Who Is Allah?

skeptic wrote:

<quoted text>You and Hughbe don't read scripture.
That answer is answered in scripture.

It was Hughbe's question, and a very good one. I'll wait for him to get back to you on that.

JOEL PASTAKIA wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes.
I wash my inner wear, clothes and vessels and bedroom with attached bathroom and balcony with french windows and don't permit the maids to touch any of my personal items.
They're busy with sweeping and washing the marble flooring elsewhere in the apartment, dusting the many windows and doors, washing the bathrooms, dusting the furniture and the like.
They are not allowed to enter my bedroom and the kitchen though they have free access to the living room and the other 3 bedrooms.
I insist that they clean all these rooms on a daily basis using a neem wash.
In the morning, huge white lotuses are delivered to my apartment which are kept in crystal vases and in a highly polished and ornamental brass bowl.
The crystal vases are kept in the living room in strategic places, while the brass urn is placed just outside the main door.
A mild herbal fragrance is always burnt during the mornings.

I'm still waiting for your "occult powers" to show me what a great powerful yogi you are, come on didn't your powers catch the right bus....?

Are they lost in Afganistan, are they still playing with muslim-boys....?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

((FART ON YOUR POWERS)))))FART)))))))FART)))) ))))))

****

All the difficulties the world is facing ARE found in magnified proportions here while at the same time the greatest mystics and the most refined human beings who were ever born have lived on her soil.

Knowing who G-d really IS, or knowing what the TRIune G-d is about, that's exactly the same.

Ask a mule-slim who G-d is, and he couldn't answer you, he will just sum up his "attributes", but a being is not exactly his attributes, his essence is more and something completely different than his attributes. Mules can't understand that. That's why they are mules for in the first place....

Jesus' Two Natures: God and Man
Jesus is the most important person who has ever lived since he is the savior, God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully divine and fully man. In other words, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human. Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh,(John 1:1,14). This means that in the single person of Jesus is both a human and divine nature, God and man. The divine nature was not changed when the Word became flesh (John 1:1,14). Instead, the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9). Jesus' divine nature was not altered. Also, Jesus is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word," (Heb. 1:3). Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," (Eutychianism) nor are they combined into a new God-man nature (Monophysitism). They are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus. This is called the Hypostatic Union.

The following chart should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action":

GOD

MAN

God-He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33).

Man-He worshiped the Father (John 17).

God-He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)

Man-He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).

God-He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)

Man-He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)

God-He is prayed to (Acts 7:59).

Man-He prayed to the Father (John 17).

God-He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15).

Man-He was tempted (Matt. 4:1).

God-He knows all things (John 21:17).

Man-He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52).

God-He gives eternal life (John 10:28).

Man-He died (Rom. 5:8).

God-All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9).

Man-He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).


The Communicatio Idiomatum
A doctrine that is related to the Hypostatic Union is the communicatio idiomatum (Latin for "communication of properties"). It is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human natures are ascribed to the one person of Jesus. This means that the man Jesus could lay claim to the glory He had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5), claim that He descended from heaven,(John 3:13), and also claim omnipresence,(Matt. 28:20). All of these are divine qualities that are laid claim to by Jesus; therefore, the attributes of the divine properties were claimed by the person of Jesus.

One of the most common errors that non-Christian cults make is not understanding the two natures of Christ. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses focus on Jesus' humanity and ignore His divinity. They repeatedly quote verses dealing with Jesus as a man and try and set them against scripture showing that Jesus is also divine. On the other hand, the Christian Scientists do the reverse. They focus on the scriptures showing Jesus' divinity to the extent of denying His true

JOEL PASTAKIA wrote:

****
All the difficulties the world is facing ARE found in magnified proportions here while at the same time the greatest mystics and the most refined human beings who were ever born have lived on her soil.

But they confided themselves to some thread on a forum on the internet, so humanity didn't saw there wisdom! What a waste... yawn....

NotQuiter wrote:

<quoted text>It was Hughbe's question, and a very good one. I'll wait for him to get back to you on that.

Jesus' Two Natures: God and Man
Jesus is the most important person who has ever lived since he is the savior, God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully divine and fully man. In other words, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human. Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh,(John 1:1,14). This means that in the single person of Jesus is both a human and divine nature, God and man. The divine nature was not changed when the Word became flesh (John 1:1,14). Instead, the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9). Jesus' divine nature was not altered. Also, Jesus is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word," (Heb. 1:3). Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," (Eutychianism) nor are they combined into a new God-man nature (Monophysitism). They are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus. This is called the Hypostatic Union.

The following chart should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action":

GOD

MAN

God-He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33).

Man-He worshiped the Father (John 17).

God-He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)

Man-He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).

God-He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)

Man-He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)

God-He is prayed to (Acts 7:59).

Man-He prayed to the Father (John 17).

God-He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15).

Man-He was tempted (Matt. 4:1).

God-He knows all things (John 21:17).

Man-He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52).

God-He gives eternal life (John 10:28).

Man-He died (Rom. 5:8).

God-All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9).

Man-He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).


The Communicatio Idiomatum
A doctrine that is related to the Hypostatic Union is the communicatio idiomatum (Latin for "communication of properties"). It is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human natures are ascribed to the one person of Jesus. This means that the man Jesus could lay claim to the glory He had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5), claim that He descended from heaven,(John 3:13), and also claim omnipresence,(Matt. 28:20). All of these are divine qualities that are laid claim to by Jesus; therefore, the attributes of the divine properties were claimed by the person of Jesus.

One of the most common errors that non-Christian cults make is not understanding the two natures of Christ. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses focus on Jesus' humanity and ignore His divinity. They repeatedly quote verses dealing with Jesus as a man and try and set them against scripture showing that Jesus is also divine. On the other hand, the Christian Scientists do the reverse. They focus on the scriptures showing Jesus' divinity to the extent of denying His true

bmz wrote:

Addendum, HugBe
""Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me.""
Somebody should translate it as ""Someone touched me; I know that the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit has gone out from me.""
They will not change this one.

.
Why would anyone translate this as the Holy Spirit? The word translated Spirit is pnuema. The word tranlated power here is dunamis. The root is used for the English word dynamite which denotes extreme power. If the author had wanted to convey the idea that the Spirit left Yeshua he would have used pnuema as in all other instances in the NT.

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
In other words, I don't know.

During the last major election for Congress, a group of conservative Republicans called the "Tea Party" won a lot of seats. They believe in extremely limited government via cutting just about ALL government spending, and they do not compromise. The problem is that legislation traditionally never passes in COngress unless there IS compromise. So we have had congressional gridlock for the last year and half with no end in sight until the next set of Congressional elections. And the public approval rating of Congress is somewhere between 0 and 1 (out of 100). Seriously.

So Not Quite was saying that compared to the Egypian Parliament, who is debating necrophilia, our own congress is not so bad after all. Using the Egyptians as a standard, I would have to agree.

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
During the last major election for Congress, a group of conservative Republicans called the "Tea Party" won a lot of seats. They believe in extremely limited government via cutting just about ALL government spending, and they do not compromise. The problem is that legislation traditionally never passes in COngress unless there IS compromise. So we have had congressional gridlock for the last year and half with no end in sight until the next set of Congressional elections. And the public approval rating of Congress is somewhere between 0 and 1 (out of 100). Seriously.
So Not Quite was saying that compared to the Egypian Parliament, who is debating necrophilia, our own congress is not so bad after all. Using the Egyptians as a standard, I would have to agree.

.
Good for them. Does the US need any more laws? Any idea should stand on its own merit without compromise. What Congress has gotten used to it to be able to attach pork onto any idea that is good for the country.

messianic114 wrote:

<quoted text>
.
Good for them. Does the US need any more laws? Any idea should stand on its own merit without compromise. What Congress has gotten used to it to be able to attach pork onto any idea that is good for the country.

Well, we just went through a period of financial crisis partly driven by the lack of regulation....and let see, I prefer my chicken not to be contaminated by the lastest Dow Chemical pesticidal cocktail...

One persons pork is another persons sacred cow. Earmarks, which John McCain based his own religion on opposing, consist on something like 1% of all federal allocations. Tilting at windmills.

One doesnt have to destroy the political system to fix it. That is ungentlemanly.

messianic114 wrote:

<quoted text>
.
Good for them. Does the US need any more laws? Any idea should stand on its own merit without compromise. What Congress has gotten used to it to be able to attach pork onto any idea that is good for the country.

Its generally been our experience here in the Land of the Free that the fiscal austerity push is just a smokescreen for promoting a conservative social agenda. And that usually means MORE government in our lives, not less.

messianic114 wrote:

<quoted text>
.
Good for them. Does the US need any more laws? Any idea should stand on its own merit without compromise. What Congress has gotten used to it to be able to attach pork onto any idea that is good for the country.

This sums it up pretty well:

----------
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...

We Are Not Stupid

By CHARLES M. BLOW

".....The president tried to help fix a mess that he didn’t make, but the fixing has come slowly. Is that failure? Romney and the Republicans say yes.

And, if they can keep framing it as a failure, they can push for, and maybe even push through, their brutal budgets, which cut programs that help the poor and struggling and benefit the rich.

And while they push their budgets, they make savage attacks on a broad range of issues: voting rights, women’s rights, gay rights, immigration, etc.

This is the trick: Run on fiscal conservatism; bring social conservatism along for the ride. The Trojan horse platform..."

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, we just went through a period of financial crisis partly driven by the lack of regulation....and let see, I prefer my chicken not to be contaminated by the lastest Dow Chemical pesticidal cocktail...
One persons pork is another persons sacred cow. Earmarks, which John McCain based his own religion on opposing, consist on something like 1% of all federal allocations. Tilting at windmills.
One doesnt have to destroy the political system to fix it. That is ungentlemanly.

.
Do we really need a new law saying that a company cannot produce harmful pesticides? I would think either there is already a law or under bureaucratic control which is independent from Congressional action.
.
Again if the sacred cow can stand on its own feet then let the party convince the American public that their idea is in the best interest of the country and reap either the reward or disaster. As it stands now Congress can blame the other party for watering doen their idea to the point it is useless and justify the pork as a means to acheive the passing of their compromised cow.
.
The financial crisis was caused by the greed of the investors. If I had invested everything I had in a risky stock that tanked I couldn't have gone to the gov't complaining my retirement was gone and they should bail me out. Everything they did was within the guidelines already established. Do we need a banking administration bureacracy now? If the gov't hadn't fallen for the bluff the notes would have been bought up by solvent banks at .50 on the dollar and would have made their investors a pretty profit.
The rich and greedy got the goldmine and the taxpayer got the shaft.

SURFACE KNOWLEDGE:

"And sciences' materialistic omnipotence in vain,

By which men learn of what the suns are made,

Transform all forms to serve their outward needs,

Ride through the sky and sail beneath the sea,

But not learn what they are or why they came..."

(Sri Aurobindo from Savitri X.IV.644)

COMMENT:

The life of a crass materialist is a monumental blunder of superfices and pessimism!

ABDICATION OF THOUGHT:

It's possible to write an entire page or even a book without a single thought in the head provided one is in direct contact with the higher consciousness which simply pours everything needed in perfect order, in perfect sequence and with perfect wisdom on the subject of investigation.

No more thinking, no more hair-splitting ratiocination and no more trail and error.

I have experienced this state of the blanking out of the mind while the inrush of flawless information takes place from the higher realms.

It's simply marvelous this temporary abdication of the mind.

I am being vampirized upon by certain posters who only keep draining out my life forces. Bye.

Perfect knowledge arises only when there's no more thinking, no more hair-splitting ratiocination and no more trail and error. Perfect knowledge simply pours into the stilled and blank mind and awaits its perfect exteriorization without deformation.

Bye.

It's now 2 am here.