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>
Newsgroups	alt.conspiracy
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.
Date	2016-01-08 07:25 +0100
Message-ID	<df933fFfn9eU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <k7p18b90e9r697uueobcd388r91v8f1aim@4ax.com> <dep82fFe28cU1@mid.individual.net> <b8ff8bpo47krop5n5dvodpl3olsqfkkr2q@4ax.com> <detbkpFg347U1@mid.individual.net> <0o4j8b5moug9nvm2mndsida16c6tarm89q@4ax.com>

Show all headers | View raw

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

Thread

csiph-web