Groups > alt.conspiracy > #272256 > unrolled thread

Re: What we have is Liberals and Blacks violating the Religious rights of some religion that they don't like.... You know like bigots do.

Started by	joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com>
First post	2015-12-24 20:12 -0800
Last post	2016-01-09 10:53 +0100
Articles	19 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.conspiracy

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

#272256 — Re: What we have is Liberals and Blacks violating the Religious rights of some religion that they don't like.... You know like bigots do.

From	joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com>
Date	2015-12-24 20:12 -0800
Subject	Re: What we have is Liberals and Blacks violating the Religious rights of some religion that they don't like.... You know like bigots do.
Message-ID	<f1fc070b-5413-4760-a2ed-0d6054aa80db@googlegroups.com>

On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 9:01:28 AM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> Isn't #BlackLivesMatters protesting in malls violating the rights of
> Christians celebrating the *BIRTH OF CHRIST*  ?
> 
> This is the equivalent of bombing Mosques during Ramadan, and since we
> can't even speak about banning Muslims from immigrating how is it that
> the Leftists can support violating the celebration in the private sector
> of the birth of Christ. The right to protest is for the redress of
> government and closing down shopping in a private mall is NOT redressing
> grievances with the government.  It's violating Christians right to
> celebrate their Holy days.
> 
> The fact that Christians don't shoot up people like Muslims do for
> drawing a picture of Mohammad, shouldn't matter. So if you can't insult
> the Muslims why can Liberals insult the Christians?
> 
> What we have is Liberals and Blacks violating the Religious rights of
> some religion that they don't like....  *You know like bigots do*
> 
> And to top that off they kill the babies in Abortion clinics over
> Christmas...  where they would abort the second coming of Christ,
> wouldn't they?   And They don't know but what Christ isn't going to be
> BLACK in this revelation. #BlackLivesMatter may be violating blacks
> racial rights as well as the Christians.
> 
> *The ideology of Liberalism is a never ending stream of contradictions*
> 
> -- 
> That's Karma
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                      *Rumination*
> #1.0.5 - In Liberalism everything is relative to what their goal is.

The Christians are worshiping the Sun God Ra and don't know it.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#272257

From	joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com>
Date	2015-12-24 20:22 -0800
Message-ID	<74498e44-8560-44e5-8a8f-e9ed7ae2e732@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#272256

On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 11:12:44 PM UTC-5, joeturn wrote:
> On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 9:01:28 AM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> > Isn't #BlackLivesMatters protesting in malls violating the rights of
> > Christians celebrating the *BIRTH OF CHRIST*  ?
> > 
> > This is the equivalent of bombing Mosques during Ramadan, and since we
> > can't even speak about banning Muslims from immigrating how is it that
> > the Leftists can support violating the celebration in the private sector
> > of the birth of Christ. The right to protest is for the redress of
> > government and closing down shopping in a private mall is NOT redressing
> > grievances with the government.  It's violating Christians right to
> > celebrate their Holy days.
> > 
> > The fact that Christians don't shoot up people like Muslims do for
> > drawing a picture of Mohammad, shouldn't matter. So if you can't insult
> > the Muslims why can Liberals insult the Christians?
> > 
> > What we have is Liberals and Blacks violating the Religious rights of
> > some religion that they don't like....  *You know like bigots do*
> > 
> > And to top that off they kill the babies in Abortion clinics over
> > Christmas...  where they would abort the second coming of Christ,
> > wouldn't they?   And They don't know but what Christ isn't going to be
> > BLACK in this revelation. #BlackLivesMatter may be violating blacks
> > racial rights as well as the Christians.
> > 
> > *The ideology of Liberalism is a never ending stream of contradictions*
> > 
> > -- 
> > That's Karma
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >                      *Rumination*
> > #1.0.5 - In Liberalism everything is relative to what their goal is.
> 
> The Christians are worshiping the Sun God Ra and don't know it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PobDpVqny3I

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272261

From	"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-24 22:52 -0600
Message-ID	<9rip7bpvgds4071217v0oovh7u9qtdddb3@4ax.com>
In reply to	#272256

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 20:12:41 -0800 (PST), joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 9:01:28 AM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> Isn't #BlackLivesMatters protesting in malls violating the rights of
>> Christians celebrating the *BIRTH OF CHRIST*  ?
>> 
>> This is the equivalent of bombing Mosques during Ramadan, and since we
>> can't even speak about banning Muslims from immigrating how is it that
>> the Leftists can support violating the celebration in the private sector
>> of the birth of Christ. The right to protest is for the redress of
>> government and closing down shopping in a private mall is NOT redressing
>> grievances with the government.  It's violating Christians right to
>> celebrate their Holy days.
>> 
>> The fact that Christians don't shoot up people like Muslims do for
>> drawing a picture of Mohammad, shouldn't matter. So if you can't insult
>> the Muslims why can Liberals insult the Christians?
>> 
>> What we have is Liberals and Blacks violating the Religious rights of
>> some religion that they don't like....  *You know like bigots do*
>> 
>> And to top that off they kill the babies in Abortion clinics over
>> Christmas...  where they would abort the second coming of Christ,
>> wouldn't they?   And They don't know but what Christ isn't going to be
>> BLACK in this revelation. #BlackLivesMatter may be violating blacks
>> racial rights as well as the Christians.
>> 
>> *The ideology of Liberalism is a never ending stream of contradictions*
>> 
>> -- 
>> That's Karma
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>                      *Rumination*
>> #1.0.5 - In Liberalism everything is relative to what their goal is.
>
>The Christians are worshiping the Sun God Ra and don't know it.

     No, they worship the god of the New Testament of the Bible. There
is no connection between Ra and Yahweh. Just as your connecting Zeus
and Isis was based in fiction, so is your claim about Christians
worshiping Ra.
     But I will give an honest examination of the evidence you'll
provide for your claim. 
     But you'll probably run away since you know your claim is not
based in reality. What's more, you know I'll be able to prove anything
to present wrong.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272264

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2015-12-25 07:46 +0100
Message-ID	<de472eF68qlU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#272261

Am 25.12.2015 05:52, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>> Christians celebrating the *BIRTH OF CHRIST*  ?
>>>
>>> This is the equivalent of bombing Mosques during Ramadan, and since we
>>> can't even speak about banning Muslims from immigrating how is it that
>>> the Leftists can support violating the celebration in the private sector
>>> of the birth of Christ. The right to protest is for the redress of
>>> government and closing down shopping in a private mall is NOT redressing
>>> grievances with the government.  It's violating Christians right to
>>> celebrate their Holy days.
>>>
>>> The fact that Christians don't shoot up people like Muslims do for
>>> drawing a picture of Mohammad, shouldn't matter. So if you can't insult
>>> the Muslims why can Liberals insult the Christians?
>>>
>>> What we have is Liberals and Blacks violating the Religious rights of
>>> some religion that they don't like....  *You know like bigots do*
>>>
...
>       No, they worship the god of the New Testament of the Bible. There
> is no connection between Ra and Yahweh. Just as your connecting Zeus
> and Isis was based in fiction, so is your claim about Christians
> worshiping Ra.
>       But I will give an honest examination of the evidence you'll
> provide for your claim.
>       But you'll probably run away since you know your claim is not
> based in reality. What's more, you know I'll be able to prove anything
> to present wrong.
>

All religion try to catch the attention of some sort of supernatural 
being, who created the Universe, the Sun and planet Earth and all there 
is (including human beings).

The Christians use the word 'God', Muslims 'Allah' and Jews 'Yahweh'.

Now you certainly want 'positive' attention and this is not supposed to 
happen, if you kill those, who celebrate his prophet.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272290

From	"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-25 14:07 -0600
Message-ID	<qd8r7b9qmpatd13825k1e60aknhg88m4ea@4ax.com>
In reply to	#272264

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 07:46:35 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 25.12.2015 05:52, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>> Christians celebrating the *BIRTH OF CHRIST*  ?
>>>>
>>>> This is the equivalent of bombing Mosques during Ramadan, and since we
>>>> can't even speak about banning Muslims from immigrating how is it that
>>>> the Leftists can support violating the celebration in the private sector
>>>> of the birth of Christ. The right to protest is for the redress of
>>>> government and closing down shopping in a private mall is NOT redressing
>>>> grievances with the government.  It's violating Christians right to
>>>> celebrate their Holy days.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that Christians don't shoot up people like Muslims do for
>>>> drawing a picture of Mohammad, shouldn't matter. So if you can't insult
>>>> the Muslims why can Liberals insult the Christians?
>>>>
>>>> What we have is Liberals and Blacks violating the Religious rights of
>>>> some religion that they don't like....  *You know like bigots do*
>>>>
>...
>>       No, they worship the god of the New Testament of the Bible. There
>> is no connection between Ra and Yahweh. Just as your connecting Zeus
>> and Isis was based in fiction, so is your claim about Christians
>> worshiping Ra.
>>       But I will give an honest examination of the evidence you'll
>> provide for your claim.
>>       But you'll probably run away since you know your claim is not
>> based in reality. What's more, you know I'll be able to prove anything
>> to present wrong.
>>
>
>All religion try to catch the attention of some sort of supernatural 
>being, who created the Universe, the Sun and planet Earth and all there 
>is (including human beings).
>
>The Christians use the word 'God', Muslims 'Allah' and Jews 'Yahweh'.
>

     Christians use the name Yahweh and/or Jehovah. The Jews do not
use a name since doing so is a violation of their religion.

>Now you certainly want 'positive' attention and this is not supposed to 
>happen, if you kill those, who celebrate his prophet.

     Huh? Many of the prophets of Judaism were killed. I'm not aware
of any Christian prophets being killed, but I'm not a Biblical
scholar.
     As I understand Islam, Mohamed, the prophet of Islam, was to have
been transported to heaven without dying. 

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272326

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2015-12-26 04:06 +0100
Message-ID	<de6eguFn2m5U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#272290

Am 25.12.2015 21:07, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>
>> All religion try to catch the attention of some sort of supernatural
>> being, who created the Universe, the Sun and planet Earth and all there
>> is (including human beings).
>>
>> The Christians use the word 'God', Muslims 'Allah' and Jews 'Yahweh'.
>>
>
>       Christians use the name Yahweh and/or Jehovah. The Jews do not
> use a name since doing so is a violation of their religion.
>
>> Now you certainly want 'positive' attention and this is not supposed to
>> happen, if you kill those, who celebrate his prophet.
>
>       Huh? Many of the prophets of Judaism were killed. I'm not aware
> of any Christian prophets being killed, but I'm not a Biblical
> scholar.
>       As I understand Islam, Mohamed, the prophet of Islam, was to have
> been transported to heaven without dying.
>

I have read recently, that a Christian sect from what is now Syria had 
fled to the city Merv in what is now Turkmenistan at the Silk-Road.

At that time it was the largest city in the world.
They were opponents to the decisions by the  'concil of Nizea' (trinity 
and godlike nature of Jesus).

They spoke Aramaic and used the title 'mahmed' for Jesus, what means 
something like 'the one to be praised'.

The Arabs later conquered that city and kept the believe, which was 
later transferred into a story centred around Arabic sites.
But actually ment was Jesus, who was actually Jewish and belonged to the 
sect of the 'Essener'.

And this Jesus person is assumed to be a prophet, both in Islam and 
Christianity.

Jews don't have this person, since the Tora is mostly the same as the 
Old Testament and that stems from much older times.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272347

From	"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-26 07:05 -0600
Message-ID	<b34t7bt95gspokmgac1hh6q730s28tcjca@4ax.com>
In reply to	#272326

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 04:06:02 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 25.12.2015 21:07, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>> All religion try to catch the attention of some sort of supernatural
>>> being, who created the Universe, the Sun and planet Earth and all there
>>> is (including human beings).
>>>
>>> The Christians use the word 'God', Muslims 'Allah' and Jews 'Yahweh'.
>>
>>       Christians use the name Yahweh and/or Jehovah. The Jews do not
>> use a name since doing so is a violation of their religion.
>>
>>> Now you certainly want 'positive' attention and this is not supposed to
>>> happen, if you kill those, who celebrate his prophet.
>>
>>       Huh? Many of the prophets of Judaism were killed. I'm not aware
>> of any Christian prophets being killed, but I'm not a Biblical
>> scholar.
>>       As I understand Islam, Mohamed, the prophet of Islam, was to have
>> been transported to heaven without dying.
>
>I have read recently, that a Christian sect from what is now Syria had 
>fled to the city Merv in what is now Turkmenistan at the Silk-Road.
>

     Which has what to do with your claim about prophets being killed?

>At that time it was the largest city in the world.
>They were opponents to the decisions by the  'concil of Nizea' (trinity 
>and godlike nature of Jesus).

     Which has what to do with your claim about prophets being killed?

>
>They spoke Aramaic and used the title 'mahmed' for Jesus, what means 
>something like 'the one to be praised'.
>

     Which has what to do with your claim about prophets being killed?

>The Arabs later conquered that city and kept the believe, which was 
>later transferred into a story centred around Arabic sites.
>But actually ment was Jesus, who was actually Jewish and belonged to the 
>sect of the 'Essener'.
>

     Which has what to do with your claim about prophets being killed?

>And this Jesus person is assumed to be a prophet, both in Islam and 
>Christianity.
>

     Most Jews consider Jesus a prophet.
     What does your lack of education have to do with your claim about
prophets being killed?

>Jews don't have this person, since the Tora is mostly the same as the 
>Old Testament and that stems from much older times.

     The Torah consists of only the first five books of the Old
Testament.
     What does your lack of education have to do with your claim about
prophets being killed?
     And how does any of your ranting connect to 9/11?

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272369

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2015-12-26 19:41 +0100
Message-ID	<de85aoF5d8kU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#272347

Am 26.12.2015 14:05, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
..
>> The Arabs later conquered that city and kept the believe, which was
>> later transferred into a story centred around Arabic sites.
>> But actually ment was Jesus, who was actually Jewish and belonged to the
>> sect of the 'Essener'.
>>
>
>       Which has what to do with your claim about prophets being killed?
>
>> And this Jesus person is assumed to be a prophet, both in Islam and
>> Christianity.
>>
>
>       Most Jews consider Jesus a prophet.
>       What does your lack of education have to do with your claim about
> prophets being killed?
>

Didn't you know, that Jesus got killed?

If he was a prophet, he certainly was a killed prophet (and actually 
Jewish).

But the actual topic was not Jesus, but whether or not is a sacred duty 
to kill those, who celebrate his birthday.

I actually don't think, that Jesus was born on a 25th of December, but 
on the other hand, this is not known with certainty. So Christmas could 
be held at this date as well.

Muslims could use other dates for similar purposes, but this would not 
render Christian believes invalid, let alone illegal.

And it's not up to the followers of other believes to decide, what is 
and what isn't the right believe. So Christians keep out of the Koran 
(and related scripts) and what the Muslims believe, while Muslims let 
Christians celebrate Christmas.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272402

From	"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-27 05:25 -0600
Message-ID	<kjiv7bd80b9f1dojck7hko1osq2s4esksf@4ax.com>
In reply to	#272369

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:41:23 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 26.12.2015 14:05, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>..
>>> The Arabs later conquered that city and kept the believe, which was
>>> later transferred into a story centred around Arabic sites.
>>> But actually ment was Jesus, who was actually Jewish and belonged to the
>>> sect of the 'Essener'.
>>>


Note I replaced the following paragraph you snipped away in a pathetic
attempt to avoid the truth. And, just like similar actions of yours in
the past, it has failed. 

Maybe you should try being honest. Your constant lying, then lying to
try and divert attention from your lying, keeps failing.


>>>>       Huh? Many of the prophets of Judaism were killed. I'm not aware
>>>> of any Christian prophets being killed, but I'm not a Biblical
>>>> scholar.


The reason I replaced the above will become clear when I expose your
lying further down.

>>
>>       Which has what to do with your claim about prophets being killed?
>>
>>> And this Jesus person is assumed to be a prophet, both in Islam and
>>> Christianity.
>>
>>       Most Jews consider Jesus a prophet.
>>       What does your lack of education have to do with your claim about
>> prophets being killed?
>
>Didn't you know, that Jesus got killed?
>

     Your avoidance does not answer the question I asked.
     Note above where I wrote, "Many of the prophets of Judaism were
killed." It was in a section you snipped out in a pathetic attempt to
alter the context of my comment.
     I don't understand why you continue to make use of this means of
deception. By now you must realize I'll prove the truth.

>If he was a prophet, he certainly was a killed prophet (and actually 
>Jewish).
>

     "Many of the prophets of Judaism were killed."

>But the actual topic was not Jesus, but whether or not is a sacred duty 
>to kill those, who celebrate his birthday.
>

     No, it's about your LIE that Christian and Muslim prophets were
killed.

>I actually don't think, that Jesus was born on a 25th of December, 

     It's almost assured he wasn't. It would have been too cold for
the shepherds to be out with their animals.
     What does Dec. 25th have to do with your claim about the prophets
of Christianity and Islam being killed?

>but 
>on the other hand, this is not known with certainty. So Christmas could 
>be held at this date as well.
>

     Not only could it be held on the 25th of December, it is!

>Muslims could use other dates for similar purposes, but this would not 
>render Christian believes invalid, let alone illegal.

     You must be really DESPERATE to distract from your claims
regarding the killing of the prophets.

>
>And it's not up to the followers of other believes to decide, what is 
>and what isn't the right believe. So Christians keep out of the Koran 
>(and related scripts) and what the Muslims believe, while Muslims let 
>Christians celebrate Christmas.

     They *let* the Christians celebrate Christmas? I wasn't aware
Islam had such massive authority over the religious activities of
others through the world.
     Oh wait. You're lying in the pathetic and futile attempt to diver
attention from your previous lie.
     Has this ever worked for you? I know it's failed every time
you've tried it with me, but your consistent use suggests it worked at
some point. 

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272434

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2015-12-27 20:25 +0100
Message-ID	<deas9mFpqv7U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#272402

Am 27.12.2015 12:25, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>>
>>>        Which has what to do with your claim about prophets being killed?
>>>
>>>> And this Jesus person is assumed to be a prophet, both in Islam and
>>>> Christianity.
>>>
>>>        Most Jews consider Jesus a prophet.
>>>        What does your lack of education have to do with your claim about
>>> prophets being killed?
>>
>> Didn't you know, that Jesus got killed?
>>
>
>       Your avoidance does not answer the question I asked.
>       Note above where I wrote, "Many of the prophets of Judaism were
> killed." It was in a section you snipped out in a pathetic attempt to
> alter the context of my comment.
>       I don't understand why you continue to make use of this means of
> deception. By now you must realize I'll prove the truth.
>
>> If he was a prophet, he certainly was a killed prophet (and actually
>> Jewish).
>>
>
>       "Many of the prophets of Judaism were killed."

Well, maybe. But actually this was not the subject. The subject was, 
whether or not Muslims have the right from Christians, not to celebrate 
Christmas.

I said: no they don't have this right and much less punish Christians 
for celebrating Christmas.

>> But the actual topic was not Jesus, but whether or not is a sacred duty
>> to kill those, who celebrate his birthday.
>>
>
>       No, it's about your LIE that Christian and Muslim prophets were
> killed.

Where do you see such a lie?

Actually Jesus was a prophet (according to Christian belles) and got 
killed. So there was a prophet (Christians and Muslims believe in) that 
was killed.

>> I actually don't think, that Jesus was born on a 25th of December,
>
>       It's almost assured he wasn't. It would have been too cold for
> the shepherds to be out with their animals.

Well, a few parts of that story could eventually be meant more as a 
metaphor or have been added later.

So we have 365 days to chose from and the Romans decision was, to take 
the 'birthday' of their sungod.

This is a little questionable, but not such a bad move, since it helped 
much to promote Christianity.


>       What does Dec. 25th have to do with your claim about the prophets
> of Christianity and Islam being killed?
>
>> but
>> on the other hand, this is not known with certainty. So Christmas could
>> be held at this date as well.
>>
>
>       Not only could it be held on the 25th of December, it is!
>

What exactly do you try to say?

Yes, Christmas is celebrated on 25th of December.

But only the Catholic Christians do that and the Protestants, which 
split of from Catholicism.

But orthodox Christians don't do that and celebrate Christmas on 6th of 
January.

>> Muslims could use other dates for similar purposes, but this would not
>> render Christian believes invalid, let alone illegal.
>
>       You must be really DESPERATE to distract from your claims
> regarding the killing of the prophets.
>


What has your (silly!) statement to do with the question, whether or not 
and when Muslims celebrate the Islamic equivalent to Christmas?

>> And it's not up to the followers of other believes to decide, what is
>> and what isn't the right believe. So Christians keep out of the Koran
>> (and related scripts) and what the Muslims believe, while Muslims let
>> Christians celebrate Christmas.
>
>       They *let* the Christians celebrate Christmas? I wasn't aware
> Islam had such massive authority over the religious activities of
> others through the world.

The HAVE authority in their realm. And pretend to have in other regions, 
they attempt to control (like e.g. Syria).

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272458 — Re: What we have is Liberals and Blacks violating the Religious rights of some religion that they don't like.... You know like bigots do.

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2015-12-28 06:44 +0100
Subject	Re: What we have is Liberals and Blacks violating the Religious rights of some religion that they don't like.... You know like bigots do.
Message-ID	<dec0ifF3dnjU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#272434

Am 27.12.2015 20:25, schrieb Thomas Heger:
...
>>> Muslims could use other dates for similar purposes, but this would not
>>> render Christian believes invalid, let alone illegal.
>>
>> You must be really DESPERATE to distract from your claims
>> regarding the killing of the prophets.
>>
>
>
> What has your (silly!) statement to do with the question, whether or not
> and when Muslims celebrate the Islamic equivalent to Christmas?
>
>>> And it's not up to the followers of other believes to decide, what is
>>> and what isn't the right believe. So Christians keep out of the Koran
>>> (and related scripts) and what the Muslims believe, while Muslims let
>>> Christians celebrate Christmas.
>>
>> They *let* the Christians celebrate Christmas? I wasn't aware
>> Islam had such massive authority over the religious activities of
>> others through the world.
>
> The HAVE authority in their realm. And pretend to have in other regions,
> they attempt to control (like e.g. Syria).
>

You certainly see the problem:

do have political leaders the right to forbid Christians to celebrate 
Christmas (in their states, with other majority religion)?

I would say: no, they don't have such a right.

First: the majority of people does not decide over the minority religion.

Second: let's assume the monotheistic hypothesis is in fact true, than 
prosecution of the celebration of the birthday of a prophet would be  an 
insult to such a supernatural being.

This is true, even if the specific details of a certain believe are not 
exactly correct, since it's not up to the Muslims to decide, when to 
celebrate the Birthday of Jesus.

The Christians (on the other hand) will not interfere in equivalent 
celebrations of the birthday of Mohammed (even if Muslims are a minority 
in Christian nations).

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272481

From	"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-28 03:58 -0600
Message-ID	<k7p18b90e9r697uueobcd388r91v8f1aim@4ax.com>
In reply to	#272434

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 20:25:37 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 27.12.2015 12:25, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>
>>>>        Which has what to do with your claim about prophets being killed?
>>>>
>>>>> And this Jesus person is assumed to be a prophet, both in Islam and
>>>>> Christianity.
>>>>
>>>>        Most Jews consider Jesus a prophet.
>>>>        What does your lack of education have to do with your claim about
>>>> prophets being killed?
>>>
>>> Didn't you know, that Jesus got killed?
>>>
>>
>>       Your avoidance does not answer the question I asked.
>>       Note above where I wrote, "Many of the prophets of Judaism were
>> killed." It was in a section you snipped out in a pathetic attempt to
>> alter the context of my comment.
>>       I don't understand why you continue to make use of this means of
>> deception. By now you must realize I'll prove the truth.
>>
>>> If he was a prophet, he certainly was a killed prophet (and actually
>>> Jewish).
>>>
>>
>>       "Many of the prophets of Judaism were killed."
>
>Well, maybe. But actually this was not the subject. The subject was, 
>whether or not Muslims have the right from Christians, not to celebrate 
>Christmas.
>

     At no time has this been the subject. Your lying is not helping
you.

>I said: no they don't have this right and much less punish Christians 
>for celebrating Christmas.
>
>>> But the actual topic was not Jesus, but whether or not is a sacred duty
>>> to kill those, who celebrate his birthday.
>>
>>       No, it's about your LIE that Christian and Muslim prophets were
>> killed.
>
>Where do you see such a lie?
>

     From your posts.

>Actually Jesus was a prophet (according to Christian belles) 

     Good for him.

>and got 
>killed. So there was a prophet (Christians and Muslims believe in) that 
>was killed.
>

     Christianity does not believe Jesus was a prophet. They believe
he was the Messiah.

>>> I actually don't think, that Jesus was born on a 25th of December,
>>
>>       It's almost assured he wasn't. It would have been too cold for
>> the shepherds to be out with their animals.
>
>Well, a few parts of that story could eventually be meant more as a 
>metaphor or have been added later.
>
>So we have 365 days to chose from and the Romans decision was, to take 
>the 'birthday' of their sungod.
>
>This is a little questionable, but not such a bad move, since it helped 
>much to promote Christianity.

     It's far more plausible that Jesus would have been born in late
September or early October. Censuses were performed around that time,
and the shepherds would have been in the field with their animals at
such a time.

>
>>       What does Dec. 25th have to do with your claim about the prophets
>> of Christianity and Islam being killed?
>>
>>> but
>>> on the other hand, this is not known with certainty. So Christmas could
>>> be held at this date as well.
>>
>>       Not only could it be held on the 25th of December, it is!
>
>What exactly do you try to say?
>
>Yes, Christmas is celebrated on 25th of December.
>

     Above you stated, "...Christmas COULD be held..." (emphasis
added)
     Do you not remember what you posted less than a day earlier?

>But only the Catholic Christians do that and the Protestants, which 
>split of from Catholicism.
>
>But orthodox Christians don't do that and celebrate Christmas on 6th of 
>January.
>

     Still not the date of Jesus' birth. 

>>> Muslims could use other dates for similar purposes, but this would not
>>> render Christian believes invalid, let alone illegal.
>>
>>       You must be really DESPERATE to distract from your claims
>> regarding the killing of the prophets.
>
>
>What has your (silly!) statement to do with the question, whether or not 
>and when Muslims celebrate the Islamic equivalent to Christmas?
>

     You're the one DESPERATE to divert attention from your earlier
claim. 

>>> And it's not up to the followers of other believes to decide, what is
>>> and what isn't the right believe. So Christians keep out of the Koran
>>> (and related scripts) and what the Muslims believe, while Muslims let
>>> Christians celebrate Christmas.
>>
>>       They *let* the Christians celebrate Christmas? I wasn't aware
>> Islam had such massive authority over the religious activities of
>> others through the world.
>
>The HAVE authority in their realm. And pretend to have in other regions, 
>they attempt to control (like e.g. Syria).

     And? How do you propose they stop anyone, anywhere, from
celebrating whatever people want?
     And what does any of it have to do with your earlier claim of
prophets being killed?
     Yes, I keep bring back the claim you made that you want to
distance yourself from.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272824

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2016-01-02 07:12 +0100
Message-ID	<dep82fFe28cU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#272481

Am 28.12.2015 10:58, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 20:25:37 +0100, Thomas Heger<ttt_heg@web.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Am 27.12.2015 12:25, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         Which has what to do with your claim about prophets being killed?
>>>>>
>>>>>> And this Jesus person is assumed to be a prophet, both in Islam and
>>>>>> Christianity.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Most Jews consider Jesus a prophet.
>>>>>         What does your lack of education have to do with your claim about
>>>>> prophets being killed?
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you know, that Jesus got killed?
>>>>
>>>
>>>        Your avoidance does not answer the question I asked.
>>>        Note above where I wrote, "Many of the prophets of Judaism were
>>> killed." It was in a section you snipped out in a pathetic attempt to
>>> alter the context of my comment.
>>>        I don't understand why you continue to make use of this means of
>>> deception. By now you must realize I'll prove the truth.
>>>
>>>> If he was a prophet, he certainly was a killed prophet (and actually
>>>> Jewish).
>>>>
>>>
>>>        "Many of the prophets of Judaism were killed."
>>
>> Well, maybe. But actually this was not the subject. The subject was,
>> whether or not Muslims have the right from Christians, not to celebrate
>> Christmas.
>>
>
>       At no time has this been the subject. Your lying is not helping
> you.
>
>> I said: no they don't have this right and much less punish Christians
>> for celebrating Christmas.
>>
>>>> But the actual topic was not Jesus, but whether or not is a sacred duty
>>>> to kill those, who celebrate his birthday.
>>>
>>>        No, it's about your LIE that Christian and Muslim prophets were
>>> killed.
>>
>> Where do you see such a lie?
>>
>
>        From your posts.
>
>> Actually Jesus was a prophet (according to Christian belles)
>
>       Good for him.
>
>> and got
>> killed. So there was a prophet (Christians and Muslims believe in) that
>> was killed.
>>
>
>       Christianity does not believe Jesus was a prophet. They believe
> he was the Messiah.

'Christianity' is not a single well defined religion, but a set of 
different, but mainly similar believes.

So I take the very early Christians as prime representatives for 
Christianity. These have settled (mainly) in what is now Syria.

But also some lived in ancient Rome, Greece and other places.

This was well before the reforms of Emperor Konstantin, the Council of 
Nicea and other changes.

Unfortunately this believe is not well documented.

But the early Christians had to flee from Syria. And some created a 
sect, from what later the Islam emerged.

So we could think, that 'Jesus' and 'Mohammed' mean actually the same 
person and that was a prophet - at least for the Muslims.

The Romans deified Jesus and declared a new form valid called 
'trinitarian'. This was against the believe of the early Christians, 
which had a real human being in mind.

The Catholics went in the opposite direction.

The Romans merged Zoroastrianism into the Christian believe. But this 
does not stem from Christian tradition, but from Assyrian and Persian.

>>>> I actually don't think, that Jesus was born on a 25th of December,
>>>
>>>        It's almost assured he wasn't. It would have been too cold for
>>> the shepherds to be out with their animals.
>>
>> Well, a few parts of that story could eventually be meant more as a
>> metaphor or have been added later.
>>
>> So we have 365 days to chose from and the Romans decision was, to take
>> the 'birthday' of their sungod.
>>
>> This is a little questionable, but not such a bad move, since it helped
>> much to promote Christianity.
>
>       It's far more plausible that Jesus would have been born in late
> September or early October. Censuses were performed around that time,
> and the shepherds would have been in the field with their animals at
> such a time.

Well, maybe this is a plausible assumption. But 'we don't know' is even 
more plausible.
..

>> But orthodox Christians don't do that and celebrate Christmas on 6th of
>> January.
>>
>
>       Still not the date of Jesus' birth.

Actually there is no proof, this day is wrong. So orthodox may take the 
6th of January and most other Christians 25th of December.

But you could take any other day as well.
Which one is a question of believe.

>>>> Muslims could use other dates for similar purposes, but this would not
>>>> render Christian believes invalid, let alone illegal.
>>>
>>>        You must be really DESPERATE to distract from your claims
>>> regarding the killing of the prophets.

We should at least agree on Jesus as a prophet and getting killed.

About other prophets I have no knowledge.
..

>>>        They *let* the Christians celebrate Christmas? I wasn't aware
>>> Islam had such massive authority over the religious activities of
>>> others through the world.
>>
>> The HAVE authority in their realm. And pretend to have in other regions,
>> they attempt to control (like e.g. Syria).
>
>       And? How do you propose they stop anyone, anywhere, from
> celebrating whatever people want?

There are three nations, where the celebration of Christmas is a legal 
crime. The political powers of these nations enforce their laws by usual 
methods: police, military, prisons or other sanctions.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272846

From	"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date	2016-01-02 06:07 -0600
Message-ID	<b8ff8bpo47krop5n5dvodpl3olsqfkkr2q@4ax.com>
In reply to	#272824

On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 07:12:26 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 28.12.2015 10:58, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 20:25:37 +0100, Thomas Heger<ttt_heg@web.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 27.12.2015 12:25, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>>>
>>>>>>         Which has what to do with your claim about prophets being killed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this Jesus person is assumed to be a prophet, both in Islam and
>>>>>>> Christianity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Most Jews consider Jesus a prophet.
>>>>>>         What does your lack of education have to do with your claim about
>>>>>> prophets being killed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't you know, that Jesus got killed?
>>>>
>>>>        Your avoidance does not answer the question I asked.
>>>>        Note above where I wrote, "Many of the prophets of Judaism were
>>>> killed." It was in a section you snipped out in a pathetic attempt to
>>>> alter the context of my comment.
>>>>        I don't understand why you continue to make use of this means of
>>>> deception. By now you must realize I'll prove the truth.
>>>>
>>>>> If he was a prophet, he certainly was a killed prophet (and actually
>>>>> Jewish).
>>>>
>>>>        "Many of the prophets of Judaism were killed."
>>>
>>> Well, maybe. But actually this was not the subject. The subject was,
>>> whether or not Muslims have the right from Christians, not to celebrate
>>> Christmas.
>>
>>       At no time has this been the subject. Your lying is not helping
>> you.
>>
>>> I said: no they don't have this right and much less punish Christians
>>> for celebrating Christmas.
>>>
>>>>> But the actual topic was not Jesus, but whether or not is a sacred duty
>>>>> to kill those, who celebrate his birthday.
>>>>
>>>>        No, it's about your LIE that Christian and Muslim prophets were
>>>> killed.
>>>
>>> Where do you see such a lie?
>>
>>        From your posts.
>>
>>> Actually Jesus was a prophet (according to Christian belles)
>>
>>       Good for him.
>>
>>> and got
>>> killed. So there was a prophet (Christians and Muslims believe in) that
>>> was killed.
>>
>>       Christianity does not believe Jesus was a prophet. They believe
>> he was the Messiah.
>
>
>'Christianity' is not a single well defined religion, but a set of 
>different, but mainly similar believes.
>

     Not so. There are many denominations, but that's a style of
worship, not different religions.
    The core belief of any Christian is that Jesus is the Messiah.

>So I take the very early Christians as prime representatives for 
>Christianity. These have settled (mainly) in what is now Syria.
>
>But also some lived in ancient Rome, Greece and other places.
>

     All over the known, to them, world of the time. Yes.

>This was well before the reforms of Emperor Konstantin, the Council of 
>Nicea and other changes.
>
>Unfortunately this believe is not well documented.

     Emperor Constantine did exist. There is more than enough
documentation of this. The same with the Council of Nicea.

>
>But the early Christians had to flee from Syria. And some created a 
>sect, from what later the Islam emerged.

     Nope. Islam did not come from Christianity.

>
>So we could think, that 'Jesus' and 'Mohammed' mean actually the same 
>person and that was a prophet - at least for the Muslims.
>

     The religion of Islam recognized Jesus as a prophet, yes. But he
had long died before Mohammed was born. By roughly 600 years. This
makes your claim about them meaning the same person impossible.

>The Romans deified Jesus and declared a new form valid called 
>'trinitarian'. This was against the believe of the early Christians, 
>which had a real human being in mind.

     Some. And some still do.
     I don't understand how they can hold this view, since it's in
violation of their own Holy book. 

>
>The Catholics went in the opposite direction.
>
>The Romans merged Zoroastrianism into the Christian believe. But this 
>does not stem from Christian tradition, but from Assyrian and Persian.

     What Assyrian and/or Persian mythos allows for a single god, and
that god having come to earth, then sacrificing himself to himself?
I'm not aware of any, but it is possible some such beliefs do exist.

>
>>>>> I actually don't think, that Jesus was born on a 25th of December,
>>>>
>>>>        It's almost assured he wasn't. It would have been too cold for
>>>> the shepherds to be out with their animals.
>>>
>>> Well, a few parts of that story could eventually be meant more as a
>>> metaphor or have been added later.
>>>
>>> So we have 365 days to chose from and the Romans decision was, to take
>>> the 'birthday' of their sungod.
>>>
>>> This is a little questionable, but not such a bad move, since it helped
>>> much to promote Christianity.
>>
>>       It's far more plausible that Jesus would have been born in late
>> September or early October. Censuses were performed around that time,
>> and the shepherds would have been in the field with their animals at
>> such a time.
>
>Well, maybe this is a plausible assumption. But 'we don't know' is even 
>more plausible.

     We do know it's more plausible. 
     What we do not know is if this is actually the case. It's
certainly *possible* the census was held in the spring, or summer
during the year Jesus was born. This would be odd, but not impossible.
     I would expect there to have been some record of the time of the
census being changed to have been made.

>..
>
>>> But orthodox Christians don't do that and celebrate Christmas on 6th of
>>> January.
>>
>>       Still not the date of Jesus' birth.
>
>Actually there is no proof, this day is wrong. So orthodox may take the 
>6th of January and most other Christians 25th of December.
>

     There is a one in 365 chance of it being the date. Those odds
alone make it *statistically* impossible. Add that we have items from
the Bible showing it wouldn't have been December 25th or January 6th,
and it's almost 100% assured it wasn't.

>But you could take any other day as well.
>Which one is a question of believe.
>

     Most Christians tend to celebrate the birth of Jesus on December
25th, though it's not exclusive This is simply the date chosen for the
celebration.
     Your attempt to make this mean Jesus was born on December 25th,
while not impossible, it's not very realistic.

>>>>> Muslims could use other dates for similar purposes, but this would not
>>>>> render Christian believes invalid, let alone illegal.
>>>>
>>>>        You must be really DESPERATE to distract from your claims
>>>> regarding the killing of the prophets.
>
>
>We should at least agree on Jesus as a prophet and getting killed.
>

     We can't actually know that he existed. Sure, there is some
extra-biblical writings about a man who existed at the time who did
some of what Jesus has been credited as doing. Nothing miraculous has
been documented outside of the Bible, but a leader of a small band of
"trouble makers" did exist.

>About other prophets I have no knowledge.

     You appear to have nearly no knowledge of Jesus. That's not meant
as an insult, though it may appear as one. It's an accurate comment
based on your posts on the matter.

>..
>
>>>>        They *let* the Christians celebrate Christmas? I wasn't aware
>>>> Islam had such massive authority over the religious activities of
>>>> others through the world.
>>>
>>> The HAVE authority in their realm. And pretend to have in other regions,
>>> they attempt to control (like e.g. Syria).
>>
>>       And? How do you propose they stop anyone, anywhere, from
>> celebrating whatever people want?
>
>There are three nations, where the celebration of Christmas is a legal 
>crime. 

     There are more than three. I know of Pakistan, North Korea,
Bahrain, Iraq, Brunei, Somalia and Tajikistan. While not illegal under
Saudi Arabia's Constitution, Sharia law makes it illegal.
     It is possible there are more, though I don't have any personal
knowledge.

>The political powers of these nations enforce their laws by usual 
>methods: police, military, prisons or other sanctions.

     If people are willing to accept the legal ramifications, they can
celebrate.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272974

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2016-01-03 20:37 +0100
Message-ID	<detbkpFg347U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#272846

Am 02.01.2016 13:07, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
..
>>>
>>>> Actually Jesus was a prophet (according to Christian believes)
>>>
>>>        Good for him.
>>>
>>>> and got
>>>> killed. So there was a prophet (Christians and Muslims believe in) that
>>>> was killed.
>>>
>>>        Christianity does not believe Jesus was a prophet. They believe
>>> he was the Messiah.
>>
>>
>> 'Christianity' is not a single well defined religion, but a set of
>> different, but mainly similar believes.
>>
>
>       Not so. There are many denominations, but that's a style of
> worship, not different religions.
>      The core belief of any Christian is that Jesus is the Messiah.
>
>> So I take the very early Christians as prime representatives for
>> Christianity. These have settled (mainly) in what is now Syria.
>>
>> But also some lived in ancient Rome, Greece and other places.
>>
>
>       All over the known, to them, world of the time. Yes.
>
>> This was well before the reforms of Emperor Konstantin, the Council of
>> Nicea and other changes.
>>
>> Unfortunately this believe is not well documented.
>
>       Emperor Constantine did exist. There is more than enough
> documentation of this. The same with the Council of Nicea.
>
>>
>> But the early Christians had to flee from Syria. And some created a
>> sect, from what later the Islam emerged.
>
>       Nope. Islam did not come from Christianity.
>
What I have read recently was this:

a sect of early Christians from Syria opposed the Council of Nicea and 
had to flee.

They went to the City Merv in what is now Turkmenistan. This city was 
one of the largest cities of its time and belonged to the 'silk-road'.

There these Christians formed their believe system. This was mainly 
monotheistic. They spoke Aramaic and their title for Jesus was 'Mahmed', 
what means 'the one to be praised'.

The city was later occupied by the Saracens and they kept, would they 
though to be useful. Among this were the secret sripts of this sect.

The Arabs changed the story a little bit and centred it around Arabic 
places. And they made 'Mohammed' from 'Mahmed'. This is easy in Aramaic, 
since the language was written without vocals.

In the ninth century the than new religion was codified into the new 
form of Islam, what was actually Arabic, but derived from early 
Christian sources.

>> So we could think, that 'Jesus' and 'Mohammed' mean actually the same
>> person and that was a prophet - at least for the Muslims.
>>
>
>       The religion of Islam recognized Jesus as a prophet, yes. But he
> had long died before Mohammed was born. By roughly 600 years. This
> makes your claim about them meaning the same person impossible.

Would be impossible, if the biblical text is a real fact. But this is 
certainly not the case, since quite a few biblical statements turned out 
to be wrong (in the view of current science).

So we would need to see such scripts a more 'symbolic' and as an attempt 
to transport certain religious ideas (and not as scientific record of 
events).



>> The Romans deified Jesus and declared a new form valid called
>> 'trinitarian'. This was against the believe of the early Christians,
>> which had a real human being in mind.
>
>       Some. And some still do.
>       I don't understand how they can hold this view, since it's in
> violation of their own Holy book.


This was NOT '.. their own holy book', since our bible stems from the 
Romans and the sect mentioned above opposed these interpretations.
They had other holy books and these have been lost, since that city Merv 
was destroyed and later completely wiped out by the Mongols.
..


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272999

From	"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date	2016-01-03 15:30 -0600
Message-ID	<0o4j8b5moug9nvm2mndsida16c6tarm89q@4ax.com>
In reply to	#272974

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 20:37:54 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 02.01.2016 13:07, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>..
>>>>
>>>>> Actually Jesus was a prophet (according to Christian believes)
>>>>
>>>>        Good for him.
>>>>
>>>>> and got
>>>>> killed. So there was a prophet (Christians and Muslims believe in) that
>>>>> was killed.
>>>>
>>>>        Christianity does not believe Jesus was a prophet. They believe
>>>> he was the Messiah.
>>>
>>> 'Christianity' is not a single well defined religion, but a set of
>>> different, but mainly similar believes.
>>
>>       Not so. There are many denominations, but that's a style of
>> worship, not different religions.
>>      The core belief of any Christian is that Jesus is the Messiah.
>>


Thomas?


>>> So I take the very early Christians as prime representatives for
>>> Christianity. These have settled (mainly) in what is now Syria.
>>>
>>> But also some lived in ancient Rome, Greece and other places.
>>
>>       All over the known, to them, world of the time. Yes.
>>


Thomas?


>>> This was well before the reforms of Emperor Konstantin, the Council of
>>> Nicea and other changes.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately this believe is not well documented.
>>
>>       Emperor Constantine did exist. There is more than enough
>> documentation of this. The same with the Council of Nicea.
>>


Thomas?


>>> But the early Christians had to flee from Syria. And some created a
>>> sect, from what later the Islam emerged.
>>
>>       Nope. Islam did not come from Christianity.
>>
>What I have read recently was this:
>
>a sect of early Christians from Syria opposed the Council of Nicea and 
>had to flee.
>

     Do you believe the Gnostic were the originators of Islam? Really?
     You must, since they are the ones to whom you reference. But you
have a problem. The Gnostics' belief is not compatible with the
beliefs of Islam. If you'd like, I will detail some of them. But I
expect you to snip away this part of my post.

>They went to the City Merv in what is now Turkmenistan. This city was 
>one of the largest cities of its time and belonged to the 'silk-road'.
>
>There these Christians formed their believe system. This was mainly 
>monotheistic. They spoke Aramaic and their title for Jesus was 'Mahmed', 
>what means 'the one to be praised'.
>

     While similar to Mohamed's name, they're not the same.

>The city was later occupied by the Saracens and they kept, would they 
>though to be useful. Among this were the secret sripts of this sect.
>
>The Arabs changed the story a little bit and centred it around Arabic 
>places. And they made 'Mohammed' from 'Mahmed'. 

     Uh, no. Mohamed was not the name of Jesus.

>This is easy in Aramaic, 
>since the language was written without vocals.

     And?
     Jesus is said to have spoken Aramaic. And it's likely he did.
Mohammed would have spoken Arabic, which is a sister language. If the
two had met, they likely would have been able to hold a conversation.
The context of anything said by one would probably have been
understood by the other, even if some of the individual words weren't.

>
>In the ninth century the than new religion was codified into the new 
>form of Islam, what was actually Arabic, but derived from early 
>Christian sources.

     You can make up anything you wish. You can even claim that two
different names that are similar are the same, if you need to. But I
will expose the deception you present.
     I'm honestly surprised you haven't yet figured this out.

>
>>> So we could think, that 'Jesus' and 'Mohammed' mean actually the same
>>> person and that was a prophet - at least for the Muslims.
>>
>>       The religion of Islam recognized Jesus as a prophet, yes. But he
>> had long died before Mohammed was born. By roughly 600 years. This
>> makes your claim about them meaning the same person impossible.
>
>Would be impossible, if the biblical text is a real fact. 

     Jesus is said to have died around the year 26 by our current
calendar. Mohammed was born in the year 570. Again, using our current
calendar.
     I admit my earlier claim of about 600 years was and is wrong. 544
years will be a much more accurate number. Though without knowing the
actual year Jesus was to have died, it can't be seen as absolute.

>But this is 
>certainly not the case, since quite a few biblical statements turned out 
>to be wrong (in the view of current science).

     Which has no bearing on when either was alive.

>
>So we would need to see such scripts a more 'symbolic' and as an attempt 
>to transport certain religious ideas (and not as scientific record of 
>events).

     Ah, so we can just pick whatever we want.
     Well, I say Mohammed was born in 2187 BCE. And you'll agree since
you've made it clear actual historical records do not factor into the
discussion.

     In reality, which I know you hate, we can get a very close range
of the years of Jesus' birth and death. We know from both the Bible
and extra Biblical documents that King Herod died in 4 BCE. Jesus was
born at some point before that.
     The book of Mathew records that King Herod ordered the death of
all males two years of age and under. This allows a range of 6 BCE to
4 BCE for the year Jesus was to have been born.
     Mohammed was born on the 12th of Rabi al-Awal of the Year of the
Elephant. By our current calendar, this date is June 8, 570 CE.
     Nothing the least bit symbolic there.

>
>>> The Romans deified Jesus and declared a new form valid called
>>> 'trinitarian'. This was against the believe of the early Christians,
>>> which had a real human being in mind.
>>
>>       Some. And some still do.
>>       I don't understand how they can hold this view, since it's in
>> violation of their own Holy book.
>
>
>This was NOT '.. their own holy book', 

     The holy book of the Christians is the Bible. You may deny this
truth as often as you wish, but it will not change.

>since our bible stems from the 
>Romans and the sect mentioned above opposed these interpretations.

     Which does not alter that the Bible is the holy book of
Christianity.

>They had other holy books and these have been lost, since that city Merv 
>was destroyed and later completely wiped out by the Mongols.

     And yet, the Bible, the holy book for the practitioners of
Christianity, still exists
     Odd that.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#273251

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2016-01-08 07:25 +0100
Message-ID	<df933fFfn9eU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#272999

Am 03.01.2016 22:30, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
..
>>>> But the early Christians had to flee from Syria. And some created a
>>>> sect, from what later the Islam emerged.
>>>
>>>        Nope. Islam did not come from Christianity.
>>>
>> What I have read recently was this:
>>
>> a sect of early Christians from Syria opposed the Council of Nicea and
>> had to flee.
>>
>
>       Do you believe the Gnostic were the originators of Islam? Really?
>       You must, since they are the ones to whom you reference. But you
> have a problem. The Gnostics' belief is not compatible with the
> beliefs of Islam. If you'd like, I will detail some of them. But I
> expect you to snip away this part of my post.

No.

I try to answer.

The Islam stems from Arabic countries.

But the Arabs had acquired their knowledge from a Christian sect, who 
settled in the city Merv, after this city was occupied by the Saracens.

This sect was build by refugees from the area, what is today Syria. They 
had to flee from their own area, because they opposed the decisions of 
the Council of Nicea. Their former hometowns do still exist today in 
some regions of Syria (as 'ghost-towns').

How they called themselves I cannot tell, since I don't know.


>> They went to the City Merv in what is now Turkmenistan. This city was
>> one of the largest cities of its time and belonged to the 'silk-road'.
>>
>> There these Christians formed their believe system. This was mainly
>> monotheistic. They spoke Aramaic and their title for Jesus was 'Mahmed',
>> what means 'the one to be praised'.
>>
>
>       While similar to Mohamed's name, they're not the same.


The *CHRISTIANS* used 'mahmed' as title for Jesus.

The Arabs have 'arabified' this title to the name 'Mohammed'.

So: in effect 'Jesus' and 'Mohammed' address the same person (whoms real 
name is unknown).

'Jesus' is actually modern version of Latin 'Iesus' and the 'real guy' 
spoke (most likely) Aramaic and had a name in Aramaic.

>> The city was later occupied by the Saracens and they kept, would they
>> though to be useful. Among this were the secret sripts of this sect.
>>
>> The Arabs changed the story a little bit and centred it around Arabic
>> places. And they made 'Mohammed' from 'Mahmed'.
>
>       Uh, no. Mohamed was not the name of Jesus.


See above.

The words and their content are different things.

Here we have the name of a single, living, real person (at his time), 
who had a real Aramaic name (that is unknown).

This specific person is believed to be a prophet. Around this believe 
have developed certain religions  (mainly: Christianity).

Now the Arabs wanted their own prophet and took their knowledge from 
this sect in Merv, who actually meant the same person 'Jesus' means.

But since 'Jesus' is Latin and this sect spoke Aramaic (what is quite 
close to Arabic), they didn't need to change much. They simply 
translated the scrolls of this sect into Arabic and with it 'Mahmed' to 
'Mohammed' (since this is a name and 'Mahmed' not).

>> This is easy in Aramaic,
>> since the language was written without vocals.
>
>       And?
>       Jesus is said to have spoken Aramaic. And it's likely he did.

> Mohammed would have spoken Arabic, which is a sister language. If the
> two had met, they likely would have been able to hold a conversation.

Especially if they are one and the same person.

..

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#273265

From	"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date	2016-01-08 05:59 -0600
Message-ID	<gv8v8bp87umipinrqgp7c860b1cnn3ujhv@4ax.com>
In reply to	#273251

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 07:25:49 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 03.01.2016 22:30, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>..
>>>>> But the early Christians had to flee from Syria. And some created a
>>>>> sect, from what later the Islam emerged.
>>>>
>>>>        Nope. Islam did not come from Christianity.
>>>>
>>> What I have read recently was this:
>>>
>>> a sect of early Christians from Syria opposed the Council of Nicea and
>>> had to flee.
>>>
>>
>>       Do you believe the Gnostic were the originators of Islam? Really?
>>       You must, since they are the ones to whom you reference. But you
>> have a problem. The Gnostics' belief is not compatible with the
>> beliefs of Islam. If you'd like, I will detail some of them. But I
>> expect you to snip away this part of my post.
>
>No.
>
>I try to answer.
>
>The Islam stems from Arabic countries.
>

     "a sect of early Christians from Syria opposed the Council of
Nicea and had to flee."
     -- You. (I even left in the typo wherein you forgot to
capitalize.)
     The people you reference were the Gnostics. Either you're
claiming the Gnostics founded Islam, or, well, there really is no
other option available to you.

>But the Arabs had acquired their knowledge from a Christian sect, who 
>settled in the city Merv, after this city was occupied by the Saracens.
>
>This sect was build by refugees from the area, what is today Syria. They 
>had to flee from their own area, because they opposed the decisions of 
>the Council of Nicea. Their former hometowns do still exist today in 
>some regions of Syria (as 'ghost-towns').
>
>How they called themselves I cannot tell, since I don't know.
>

     You reference the Gnostics, but assign them behavior they did not
engage in.

>
>>> They went to the City Merv in what is now Turkmenistan. This city was
>>> one of the largest cities of its time and belonged to the 'silk-road'.
>>>
>>> There these Christians formed their believe system. This was mainly
>>> monotheistic. They spoke Aramaic and their title for Jesus was 'Mahmed',
>>> what means 'the one to be praised'.
>>
>>       While similar to Mohamed's name, they're not the same.
>
>The *CHRISTIANS* used Iesusas title for Jesus.
>

     Nope. I can't find any reference to Iesusas.
     Maybe you spelled it wrong?

>The Arabs have 'arabified' this title to the name 'Mohammed'.
>

     Nope. Mohammed was a real person. There was no need to alter his
name.

>So: in effect 'Jesus' and 'Mohammed' address the same person (whoms real 
>name is unknown).
>

     If Jesus did exist, the romanized spelling of the Aramaic would
be Eesa. In Greek it will be Iesus. In Latin it's Iesu. It's clear the
modern spelling of Jesus came by way of the Greek.
     What's more, the Arabic name for Jesus is also Eesa.
     There is no possible way to get Mohamed from that.

>'Jesus' is actually modern version of Latin 'Iesus' and the 'real guy' 
>spoke (most likely) Aramaic and had a name in Aramaic.
>

     Yes. Since I am not able to write in Aramaic (there's likely a
web site that could translate, but that's more work than I am willing
to invest) the romanized spelling is Eesa. 

>>> The city was later occupied by the Saracens and they kept, would they
>>> though to be useful. Among this were the secret sripts of this sect.
>>>
>>> The Arabs changed the story a little bit and centred it around Arabic
>>> places. And they made 'Mohammed' from 'Mahmed'.
>>
>>       Uh, no. Mohamed was not the name of Jesus.
>
>See above.
>

     Wherein I prove you wrong? Again?
     Sure.

>The words and their content are different things.
>

     So now you take the position that Mohamed was not the name of
Jesus. Good.

>Here we have the name of a single, living, real person (at his time), 
>who had a real Aramaic name (that is unknown).
>

     We do know. If Jesus did exist, and there is evidence to support
such a person did (though the extra-biblical documentation for his
raising the dead, turning water into whine, and healing people with
just a touch, is wanting), his name was Eesa.

>This specific person is believed to be a prophet. Around this believe 
>have developed certain religions  (mainly: Christianity).

     Christianity believes Jesus to be the Messiah. It's the core of
the religion's mythos.
     Judaism and Islam both believe Jesus was a prophet.

>
>Now the Arabs wanted their own prophet and took their knowledge from 
>this sect in Merv, who actually meant the same person 'Jesus' means.
>

     Nope. Mohammed was born roughly 600 years after Jesus died. There
is no possible way for them to be the same person. Unless you're
claiming reincarnation. I don't think you are.

>But since 'Jesus' is Latin 

     No, it's not. It is the romanized spelling of the Greek, Iesus.

>and this sect spoke Aramaic (what is quite close to Arabic), 

     Close enough that two people speaking to each other would
understand the context of the conversation, even if individual words
were not.

>they didn't need to change much. They simply 
>translated the scrolls of this sect into Arabic and with it 'Mahmed' to 
>'Mohammed' (since this is a name and 'Mahmed' not).
>

     There is no evidence this ever occurred. 

>>> This is easy in Aramaic,
>>> since the language was written without vocals.
>>
>>       And?
>>       Jesus is said to have spoken Aramaic. And it's likely he did.
>
>> Mohammed would have spoken Arabic, which is a sister language. If the
>> two had met, they likely would have been able to hold a conversation.
>
>Especially if they are one and the same person.
>

     Which, I have already proved, they were and are not.
     You dishonestly snipped away where I pointed out the time range
for the death of Jesus and the date of Mohammed's birth. While we
can't know the specific year of Jesus' death, to think he lived until
632 CE (by our modern calendar) is foolish.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#273292

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2016-01-09 10:53 +0100
Message-ID	<dfc3l6F8dt9U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#273265

Am 08.01.2016 12:59, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
...
>
>       "a sect of early Christians from Syria opposed the Council of
> Nicea and had to flee."
>       -- You. (I even left in the typo wherein you forgot to
> capitalize.)
>       The people you reference were the Gnostics. Either you're
> claiming the Gnostics founded Islam, or, well, there really is no
> other option available to you.
>
>> But the Arabs had acquired their knowledge from a Christian sect, who
>> settled in the city Merv, after this city was occupied by the Saracens.
>>
>> This sect was build by refugees from the area, what is today Syria. They
>> had to flee from their own area, because they opposed the decisions of
>> the Council of Nicea. Their former hometowns do still exist today in
>> some regions of Syria (as 'ghost-towns').
>>
>> How they called themselves I cannot tell, since I don't know.
>>
>
>       You reference the Gnostics, but assign them behavior they did not
> engage in.


Since 'I don't know' is actually true, I cannot tell you, whether or not 
these people have called themselves 'gnostics'.

But I would assume, since they spoke Aramaic, they had a different name.

>>
>>>> They went to the City Merv in what is now Turkmenistan. This city was
>>>> one of the largest cities of its time and belonged to the 'silk-road'.
>>>>
>>>> There these Christians formed their believe system. This was mainly
>>>> monotheistic. They spoke Aramaic and their title for Jesus was 'Mahmed',
>>>> what means 'the one to be praised'.
>>>
>>>        While similar to Mohamed's name, they're not the same.
>>
>> The *CHRISTIANS* used Iesusas title for Jesus.
>>
>
>       Nope. I can't find any reference to Iesusas.
>       Maybe you spelled it wrong?


Now you behave dishonest, since you have changed the quoted text.

I had written:
  "The *CHRISTIANS* used 'mahmed' as title for Jesus. "

I mean this early, Syrian, orthodox Christian sect, who had pre-Catholic 
believes.

They spoke Aramaic and 'mahmed' was not a name, but a title, which meant 
'the one to be praised'.

>> The Arabs have 'arabified' this title to the name 'Mohammed'.
>>
>
>       Nope. Mohammed was a real person. There was no need to alter his
> name.

Well: how are you going to prove that?

I would speculate:

since Aramaic and Arabic are related languages, the Koran is a 
translation of ancient Aramaic scripts.

With this translation the title 'mahmed' was changed to the name 
'Mohammed'.

Since 'mahmed' was a title used for Jesus, they are are both different 
names for the same person.

>> So: in effect 'Jesus' and 'Mohammed' address the same person (whoms real
>> name is unknown).
>>
>
>       If Jesus did exist, the romanized spelling of the Aramaic would
> be Eesa. In Greek it will be Iesus. In Latin it's Iesu. It's clear the
> modern spelling of Jesus came by way of the Greek.
>       What's more, the Arabic name for Jesus is also Eesa.
>       There is no possible way to get Mohamed from that.


Yes. But 'I don't know' would cover the possibility, that the persons 
name was 'Eesa'.

So: maybe your interpretation is possible.

>> 'Jesus' is actually modern version of Latin 'Iesus' and the 'real guy'
>> spoke (most likely) Aramaic and had a name in Aramaic.
>>
>
>       Yes. Since I am not able to write in Aramaic (there's likely a
> web site that could translate, but that's more work than I am willing
> to invest) the romanized spelling is Eesa.
>
>>>> The city was later occupied by the Saracens and they kept, would they
>>>> though to be useful. Among this were the secret sripts of this sect.
>>>>
>>>> The Arabs changed the story a little bit and centred it around Arabic
>>>> places. And they made 'Mohammed' from 'Mahmed'.
>>>
>>>        Uh, no. Mohamed was not the name of Jesus.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>
>       Wherein I prove you wrong? Again?
>       Sure.

Again: 'mahmed' was not a name, but a word, which was used to signify a 
certain status. The name could be Eesa or whatever.

My guess was, the Arabs 'arabified' this word to the Arabic name 'Mohammed'.


>> The words and their content are different things.
>>
>
>       So now you take the position that Mohamed was not the name of
> Jesus. Good.


'Jesus' wasn't the name of that prophet neither, since 'Jesus' is 
derived from Latin 'Iesus' and that from Greek (what I cannot spell). 
But the Aramaic name we don't know.

And only this (unknown) name was actually real.

E.g. Germany is called in German 'Deutschland' and 'Allemagne' in French.

These names are not translations from each other, but use certain 
different ideas. French uses the name of a southern tribe,  called 
'Alemannen', 'Deutschland' refers to the language 'Deutsch' and 
'Germany' stems from the Roman name 'Germanes'  for northern tribes 
(mainly Scandinavian).

But actually meant with all these names is the same patch of land, 
correctly named: Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

So you must distinguish between the name and the person, if the name 
stems from different languages.


..

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

csiph-web

Re: What we have is Liberals and Blacks violating the Religious rights of some religion that they don't like.... You know like bigots do.

Contents

#272256 — Re: What we have is Liberals and Blacks violating the Religious rights of some religion that they don't like.... You know like bigots do.

#272257

#272261

#272264

#272290

#272326

#272347

#272369

#272402

#272434

#272458 — Re: What we have is Liberals and Blacks violating the Religious rights of some religion that they don't like.... You know like bigots do.

#272481

#272824

#272846

#272974

#272999

#273251

#273265

#273292