Nope. I know you fake Muslims hate he for destroying your false religion, but please stop making accusations. This is my first and only profile on here. I just discovered the site not too long ago. I'm not on the internet much like you guys are. I log off for a few hours, then come back on and you guys are immediately responding to posts. Do you all live on this forum? Wannabe gatekeeper?
The Bible is full of suffering
- Thread starter Mohammed_123
- Start date
So are you not claiming that Christos is not the Greek translation for the Hebrew word Moshiach?
Yet I can pull up the same verse in both Hebrew and Greek and prove it, as I already did here:
Is χριστός now somehow a different word from מָשִׁיחַ?
The 100% fact is that Muslims and Buddhists were doing these stranglings in the name of Kali the goddess of death. The Buddhists were responsible too, but we're talking about the guilty Muslims who were involved too. Read up on it, its a really weird chapter in pagan history.
Bubbajay fails to realize that it is irrelevant whether he picks the Septuagint (Greek) or the Masoretic (Hebrew), he will still face either of those two words in Isaiah 45:1. It is not as if the choice of either makes any different to this issue.
And again regardless of if there is or isn't any historical truth to anything you're saying, it has no relevance to our discussion on the text and etymology of the Bible.
I use an English bible as stated, not Greek or hebrew. I don't know Greek or hebrew, and neither do you. Stop using straw man tactics to prove a point.
If you didn't know Greek or Hebrew, how would you know if I didn't?
I'm sure you will not explain how I am misrepresenting your argument as well, like the other fallacies you accused me of (after I showed the fallacies you where committing and why they were)
1- History. You mention history. So... you've already forgotten about... Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan?
And what about the attacks on Muslims by Hindutva mobs in India? Or what about the genocide of Bosnian Muslims? Or what about Palestine and Kashmir? Or what about the shooting in that mosque in New Zealand? Or Afghanistan being invaded and occupied by the US military for decades. What about the French in Algeria? I think it's interesting how the French committed r*pe but yet French aren't depicted as rapists. What about Italy in Libya? What about Churchill's genocide of Bengalis? What about the British in India? What about the British invading Afghanistan? What about the Soviets in Afghanistan?
You have a very one-sided view of history. There was just an incident of an Moroccan immigrant getting killed in Texas. If that was a Christian getting killed in a Muslim country, you'd say it's Muslims killing Christians but since it's the reverse it's like nothing to you.
2- Pretty much any nonwhite culture gets portrayed as rapists. The reality is that r*pe is a problem in all cultures... whether Afghanistan or Alabama.
The OT translators translated it as anointed not Messiah. Are you claiming to be more of a scholar in those ancient languages than were. Also the NT wasn't written in modern Grrek. It was Koine Greek. There's quite a difference.
It should be Awakenings because historians consider there to be 4 different waves starting in the late 1700's and ending in the late 20th century. As someone mentioned there's some 45,000 Christian denominations, many of which can be identified as branches within the 4 periods. There are significant qualities representing the unique American experience. The ways 20th century Evangelicism was heavily influenced by US military and corporate power is one example.
Right. Thank you for correcting me. My point as was that Muslims were a part of these death cults.
speaking of mass killing, have you heard of this man named George Bush? was he a Muslim?
You STILL don't get it. Messiah MEANS Anointed, Anointed MEANS Messiah.
Anointed, Messiah and Christ are all identical words, all being translations of the Hebrew word Moshiach.
oh and also- the British- what were the British doing there?
who killed more? Thuggees or British?
There are not 45,000 different denominations. This is false, and used by Roman Catholic apologists against Protestants.you'd be hard pressed to name a dozen. They got that figure by claiming each independent church was a denomination in itself. You can't believe everything you read, you have to dig a bit deeper.
The British and the French where especially terrible around this time, America was also doing a lot of terrible things themselves.
Frankly for the most part they have increased over time but turned their genocides into a diplomatic endeavor.
I'd assume the British. That's really not the point since the thuggees targeted other Muslims or hindus. It was a law to not target the British as not to draw attention to their practices. One group got overly greedy and strangled the wrong man. They killed men, woman, and children they left no witnesses. They killed groups of up to 25 at a time.
Again the thuggees targeted only other Muslims or hindus. Men, woman, and children. Quit trying to use other nations as a justification
You are now trying to single out a small mythological, fictitious group over the more genocidal government that invented them. The British have a worse track record than their fictional Thuggee cult.
Of course you have to factor in the innately revolutionary (in leftwing political terms) nature of such acts. It is not religious norm or doctrine of either religion to carry out such acts on an individual basis, one thing that seems to only be considered a footnote in western history is the sheer amount of revolutionary political moments (starting around the 18th/19th century) which spawned this idea of revolutionary violent acts in order to coerce (over time this became a big asset to capitalism and democratic rhetoric but that is another topic) political changes.
The more you go back in history the less frequent this phenomenon is.