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	2016-01-09 10:53 +0100
Message-ID	<dfc3l6F8dt9U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <b8ff8bpo47krop5n5dvodpl3olsqfkkr2q@4ax.com> <detbkpFg347U1@mid.individual.net> <0o4j8b5moug9nvm2mndsida16c6tarm89q@4ax.com> <df933fFfn9eU1@mid.individual.net> <gv8v8bp87umipinrqgp7c860b1cnn3ujhv@4ax.com>

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to alt.conspiracy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

csiph-web