Muhammad: Who is He?!

[i_am_free5565]

here you'll find the answer

direct link

http://www.islamway.com/mohammad/?lang=eng

or doc files

http://s49.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=...RH2LYOXWDMUK4VP
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=61T44D89

[Symptom777]

He was the earlier version of L Ron Hubbard. Someone who created his own religion for his own benefit.

[Mr. Pessimist]

You mean this guy?

[Itsdarts]

http://www.islamway.com/mohammad/?lang=eng didn't work this morning.... maybe I'll try later today. Welcome to the Cloud.

[IamJoseph]

Gee, what a candy-coated appraisal in that link. Has it anything to do with reality - or is that a sci-fi episode. No - not even sci-fi spews so much lies and propaganda. sounds more like a Saudi sermon. Where's the reality of fire and brimstone - are we discussing the middle-east, or Utopia!

[IamJoseph]

New, negative book out of Islam's Prophet.

http://www.wndbookservice.com/produc...?prod_cd=c6614

[free tibet]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pessimist

You mean this guy?

careful dont want people calling to behead you now do we?

[Mr. Pessimist]

Originally Posted by free tibet

careful dont want people calling to behead you now do we?

I would actually get quite a kick out of that.

[IamJoseph]

Jesus: who was he?

While Christians base their depictions of Jesus solely from the NT - and thus their impressions of Jews and judaism - there are a host of factors which stupify.


Aramaic, ascribed as Jesus' language, was a street pidgeon language, without a written base. Aramaic is written in Hebrew, phonetically. Hebrew was the mainstay of Israel upto the Roman war. Aramaic would have been spoken by Jews in israel 2000 years ago - as a common language with non-jews only, eg. Greeks, Romans, Arabs, etc - they could speak aramaic but not hebrew; same as in ancient Egypt.

Thus if Jesus was a Jew in Israel 2000 years ago - he would have spoken hebrew as his first language, and Aramaic with the masses, namely the poor, uneducated and non-jews. It is also doubtful that Jesus would have preached to non-jews, as is commonly inferred. At this time, the prime focus was on Rome, and its impact on Israel - all other concerns would have been secondary, if not totally superflous. This becomes more valid if the Last Super (Passover) was observed, indicating an observent Jew.

The notion of Jesus preaching to non-jews, while this sounds nice and can derive empathy, sounds unrealistic: we know from the war with Rome, which is 30 years after Jesus' death, that Jews were fully emersed in defending their religion and country - and that any preachings about Judaism 30 years earlier by Jesus, would have been seen as a great contradiction of his times, not to mention it would have met great rejection from the non-jewish peoples at this time. So it is more feasable that the doctrines and teachings ascribed to jesus would have been in fact Pauline, and post Jesus and from outside Israel. The Jews fully rejected Rome's decree of housing pagan statues in the temple - a massive contradiction of European christianity's depictions of the Priests who gave their lives and were massacred in the temple, and Israel as a whole - defending their faith. It is thus incredible to suggest that Jesus would have condoned Rome or Pagan Roman statutes as enforced worship.

All writings and readings by Jesus would have been in hebrew, as all his sermons and liturgy as well. Very few jews would have been uneducated in Israel concerning Hebrew: this is backed by Mosaic laws, and seen in all writings in this period - even in ancient Egypt, the hebrews spoke Hebrew, not aramaic - but perhaps they would use aramaic with the Canaanites.

The reason I mention these factors, is it is suspicious that aramaic is given as the prime language: perhaps it is because the gospels were written later than indicated, and in a language more known to non-jews. It is difficult to accept a predominantly Aramaic speaking Jesus, as opposed Hebrew - which is given no credence.

This leads to a poignant factor: what if all things ascribed to Jesus - in his connection to Judaism - was different than how it is depicted in Medevial European Christianity: would this become a welcome or unacceptable truth? Clearly, one can list a host of factors encumbent upon a Jewish Jesus in Israel 2000 years ago - which are either omitted or defaced by Europe's depictions and reporting - such as attire, language, names, religious observences, etc - and compoundingly, we find some very negative factors ascribed to Jesus concerning jews and Judaism - as well as the negativity ascribed to the Preists and hapless money-changers, and an incredible silence of Rome.

It does not make much sense - even for a jew who had grieviances and a discordance with his people and religion. There are very discordent factors in the portrayals of Jesus, from anything resembling Jewish: how is this rationalised - is it a factor of preferred truth and real truth - would Jesus have condoned Medevial European christianity - or totally disassociate himself from it? I guess it depends who's asking the Q. Mine is from an aspect of pursueing truth: it appears that a Christian would rather a Christianised Jesus, than a Jewish one; a preferred truth to a real truth: but which Jesus better aligns with Europe - certainly not a Jewish Jesus!

[IamJoseph]

All Jews in Israel 2000 years ago spoke Hebrew. This christian article gives some indication how many other mindsets held by Christians may be a fiction - not least of them the negativity and charges applied upon Jews and Israel by Europe.


DID JESUS SPEAK HEBREW?

by Roy Blizzard Jnr

JESUS SPOKE AND TAUGHT IN HEBREW.
Hebrew was the language of the common person in Judea in Jesus' day.
The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were all based on an original Life Story of
Jesus that was written originally in Hebrew and not in Aramaic nor in Greek.
What evidence do we have that establishes unequivocally that Hebrew was the language Jesus
spoke and in which he taught?
THE TESTIMONY OF EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS
Early Christian writers who mention the subject are all in unanimous agreement that the original
Gospel was written by Matthew in Hebrew.
The earliest of these writers was Papias (Fragment 6), dating from about A.D. 167, who records,
"Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue, and everyone translated them as
well as he could" (Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History", III,39,1). Irenaeus, one of the earliest of
the Church Fathers, confirms Papias' statement a few years later when he writes, "Matthew
published a written Gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue" (Ibid. V,8,2). A Jewish believer
named Hegesippus is reported to "draw occasionally on the Gospel of the Hebrews ... and
particularly on works in Hebrew" (Ibid. IV,22,4).
However, the most dramatic testimony to the existence of an original Hebrew Gospel is the
well-known Jerome, who translated the Scriptures into Latin in Bethlehem circa A.D. 400. In
Jerome's extensive writings there are nineteen passages that speak of a "Hebrew Gospel" or a
Gospel "according to the Hebrews". On one occasion he speaks of "the Gospel according to the
Hebrews" which, he says, "I have recently translated into Greek and Latin" (De vir. ill., II).
On another occasion he writes, "In the Gospel which the Nazoraeans and the Ebionites use,
which we have translated recently from Hebrew into Greek, and which is called the authentic text
of Matthew by a good many ..." (In Matt., 12,13). His most interesting and telling statement can
be found in "Lives of Illustrious Men" in Volume 3 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
edited by P. Schaff and H. Wace, page 362.
"Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetime publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first
published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was
afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been
preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered.
"I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of
Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether
on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour, quotes the testimony of the Old
Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint, but the Hebrew."
Epiphanius (4th century A.D.) described the "Nazoraioi" (Jewish believers), as "painstakingly
cultivating the Hebrew language in which they read both the Old Testament and the Gospel
according to Matthew" (Panarion I,29,7 and 9). Pantaenus, the teacher of Clement of Alexandra,
relates having found the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as far away as in India (Eusebius, op. cit.,
V,10,3).
COINS AND INSCRIPTIONS
Although there is a difference of opinion among scholars currently working in the field as to the
importance of coins in deciding the langugage of Israel in the first centuries B.C./A.D., I believe
coins and inscriptions are an important tool for determining the principal spoken language of this
period. In my view, the evidence of coinage is dramatic. From the fourth century B.C. until the
end of the Bar-Cochba Revolt in A.D. 135 - the entire history of Jewish coinage - only one coin
is inscribed in Aramaic (Alexander Jannaeus, 103-176 B.C.). All the rest are in Hebrew.
In addition, there is considerable epigraphical evidence from the period to establish Hebrew as
the principal spoken language. In excavations in occupation levels from the first centuries
B.C./A.D. at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, not one Aramaic inscription has been found.
However, several exciting and important Hebrew inscriptions have been found (see
"Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus" pages. 58-59). At Masada, Herod's fortress on the
Dead Sea, the epigraphical evidence is staggering: fragments of 14 scrolls, over 4,000 coins, and
more than 700 inscribed pottery fragments. In these, the ratio of Hebrew to Aramaic exceeds
nine to one.
Inscriptions on pottery vesels, burial ossuaries, tombs, walls, mosaic floors, and so on, all attest
to Hebrew as the spoken and written language of the common people.
Of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide for us one of the most dramatic and significant of the
epigraphical evidences for Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls include nearly 600 partial
manuscripts, both biblical and non-biblical, indicated by some 40,000 fragments. The most
telling evidence of the scrolls is found in the sectarian scrolls and the commentaries on the
biblical scrolls. In the sectarian scrolls, the ratio of Hebrew to Aramaic is again nine to one, but
all of the commentaries are in Hebrew. It is impossible to conclude that a commentary on the
Scripture would be written in a language other than the popular language of the people.
EVIDENCE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT
The most conclusive evidence for Hebrew as the principal language behind not just the Synoptic
Gospels, but the New Testament in its entirety, is the text itself. The New Testament is filled
with semitisms: Hebrew vocabulary, Hebrew syntax, Hebrew idioms, Hebrew thought patterns,
and Hebrew theology. Moulton and Howard have compiled an impressive 72 page list of
Hebrew expressions and idioms found in the New Testament in their "Grammar" (Vol. 2, pgs.
413-485).
Professor David Flusser of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and a member of the Jerusalem
School for the Study of the Synoptic Gospels, has emphatically stated: "Of the hundreds of
Semitic idioms in the Synoptic Gospels, most can be explained on the basis of Hebrew only,
while there are no Semitisms which could only be Aramaic without also being good Hebrew."
Joining Professor Flusser are such notable scholars as Pinchas Lapide (Bar-Ilan University, Tel
Aviv), Frank Cross (Harvard University), William Sanford LaSor (Fuller Seminary), Harris
Birkland, and J.T. Milik. Even Moshe Bar-Asher, the prominent Aramaic scholar at the Hebrew
University, has stated that he believes the Synoptic Gospels go back to an original Hebrew and
not Aramaic document.
To the New Testament scholar, fluent in both Hebrew and Greek, it is immediately apparent that
the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels, the first fifteen chapters of the Book of Acts, the Book of
Hebrews, and the Book of Revelation, as well as vast portions of the remaining portions of the
New Testament text, is not Greek at all, but Hebrew in Greek dress. (Editors note: with regard
to the Hebraic style of the letter to the Hebrews another scholar comments, "all Greek scholars
know that the Greek of Hebrews is the best Greek in the New Testament.")
However, there is an important fact that cannot be over-emphasized. To the scholar fluent in
Hebrew, it is additionally apparent that the thought patterns behind the entire New Testament are
Hebrew, and not Aramaic nor Greek.
FOR FURTHER READING
"Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus" by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard.
"The Missing Hebrew Gospel" by Pinchas Lapide (Available from CFI).

[Symptom777]

Jesus almost certainly spoke Aramaic.
Hebrew was not a speakable language.
It still isn't really.

[IamJoseph]

Originally Posted by Symptom777

Jesus almost certainly spoke Aramaic.
Hebrew was not a speakable language.
It still isn't really.

Jews in Israel manage very well, with Hebrew - not Aramaic, and it is clear the world's most enlightening scripture was also in the Hebrew writings. Your a mess, reflecting only the distortions fed into your veins, which you cannot discard - a common syndrome. Your pursuit is other than the truth.


Sourcing the sources of the NT and Quran.

This is a shady area, but it should not be so - and one awash with contradictions and dishistory, not to mention competing by other precedent and established Hebrew documents. What then led to the Quran's emergence - was it all divine inspiration, or was there help - from the NT?


No doubt both the NT and Quran are anti-jewish documents, their evidences dishistorical and vested only in belief, and resultant from the over-turning of one scripture and religion - into three; and that the latter two conflicts not only with the first - but also between themselves.

It seems the gospels were originally in Hebrew, and then scripted anew, in a foreign language and land, and with a particular chagrin against the jews - for the obvious reason they held to their then 2000 year beliefs. Nowhere else does a scripture claim validity in a foreign language: imagine the Hindhu or Buddhist scriptures in Arabic - or the Jewish scriptures in Greek, with belated and foreign input, complete with Greek names? Imagine the NT in a belated African script? And imagine that the original critical writings are claimed as LOST? The singular and fastidious clinging to their faith would have made jews a prime target and a very feasable scapegoat when christianity emerged, in concordance with its predessor history with Greece and Rome - and being small in number, weakened by exile, and an already stubborn refuter and challenger of Rome. And later a refuter of Christianity and Islam - this was a formidable, loosing battle for the Jews, but not necessarilly one without truth on its side, nor that the loosing side is the loosing side of truth.

If the Gospels were formalised some 4 centuries later than its declared events, and described in a foreign language, as evidenced in the link in the previous post, it would be very close to when the Quran emerged - and here we can see many common denominators, chief among them being the targeting of Jews: it must have been the flavour of the times, and a sure fire way of winning votes, a syndrome very much alive today.

The above leads back to writing, and how far from the Hebrew the NT and Quran deviated. There is ample evidence and logic the Quran was adapted from the latinised NT than the original Hebrew, or originally from Mohammed - chiefly among this being the latin names (ABraham instead of AVraham), the belated 400 year upholding of Jesus as a Prophet (there is no contemporary arabic writings of this belief by the pre-islamic Arabs), and there is one report which said a Christian missionary had great input in the Quran's content, and that Mohammed was not literate in writings: others wrote his dictations.
It is also known at this time, any conflicting contemporary jewish writings, such as the Talmud, was banned under pain of death; why so?

Thus it appears reasonable that much in the NT, nd subsequently the Quran, is not true historical gospel, chiefly among this being the inferred and determined villification of hapless Jews - were they all bad in this notorious times and region? This truth and/or distruth is reflected by today's gross distortions and revisionism in the Middle-east conflict, and the Arab premise being upheld by Europe - which is historically false, and yet countenanced by the world - all because the Hebrew was tampered with and then destroyed, and there being a blatant reason for a bias here: who wants an overturning of their fundamental beliefs - even at the expense of truth - because a villified, conflicting, and often historically sworn to be destroyed group was not destroyed? I would'nt too!

There can be valid questioning that Jesus would have actually been responsible for, or backed, the claims of the NT, specially the villification of Judaism (his religion), and the sanctioning of the NT. There is also valid suspicion that the changes and slants of the NT from the OT language and beliefs, have much evidential and historical truth vested therein.


It will be a very difficult thing for many christians to confront such premises, and there are no doubt many brave souls who do pursue truth here - this is also emerging, very slowly, among some outspoken Muslims today. The term, 'Biblical Liberals', is a big phenomenon presently.

The truth will set you free - or call you to account: it becomes a double-edged sword. The world must cry that the original, Hebrew gospels, written by Jews - is not at hand. The scrolls, the commonplace and abundent writings in this period, and the new emerging religious books of the NT and Quran, says there is no excuse for it. And much valid suspicion why the Hebrew Gospels is not at hand. With regard the adherents of the Quran - it is an amazing phenomenon how many distortions are held as Gospel truth today - blatantly and impudently - and with unpardonable countenancing and deathly silence from an otherwise historical witness called Europe?

[free tibet]

Can you write/speak hebrew Joe? I suppose to read the bible you would have to know a bit lol. Sorry Symptom, archaeological studies and common sense to a degree point to Jesus, if he existed, speaking Hebrew, like all the Jews in Judea before the war with the Romans, and even after it was renamed Iudea it survived. Its quite intriguing really how the Romans, though all conquering, many native languages survived their conquests, not only Hebrew, but many Gaelic dialects in more remote areas where native populations fled to, such as Wales in Britain. It highlights how important religion would become, the Jews fought and died to defend their faith, which was a concept not seen on such a scale before, many people fought to defend their culture/way of life but an ideology was something new. A lesson the Romans and successive nations in both Europe and the Middle East would adopt and sadly in many cases use as a means for conquest.

[IamJoseph]

Originally Posted by free tibet

Can you write/speak hebrew Joe? I suppose to read the bible you would have to know a bit lol.

No, I can't speak it, which requires to be living in Israel or living the language. But I can read slowly and awkwardly, when its not in running script form, and understand many biblical hebrew words. Nor can I understand when an israeli performs machine-gun Hebrew speech - I doubt even Jesus would today. Amazingly, it is a most advanced language, even in its resurrected form, with a host of unique expressionisms and codified abreviations which require firsthand experience. Israeli arabs can, because Arabic is derived from the Hebrew. Hebrew represents a time-machine view of how all languages were spoken 2000 years ago - with its gutheral sounds intact, owing to its dormency and lack of refinement for 2000 years: Jesus would have had a most gutheral accent.

[IamJoseph]

The Naked truth lands in Israel - with uncrossed knees. Viewable video too - she says she's naked!


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...225574,00.html

Sharon Stone to Peres: I admire you



(VIDEO) Hollywood actress says during joint Tel Aviv press conference with former prime minister she plans on doing everything in her power to promote joint projects for Israeli, Palestinian children. Peres: Artists can really help enhance tolerance and peace
Merav Yudilovitch




VIDEO - Former prime minister Shimon Peres said Wednesday during a joint Tel Aviv press conference with American actress Sharon Stone, who arrived in Israel on Tuesday, that "We don't look at her being here as a visit but as a mission to support peace and help children.




“As a politician, I discover children and adults admire artists more than politicians, and artists can really help enhance tolerance and peace," Peres said.



Video: Shiran Valk



Stone, for her part, told Peres “I admire you, sir, so greatly, it’s beyond discussion or I would just sit here in a puddle of tears. That I can sit here beside you is my greatest achievement.”



Stone added that she plans on doing everything in her power to promote joint projects for Israeli and Palestinian children.



"The future of our children depends on now," she said. "We can't go on killing in the name of our children's future. They need us to make a decision today and never turn our backs on it that is the instinct of the maternal, of creation, of peace."



Stone, who will celebrate her 48th birthday while in Israel, asked to host a 500 dollar-a-plate dinner party for the county’s leading businessmen; proceeds will go to funding the projects for Israeli and Palestinian children in education, culture and sports.



'It's time for women to be part of negotiations'



“On my birthday I like to be of service, to give something to children in a non-partisan, non-political way,” she said.



Stone is not expected to visit the Palestinian Authority due to security concerns.




When asked whether she regards herself a feminist, the Hollywood superstar said "I don't want to be a man. Equal for me is distinctly separate. I want us to be in a partnership, not dominating one another. We were meant to be a team. That was the plan from the beginning. We don't need to both be men in the room. But we both need to be in the room.




“It's time for women to be part of negotiations, because they have a different language," she said. "Imagine 'I was considering going to war, let's discuss, let's consider the other angles.'"



As to her upcoming movie “Basic Instinct 2” Stone said “I'm naked (in the movie); usually that's what people really want to know, so we can move on to the next question."