Page 3 of 5

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:14 pm
by manfred
how to stop people from trying to stick words into the mouth of the Messiah.


...like Mohammed???

First of all nobody ever suggested that the Nicean creed were the words of Jesus.

Second, everybody, from both side of the filioque discussion, agree on the concept of the trinity. Muslims do not, so it would be silly on them to take one side or another of that particular discussion, as they do not accept the idea the issue is based on. In supporting either position they would automatically accept a trinitarian God.


Thirdly the argument has by now largely been settled in any case, and both the Orthodox and catholic theological traditions have agreed to mutually respect the slightly different interpretation of an in any case rather arcane side-issue of the doctrine of the trinity. There have even been efforts to harmonise the positions accepted by both sides, and today it really has become an irrelevance. Interestingly, almost all protestant groups use the catholic interpretation of that question, but not the Anglicans.

In reality, the debate was never really about whether the addition of "filioque" by the pope to the text of the creed agreed by the council was technically correct, it was mostly about whether the pope should be allowed to do what he did.

The orthodox bishops mostly objected to the principle of a pope adding something to a text they had previously all agreed to, as a group. They had on the whole much less problems with what had been added as such. I dare say if the pope had bothered to ask first, the whole discussion had not even happened. He didn't mostly because the phrase had simply been in use for hundreds of years before he sanctioned it. He had a choice of condemning long established practice or accepting it. He chose the second option. The bishops in the East who did not have this tradition, found it rude that they were not asked before.

The reason why the Anglicans rejected filioque is also exactly that: a comment on their view of the authority of the pope.

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:26 pm
by SAM
eliasjohned wrote:Your reasons cited below are the usual logistics that would be studied in war between man and man (men and men).

But you avoid the entire filioque element which includes God and thus, the more real dilemma : how to stop people from trying to stick words into the mouth of the Messiah.

manfred wrote:Seriously? So what have "they" done? After the Christian communities in the Middle East, Asia Minor and North Africa had been systematically destroyed, the churches and monasteries demolished, the people murdered by the millions for 400 years, the few that remained asked for help from the West. So the crusades started, as a very late and far too feeble response to a massive threat to civilisation. And to top it all, one bunch of these crusaders could not even distinguish between the Muslims and the Orthodox, so they attacked Constantinople too.

If there had been and early and decisive response to Muslim violent conquests from the start, we would have a much more peaceful world today, and many peaceful people would not have died at the hands of Mohammed's merry men...
As usual, Manfred and his colleagues quite ignorant in discussion and debate topics and they are runners and constantly changing subject of debate.... :yuk: The best way to fool them... :lol:

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:42 pm
by manfred
Sam, run along, you don't understand this... and you are getting tedious as usual.

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:19 pm
by SAM
manfred wrote:
Seriously? So what have "they" done? After the Christian communities in the Middle East, Asia Minor and North Africa had been systematically destroyed, the churches and monasteries demolished, the people murdered by the millions for 400 years, the few that remained asked for help from the West. So the crusades started, as a very late and far too feeble response to a massive threat to civilisation. And to top it all, one bunch of these crusaders could not even distinguish between the Muslims and the Orthodox, so they attacked Constantinople too.

If there had been and early and decisive response to Muslim violent conquests from the start, we would have a much more peaceful world today, and many peaceful people would not have died at the hands of Mohammed's merry men...
During the life of the Prophet Muhammad, none of the representatives People of the Book came from white people either West or East had come to see him. At that time the White Christians most of them (roughly 80%) are illiterate, compared to Arab countries where they are given education while Muhammad was still alive ... "RECITE" :reading:

Although the Romans realized the existence of Islam in the country throughout the Arab world. They are afraid to go to war with the Muslims at that time. They are coward, scared, afraid and run away from the fight with a Muslim army. :swordfight: :horseride:

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:44 pm
by Fernando
SAM wrote: At that time the White Christians most of them (roughly 80%) are illiterate
The poor things, only 80% illiterate. Mo, in his magnificence, achieved an unassailable 100% illiteracy.

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:55 pm
by manfred
They are afraid to go to war with the Muslims at that time.


No, not afraid, they misjudged the Muslims in a different way... If you read the response to Mohammed's arrogant demands from the Persian king, you learn what was happening. His kind of response was pretty much the universal first reaction to contact with Muslims. Derisive laughter. Then came the blood shed, the beheadings and the rapes.

They did not take the Islam movement seriously. The established civilisations simply could not imagine that Muslims could be so violent, so cruel and so barbaric. They thought they were just a bunch of desert dummies with big mouths. When they realised what they really were most of them were already dead.

News did not travel as fast as it does today. And people used to cities with running water, food of all kinds, bath houses and law enforcement simply could not possibly get their head round the idea that a bunch of thugs from the desert could be a serious threat to them. They were wrong.

They lived in denial for 400 years. As we had started to do all over again.

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:58 pm
by SAM
manfred wrote:
They are afraid to go to war with the Muslims at that time.


No, not afraid, they misjudged the Muslims in a different way... If you read the response to Mohammed's arrogant demands from the Persian king, you learn what was happening. His kind of response was pretty much the universal first reaction to contact with Muslims. Derisive laughter. Then came the blood shed, the beheadings and the rapes.

They did not take the Islam movement seriously. The established civilisations simply could not imagine that Muslims could be so violent, so cruel and so barbaric. They thought they were just a bunch of desert dummies with big mouths. When they realised what they really were most of them were already dead.

News did not travel as fast as it does today. And people used to cities with running water, food of all kinds, bath houses and law enforcement simply could not possibly get their head round the idea that a bunch of thugs from the desert could be a serious threat to them. They were wrong.

They lived in denial for 400 years. As we had started to do all over again.

Heraclius was cowardly to attack the Muslims after his first defeat, and the only war (Battle of Yarmouk) and did not dare to recapture territory seized by Muslims. They only have the courage to kill Jews. .. :hi:

As usual the fuckin white peoples they want to whitewash and cover everything that is bad about them .. :yuk:

And now most of the whites (gov) became a pariah of Jews. :whistling:

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:13 pm
by manfred
To Muslims Heraclius is the only Byzantine emperor they discuss at any length, mostly because the Muslim writer El-Cheikh spoke of him, but not as a historian, he wrote a propaganda text trying to justify Mohammed's claims and even saying that Heraclius not only acknowledged Mohammed as a messenger of God, but even claimed Mohammed was mentioned in the bible.

This is obviously nonsense.

The real story of Heraclius confirms what I told you before, SAM... He had a relatively easy first win against the Muslims. So he did not think he needed to fortify the levant against them. He saw them as a bunch of marauding desert thugs without education or military skill. This was partly true, but he did not appreciate the fact that Mohammed managed to unite and inspire these thugs to fight to the death for his cause. Mohammed's hoards grew quickly, as each new conquest brought more new converts and new fighters, and far away quarters of the Byzantine empire, once lost, are hard to retake.

So, Heraclius underestimated the threat and under-prepared. As a result his forces in the levant were defeated. As he also faced problems from Persia as the same time, he put the planned re-conquest on the back burner. To him, the levant was a bit of a backwater, and he had other worries.

In fact, largely because the Byzantines and Persians were fighting each other, the Muslims found an opening to first go after Persia and later after Byzantium.

Heraclius did not "ran away", he made a calculation as to what would be better to do first. In the event, he died just 4 years later, and by then the balance of power had shifted. Also, in hindsight we can say he made several poor choices, but a coward he was not.

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:41 pm
by manfred
Also, Sam you have a very Muslim view of education: "recite" = "education". Understanding not required. Thinking positively discouraged.

Let me tell you what "education" literally means: it is a Latin word: "ducere" means to lead. Our word "duke" comes from that, for example. The prefix "e-" (also sometimes "ex-" if followed by a vowel) means "out".

So the process of education in the classical sense means to "lead out". To lead people AWAY from their cosy ideas and make them discover new and bigger ones. To learn to think, to observe, to be critical, to evaluate. That is "education".

In ancient Greece this process was achieved by a teacher taking a small group of students for a relaxing walk in a lightly forested park, referred to as "academia". Then the teacher would ask questions or give seeds for discussions.

Now perhaps you understand why Muslims have so few eminent thinkers or scientists.

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 9:59 am
by eliasjohned
manfred wrote:...like Mohammed???

Not at all, he was miles away.

Your synopsis of the filioque is as heretical as mohammedanism.

(And thirdly) the resurrected Mohammed agrees with me in this.

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:17 am
by manfred
eliasjohned wrote:
manfred wrote:...like Mohammed???

Not at all, he was miles away.

Your synopsis of the filioque is as heretical as mohammedanism.

(And thirdly) the resurrected Mohammed agrees with me in this.



Well, if you look as the Qur'an, you find quite a few fanciful tales about Jesus made up by Mohammed.

And how is my synopsis of filioque "heretical"? Who decides who is "heretical"? You? What next? Burn me at the stake?


(And thirdly) the resurrected Mohammed agrees with me in this.


:lotpot: :clap: Good one. So bring him here, and let him open an account on the forum.

Mohammed played this game too... whenever there was any danger anyone might not agree with him Allah came along and supported him, of course. But for some reason he never directly spoke to the followers of Mohammed....

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:19 am
by eliasjohned
John 10 :

16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

manfred wrote:. . . but even claimed Mohammed was mentioned in the bible.

This is obviously nonsense.

Not so.

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:23 am
by eliasjohned
Mohammed was illiterate : he did not write the Holy Koran in any way, shape, or form.

manfred wrote:Well, if you look as the Qur'an, you find quite a few fanciful tales about Jesus made up by Mohammed.

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:43 am
by manfred
oh dear... my friend, I hate to brake it to you, but Muslims have tried to find references to Mohammed in the bible for 1400 years, and they haven't found any. They then zoomed in on Hebrew words which sound a bit like "Mohammed" as "proof" which resulted in quite hilarious claims. Then they claimed the "Jews" and the "Christians" colluded to remove all references to Mohammed ... they cannot explain why this was done, when, or even how.... How do you simultaneously remove passages from many manuscripts spread over 3 continents, without a trace remaining?

The last, most desperate stand was to try to re-write the biblical texts themselves. They wrote a "gospel of Barnabas" around 1500, in Spanish, laughably, which essentially teaches Islam...

And of course we get the rather silly re-interpretations of biblical texts. Have a good look at your quote.
14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.


Who is speaking in this passage? That is clear from the start, Jesus is.

I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.


One flock one shepherd, he says, and also "I am the good shepherd." Of all the texts in the bible, John's gospel most loudly contradicts Mohammed's claims. Have a look at the opening. It is the diametric opposite of Islam.

Mohammed was illiterate : he did not write the Holy Koran in any way, shape, or form.


Whether he was ENTIRELY illiterate is not quite clear, but sure, reading and writing were not his strong points according to most sources. Also, what we have as Qur'an today is known to have been edited and we have pieces missing. But it will at least for the most part contain things Mohammed said and asked people to remember or to write down. He did not write it personally, but according to the sources he used scribes to whom he dictated.

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:05 am
by eliasjohned
manfred wrote:So bring him here,

I am not under your command.

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:19 am
by manfred
Of course you are not....!

But as you claim that Mohammed himself agrees with you, why would he not speak for himself?

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:29 pm
by glitch
SAM wrote:
glitch wrote:Koran makes no mention of Muhammad returning.... so if the Koran doesn't say it cannot be

Similarly, the Bible and the Quran does not say that Jesus will return to earth ..fool


oh Contraire you my intellectual superior savant. The bible very clearly states in both daniel and in revelation that the messiah is present a the end of days. Now you can act a fool as usual, having not really read Daniel, or you can actually start reading oh muslim scholar.

As well, your Koran clearly states Jesus returns. Revelation also clearly states that Jesus tells the writer he is the "first adn the Last" a name and title reserved only for God, and you can say that's made up, but youcan't say he doesn't claim to be God. He clearly does.

When you actually learn to read let me know.

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:32 pm
by glitch
SAM wrote:In the Bible say Jesus Iscariot had died on the cross, was resurrected as a zombie and disappeared as a hollow man or become superman fly fly awaaaayyyyyy... :superman: :lol:


So again, you make up nonsense and have actually no respect for anything..

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:16 pm
by pr126
Glitch wrote:

Au Contraire you my intellectual superior savant.


No no, just my intellectual superior.

Savant doesn't apply here.
my intellectual superior savant

Re: Mohammed resurrected

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:13 am
by glitch
pr126 wrote:Glitch wrote:

Au Contraire you my intellectual superior savant.


No no, just my intellectual superior.

Savant doesn't apply here.
my intellectual superior savant

Your'e right.

Do you notice that SAM displays every truth we believe about muslims.
He HATES christians--he doesn't have an argument as christians he just spews nonsense--half of what he attacks is also in the Koran.
He offers no real argument, he jsut trolls around and ignores posts.

Second, he's an utter conspiracy theory my intellectual superior and an anit-semetic jew hater.

what use is he? actually? :wot:

Do we keep him around so we can know what we will have to fight?