to Heaven simply because it is said that YHWH took him is a ridiculous conclusion.

Kobojunkie:
1. God took Him and Where did Enoch go? is not enough data for you or anyone to then conclude that he must have gone to a place called Heaven which you religious folks then imagine exists outside of the earth's atmosphere. There are so many places here on earth that he would have gone if we were asking where did Enoch go? But the leap to conclude it must have been heaven... has to be substantiated, and so far, there is no evidence of that ever taking place. 🥱

2. That is the million-dollar question. Where did Enoch go? No one knows so far. The claim that he went to heaven is unsubstantiated. The absence of an answer is not a good enough reason to insist on an obviously invalid delusion. 🥱🥱

3. Wrong! None of those statements points to God removing Enoch from the earth.

4. Nothing proper about obvious religious bullsheet!

5. Simple! YHWH is written to have moved him, so if you want to know where He is, you simply have to ask YHWH to tell you where He moved Enoch. Insinuating that Enoch must have been moved to Heaven simply because it is said that YHWH took him is a ridiculous conclusion.

Now this view doesn't hold up intellectually because:

1. You say he could have gone to many places on earth implying he's still alive somewhere on earth after more than 5,000 years? Name one place. A hidden valley? A secret island? These are just stories you're making up without any support from the original text, while ignoring what all ancient readers understood.

2. You claim no one knows where Enoch went. That's not true. Hebrews 11:13-16 gives us the context. It says the faithful wanted a better country, a heavenly one, and that God prepared a city for them. Enoch is mentioned among these people. The author clearly links being taken without dying with going to heaven.

3. You argue the statements don’t show he was removed from earth. But think about it. The text says he was translated so he should not see death and was not found. If he were still on earth, we would find him. If he was mortal, he would have died. Since neither happened, he had to have been taken out of earthly, mortal life.

4. Dismissing the text as religious nonsense isn’t a real argument. It just means you’re giving up on the discussion.

5. When asked where Enoch is, you say to ask God. That’s avoiding the question. When you don’t have a clear answer from the text, pointing to ask God is a way to dodge.

The big problem with your view is that you have Enoch taken by God and avoiding death, but not in heaven. You say his location is unknown, yet he is still mortal but immortal, on earth but can't be found. All these ideas go against what the text says. Heaven is the only place that fits being taken by God, escaping death, not being found, and walking with God.

Your rejection isn’t because of better interpretation. It’s just resisting the idea for other reasons dressed up as skepticism.

honesttalk21:
➜You inquire about which meaning is applicable in a given context, and the text itself provides the answer. The narrative context determines meaning rather than personal preference. In 2 Kings 2:11, the elements are clearly defined and build upon each other. Divine fire, a heavenly chariot, a whirlwind, and the phrase Elijah went up into shamayim. This context cannot refer to weather or air; it indicates a divine realm. Elisha’s statement about the chariot of Israel is a misunderstanding. That phrase (2:12) expresses Elisha’s metaphorical sorrow over Elijah’s significance to Israel, rather than redefining how Elijah was taken away. The means of transport is specified in 2:11, not by Elisha’s lament.
➜ Psalm 11:4 and Isaiah 66:1 do not introduce confusion; they clarify it. Heaven is depicted as a throne, while Earth serves as a footstool, indicating distinct and hierarchical realms. God's presence in the temple shows presence rather than a physical relocation. Solomon makes this clear when he states, Heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you (1 Kings 8:27).
➜ Isaiah’s question, Where is the house you will build for me? criticizes the notion that God’s dwelling is limited to Earth. The analogy of a footstool is misguided; a footstool shares authority with the throne but not its location.
➜ In summary, the text clearly states that Elijah went up into heaven. To deny this requires ignoring the narrative, the language, and the theological implications, which is not a matter of following the context but rather avoiding it.

1. Again, unless you can find me a passage in the Torah that states that the [i]Chariot of Israel[/i] can give folks a ride to a destination beyond Earth's atmosphere, I don't see why you continue to insist that Elijah went to where God supposedly lives(heaven) and not the sky(heaven) or that nonsense. 🥱🥱🥱

2. More religious nonsense! You are told that the Heavens cannot contain all of YHWH and that His foot rests here on earth, and instead, you resort to spewing religious nonsense about hierarchical stories.

Solomon's statement clearly aligns with the statement in Isaiah 66 vs 1, which states The whole sky and the highest heaven cannot contain YHWH. End of story!

3. YHWH's question regarding his resting place is not YHWH suggesting a lack of need for the temple, which He commanded of His people. Again, earth is His footstool— where His feet(His presence as well) rest. All that this keeps pointing to is that the notion that YHWH lives far away in a place called heaven is not of Scripture but of religion.

4. Again, show us where it is written that the chariots of Israel give people rides into this heaven — sky or God's dwelling place in the sky? Otherwise, you are simply spewing ideas born from religious delusions.

Another important aspect here is the whirlwind he was taken up in. Where is it written in Scripture that whirlwinds give access to the dwelling place of YHWH? 🥱🥱

honesttalk21:
Now this view doesn't hold up intellectually because:
1. You say he could have gone to many places on earth implying he's still alive somewhere on earth after more than 5,000 years? Name one place. A hidden valley? A secret island? These are just stories you're making up without any support from the original text, while ignoring what all ancient readers understood.
2. You claim no one knows where Enoch went. That's not true. Hebrews 11:13-16 gives us the context. It says the faithful wanted a better country, a heavenly one, and that God prepared a city for them. Enoch is mentioned among these people. The author clearly links being taken without dying with going to heaven.
3. You argue the statements don’t show he was removed from earth. But think about it. The text says he was translated so he should not see death and was not found. If he were still on earth, we would find him. If he was mortal, he would have died. Since neither happened, he had to have been taken out of earthly, mortal life.
4. Dismissing the text as religious nonsense isn’t a real argument. It just means you’re giving up on the discussion.
5. When asked where Enoch is, you say to ask God. That’s avoiding the question. When you don’t have a clear answer from the text, pointing to ask God is a way to dodge.
➜The big problem with your view is that you have Enoch taken by God and avoiding death, but not in heaven. You say his location is unknown, yet he is still mortal but immortal, on earth but can't be found. All these ideas go against what the text says. Heaven is the only place that fits being taken by God, escaping death, not being found, and walking with God. Your rejection isn’t because of better interpretation. It’s just resisting the idea for other reasons dressed up as skepticism.

A religion-minded individual is the one to determine what holds up intellectually. Nonsense! 🥱🥱

---

2. Wrong! Nonsense! 🥱🥱

3. You say this because you have found Moses, who was also hidden by YHWH. Right?? 🥱🥱

4. I am not arguing but countering religious claims by presenting the facts as they appear. 🥱🥱

5. Avoiding the question? YHWH was the one who supposedly took him, the same one who took Moses' body. Who else do we ask if not YHWH? 🥱🥱

Oh wait! You would rather religion invent an answer in such cases... anything for you to avoid having to ask YHWH, right? 🥱🥱

6. I don't have any interpretations —dogma— so, yes, you are right that I don't do such nonsense. I simply follow the breadcrumbs where they lead, and the fact is that only YHWH knows where Enoch is— religion does not know. And anyone who wants to know would need to ask him, not jump to baseless conclusions like the religious are notorious for. 🥱🥱

Kobojunkie:
1. Again, unless you can find me a passage in the Torah that states that the [i]Chariot of Israel[/i] can give folks a ride to a destination beyond Earth's atmosphere, I don't see why you continue to insist that Elijah went to where God supposedly lives(heaven) and not the sky(heaven) or that nonsense. 🥱🥱🥱

2. More religious nonsense! You are told that the Heavens cannot contain all of YHWH and that His foot rests here on earth, and instead, you resort to spewing religious nonsense about hierarchical stories.

Solomon's statement clearly aligns with the statement in Isaiah 66 vs 1, which states The whole sky and the highest heaven cannot contain YHWH. End of story!

3. YHWH's question regarding his resting place is not YHWH suggesting a lack of need for the temple, which He commanded of His people. Again, earth is His footstool— where His feet(His presence as well) rest. All that this keeps pointing to is that the notion that YHWH lives far away in a place called heaven is not of Scripture but of religion.

4. Again, show us where it is written that the chariots of Israel give people rides into this heaven — sky or God's dwelling place in the sky? Otherwise, you are simply spewing ideas born from religious delusions.

Another important aspect here is the whirlwind he was taken up in. Where is it written in Scripture that whirlwinds give access to the dwelling place of YHWH? 🥱🥱

Kobojunkie:
A religion-minded individual is the one to determine what holds up intellectually. Nonsense! 🥱🥱

---

2. Wrong! Nonsense! 🥱🥱

3. You say this because you have found Moses, who was also hidden by YHWH. Right?? 🥱🥱

4. I am not arguing but countering religious claims by presenting the facts as they appear. 🥱🥱

5. Avoiding the question? YHWH was the one who supposedly took him, the same one who took Moses' body. Who else do we ask if not YHWH? 🥱🥱

Oh wait! You would rather religion invent an answer in such cases... anything for you to avoid having to ask YHWH, right? 🥱🥱

6. I don't have any interpretations —dogma— so, yes, you are right that I don't do such nonsense. I simply follow the breadcrumbs where they lead, and the fact is that only YHWH knows where Enoch is— religion does not know. And anyone who wants to know would need to ask him, not jump to baseless conclusions like the religious are notorious for. 🥱🥱

You're expecting modern science about the universe from an ancient book. The Bible says Elijah went up into shamayim, which is the same word often used for God's home. Looking for a phrase like beyond the atmosphere is reading in too much modern thinking. Ancient Hebrew makes a simple distinction between the world we live in and the place where God lives, not between layers of the sky.

When it says Heaven cannot contain YHWH, that doesn't mean heaven doesn't exist. It actually means God is above and beyond all the created places. Solomon is making two points at once: God is higher than heaven but also shows up here on earth. Mixing up being beyond something with not existing at all is a misunderstanding.

The phrase Earth is my footstool shows there's a difference, not that the two are the same. A throne and a footstool are connected, but they’re not equal places. Isaiah 66:1 clearly tells us heaven (the throne) is different from the earth (the footstool). Saying they are the same thing takes away the meaning of the metaphor.

Your argument about the whirlwind doesn't work because 2 Kings 2:11 actually gives the evidence. It talks about a divine fire-chariot, a whirlwind, and then says Elijah went up into shamayim. Asking for extra proof for a special event described in the text just dismisses the story without reason.

Comparing Enoch to Moses isn’t right. Moses died and was buried (Deuteronomy 34:5–6). But Enoch was not, God took him, and he did not see death (Genesis 5:24; Hebrews 11:5). The difference between dying and not dying is exactly what the text is pointing out.

Saying only God knows but then ignoring the Bible’s explanation doesn't make sense. Hebrews 11:5 explains Genesis clearly: Enoch was taken without dying. Saying you follow the Bible but throwing out clear explanations is not reading carefully.

You say you're following the clues, yet you reject each one. God took him,did not see death,was not found, went up into shamayim, and the explanation in Hebrews. That’s not reading with context that's picking what fits your idea.

honesttalk21:
➜You're expecting modern science about the universe from an ancient book.
➜ The Bible says Elijah went up into shamayim, which is the same word often used for God's home. Looking for a phrase like beyond the atmosphere is reading in too much modern thinking. Ancient Hebrew makes a simple distinction between the world we live in and the place where God lives, not between layers of the sky....

Dude, what is clear is that you suck at reading my mind. I am not expecting anything from the book apart from what is written in the book.🥱🥱

Again, we already been through all of this and have come to the base questioon which is Where is Enoch? And a look at the text indicates the one who would have the answer is YHWH. So, unless we ask Him, we will never know. 🥱🥱

The same goes for Elijah... there is no indication in the whole Torah that a whirlwind takes a human outside of the earth's atmosphere, nor is there any indication that the Chariot of Israel can reach a destination beyond the borders of Israel, let alone a place outside of planet earth. You don't need to look for a phrase to be able to ask these simple questions about what is written. And imposing an answer taken wholly from your imagination will not help at all unless religion is your goal. 🥱🥱

Kobojunkie:
Dude, what is clear is that you suck at reading my mind. I am not expecting anything from the book apart from what is written in the book.🥱🥱

Again, we already been through all of this and have come to the base questioon which is Where is Enoch? And a look at the text indicates the one who would have the answer is YHWH. So, unless we ask Him, we will never know. 🥱🥱

The same goes for Elijah... there is no indication in the whole Torah that a whirlwind takes a human outside of the earth's atmosphere, nor is there any indication that the Chariot of Israel can reach a destination beyond the borders of Israel, let alone a place outside of planet earth. You don't need to look for a phrase to be able to ask these simple questions about what is written. And imposing an answer taken wholly from your imagination will not help at all unless religion is your goal. 🥱🥱

Oops no one doing any unneeded mind reading. You saying we’ll never know unless we ask YHWH actually weakens your argument, because scripture gives the answer from YHWH. Both Genesis 5:24 and Hebrews 11:5 clearly say that Enoch was taken by God and didn’t experience death. Ignoring that while still relying on God's authority is picking and choosing what to believe.

The idea that there’s no indication the whirlwind goes beyond the atmosphere goes against what the text says. 2 Kings 2:11 plainly states that Elijah went up by a whirlwind into shamayim. You’re not paying attention to the exact words you’re ignoring where it says he went because it doesn’t fit your view.

When Elisha calls the Chariot of Israel, it’s an emotional way of showing how much Elijah meant to the nation, not a precise description of a vehicle. The story clearly talks about a fiery, divine chariot, a whirlwind, and Elijah rising into shamayim. Mixing up poetic expression with the actual story is a simple mistake.

This keeps happening repeatedly. Phrases like went up into shamayim, did not see death,God took him, and the interpretation in Hebrews are all redefined or dismissed. This isn’t reading with context it’s ignoring anything suggesting a separate divine place.

If this approach were used for any old text, we would never learn anything. This isn’t fair scholarship or staying neutral; it’s denial disguised as caution.

honesttalk21:
➜This keeps happening repeatedly. Phrases like went up into shamayim, did not see death,God took him, and the interpretation in Hebrews are all redefined or dismissed.
➜ This isn’t reading with context it’s ignoring anything suggesting a separate divine place.
➜If this approach were used for any old text, we would never learn anything. This isn’t fair scholarship or staying neutral; it’s denial disguised as caution.

For the umpteenth time, Interpretations are dogma... unevidenced claims that hold no meaning outside of religious circles. 🥱🥱

2. Ignoring religious bullsheet is not reading in context? What has religion and its numerous dogmas to do with context, by the way? 🥱🥱

3. You delude yourself, believing you are learned as far as the Old texts are concerned. If you cannot accept what is written... as is written... without the need to write your own brain farts between the lines, what makes you think you have been engaging yourself in the process of learning? 🥱🥱

Kobojunkie:
For the umpteenth time, Interpretations are dogma... unevidenced claims that hold no meaning outside of religious circles. 🥱🥱

2. Ignoring religious bullsheet is not reading in context? What has religion and its numerous dogmas to do with context, by the way? 🥱🥱

3. You delude yourself, believing you are learned as far as the Old texts are concerned. If you cannot accept what is written... as is written... without the need to write your own brain farts between the lines, what makes you think you have been engaging yourself in the process of learning? 🥱🥱

Yeah. Said by the one ignoring obvious facts stated in the scripture.

The facts you’re overlooking are:

1. Genesis 5:24 says, Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. That makes Enoch unique because, unlike other people, he didn’t die.

2. Hebrews 11:5 tells us that by faith Enoch was taken so he wouldn’t see death. This is an accepted explanation within the Bible itself.

3. 2 Kings 2:11 shows Elijah going up in a whirlwind into shamayim, which is clearly described as his destination.

4. Hebrews 11:13-16 talks about faithful people wanting a heavenly home and says that God prepared a city for them. This gives context to Enoch’s being taken, mentioned in verse 5.

5. Throughout the Bible, shamayim is used to mean God’s dwelling place (like in 1 Kings 8:30, Psalm 11:4, Isaiah 63:15, and 66:1).

You’re rejecting every fact plainly given:

- Saying took him means an unknown place.

- Agreeing that did not see death doesn’t really mean he escaped death.

- Claiming shamayim is just the sky, not heaven.

- Calling the Hebrews’ explanation religious nonsense.

So, who’s ignoring what the Bible says here? The person accepting its words and interpretations, or the one dismissing them all as flawed ideas?

Rejecting what the text clearly states. That isn’t facing the facts. It’s denying them.

honesttalk21:
✓ Yeah. Said by the one ignoring obvious facts stated in the scripture.
The facts you’re overlooking are:
1. Genesis 5:24 says, Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. That makes Enoch unique because, unlike other people, he didn’t die.
2. Hebrews 11:5 tells us that by faith Enoch was taken so he wouldn’t see death. This is an accepted explanation within the Bible itself.
3. 2 Kings 2:11 shows Elijah going up in a whirlwind into shamayim, which is clearly described as his destination.
4. Hebrews 11:13-16 talks about faithful people wanting a heavenly home and says that God prepared a city for them. This gives context to Enoch’s being taken, mentioned in verse 5.
5. Throughout the Bible, shamayim is used to mean God’s dwelling place (like in 1 Kings 8:30, Psalm 11:4, Isaiah 63:15, and 66:1).
You’re rejecting every fact plainly given:
- Saying took him means an unknown place.
- Agreeing that did not see death doesn’t really mean he escaped death.
- Claiming shamayim is just the sky, not heaven.
- Calling the Hebrews’ explanation religious nonsense.
So, who’s ignoring what the Bible says here? The person accepting its words and interpretations, or the one dismissing them all as flawed ideas?
Rejecting what the text clearly states. That isn’t facing the facts. It’s denying them.

You should probably look up the meaning of the word Fact before you continue. As all you have done here is try desperately to pass religious gobbledegook-- opinions aka lies -- on as facts.🥱🥱

I am certain I have more g than made myself clear here that that nonsense don't work for me. 👍👍

Kobojunkie:
You should probably look up the meaning of the word Fact before you continue. As all you have done here is try desperately to pass religious gobbledegook-- opinions aka lies -- on as facts.🥱🥱

I am certain I have more g than made myself clear here that that nonsense don't work for me. 👍👍

Yeah! 😂🤣

honesttalk21:
I should respond fully to you but will hold because you fail to do what wouldn't necessitate all this talk. Where is the proof Muhammad pbuh was once a Christian then broke or branched off?

Saying Muhammad was a Christian name is a spectacular leap from zero evidence but saying you once read about a Byzantine Christian of same name without a reference is not proof. Muhammad praiseworthy in Arabic and is not a baptism name. What will it have meant in any of the Byzantine languages?

Your Quora link discusses name etymology, not proof Muhammad practiced Christianity.

The proof that Mohammed was a Christian is that he believed in Jesus prophethood, virgin birth and etc. When Mohammed was born, that was only possible if you are a Christian.

I can't find what I read about the Byzantine Christian again but in the Quora link I provided, someone talked about an Arab Christian named Mohammed that was martyred over 100 years before Mohammed was born. That maybe the same man whose quote I read. Read the link again. What evidence again do you need?
Any academic observer will come to the conclusion that Mohammed was converted by Christians. It is only difficult for indoctrinated and ardent Muslims.

lawani:
The proof that Mohammed was a Christian is that he believed in Jesus prophethood, virgin birth and etc. When Mohammed was born, that was only possible if you are a Christian.

I can't find what I read about the Byzantine Christian again but in the Quora link I provided, someone talked about an Arab Christian named Mohammed that was martyred over 100 years before Mohammed was born. That maybe the same man whose quote I read. Read the link again. What evidence again do you need?
Any academic observer will come to the conclusion that Mohammed was converted by Christians. It is only difficult for indoctrinated and ardent Muslims.

You've given no proof that Muhammad pbuh followed Christianity. Saying that knowing about Jesus makes someone a Christian doesn't work and that would mean every historian who studies Jesus is automatically Christian. You also shared a vague memory without any source, a Quora link about where a name comes from, and a made-up claim about what academics agree on, which doesn’t exist. All this shows you don’t have any real evidence.

Get proper reference and suspend further claims until you actually have.

honesttalk21:
You've given no proof that Muhammad pbuh followed Christianity. Saying that knowing about Jesus makes someone a Christian doesn't work and that would mean every historian who studies Jesus is automatically Christian. You also shared a vague memory without any source, a Quora link about where a name comes from, and a made-up claim about what academics agree on, which doesn’t exist. All this shows you don’t have any real evidence.

Get proper reference and suspend further claims until you actually have.

Mohammed did not just know about Jesus. He accepted Jesus. A historian studying history is not the same as believers.

lawani:
Mohammed did not just know about Jesus. He accepted Jesus. A historian studying history is not the same as believers.

Use same for your personal and professional development. Accepting Jesus as a messenger of God as he accepted all others is not in dispute but he was never a Christian and more likely neither are you.

honesttalk21:
Use same for your personal and professional development. Accepting Jesus as a messenger of God as he accepted all others is not in dispute but he was never a Christian and more likely neither are you.

Jews did not accept Jesus at all. They didn't reckon with him. They also do not believe in the virgin birth. This means they are not Christians. I am not a Christian of course. If I believe Jesus is a prophet, that he was born of a virgin, he resurrected and etc. It will mean I am a member of a Christian sect because there is nowhere else I could have gotten those beliefs

lawani:
Jews did not accept Jesus at all. They didn't reckon with him. They also do not believe in the virgin birth. This means they are not Christians. I am not a Christian of course. If I believe Jesus is a prophet, that he was born of a virgin, he resurrected and etc. It will mean I am a member of a Christian sect because there is nowhere else I could have gotten those beliefs

And Islam fulfils all the criteria you define Christian here by?

I have read all the arguments and I will have to go with kobojunkie as honesttalk21 ran out of steam and ideas and started moving in circles just to keep the arguments going. Mohammed was converted to Christianity before creating his own religion (Islam)

Nooneknowstomor:
I have read all the arguments and I will have to go with kobojunkie as honesttalk21 ran out of steam and ideas and started moving in circles just to keep the arguments going. Mohammed was converted to Christianity before creating his own religion (Islam)

You have every right to your choice however there is no clear proof provided of him ever being a Christian and that's the truth you choose to deny.

Kobojunkie:
You should probably look up the meaning of the word Fact before you continue. As all you have done here is try desperately to pass religious gobbledegook-- opinions aka lies -- on as facts.🥱🥱

I am certain I have more g than made myself clear here that that nonsense don't work for me. 👍👍

Your dismissive gobbledygook is no refutation

honesttalk21:
✓ Your dismissive gobbledygook is no refutation

Notice I have repeatedly stated that I have not been arguing with you? Again, that is because I notice you twist the facts in favor of religious gobbledegook. It is something I have noticed if your pattern of reasoning. (something your pastors and imams are notorious for🥱🥱.

Restating the fact is a way of letting you see how flawed your claims have always been. 🥱🥱

Kobojunkie:
Notice I have repeatedly stated that I have not been arguing with you? Again, that is because I notice you twist the facts in favor of religious gobbledegook. It is something I have noticed if your pattern of reasoning. (something your pastors and imams are notorious for🥱🥱.

Restating the fact is a way of letting you see how flawed your claims have always been. 🥱🥱

Repeating a claim that without supporting evidence doesn’t magically turn it into a fact. Brushing off evidence as religious gobbledegook doesn’t make real discussion; every claim still needs backing, and so far, you have provided none.

Tempted to write ✍️
But I know it's a waste of time and energy.

Q

honesttalk21:
✓ Repeating a claim that without [b]supporting evidence [/b]doesn’t magically turn it into a fact. Brushing off evidence as religious gobbledegook doesn’t make real discussion; every claim still needs backing, and so far, you have provided none.

I guess Dude, you are the one here who literally did that dod the whole of this thread. You kept asserting delusions you have been fred from religion without supporting evidence... 🥱🥱🥱

You thought that somehow religious delusions should be given authority over stated facts...even those found in your Quran. At one point you even shunned statements from the Hadiths which are considered canonical in Islam about the same man your Quran happens to be about. 🥱🥱🥱

Shidda:
Tempted to write ✍️
But I know it's a waste of time and energy.

It is only a waste if you wish for it to be. 🥱🥱

Kobojunkie:
It is only a waste if you wish for it to be. 🥱🥱

Nice, so I would say this. You're ignoring the whole context and why Islam and Christianity share similarities. Here's chatgpt to brake it down for you.

There are Christian groups and individuals who pray in a way that looks very similar to Muslim ṣalāh. This isn’t common among most Christians today, but it does exist in some traditions.
Here are the main examples:
1. Ethiopian & Eritrean Orthodox Christians
These churches are ancient and preserve very old practices. Their worship includes:
Standing, bowing, and full prostration
Praying at fixed times of the day
Facing the east during prayer
Removing shoes before entering some holy spaces
Ritual purity rules before worship
Many Muslim travelers historically noted how similar this looked to ṣalāh.
2. Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox Christians
They also have:
Bowing and prostration in prayer
Set prayer times (Agpeya)
Fasting rules that resemble Islamic fasting
3. Syriac / Eastern Churches
Some Eastern Christians use:
Prostrations (called metanoias)
Chanting prayers at specific hours
Facing a direction during prayer
4. “Jerusalem Christians” or “Nazarene Christians” (rare today)
Some small groups attempt to imitate what they believe early Christians did, which includes:
Praying with prostration
Praying multiple times a day
Washing before prayer
5. Individual Christians influenced by early Christianity or by Islamic practice
Some Christian monks, scholars, or spiritual groups adopt:
Prostration as part of devotion
Repeated daily prayer cycles
They don't call it "ṣalāh," but the movements are very similar.
Why the similarity?
Because early Christians prayed almost exactly like this, and Islam preserved that tradition. Prostration was the standard way of worship for:
Jews
Early Christians
Prophets mentioned in the Bible
For example:
“Jesus fell on his face and prayed.” (Matthew 26:39)
“Moses and Aaron… fell on their faces.” (Numbers 20:6)
So some Christians kept this old style, while others moved away from it.

In short:
Yes, certain Christians — especially Eastern Orthodox traditions — still pray in a style very close to Muslim ṣalāh because it comes from the older prophetic way of worship.

My say:
They're not similar because one copied the other, they're similar because the source is the same, as for differences, that is the same too, human desire and corruption. And when you talk about the aspects, you're missing the point.

Shidda:
Nice, so I would say this. You're ignoring the whole context and why Islam and Christianity share similarities. Here's chatgpt to brake it down for you.

There are Christian groups and individuals who pray in a way that looks very similar to Muslim ṣalāh. This isn’t common among most Christians today, but it does exist in some traditions.
Here are the main examples:
1. Ethiopian & Eritrean Orthodox Christians
These churches are ancient and preserve very old practices. Their worship includes:
Standing, bowing, and full prostration
Praying at fixed times of the day
Facing the east during prayer
Removing shoes before entering some holy spaces
Ritual purity rules before worship
Many Muslim travelers historically noted how similar this looked to ṣalāh.
2. Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox Christians
They also have:
Bowing and prostration in prayer
Set prayer times (Agpeya)
Fasting rules that resemble Islamic fasting
3. Syriac / Eastern Churches
Some Eastern Christians use:
Prostrations (called metanoias)
Chanting prayers at specific hours
Facing a direction during prayer
4. “Jerusalem Christians” or “Nazarene Christians” (rare today)
Some small groups attempt to imitate what they believe early Christians did, which includes:
Praying with prostration
Praying multiple times a day
Washing before prayer
5. Individual Christians influenced by early Christianity or by Islamic practice
Some Christian monks, scholars, or spiritual groups adopt:
Prostration as part of devotion
Repeated daily prayer cycles
They don't call it "ṣalāh," but the movements are very similar.
Why the similarity?
Because early Christians prayed almost exactly like this, and Islam preserved that tradition. Prostration was the standard way of worship for:
Jews
Early Christians
Prophets mentioned in the Bible
For example:
“Jesus fell on his face and prayed.” (Matthew 26:39)
“Moses and Aaron… fell on their faces.” (Numbers 20:6)
So some Christians kept this old style, while others moved away from it.

In short:
Yes, certain Christians — especially Eastern Orthodox traditions — still pray in a style very close to Muslim ṣalāh because it comes from the older prophetic way of worship.

My say:
They're not similar because one copied the other, they're similar because the source is the same, as for differences, that is the same too, human desire and corruption. And when you talk about the aspects, you're missing the point.

Off point ❌❌

Shidda:
➜Nice, so I would say this. You're ignoring the whole context and why Islam and Christianity share similarities. Here's chatgpt to brake it down for you.
There are Christian groups and individuals who pray in a way that looks very similar to Muslim ṣalāh. This isn’t common among most Christians today, but it does exist in some traditions.
Here are the main examples:
1. Ethiopian & Eritrean Orthodox Christians
These churches are ancient and preserve very old practices. Their worship includes:
Standing, bowing, and full prostration
Praying at fixed times of the day
Facing the east during prayer
Removing shoes before entering some holy spaces
Ritual purity rules before worship
Many Muslim travelers historically noted how similar this looked to ṣalāh.
2. Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox Christians
They also have:
Bowing and prostration in prayer
Set prayer times (Agpeya)
Fasting rules that resemble Islamic fasting
3. Syriac / Eastern Churches
Some Eastern Christians use:
Prostrations (called metanoias)
Chanting prayers at specific hours
Facing a direction during prayer
4. “Jerusalem Christians” or “Nazarene Christians” (rare today)
Some small groups attempt to imitate what they believe early Christians did, which includes:
Praying with prostration
Praying multiple times a day
Washing before prayer
5. Individual Christians influenced by early Christianity or by Islamic practice
Some Christian monks, scholars, or spiritual groups adopt:
Prostration as part of devotion
Repeated daily prayer cycles
They don't call it "ṣalāh," but the movements are very similar.
Why the similarity?
Because early Christians prayed almost exactly like this, and Islam preserved that tradition. Prostration was the standard way of worship for:
Jews
Early Christians
Prophets mentioned in the Bible
For example:
“Jesus fell on his face and prayed.” (Matthew 26:39)
“Moses and Aaron… fell on their faces.” (Numbers 20:6)
So some Christians kept this old style, while others moved away from it.
In short:
Yes, certain Christians — especially Eastern Orthodox traditions — still pray in a style very close to Muslim ṣalāh because it comes from the older prophetic way of worship.
My say:
They're not similar because one copied the other; they're similar because the source is the same, as for differences, that is the same too, human desire and corruption. And when you talk about the aspects, you're missing the point.

While keeping old traditions is part of what makes a thing similar to roots, it is hard to argue along those lines alone in this because Islam holds on to several other non-Christian traditions as well. 🥱

For instance, the worship of the stone at the Kaaba comes from the tradition of worship of Idols that predate Islam. Even the tradition of ambulating and then kissing the black stone, referred to as the Hajj by Mohammedians predates Islam. Mohammed tried to have all other Kaabas destroyed, but didn't totally succeed. The Kaaba, dedicated to Zoroaster and other local idols in Iran, which dates back about 2500 years, still exists to this day. We don't know if the former occupants of the Kaabas destroyed by Mohammed prostrated in the same manner that Mohammedians do today, or if the former worshippers at the current Kaaba refurbished by Mohammed for his own religion worshipped in the same way that Mohammedians are tasked with today. 🥱

If you have ever visited a Buddhist temple to see Buddhists pray, you will find that many of their posturing are also similar to what you find Mohammedians doing regularly. So, it becomes hard to definitively claim that Mohammedians merely copied ancient Christian prayer rituals. This is my take on this, at least.🥱

---

Another way to consider this is to consider that at one point, Mohammed is written to have worn his own hair as the Jews and Christians did during his time, but after he fell out with them, he switched back to patting his hair again like the pagans - Sahih Bukhari 7:72:799. Surely you can see how ridiculous it would be for us to argue along this line in determining whether Mohammed's belief was in alignment with the religion of Christianity or not. 🥱

Kobojunkie:
Q I guess Dude, you are the one here who literally did that dod the whole of this thread. You kept asserting delusions you have been fred from religion without supporting evidence... 🥱🥱🥱

You thought that somehow religious delusions should be given authority over stated facts...even those found in your Quran. At one point you even shunned statements from the Hadiths which are considered canonical in Islam about the same man your Quran happens to be about. 🥱🥱🥱

Insults do not serve as evidence. Labeling sources as delusions does not disprove them, and dismissing the Qur’an, Hadith methodology, and historical data without providing proof is not a form of fact-based reasoning; it’s merely assertion. Simply repeating claims or dismissing them does not constitute valid evidence.