Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Full story: Newsday

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.
Comments
35,601 - 35,620 of 68,826 Comments Last updated 4 min ago

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38526
Jul 15, 2012
 
MUQ wrote:
Here are examples of your own scholars who do not accept that the Torah and the NT have been tampered with. Don't bother telling me about the mythology of Christ. Your own brothers believed in him and what was said about him in the scriptures.

Since the Bible existed before the Quran the burden of proof
is upon the Muslim to prove that the Bible is incorrect AND
that the Quran is correct.

a. The Bible was completed 500 years before the Quran was
revealed to Muhammad. If someone today wrote a book that
contradicts a historical document written at the time of
an event that took place in 1497 the person who wrote the
second book would have to be able to prove the older
document was false AND also prove its facts were true.

b. The document written at the time of the event would not
have to prove itself against a latter document. This is
neither logical, rational or true to the principles of
the science of history.

c. Merely proving that the older document was not accurate
also does not by default mean the newer document is true.
it must stand on its own and prove itself.

Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been
corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New
Testament texts.

a. Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts

b. Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) " " " "

c. BUKHARI (810-870) " " " "
(he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam
quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text
of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)

d. Al-Mas'udi (956) " " " "

e. Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037)" " "

f. AL-GHAZZALI (1111) " " " "
(probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-
Khazem but did not accept his teachings)

g. Ibn-Khaldun (1406) " " " " " "
(he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his
teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic
teachers.)

h. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College
"In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that
corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."

i. Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew
of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were
suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil;
but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it
was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because
those Scriptures were generally known and widely
circulated, having been handed down from generation to
generation."

THESE PEOPLE DID NOT SAY THEY ONLY ACCEPTED PART OF THE TORAH OR PART OF THE GOSPELS BUT ALL OF THEM

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38527
Jul 15, 2012
 
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are examples of your own scholars who do not accept that the Torah and the NT have been tampered with. Don't bother telling me about the mythology of Christ. Your own brothers believed in him and what was said about him in the scriptures.
Since the Bible existed before the Quran the burden of proof
is upon the Muslim to prove that the Bible is incorrect AND
that the Quran is correct.
a. The Bible was completed 500 years before the Quran was
revealed to Muhammad. If someone today wrote a book that
contradicts a historical document written at the time of
an event that took place in 1497 the person who wrote the
second book would have to be able to prove the older
document was false AND also prove its facts were true.
b. The document written at the time of the event would not
have to prove itself against a latter document. This is
neither logical, rational or true to the principles of
the science of history.
c. Merely proving that the older document was not accurate
also does not by default mean the newer document is true.
it must stand on its own and prove itself.
Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been
corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New
Testament texts.
a. Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts
b. Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) " " " "
c. BUKHARI (810-870) " " " "
(he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam
quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text
of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)
d. Al-Mas'udi (956) " " " "
e. Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037)" " "
f. AL-GHAZZALI (1111) " " " "
(probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-
Khazem but did not accept his teachings)
g. Ibn-Khaldun (1406) " " " " " "
(he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his
teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic
teachers.)
h. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College
"In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that
corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."
i. Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew
of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were
suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil;
but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it
was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because
those Scriptures were generally known and widely
circulated, having been handed down from generation to
generation."
THESE PEOPLE DID NOT SAY THEY ONLY ACCEPTED PART OF THE TORAH OR PART OF THE GOSPELS BUT ALL OF THEM
None of that proves the NT is true. So the burden of proof is on the Christians who altered the Hebrew scriptures. Since Christianity is based on a virgin-born mangod (much like several other pagan religions, Mithraism, Buddhism, etc.), it appears the tampering started with the Roman church who proclaimed Jesus as god in 325CE..

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38528
Jul 15, 2012
 
SeasideSoon wrote:
<quoted text>None of that proves the NT is true. So the burden of proof is on the Christians who altered the Hebrew scriptures. Since Christianity is based on a virgin-born mangod (much like several other pagan religions, Mithraism, Buddhism, etc.), it appears the tampering started with the Roman church who proclaimed Jesus as god in 325CE..
The burden of proof is on the people who are saying it has been altered not the other way round.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38529
Jul 15, 2012
 
SeasideSoon wrote:
<
Not all christians believe that Jesus is God, The same as there as differences between sunnis and shiites in relation to Islam

Adonai and Adoni (Psalm 110:1)

The Bible’s supreme proof text for telling the difference between the One God and the Messiah who is not God

This verse was referred to the Messiah by the Pharisees and by Jesus. It tells us that the relationship between God and Jesus is that of Deity and non-Deity. The Messiah is called adoni (my lord) and in every one of its 195 occurrences adoni (my lord) means a superior who is not God. Adonai on the other hand refers exclusively to the One God in all of its 449 occurrences. Adonai is the title of Deity and adoni never designates Deity.

If the Messiah were called Adonai this would introduce “two Gods” into the Bible and would be polytheism. Psalm 110:1 should guard us all against supposing that there are two who are God. In fact the Messiah is the supreme human being and agent of the One God. Psalm 110:1 is the Bible’s master text for defining the Son of God in relation to the One God, his Father.

Why is it that a number of commentaries misstate the facts about Psalm 110:1? They assert that the word for the Messiah in Psalm 110:1 is adonai. It is not. These commentaries seem to obscure a classic text defining God in relation to His Son. The Hebrew text assigns to the Messiah the title adoni which invariably distinguishes the one addressed from the Deity. The Messiah is the supreme human lord. He is not the Lord God (cp. I Tim. 2:5; I Cor. 8:4-6; Mark 12:28ff).

Why is the Messiah called adoni (my lord) and never adonai (my Lord God)?

“Adonai and Adoni are variations of Masoretic pointing to distinguish divine reference from human.”

Adonai is referred to God but Adoni to human superiors.

Adoni — ref. to men: my lord, my master [see Ps. 110:1]
Adonai — ref. to God…Lord (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, under adon [= lord]).

“The form ADONI (‘my lord’), a royal title (I Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title ADONAI (‘my Lord’) used of Yahweh.”“ADONAI — the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adonai [with short vowel]= my lords”(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,“Lord,” p. 157).

“Lord in the OT is used to translate ADONAI when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word…has a suffix [with special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction…between divine and human appellative”(Hastings Dictionary of the Bible,“Lord,” Vol. 3, p. 137).

“Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the OT…Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen. 44:7, Num. 32:25, II Kings 2:19 [etc.]). We have to assume that the word adonai received its special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e., adoni]. The reason why [God is addressed] as adonai,[with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [with short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from human lords”(Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, p. 531).

“The lengthening of the &#257; on Adonai [the Lord God] may be traced to the concern of the Masoretes to mark the word as sacred by a small external sign”(Theological Dictionary of the OT,“Adon,” p. 63 and Theological Dictionary of the NT, III, 1060ff. n.109).

“The form ‘to my lord,’ l’adoni, is never used in the OT as a divine reference…the generally accepted fact that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine references (adonai) from human references (adoni)”(Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the OT, p. 22)(Herbert Bateman,“Psalm 110:1 and the NT,” Bibliothecra Sacra, Oct.-Dec., 1992, p. 438).

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38530
Jul 15, 2012
 
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
The burden of proof is on the people who are saying it has been altered not the other way round.
Huh??????? The proof is that the NT translations of the Hebrew scriptures have been proven wrong, by their own later Christian translations no less. So which Christian version is now deemed to be true and accurate? And where are their originals? That's why there are 40,000 denominations, plus another 40,000 that qualify as cults - because everybody has their favorite.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38531
Jul 15, 2012
 
SeasideSoon wrote:
<quoted text>Huh??????? The proof is that the NT translations of the Hebrew scriptures have been proven wrong, by their own later Christian translations no less. So which Christian version is now deemed to be true and accurate? And where are their originals? That's why there are 40,000 denominations, plus another 40,000 that qualify as cults - because everybody has their favorite.
Where is your proof? Looking at the scriptures from the 7th century to a bible of today there is no difference. The interpretation may by wrong, by that is a human mistake not a mistake by God. That is why there have been alterations to it e.g the JW's. There are over 40,000 manuscripts which support the authenticity of the bible. If you look at the differences between the catholic bible and the protestant bible you can see what books the catholics have added. People adding books that were not the divine inspiration of God will be judged by God. This is the reason there are so many cults around. They want to change what was originally stated and believed to suit themselves No other book is on par with the bible when it comes to the fulfillment of prophecies that were written a 1000 years before the prophecy was fulfilled. Only God could have known what was going to happen in the future.

The koran has no manuscripts to support it. The haddiths are not God inspired and for that matter neither is the Koran. It was written 200 years after the death of mohammad and who wrote it? They could have put anything down. I know what I put my money on.
What was written in the torah is still the same today as it was then. A lot of muslim scholars have also verified the accuracy of the scriptures. When the Jews rejected Mohammad that is when Mohammad changed the koran

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38532
Jul 15, 2012
 
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
Not all christians believe that Jesus is God,
That statement could've gotten you in some pretty hot water a few centuries ago. But I have to raise a point about Jesus being 'the Son of God.

It doesn't say 'the' son of God in Luke. There is no definite article preceding 'son of God'. Perhaps some of the other gospel writers got a little carried away.

All men are called 'sons of God' throughout scripture. The church raised up Jesus to God level in 325CE, and elevated Mary along with him.

http://biblos.com/luke/1-35.htm
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38533
Jul 15, 2012
 
And why "Son of God" should be taken in its literal sense, that too only for Jesus? What is the logic behind it?

Son of God was a "harmless" Jewish expression to denote some one closer to the God , a saintly person, a godly person.

Even now when some one is extremely good, people say he is an angel, does one really becomes angel because people say so?

God to have sons and daughters (in real sense) in a pagan idea....in Greek and Hindu mythology we find wives and sons and daughters of gods.

The Idea that Jesus is Son of God in its literal sense in the biggest blasphemy that one "religious person" can attribute to God Almighty.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38534
Jul 15, 2012
 
SeasideSoon wrote:
<quoted text>That statement could've gotten you in some pretty hot water a few centuries ago. But I have to raise a point about Jesus being 'the Son of God.
It doesn't say 'the' son of God in Luke. There is no definite article preceding 'son of God'. Perhaps some of the other gospel writers got a little carried away.
All men are called 'sons of God' throughout scripture. The church raised up Jesus to God level in 325CE, and elevated Mary along with him.
http://biblos.com/luke/1-35.htm
You are again talking about the catholic church. They venerate Mary. She was chosen by God to carry Jesus. She is not a saint but God honoured her for the reason that she was the mother of Jesus.

There is not one place in the bible where it is stated that Jesus was God I would ask anyone to prove that there is

In relation to the accuracy of the bible

The copies of the Bible in existence at the time of Muhammad, are exactly the same as ancient copies of the Bible dating back long before Muhammad. They are also the same as today’s copies of the Bible. The Bible was translated into various ancient languages before Muhammad, such as:

Greek Septuagint in the 2nd century B.C.

Latin Vulgate 382-390 A.D.
Armenian 400 A.D and
Syrian 500 A.D.

Ancient copies of these translations are still available and when we compare them with modern copies of the Bible, we find the message is unchanged.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38535
Jul 15, 2012
 
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your proof? Looking at the scriptures from the 7th century to a bible of today there is no difference. The interpretation may by wrong, by that is a human mistake not a mistake by God. That is why there have been alterations to it e.g the JW's. There are over 40,000 manuscripts which support the authenticity of the bible. If you look at the differences between the catholic bible and the protestant bible you can see what books the catholics have added. People adding books that were not the divine inspiration of God will be judged by God. This is the reason there are so many cults around. They want to change what was originally stated and believed to suit themselves No other book is on par with the bible when it comes to the fulfillment of prophecies that were written a 1000 years before the prophecy was fulfilled. Only God could have known what was going to happen in the future.
The koran has no manuscripts to support it. The haddiths are not God inspired and for that matter neither is the Koran. It was written 200 years after the death of mohammad and who wrote it? They could have put anything down. I know what I put my money on.
What was written in the torah is still the same today as it was then. A lot of muslim scholars have also verified the accuracy of the scriptures. When the Jews rejected Mohammad that is when Mohammad changed the koran
Actually the Catholic church added the entire new testament to their bible, along with some additional Jewish writings. Then the Protestants started with the Catholic version and removed books.

Since the scriptures began with the Hebrews, I think they are the ones to determine what their bible consists of. If the Catholics decide to add some books, and the Protestants decide to take some away, keeping most of the Catholic ones, and relying on the Catholic translations, I'd say it's a family feud.

The Jews have their bible in their own language, and don't find it necessary to rely on Christian translations and interpretations.
translationshttp://www.myjewis hlearning.com/texts/Bible/Orig ins_of_the_Bible/Other_Ancient _Texts/Bible_as_Ancient_Litera ture/Canonization.shtml

So it's a big deal if the translations are wrong. Since Christianity claims to be based on the Hebrew scriptures, and the church used faulty translations and interpretations to develop Christianity, well that pretty much takes us back to finding out what the original language says. And the original language and interpretation leaves no room for accepting a messiah as anything other than a man who is supposed to accomplish certain specific tasks, and if he dies without doing so, next candidate is welcome to try. Some thought Simon BarKochba was the messiah until he died, and when he died, they realized he wasn't the one.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38536
Jul 15, 2012
 
The original 'Septuagint' consisted of ONLY the five books of Moses, which were translated by the rabbis knowledgable in Hebrew and Greek. The remainder of the books were translated by persons unknown, less familiar with Hebrew, and over the course of several centuries. Hence the problems with Greek versions of Isaiah and other writings which have been used to bolster the Christian view of the messiah.

"The earliest writer who gives an account of the Septuagint version is Aristobulus, a Jew who lived at the commencement of the second century B.C. He says that >>>>the version of the Law<<<< into Greek was completed under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and that Demetrius Phalereus had been employed about it. Now, Demetrius died about the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and hence it has been reasonably inferred that Aristobulus is a witness that the work of translation had been commenced under Ptolemy Soter."

http://www.gnte.org/ecopub/Brenton_intro.htm
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38537
Jul 15, 2012
 
medy Central
July 14, 2012

Co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation appears on the Colbert Report to stump for her worldwide family planning & eugenics operation.

Colbert:“But now you’ve got a new charitable hobby horse you’re on, and it’s not necessarily saving people’s lives, so much as it’s stopping people’s lives from existing. You want to provide family planning to 120 million men and women around the world.”

Melinda Gates:“Right.”
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38538
Jul 15, 2012
 
Melinda Gates: Where’s the Controversy in Saving Lives?

Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Life Site News
July 15, 2012

Melinda Gates has issued a new cartoon video seeking to justify her campaign to “help” the poor in Africa and Asia by injecting women with Depo-Provera and other dangerous abortion-inducing contraceptive drugs. It shows brown and black women, whose bodies all have the shape of potatoes, smiling and frolicking with their progressively fewer children. Presumably, they’re overjoyed at the thought that a rich white lady has prevented them from propagating.

Fathers, and men in general, are completely absent from the video—Gates’“families” consist by the end of the video of one woman with one child. The omission is in keeping with her liberationist theme pitting wives against their husbands, portrayed as oppressors. According to her statements to the TEDxChange conference in Berlin earlier this year, she particularly favors Depo-Provera shots because they enable women to receive them behind their husbands’ backs.

Her latest promo begins with the rhetorical question:“Where’s the controversy in saving lives?”, without the slightest hint of irony at the fact that the entire video is about ensuring that millions of people never live. Gates’s frantic insistence that contraceptives aren’t controversial, repeated in all of her propaganda materials, is particularly rich. Apparently it has never struck her that her “no controversy” slogan does nothing more than testify to the controversial nature of her schemes. Pro-lifers should thank her, in fact, for reminding everyone.
Eric

Roselle, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38539
Jul 15, 2012
 
Voluntarist wrote:
medy Central
July 14, 2012
Co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation appears on the Colbert Report to stump for her worldwide family planning & eugenics operation.
Colbert:“But now you’ve got a new charitable hobby horse you’re on, and it’s not necessarily saving people’s lives, so much as it’s stopping people’s lives from existing. You want to provide family planning to 120 million men and women around the world.”
Melinda Gates:“Right.”
And what's wrong with that. The more people know about family planning the less they will rely upon abortion. More children in such a project should be wanted. Less will be a surprise. Sounds like money well spent.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38540
Jul 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh those boor boor Balestinians...
Palestinian leaders in Ramallah, including President Mahmoud Abbas, are deeply concerned that Rashid's revelations could expose their role in the embezzlement of public funds. They are also concerned that Rashid's revelations could prompt some Americans and Europeans to reconsider their decision to pour millions of dollars into the Palestinian Authority's coffers. What is needed is an independent Commission of Inquiry to restore pubic funds belonging to the Palestinian people. The Palestinians have many Mohammed Rashids...
The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has just discovered what every Palestinian child knows -- that hundreds of millions of dollars had been embezzled during the era of Yasser Arafat.
The "discovery", however, was not the result of a thorough and long investigation ordered by Palestinian leaders in Ramallah with the hope of restoring public funds. Instead, it came after one of Arafat's most trusted aides, Mohammed Rashid, threatened to expose corruption scandals in the Palestinian Authority.For many years, Rashid served as Arafat's financial advisor and was given a free hand to handle hundreds of millions of dollars that were poured on the Palestinian Authority and the PLO by US, EU and Arab donors.
A former journalist who used to earn less than $1,000 a month by working for a PLO newspaper, Rashid is now considered one of the wealthiest Palestinians anywhere. Palestinian Authority officials have estimated his fortune at more than half a billion dollars. Rashid left the Palestinian territories almost immediately after his boss, Arafat, died in late 2004. Since then, the Palestinian Authority has almost nothing to bring him to trial or return at least some of the missing funds. This week, however, the Palestinian Authority finally woke up and remembered that Rashid was suspected of embezzling hundreds of millions of dollars. The Palestinian Authority's Anti-Corruption Commission in Ramallah announced that it has issued an arrest warrant against the former Arafat advisor and asked Interpol for help in bringing him to trial. The announcement came a day after Rashid appeared on a Saudi-owned TV station and threatened to expose corruption scandals in the Palestinian Authority leadership
Palestinian leaders in Ramallah, including President Mahmoud Abbas, are deeply concerned that Rashid's revelations could seriously embarrass them and expose their role in the embezzlement of public funds.

They are also worried that Rashid's revelations could prompt some Americans and Europeans to reconsider their decision to pour millions of dollars into the Palestinian Authority's coffers.

Rashid, after all, was not a junior official in the Palestinian Authority. He was an insider, someone who was very close to Arafat and probably the only official who knows where hundreds of millions of dollars ended up.

The Palestinian Authority's decision to issue an arrest warrant against him does not seem to worry Rashid, who this week demanded a probe into Abbas's personal fortune, which he estimated at more than $100 million.

So Abbas is saying that Rashid stole hundreds of millions of dollars, while Rashid is accusing the president of embezzling "only" $100 million. This is happening at a time when international donors are continuing to channel more funds every month to the Palestinian Authority, often without holding its leaders accountable or demanding to know how the money is being spent.
What is needed is an independent commission of inquiry to restore the public funds belonging to the Palestinian people. The Palestinians have many Mohammed Rashids who turned into wealthy businessmen during the peace process with Israel --thanks to the naivety of Americans and Europeans
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3066/how-mu...

The only problem with the article is the Millions supplied by the U.S. and the E.U. and other naive Palestine sympathizers is actually Billions..

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38541
Jul 15, 2012
 
SeasideSoon wrote:
<quoted text>Actually the Catholic church added the entire new testament to their bible, along with some additional Jewish writings. Then the Protestants started with the Catholic version and removed books.
Since the scriptures began with the Hebrews, I think they are the ones to determine what their bible consists of. If the Catholics decide to add some books, and the Protestants decide to take some away, keeping most of the Catholic ones, and relying on the Catholic translations, I'd say it's a family feud.
The Jews have their bible in their own language, and don't find it necessary to rely on Christian translations and interpretations.
translationshttp://www.myjewis hlearning.com/texts/Bible/Orig ins_of_the_Bible/Other_Ancient _Texts/Bible_as_Ancient_Litera ture/Canonization.shtml
So it's a big deal if the translations are wrong. Since Christianity claims to be based on the Hebrew scriptures, and the church used faulty translations and interpretations to develop Christianity, well that pretty much takes us back to finding out what the original language says. And the original language and interpretation leaves no room for accepting a messiah as anything other than a man who is supposed to accomplish certain specific tasks, and if he dies without doing so, next candidate is welcome to try. Some thought Simon BarKochba was the messiah until he died, and when he died, they realized he wasn't the one.
Prove that the translations are wrong based upon the transcripts I have offered
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38542
Jul 15, 2012
 
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>

The Bible’s supreme proof text for telling the difference between the One God and the Messiah who is not God
This verse was referred to the Messiah by the Pharisees and by Jesus. It tells us that the relationship between God and Jesus is that of Deity and non-Deity. The Messiah is called adoni (my lord) and in every one of its 195 occurrences adoni (my lord) means a superior who is not God. Adonai on the other hand refers exclusively to the One God in all of its 449 occurrences. Adonai is the title of Deity and adoni never designates Deity.
If the Messiah were called Adonai this would introduce “two Gods” into the Bible and would be polytheism. Psalm 110:1 should guard us all against supposing that there are two who are God. In fact the Messiah is the supreme human being and agent of the One God. Psalm 110:1 is the Bible’s master text for defining the Son of God in relation to the One God, his Father.
Why is it that a number of commentaries misstate the facts about Psalm 110:1? They assert that the word for the Messiah in Psalm 110:1 is adonai. It is not. These commentaries seem to obscure a classic text defining God in relation to His Son. The Hebrew text assigns to the Messiah the title adoni which invariably distinguishes the one addressed from the Deity. The Messiah is the supreme human lord. He is not the Lord God (cp. I Tim. 2:5; I Cor. 8:4-6; Mark 12:28ff).
Why is the Messiah called adoni (my lord) and never adonai (my Lord God)?
“Adonai and Adoni are variations of Masoretic pointing to distinguish divine reference from human.”
Adonai is referred to God but Adoni to human superiors.
Adoni — ref. to men: my lord, my master [see Ps. 110:1]
Adonai — ref. to God…Lord (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, under adon [= lord]).
“The form ADONI (‘my lord’), a royal title (I Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title ADONAI (‘my Lord’) used of Yahweh.”“ADONAI — the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adonai [with short vowel]= my lords”(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,“Lord,” p. 157).
“Lord in the OT is used to translate ADONAI when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word…has a suffix [with special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction…between divine and human appellative”(Hastings Dictionary of the Bible,“Lord,” Vol. 3, p. 137).
“Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the OT…Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen. 44:7, Num. 32:25, II Kings 2:19 [etc.]). We have to assume that the word adonai received its special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e., adoni]. The reason why [God is addressed] as adonai,[with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [with short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from human lords”(Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, p. 531).
“The lengthening of the &#257; on Adonai [the Lord God] may be traced to the concern of the Masoretes to mark the word as sacred by a small external sign”(Theological Dictionary of the OT,“Adon,” p. 63 and Theological Dictionary of the NT, III, 1060ff. n.109).
“The form ‘to my lord,’ l’adoni, is never used in the OT as a divine reference…the generally accepted fact that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine references (adonai) from human references (adoni)”(Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the OT, p. 22)(Herbert Bateman,“Psalm 110:1 and the NT,” Bibliothecra Sacra, Oct.-Dec., 1992, p. 438).
rabbee: a total waste in space that means altogether nothing. so! guess Who is going, to be your G-d again for the seventh day? when G-D again takes off, for the day of rest. to all of you who vainly think, you got out of being here in TheStory.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38543
Jul 15, 2012
 
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove that the translations are wrong based upon the transcripts I have offered
Run along and go and play with your lies
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38545
Jul 15, 2012
 
Shielaa wrote:
Here are examples of your own scholars who do not accept that the Torah and the NT have been tampered with. Don't bother telling me about the mythology of Christ. Your own brothers believed in him and what was said about him in the scriptures.


a. The Bible was completed 500 years before the Quran was
revealed to Muhammad. If someone today wrote a book that
contradicts a historical document written at the time of
an event that took place in 1497 the person who wrote the
second book would have to be able to prove the older
document was false AND also prove its facts were true.

b. The document written at the time of the event would not
have to prove itself against a latter document. This is
neither logical, rational or true to the principles of
the science of history.

c. Merely proving that the older document was not accurate
also does not by default mean the newer document is true.
it must stand on its own and prove itself.

Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been
corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New
Testament texts.

a. Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts

b. Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) " " " "

c. BUKHARI (810-870) " " " "
(he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam
quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text
of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)

d. Al-Mas'udi (956) " " " "

e. Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037)" " "

f. AL-GHAZZALI (1111) " " " "
(probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-
Khazem but did not accept his teachings)

g. Ibn-Khaldun (1406) " " " " " "
(he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his
teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic
teachers.)

h. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College
"In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that
corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."

i. Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew
of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were
suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil;
but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it
was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because
those Scriptures were generally known and widely
circulated, having been handed down from generation to
generation."

THESE PEOPLE DID NOT SAY THEY ONLY ACCEPTED PART OF THE TORAH OR PART OF THE GOSPELS BUT ALL OF THEM
Ans.

A. List of “fictitious” Muslim Scholars that “confirmed” that OT and NT books have not been tempered with:

We have already refuted this claim made earlier. No Muslim scholar has testified that OT and NT books are “exactly” same as they were written.

How can they make such a claim when it is against Quran and sayings of the prophet?

And if the books themselves contradict and we have so many different manuscripts differing with each other, how can the testimony of these Muslims scholars is worth?

B. Since Biblical books were written before Quran, so they MUST be the Truth:

This is another strange logic. Do you mean that cheating and lying and deception were “invented” only after the OT and NT books were written?

What about all those “fake and false” gospels and books that were prevalent in the first three centuries of Christianity? Who wrote them and propagated them? Muslims? Jews ? Christians?

When we have so many versions of Bible each differing with each other in content and substance, how can we take your empty claims that they are same as when they were written?

What about mistakes, errors and contradictions within different books? Who is responsible for that? God? Holy Spirit? Or Prophet who wrote them?
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38546
Jul 15, 2012
 
SSS wrote:
You really need to expand your reading horizons. The present situation was created by your radical leaders, the same type that promotes the suicide road to paradise.

King Faisal Hussein in 1921.

"with the chiefs of your movement, especially Dr. Weizmann, we have ahd and continue to have the closest relations...

People LESS INFORMED and LESS RESPONSIBLE than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for cooperation of the Arabs and Zionists have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that ..

I wish to give you my firm conviction that these differences are not questions of principle ..

“We Arabs ... look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper...
Ans.

So according to you,“King” Faisal Hussain was a New prophet of God” who sealed the matter for ever?

Do you know the history of this “King”? How he came to be on the throne of Jordan?

He was as puppet of US and Britain as we have Hamid Karzai and Babrak Karmal of Afghanistan!!

These fake “Kings” had and have no authority to give ancestral lands and millions of people to Jews and Zionists.

There were many leaders in Arab world at that time also who were opposed to the move of King Husain.

But you would listen to the voices of such “Kings” and “dictators” and “generals” as long as they favor your line!!

Otherwise they would be termed as Extremists, People living in Past etc.!!

These games are being played since time immemorial!!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Religion Discussions

Search the Religion Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 13 min ChristineM 225,517
Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 23 min Nina Q 361,857
Sisters Rescuing Women from Sex Trades 28 min ELIAS IBARRA 10
More on 'Operation Trojan Horse' 41 min JINN 5
No Muslim can think of profaning holy Prophet (... (Jan '11) 55 min harminder the gay... 49,765
Recovery, what recovery? 1 hr buck fible juck f... 32
LDS Apostle visited Tonga 1 hr No Surprise 10,588
•••
•••