Re: WATCHTOWER CONTRADICTION OF ITS OWN TEACHING

[/."".]

> WATCHTOWER CONTRADICTION OF ITS OWN TEACHING
>
> From: Pete <n...@nya.biz>
> Reply to: Pete
> Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:16:17 -0700
> Organization: TeraNews.com
> Newsgroups:
> alt.christnet.christianlife,
> alt.messianic
> Followup to: newsgroups
>
>From The New Schaff Herzog Encyclopaedia the Trinity brochure published by
>the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS) gives a quotation on page 11
>that is used by them to condemn Platonism. The Encyclopaedia states: The
>doctrines of the Logos and the trinity received their shape from Greek
>Fathers, who...were much influenced...by the Platonic philosophy...That
>errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source cannot be
>denied. Yet the Logos doctrine is exactly what the WBTS of the Jehovah�s
>Witnesses teaches when it teaches that a pre-existent Jesus was the logos
>in John 1:1.

One would have in the first place to know what in history this was
referring to to reach this conclusion. Platonic thought and logos are not
inherently related. Logos is a greek word whose meaning is the same
regardless of school of thought.

When one is uninformed one is at complete liberty to invent anything one
can imagine. Being informed is not so kind to such flight of fancies.

If one says that Christ was a creation he agrees with the jw.

[Sam Taylor]

"/.." wrote in message news:519a175d$0$2661$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

********************************************************************
Sam inputs,
Created NO, Begotten Yes, but Begotten as WHAT, That is the question,
as G-D?, as a G-D, or the Only Begotten son of G-D?
He can only be one of these three (3) Choices, and You
must choose.
Sam
********************************************************************

[r]

On May 20, 10:30 pm, /. "". wrote:
> >                  WATCHTOWER CONTRADICTION OF ITS OWN TEACHING
>
> >   From: Pete <n...@nya.biz>
> >   Reply to: Pete
> >   Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:16:17 -0700
> >   Organization: TeraNews.com
> >   Newsgroups:
> >          alt.christnet.christianlife,
> >          alt.messianic
> >   Followup to: newsgroups
>
> >From The New Schaff Herzog Encyclopaedia the Trinity brochure published by
> >the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS) gives a quotation on page 11
> >that is used by them to condemn Platonism. The Encyclopaedia states: The
> >doctrines of the Logos and the trinity received their shape from Greek
> >Fathers, who...were much influenced...by the Platonic philosophy...That
> >errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source cannot be
> >denied. Yet the Logos doctrine is exactly what the WBTS of the Jehovah s
> >Witnesses teaches when it teaches that a pre-existent Jesus was the logos
> >in John 1:1.
>
> One would have in the first place to know what in history this was
> referring to to reach this conclusion.  Platonic thought and logos are not
> inherently related.  Logos is a greek word whose meaning is the same
> regardless of school of thought.

That reminds me how Christians in Islamic countries call God 'Allah'
from their own languages (that don't have 'God') - meaning not the
Allah of Islam but Allah of the Judeo/Christiantity.

Likewise, for our passage: not the logos of Gr philosophy, but the
logos the LXX scriptures reveals (wherein it occurs some 200 times).

[./"".]

>>From The New Schaff Herzog Encyclopaedia the Trinity brochure published by
>>the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS) gives a quotation on page 11
>>that is used by them to condemn Platonism. The Encyclopaedia states: The
>>doctrines of the Logos and the trinity received their shape from Greek
>>Fathers, who...were much influenced...by the Platonic philosophy...That
>>errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source cannot be
>>denied. Yet the Logos doctrine is exactly what the WBTS of the Jehovah�s
>>Witnesses teaches when it teaches that a pre-existent Jesus was the logos
>>in John 1:1.
>
>One would have in the first place to know what in history this was
>referring to to reach this conclusion. Platonic thought and logos are not
>inherently related. Logos is a greek word whose meaning is the same
>regardless of school of thought.
>
>When one is uninformed one is at complete liberty to invent anything one
>can imagine. Being informed is not so kind to such flight of fancies.
>
>If one says that Christ was a creation he agrees with the jw.
>
>********************************************************************
>Sam inputs,
>Created NO, Begotten Yes, but Begotten as WHAT, That is the question,
>as G-D?, as a G-D, or the Only Begotten son of G-D?
>He can only be one of these three (3) Choices, and You
>must choose.
>Sam
>********************************************************************

As God. The John says the logos was God, and the logos became flesh and
dwelt among us. Christ declared himself God. Thomas declared Him as "my
lord and my God". One God, three persons in the one God. This question was
answered long ago here in the creed by which acceptance a christian is
measured:

I believe in one God, Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of
all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
only-begotten Son of God; begotten of the Father before all ages; Light
from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, of One Essence with
the Father, by Whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our
salvation, came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and
the Virgin Mary, and became Man:

[./"".]

>>>From The New Schaff Herzog Encyclopaedia the Trinity brochure published by
>>>the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS) gives a quotation on page 11
>>>that is used by them to condemn Platonism. The Encyclopaedia states: The
>>>doctrines of the Logos and the trinity received their shape from Greek
>>>Fathers, who...were much influenced...by the Platonic philosophy...That
>>>errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source cannot be
>>>denied. Yet the Logos doctrine is exactly what the WBTS of the Jehovah�s
>>>Witnesses teaches when it teaches that a pre-existent Jesus was the logos
>>>in John 1:1.
>>
>> One would have in the first place to know what in history this was
>> referring to to reach this conclusion. Platonic thought and logos are not
>> inherently related. Logos is a greek word whose meaning is the same
>> regardless of school of thought.
>>
>

>No it isn't. And this post is specific to the JW's and their confusions.

When "the word" is used in John a direct translation of logos which in
greek has that meaning.

The jw tinker with adding language where "the word was God" and make it
"and the word was a God. In both cases logos means "the word".

[Up from the Abyss]

"Pete" wrote:
> r <roy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > /. "". wrote:
> >>
> >> If one says that Christ was a creation he agrees with the jw.
>

> Allah in Greek would be god, not God.

No. "Allah" would be rendered "ton theon" in Greek, as it
literally means "the God", or "the diety" as Snow would put
it.

It could be rendered "ho theos", but as a standalone direct
word for word, it would be ton theon. It could not be simply
rendered as "theos" as in John 1:1c.

En arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros
ton Theon kai theos en ho logos.


It is a cognate of 'el / 'eloah / 'elohim.

Aramaic: 'elah
Phoenician: 'el, 'elon
Samaritan: 'el
Ugaritic: 'il ; 'ilm ; 'ilhm : fem. 'ilt ; 'ilht
Akkadian: 'ilu : fem. 'iltu ; ilati: goddess[es]
Arabic: 'il ; 'ilah ; allah [with the article 'al] ;
'allaha [he deified] ; 'iluha ; 'uluha :
fem. 'al`itat ; 'allat
OS Arabic: 'ilh : fem. 'ilht

[r]

On May 21, 5:01 pm, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

> Allah in Greek would be god, ...

Do we know this for sure? I have no idea what it would be in Arabic.

> ... not God.

Does Arabic make that distinction?

>... To the muslim they might try and say
> it is Allah because to them their god is God. ...

Well, Christians have always used Allah as there is no other Arabic
word for God.

Allah is used in the Bible in Arabic and in associated languages like
Indonesian and Malay. Christians in Islamic countries use Allah
(meaning the Allah of the Bible).

> ... And they will persecute a
> Christian for using the word Allah.
>
> In India their gods are often Incarnated, so if you use the term
> incarnation to describe the word becoming flesh they would understand His
> as just another one of the Incarnate gods. There is no distinction made.
>
> Plato's use of Logos in light of their gods provides and undesireable
> understanding of Logos. ...

'Logos' or 'ho logos' is used throughout the LXX some 200 times, as
the franca lingua of the times. I.e. 'logos' used with OT meaning
than Greek philosophy.

It is absurd that John 1:14 'the [logos] was made flesh' is seen as a
juxtaposition of Greek and Indian philosophies.

> ... Johns realistic understanding was memra as also the
> hebrews he was speaking to would understand it.

Agreed. The LXX and NT writers used a common word of the day with
Jewish meaning (memra).

r

[r]

On May 21, 6:02 pm, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
> "Pete" wrote:

> > r <roym...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >  /. "". wrote:
>
> > >> If one says that Christ was a creation he agrees with the jw.
>
> > Allah in Greek would be god, not God.
>
> No.  "Allah" would be rendered "ton theon" in Greek, as it
> literally means "the God", or "the diety" as Snow would put
> it.
>
> It could be rendered "ho theos", but as a standalone direct
> word for word, it would be ton theon.  It could not be simply
> rendered as "theos" as in John 1:1c.
>
> En arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros
> ton Theon kai theos en ho logos.

Both logos and theos are nominative case [subjective case] to the verb
'was': i.e. logos and theos are one and the same.

The accusative case [objective case] of theos is theon.

[Sam Taylor]

"./." wrote in message news:519a5c3d$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

************************************************************************
SAM
WRONG!!!! Creator of ALL Things not Maker-----The Son is the Maker of ALL
THINGS!!!
************************************************************************

all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
only-begotten Son of God; begotten of the Father before all ages; Light

************************************************************************
Sam
This is the Old Eternally preexistent With the father Junk, which Would Mean
that they both Eternally exist before they exist, sort of a figment of
Imagination.
IF You Actually believe He is the "Only Begotten Son" of G-D, then You Must
Believe G-D gave birth to Him from his own being, and that happened INSIDE
of Time, not Outside of Time, A Time before he came forth, a Time of Coming
forth, and a Time after coming Forth, or the Words "Only Begotten" are only
a disguise of the truth, like an allagory a lil white lie.
***************************************************************************

from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, of One Essence with

*****************************************************************************
Sam
True G-D or Very G-D only one can be either, and the Messiah declared that
to
be the Father in the book of John by Saying "that men may know THEE the ONLY
TRUE G-D, and Yahshua Messiah whom thou hast sent"
*****************************************************************************

the Father, by Whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our
salvation, came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and
the Virgin Mary, and became Man:

*********************************************************************************
Sam
I mostly agree, although Mary was a Young maiden, and he DID NOT INCARNATE,
HE BECAME 100% Flesh, not 50% Flesh 50% Spirit, nor 75% flesh 25% Spirit
but 100% Flesh, and when that happened was when G-D really gave His Son,
not on the Cross, as that would make G-D the murderer of the Messiah.
*********************************************************************************

[Sam Taylor]

"Pete" wrote in message news:hMrmt.16377$xl6....@newsfe15.iad...

On 20 May 2013 12:30:21 GMT, /. wrote:

>> WATCHTOWER CONTRADICTION OF ITS OWN TEACHING
>>
>> From: Pete <n...@nya.biz>
>> Reply to: Pete
>> Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:16:17 -0700
>> Organization: TeraNews.com
>> Newsgroups:
>> alt.christnet.christianlife,
>> alt.messianic
>> Followup to: newsgroups
>>
>>From The New Schaff Herzog Encyclopaedia the Trinity brochure published by
>>the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS) gives a quotation on page 11
>>that is used by them to condemn Platonism. The Encyclopaedia states: The
>>doctrines of the Logos and the trinity received their shape from Greek
>>Fathers, who...were much influenced...by the Platonic philosophy...That
>>errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source cannot be
>>denied. Yet the Logos doctrine is exactly what the WBTS of the Jehovah�s
>>Witnesses teaches when it teaches that a pre-existent Jesus was the logos
>>in John 1:1.
>
> One would have in the first place to know what in history this was
> referring to to reach this conclusion. Platonic thought and logos are not
> inherently related. Logos is a greek word whose meaning is the same
> regardless of school of thought.
>

No it isn't. And this post is specific to the JW's and their confusions.

> When one is uninformed one is at complete liberty to invent anything one
> can imagine. Being informed is not so kind to such flight of fancies.
>
> If one says that Christ was a creation he agrees with the jw.

Sam Interjects,
They believe he is Michael the archangel, a created Not Begotten
love
Sam




--
Peter
A living Stone
A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
Joh 13:34-35 KJV

[.."".]

>Allah in Greek would be god, not God. To the muslim they might try and say
>it is Allah because to them their god is God. And they will persecute a

>Christian for using the word Allah.

Allah is the arabic word for God. If one visits an arab church that is the
name used. A muslim could care less if it is used or not, in fact they
might be pleased if you do.

>In India their gods are often Incarnated, so if you use the term
>incarnation to describe the word becoming flesh they would understand His
>as just another one of the Incarnate gods. There is no distinction made.

The gods of hinduism are not incarnations. Nor do their gods become human
as Christ did.

>Plato's use of Logos in light of their gods provides and undesireable

>understanding of Logos. Johns realistic understanding was memra as also the

>hebrews he was speaking to would understand it.

Logos means "word" regardless of who uses it or in what context. John's
use of the "the word became flesh and dwelt among us" has nothing to do
with plato nor the hindu unerstanding of reincarnation.

Again, the uninformed are at liberty to invent all manner of fancy and self
serving on the fly inventions, not being inhibited with the facts.

[.."".]

>> I believe in one God, Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of

>> all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
>> only-begotten Son of God; begotten of the Father before all ages; Light

>> from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, of One Essence with

>> the Father, by Whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our
>> salvation, came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and
>> the Virgin Mary, and became Man:
>

>And incarnate being does not become flesh, they control it. Aloof from the
>body. That creed was influenced by those who worshipped the Greek gods and
>brought their understandings with them. John only used the word "logos"
>because of the Greek language, it was a Stoic term, but he did not use it
>as such, the Hebrews he spoke with knew he was discussing the understanding
>of memra.
>

Nonsense, "became flesh" in the greek word John used has the meaning of
enfleshment which means exactly incarnation as used in english. We did a
word study here on this some time back in detail to demonstrate exactly
this point.

So to carry the point to its conclusion, John was just repeating the greek
pagan understanding of incarnation, I think not.

>Essence is a useless insignificant trite word. There is no where in the
>bible that mentions or compares three persons as one God. Nowhere.

In scripture the father is given as God, the son is given as God, as well
the HS isgiven as God. Christ declared He is God. The three appeared in
one point of time at the baptism of Christ seperately.

In past I and others have posted the creed above with the exact phrases of
it illustrated in scripture.

The jw and mormon and muslim and oneness pentecostal and other cults would
agree with the objections mentioned about the creed, now ain't that
interesting? We see why the creed is the line in the sand by which a
christian is defined on basic matters of faith.

[r]

On May 22, 12:07 am, .. "". wrote:
> >Allah in Greek would be god, not God. To the muslim they might try and say

> >it is Allah because to them their god is God. ...

And our English word 'God' does not derive from Hebrew nor Koine Gk.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=god&searchmode=none

I s'ppose we could use transliterations in our English translations
e.g. 'theos' (from the Gk.) or 'YHWH' (from the Heb.), for instance

> ... And they will persecute a

> >Christian for using the word Allah.
>
> Allah is the arabic word for God.  If one visits an arab church that is the
> name used.  A muslim could care less if it is used or not, in fact they
> might be pleased if you do.

And our English spelling 'Allah' is our transliteration from the
Arabic.

[r]

On May 22, 12:08 pm, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 May 2013 01:02:57 -0700, Up from the Abyss <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Pete" wrote:

> Perhaps I should have been clearer. The god Allah, if mentioned in the
> Greek Bible would be noted as a god.

How would that be?

Does Arabic lack the indirect article like Koine Gk, too?

> They have already attacked Christians for using the word Allah, and it is
> forbidden in places. Where I don't remember if asked I just remember this
> spoken about a couple years ago.

Our English word 'God' is not the Bible either. It's not a
transliteration of theos nor YHWH, for instance.

[./"".]

>> Nonsense, "became flesh" in the greek word John used has the meaning of
>> enfleshment which means exactly incarnation as used in english. We did a
>> word study here on this some time back in detail to demonstrate exactly
>> this point.
>>
>

>Fool? Why do you lie like that. You know for a fact that I showed you the
>word in Greek for incarnation and it was never used in the Bible, anywhere.
>You dug up Italian words and solely because they had the word "meat" in it
>you glombed on to their word incarnation. Even that was not in the Vulgate.

Someone is smoking some funny weed. The word rendered "flesh" in John has
the exact meaning of "flesh" as in meat. It "is carne" as I recall, which
relationship to "encarnation" is obvious. To "become flesh" is captured
well in the word incarnation which in english indicates enfleshment.

All of the discussion was relative to greek not latin nor the vulgate.

[./"".]

>They have already attacked Christians for using the word Allah, and it is
>forbidden in places. Where I don't remember if asked I just remember this
>spoken about a couple years ago.

The arabic word for God is allah. Attending an arab church would find the
exact same word used. Some half remembered or imagined notion that a
muslim would react as claimed to mention the name of God does not serve.

[/"".]

>>>Allah in Greek would be god, not God. To the muslim they might try and say

>>>it is Allah because to them their god is God. And they will persecute a

>>>Christian for using the word Allah.
>>
>> Allah is the arabic word for God. If one visits an arab church that is the
>> name used. A muslim could care less if it is used or not, in fact they
>> might be pleased if you do.
>>
>

>Just one of many...
>KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia �X Three Malaysian Christian churches were attacked
>with firebombs Friday, causing extensive damage to one and sharply
>escalating religious tensions in the country over the use of the word
>"Allah" by non-Muslim minorities.


The source if you please, context is everything. One event does not
indicate what muslims as a whole think. In such ethnic conflicts any item
can be used willy nilly as an excuse. In my experience knowing the word
allah in the presence of a muslim would bring a smile.

>>>In India their gods are
often Incarnated, so if you
use the term
>>>incarnation to describe the word becoming flesh they would understand His
>>>as just another one of the Incarnate gods. There is no distinction made.
>>
>> The gods of hinduism are not incarnations. Nor do their gods become human
>> as Christ did.
>>
>

>[Why was Krishna not able to stop the unspeakable tragedy of the
>Mahabharata war even though he was God incarnated? Why was he not able to
>turn the evil men of his day away from evil? Why does God fail?
>
>Now Kalki Avathar Incarnated in India Written in Ancient Nadi Palm Leaves
>
>Now Kalki Avathar Incarnated in India Written in Ancient Nadi Palm Leaves
> Dailymotion - May 09, 2012 - 5:21
>www.kalkiavathar.com. Aadi Tamil stanzas with English translation about
>Authentic historical evidences of Kalki Avathar, Incarnation of God ...
>
>There are hundred more of this kind of stuff.

Sorry there are no such "hundreds". The god you mention is the only one to
which it was applied. The word used is "avatar" in the sanskrit. The
meaning is one closer to physical representation not incarnation. But
translation into english gave us incarnation as the next best word.

>>>Plato's use of Logos in
light of their gods provides and undesireable

>>>understanding of Logos. Johns realistic understanding was memra as also the
>>>hebrews he was speaking to would understand it.
>>
>> Logos means "word" regardless of who uses it or in what context. John's
>> use of the "the word became flesh and dwelt among us" has nothing to do
>> with plato nor the hindu unerstanding of reincarnation.
>>
>

>You are the one who keeps mixing in incarnation and or trinity whenever
>there is a convo. You are incorrect on all points. This is a thread
>regarding the screwups of the JW's which you missed.
>
>logos, to your mind equals only word. Fine. As you said no matter the
>context, no matter who uses it. You quick and unknowledgeable judgment just
>limited your understanding. A word cannot become something else according
>to Fool. Congratulations. you have missed the mark my a mile. Just like all
>your statements above.

>
>> Again, the uninformed are at liberty to invent all manner of fancy and self
>> serving on the fly inventions, not being inhibited with the facts.
>

>AYUP! Read my replies to your conjectures.

Those replies only showed how the uninformed take a bit of information
wrongly understood and make of it a house of cards. A little knowledge is
a dangerous thing, it has been said.

[//"".]

> Our English word 'God' is not the Bible either. It's not a
> transliteration of theos nor YHWH, for instance.

"By George I think you got it! Allah is not a transliteration for God, it
IS the name of their god."

It is the name of God in arabic. In an arab church you will hear the exact
same name for God being used.

[Holier Than Thou]

On May 21, 10:03 pm, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

> On 21 May 2013 14:25:53 GMT, ..  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> I believe in one God, Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of
> >>> all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
> >>> only-begotten Son of God; begotten of the Father before all ages; Light
> >>> from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, of One Essence with
> >>> the Father, by Whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our
> >>> salvation, came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and
> >>> the Virgin Mary, and became Man:
>
> >>And incarnate being does not become flesh, they control it. Aloof from the
> >>body. That creed was influenced by those who worshipped the Greek gods and
> >>brought their understandings with them. John only used the word "logos"
> >>because of the Greek language, it was a Stoic term, but he did not use it
> >>as such, the Hebrews he spoke with knew he was discussing the understanding
> >>of memra.
>
> > Nonsense, "became flesh" in the greek word John used has the meaning of
> > enfleshment which means exactly incarnation as used in english.  We did a
> > word study here on this some time back in detail to demonstrate exactly
> > this point.

[MKJV]
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not
even one thing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did
not overtake it.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God; his name was John.
Joh 1:7 This one came as a witness, to bear witness concerning the
Light, so that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that
Light.
Joh 1:9 He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into
the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through
Him, and the world did not know Him.
Joh 1:11 He came to His own, and His own received Him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to
become the children of God, to those who believe on His name,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but were born of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word ___BECAME FLESH,___ and tabernacled among us.
And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the
Father, full of grace and of truth.


BECAME FLESH - From Gk. 1096 and 4561:

Gk. 1096
ginomai
A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -
erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with
great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.).


Gk. 4561
sarx
Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that
is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the
body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is
external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature
(with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or
(specifically) a human being (as such).


>
> Fool?

He did not call you a fool; so you are judging him by asking if he is
a "Fool"? Shame (and projection)!!!


>
> Why do you lie like that.

Projection.

>
> You know for a fact that I showed you the
> word in Greek for incarnation and it was never used in the Bible, anywhere.

So WHAT if a Latin word is commonly used to describe God born in the
flesh as "the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God"?

And so WHAT if the word "trinity" is commonly used to describe the
fact that the Scriptures portray as God Himself "the Father", the Son
of God, and the Holy Spirit?

You're hung up on semantics, but your real problem is your denial of
Christ as God; you are antichrist.

> You dug up Italian words and solely because they had the word "meat" in it
> you glombed on to their word incarnation. Even that was not in the Vulgate.
>

> Yes, we went through it all with you kicking an screaming about, to prove a
> point that never existed. It also showed the falsehoods in many of the
> creeds you place you life into.
>
> <snipped> the rest. Nothing you said was valid, and based on countless
> circular arguments of yours in the past there is no place here for you to
> go. I suggest you look for the truth.


Nothing you say is "valid", i.e. true.

Linda Lee

[Rod]

> A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (�gen� -

> erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with
> great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.).
>
>
> Gk. 4561
> sarx
> Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that
> is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the
> body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is
> external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature
> (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or
> (specifically) a human being (as such).
>
>
>>
>> Fool?
>
> He did not call you a fool; so you are judging him by asking if he is
> a "Fool"? Shame (and projection)!!!

The person he was talking to used to go by the posting alias "Fool",
and yet YOU lecture him on calling someone a fool while inferring the
same about him.

One wrong right after the other.

[Holier Than Thou]

LOL! I thought I was replying to Snowjob until I saw Pete's name
after it posted. I forgot that Pete has some agreement with Snowjob on
the validity of the word incarnation as well as the word trinity. I
forgot that. Of course Snowjob doesn't believe God became flesh and
that Christ was God.

[Linda Lee]

> > A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -

> > erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with
> > great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.).
>
> > Gk. 4561
> > sarx
> > Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that
> > is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the
> > body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is
> > external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature
> > (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or
> > (specifically) a human being (as such).
>
> >> Fool?
>
> > He did not call you a fool; so you are judging him by asking if he is
> > a "Fool"?  Shame (and projection)!!!
>
>     The person he was talking to used to go by the posting alias "Fool",
> and yet YOU lecture him on calling someone a fool while inferring the
> same about him.

Thanks for explaining that, but I think it is understandable that
someone would think he was asking if he was a "Fool?" How about
saying 'Were you formerly posting as "Fool"?'

>
> One wrong right after the other.

...after another; I thought I was replying to someone other than Pete
because of his objection to the word "incarnation".

[Sam Taylor]

"Holier Than Thou" wrote in message
news:12541981-c51d-43d5...@s6g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...

A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (�gen� -

*******************************************************************
Sam injects,
Scriptures tells us who the Antichrist are.......................Those whom
deny
The Messiah came as meat, not half Meat/half Spirit but 100% meat.
*******************************************************************

[Rod]

>>> A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (�gen� -

>>> erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with
>>> great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.).
>>
>>> Gk. 4561
>>> sarx
>>> Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that
>>> is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the
>>> body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is
>>> external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature
>>> (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or
>>> (specifically) a human being (as such).
>>
>>>> Fool?
>>
>>> He did not call you a fool; so you are judging him by asking if he is
>>> a "Fool"? Shame (and projection)!!!
>>
>> The person he was talking to used to go by the posting alias "Fool",
>> and yet YOU lecture him on calling someone a fool while inferring the
>> same about him.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for explaining that, but I think it is understandable that
> someone would think he was asking if he was a "Fool?" How about
> saying 'Were you formerly posting as "Fool"?'
>
>>
>> One wrong right after the other.
>
> ...after another; I thought I was replying to someone other than Pete
> because of his objection to the word "incarnation".

I guess it's hard for some people to understand water or air being
in many places at one time.

air is still air even when it's over their

[r]

On May 22, 4:06 pm, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

> Whatever they call their god it still isn't GOD. They know the name of the
> Hebrew God, so why not be upfront and use that name?

Yes, but both the LXX and the NT scriptures, themselves, do not
transliterate the Hebrew for God, be it YHWH or Adonai or el shaddai
or whatever.

> >> They have already attacked Christians for using the word Allah, and it is
> >> forbidden in places. Where I don't remember if asked I just remember this
> >> spoken about a couple years ago.
>
> > Our English word 'God' is not the Bible either.  It's not a
> > transliteration of theos nor YHWH, for instance.
>

> By George I think you got it! Allah is not a transliteration for God, it IS
> the name of their god.

No. Allah by Christians in Islamic countries is the Allah of
Christianity, not the Allah of Islam.

[//"".]

>>> By George I think you got it! Allah is not a transliteration for God,
>>> it IS the name of their god.
>>
>> No. Allah by Christians in Islamic countries is the Allah of
>> Christianity, not the Allah of Islam.
>>
>

>Any muslim will tell you no.

Any muslim or christian arab will tell you yes. Before there was ever
islam in the 8th century the christian arabs used Allah for the name of
God, they still do. You can go to any arab church and hear it all the
time.

In fact in aramaic the language Christ used the word and the way it is
spoken are almost exactly the same. Arabic and aramaic are sister
languages, as is hebrew for that matter. All three have the name of God
from the same root word. Christ would have said Allah as God.

[r]

On May 24, 7:47 am, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

> And they do not use Allah.

Why would they? Arabic would not have been common language in NT
times.

If NT writers were comfortable to translate YHWH as theos, and our
English translators likewise to God, surely other languages can choose
non-transliterations as well e.g.

Chinese: shang ti
Spanish: dios

etc.

There are about 3 times Chinese speakers than English speakers.

>
> >>>> They have already attacked Christians for using the word Allah, and it is
> >>>> forbidden in places. Where I don't remember if asked I just remember this
> >>>> spoken about a couple years ago.
>
> >>> Our English word 'God' is not the Bible either. It's not a
> >>> transliteration of theos nor YHWH, for instance.
>
> >> By George I think you got it! Allah is not a transliteration for God, it IS
> >> the name of their god.
>
> > No.  Allah by Christians in Islamic countries is the Allah of
> > Christianity, not the Allah of Islam.
>

> Any muslim will tell you no.

As much as we say that their Allah is not the same as the Christian
Allah.

[r]

Aye. The Aramaic name for God is transliterated Elah.

[r]

On May 24, 9:48 am, // "". wrote:

Said to be a "contraction of al-Ilahu, from al "the" + Ilah "God,"
related to Hebrew Elohim"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Allah&allowed_in_frame=0

r

[r]

On May 24, 4:07 pm, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

The same Allah/Elohim connection is picked up here, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

Note how that article describes why Arab Christians use it.

> > r
>
> The muslim did not exist till around 600AD and then a minority. Before that
> time certain terms were not in use in other than their pagan worshipping.
>
> There was no term in the Bible that tied into the words some would use to
> "enhance" the brotherhood of the muslim mixing and being close to
> Christianity. One should go deeper than superficial studies just to make a
> point out of context with the reality of history.

["".]

> Any muslim or christian arab will tell you yes. =A0Before there was ever

> islam in the 8th century the christian arabs used Allah for the name of

> God, they still do. =A0You can go to any arab church and hear it all the

> time.
>
> In fact in aramaic the language Christ used the word and the way it is

> spoken are almost exactly the same. =A0Arabic and aramaic are sister
> languages, as is hebrew for that matter. =A0All three have the name of
Go=
d
> from the same root word. =A0Christ would have said Allah as God.

"Aye. The Aramaic name for God is transliterated Elah."

As in all languages there are regional variations and variation by
historical period. Here is what one dictionary offers for ancient times:

http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi

Pronunciation: (Eastern) AaLaH
(Western) AaLoH

Christ would have spoken some variation of the western form.

[Sam Taylor]

"r" wrote in message
news:42cd62b5-9651-4e2a...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

On May 24, 4:07 pm, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:38:52 -0700 (PDT), r <roym...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 24, 9:48 am, // "". wrote:
> >>>>> By George I think you got it! Allah is not a transliteration for
> >>>>> God,
> >>>>> it IS the name of their god.
>
> >>>> No. Allah by Christians in Islamic countries is the Allah of
> >>>> Christianity, not the Allah of Islam.
>
> >>>Any muslim will tell you no.
>
> >> Any muslim or christian arab will tell you yes. Before there was ever
> >> islam in the 8th century the christian arabs used Allah for the name of
> >> God, they still do. You can go to any arab church and hear it all the
> >> time.
>
> >> In fact in aramaic the language Christ used the word and the way it is
> >> spoken are almost exactly the same. Arabic and aramaic are sister
> >> languages, as is hebrew for that matter. All three have the name of
> >> God
> >> from the same root word. Christ would have said Allah as God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that is True, they are from the Syriatic Language from which Hebrew,
Aramaic, and and the Four Arabic Languages spring forth.
The rules of each Spring forth Similar in fashion, and are distinct
from the Greek, the Latin, and the Germanic languages.
You cannot Compare English form, and principals of
speech, as they differ greatly in conduct, and applications
Sam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[r]

thnx for that ....... that saves me from finding my copy of the
Peshitta.

>
> Christ would have spoken some variation of the western form.

It looks that way.

r

[r]

On May 25, 2:33 am, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:14 -0700 (PDT), r <roym...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 24, 4:07 pm, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:38:52 -0700 (PDT), r <roym...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On May 24, 9:48 am, // "". wrote:
> >>>>>>> By George I think you got it! Allah is not a transliteration for God,
> >>>>>>> it IS the name of their god.
>
> >>>>>> No.  Allah by Christians in Islamic countries is the Allah of
> >>>>>> Christianity, not the Allah of Islam.
>
> >>>>>Any muslim will tell you no.
>
> >>>> Any muslim or christian arab will tell you yes.  Before there was ever
> >>>> islam in the 8th century the christian arabs used Allah for the name of
> >>>> God, they still do.  You can go to any arab church and hear it all the
> >>>> time.
>
> >>>> In fact in aramaic the language Christ used the word and the way it is
> >>>> spoken are almost exactly the same.  Arabic and aramaic are sister
> >>>> languages, as is hebrew for that matter.  All three have the name of God
> >>>> from the same root word.  Christ would have said Allah as God.
>
> >>> Said to be a "contraction of al-Ilahu, from al "the" + Ilah "God,"
> >>> related to Hebrew Elohim"
> >>>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Allah&allowed_in_frame=0
>
> > The same Allah/Elohim connection is picked up here, too.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah
>
> > Note how that article describes why Arab Christians use it.
>
> >>> r
>

> That the term Allah was used in pre-Islamic times for any pagan deity,
> suggesting that it is quite possible that Allah was applied to Hubal, is a
> view held by many scholars and writers:
>
> "... The name used for God was 'Allah', which was already in use for one of
> the local gods (it is now also used by Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians
> as the name of God) ..." (Albert Hourani, A History of Arab Peoples [Warner
> Books Edition, paperback 1992], p. 16; bold emphasis ours)
>
> "Allah, the paramount deity of PAGAN Arabia, was the target of worship in
> varying degrees of intensity from the southernmost tip of Arabia to the
> Mediterranean. To the Babylonians he was "Il" (god); to the Canaanites, and
> later the Israelites, he was "El"; the South Arabians worshiped him as
> "Ilah," and the Bedouins as "al-Ilah" (the deity). With Muhammad he BECOMES
> Allah, God of the Worlds, of all believers, the one and only who admits of
> no associates or consorts in the worship of Him. Judaic and Christian
> concepts of God abetted the transformation of Allah FROM A PAGAN DEITY to
> the God of all monotheists. There is no reason, therefore, to accept the
> idea that "Allah" passed to the Muslims from Christians and Jews." (Caesar
> E. Farah, Ph.D., Islam [Barron's Educational Series, 2000, sixth edition
> paperback] p. 28; bold and capital emphasis ours)
>
> Ibn Kathir noted that Muhammad's family worshiped Hubal, with the Oxford
> Dictionary of Islam stating that Hubal was the Quraysh's patron deity. If
> Hitti is correct regarding Allah being the Quraysh's' tribal deity then
> this provides additional proof that Allah was a name for Hubal. Note the
> following syllogism:
> 1. Hubal was the chief deity of the Quraysh.
> 2. Allah was the chief deity of the Quraysh.
> 3. Therefore, Hubal was Allah in pre-Islamic times.
>
> http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ishmael-baal.htm
>
> From another source....
> I think the issue is not whether it is appropriate for Christians to use
> the word Allah for "God". Probably the issue is if "Allah" in the Qur'an is
> exactly the same as YHVH in the Bible. I would have to say absolutely not!
> But just as I do not stop using the word "God" in English because many
> false sects also use that same word, I do not need to stop using the word
> "Allah" just because the Qur'an uses the same word. Rather, I need to show
> Muslims the true identity of Allah in the Bible, instead of fighting with
> them over semantics, and therefore never getting to the real issues.
>
> The Hebrew name for God is used in no other religion, it is unadulterated.
> The Jews integrated no outside name for God, for they respected God to such
> an extant that they would not pronounce His name lest they dishonor it by
> voice inflection or other cause.
>
> To take the name of God so lightly that it does not matter what one calls
> Him only that one means the "true God" is facetious at best. Those that
> call on Allah think of him as their "true God" when in fact he is just (a
> god) amongst many. That type of thinking that no matter what one calls Him
> it all goes to the same place leads to a cult like thinking that all roads
> lead to "God" religiously and such is not the case.
>
> Those that have learned or been conned should be corrected, and the Arabs
> and other Christians who have been forbidden to speak the name of Allah for
> their Christian understandings should be grateful and start using the
> proper names for God and Honor the one true God above all other gods.

Our English translations don't use those 'proper names' either,
favoring 'God' or 'LORD'. Neither the LXX nor the NT transliterate
the Jewish names for God.

> Jesus is NOT the son of Allah!

Yea, verily. Christians in Islamic countries say that they
Christianized Allah as much as we have Christianized the English
spelling of "God" (from pagan origins). As in any other language
translations of the Bible, the 'god' of the recipient language is
used.

I don't think that Christians in Islamic countries have compromised
their faith as much as ourselves with the English spelling of God.

r

["".]

>Jesus is NOT the son of Allah!

And is Christ the son of all the multitude of names for Him inmany
languages?

This is entering into silly season.

Visit an arab church this sunday and hear that very name being used. Visit
any church of any number where another language is used and hear another
name not "God" being used.

What is really at hand here is an attempt to say the name of Allah used by
muslims means it is another god because they do not accept the Trinity etc.
that are hallmarks of christians.

But instantly one has backed oneself into a corner of logic. Jews are in
the exact same place as the muslim on this and would have the exact same
reasons to reject the christian doctrine of God. Is their's another god?

But then any group such as jw and mormon and oneness pentecostal etc. who
also reject Trinity are like the muslim in many regards. Do they have
another god and if yes why?

Mohamed clearly knew of the jewish and christian concept of God and he took
same as his own. There is one school of thought that mohamed was a
christian of a heretic sect who rejected the christian Trinity etc. which
shows up in the koran. Jesus plays a centrol role in it including most of
the elements held by christians. The main difference is that He did not
rise from the dead and was not divine but man only. Virgin birth,
miricles, coming again etc., it's all in the koran.

["".]

>> I don't think that Christians in Islamic countries have compromised
>> their faith as much as ourselves with the English spelling of God.
>>
>

>I do. When Allah stood for BAAL I see no other alternative. The word god
>one could say is generic. As was the word "Theos" for all the various
>deities were a theos. I could almost guarantee you that in the 1st 550
>years of Christianity in Arabia that God was never called "Allah". So why
>not use the name they did then?

Such an assertion will require proof that arabs did not use that name as
arab chirstians do now. As in another post in this thread, Christ would
have used a name very similar in sound because he spoke a sister language
to arabic.

The name has the same hebrew root as a name for God in the OT. In fact the
very first verse in genesis uses a plural form of that root name; "in the
beginning God (a plural form in hebrew). It is "Elohim", which in single
form would be something like "EEloh" from which the relationship to Allah
is clear.

[//"".]

> Re: Name of God in arabic, was ""WATCHTOWER CONTRADICTION
>
> From: Pete <n...@nya.biz>
> Reply to: Pete
> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 23:07:34 -0700
> Organization: TeraNews.com
> Newsgroups:
> alt.christnet.christianlife,
> alt.messianic
> Followup to: newsgroups
> References:
> <g8wnt.19426$KM4....@newsfe25.iad>
> <519eaae4$0$2661$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>
> <56d54f57-d90b-4ed3...@oy9g2000pbb.googlegroups.c
> om>

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:38:52 -0700 (PDT), r <roy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> By George I think you got it! Allah is not a transliteration for God,
>>>>>> it IS the name of their god.
>>>
>>>>> No. �Allah by Christians in Islamic countries is the Allah of
>>>>> Christianity, not the Allah of Islam.
>>>
>>>>Any muslim will tell you no.
>>>
>>> Any muslim or christian arab will tell you yes. �Before there was ever
>>> islam in the 8th century the christian arabs used Allah for the name of
>>> God, they still do. �You can go to any arab church and hear it all the
>>> time.
>>>
>>> In fact in aramaic the language Christ used the word and the way it is
>>> spoken are almost exactly the same. �Arabic and aramaic are sister
>>> languages, as is hebrew for that matter. �All three have the name of God
>>> from the same root word. �Christ would have said Allah as God.
>>
>> Said to be a "contraction of al-Ilahu, from al "the" + Ilah "God,"
>> related to Hebrew Elohim"
>> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Allah&allowed_in_frame=0
>>

>> r
>
>The muslim did not exist till around 600AD and then a minority. Before that
>time certain terms were not in use in other than their pagan worshipping.
>
>There was no term in the Bible that tied into the words some would use to
>"enhance" the brotherhood of the muslim mixing and being close to
>Christianity. One should go deeper than superficial studies just to make a
>point out of context with the reality of history.

The context of history is being distorted by ignoring that the arabic and
aramaic and hebrew words for God are of a kind. As above Elohim reflects
the root word for all of them.

Before islam the arabic christian used something like Allah, as did Christ
in aramaic.

Any such as the assertion above will have to be proven. The uninformed are
free to invent all manner of history not having been previously aquainted
with the facts of it in any detail.

[r]

On May 25, 7:34 am, ;; "". wrote:
> >> I don't think that Christians in Islamic countries have compromised
> >> their faith as much as ourselves with the English spelling of God.
>

> >I do. When Allah stood for BAAL I see no other alternative. ...

Could that be the same with our days of the week that are named after
Roman gods?

> ... The word god
> >one could say is generic. ...

Our English 'God' does not have Judeo/Christian origins. Yes, we use
lower case 'god' for any other than the Judeo/Christian 'God' which is
distinguished by the capitalisation.

> ... As was the word "Theos" for all the various
> >deities were a theos. ...

NT Koine Gk was all caps until the miniscules which came later. That
theta is caps is determined by context.

> ... I could almost guarantee you that in the 1st 550
> >years of Christianity in Arabia that God was never called "Allah". ...

I'm not up to speed on that point. Only that it appears in Aramaic as
Elaha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah.

> ... So why

> >not use the name they did then?

Because it means God [or god]. The Allah of Islam is not the same
Allah for Arabic Christians.

> Such an assertion will require proof that arabs did not use that name as
> arab chirstians do now.  As in another post in this thread, Christ would
> have used a name very similar in sound because he spoke a sister language
> to arabic.
>
> The name has the same hebrew root as a name for God in the OT. In fact the
> very first verse in genesis uses a plural form of that root name; "in the
> beginning God (a plural form in hebrew).  It is "Elohim", which in single
> form would be something like "EEloh" from which the relationship to Allah
> is clear.

yea verily

[Up from the Abyss]

"Pete" wrote:

> // wrote:
> >
> > In fact in aramaic the language Christ used the word and the
> > way it is spoken are almost exactly the same. Arabic and
> > aramaic are sister languages, as is hebrew for that matter.
> > All three have the name of God from the same root word.
> > Christ would have said Allah as God.
>

> Heresy in the 10th degree. I am not even going to bother
> showing you the truth here, but you are so so wrong, Allah
> was taken from Baal worship for the most part they were
> all pagans, the Arabs. You are shameful, dishonoring God
> as you do here.

Pete, what he says fairly accurate. They are cognates.
'Elah, 'Allah, 'Eloah, 'Elohim: Are all titles. They are
not haShem. They all have the same meaning within
their respective languages.

Hebrew: 'el, 'eloah, 'elohim.

[Up from the Abyss]

"Pete" wrote:
> r wrote:

> > Pete wrote:
> >>
> >> Jesus is NOT the son of Allah!
> >
> > Yea, verily. Christians in Islamic countries say that they
> > Christianized Allah as much as we have Christianized the
> > English spelling of "God" (from pagan origins). As in any
> > other language translations of the Bible, the 'god' of the
> > recipient language is used.
> >
> > I don't think that Christians in Islamic countries have
> > compromised their faith as much as ourselves with the
> > English spelling of God.
>

> I do.

I agree with Roy.

> When Allah stood for BAAL I see no other alternative.

In Judges 8:33, Baal Berith is their 'Elohim.


> The word god one could say is generic. As was the word

> "Theos" for all the various deities were a theos.

"God", is generic. Just as

Hebrew: 'el / 'eloah / 'elohim.

Aramaic: 'elah
Phoenician: 'el, 'elon
Samaritan: 'el
Ugaritic: 'il ; 'ilm ; 'ilhm : fem. 'ilt ; 'ilht
Akkadian: 'ilu : fem. 'iltu ; ilati: goddess[es]
Arabic: 'il ; 'ilah ; allah [with the article 'al] ;
'allaha [he deified] ; 'iluha ; 'uluha :
fem. 'al`itat ; 'allat
OS Arabic: 'ilh : fem. 'ilht

Are all generic.

'Allah, is the equivalent of the Greek ton Theon.

> I could almost guarantee you that in the 1st 550 years of
> Christianity in Arabia that God was never called "Allah".

And I say you are mistaken. In Arabic, 'Allah would have
been used for 'Elohim.

> So why not use the name they did then?

Why not use it now?

[Up from the Abyss]

"r" wrote:

> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >
> > En arche en ho logos
> > kai ho logos en pros ton Theon
> > kai theos en ho logos.
>

> Both logos and theos are nominative case [subjective
> case] to the verb 'was': i.e. logos and theos are one
> and the same.

If I were to write in Greek:

And handsome was the Roy.

Does that make them one in the same? And it is
logos, which has the definite article ho.


> The accusative case [objective case] of theos is theon.

Indeed.

Just as the theou is Genitive and theo [omega] is Dative.

[Up from the Abyss]

"Pete" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:

> > "Pete" wrote:
> >>
> >> Allah in Greek would be god, not God.
> >
> > No. "Allah" would be rendered "ton theon" in Greek, as it
> > literally means "the God", or "the diety" as Snow would put
> > it.
> >
> > It could be rendered "ho theos", but as a standalone direct
> > word for word, it would be ton theon. It could not be simply
> > rendered as "theos" as in John 1:1c.
> >

> > En arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros
> > ton Theon kai theos en ho logos.
> >

> > It is a cognate of 'el / 'eloah / 'elohim.

> >
> > Aramaic: 'elah
> > Phoenician: 'el, 'elon
> > Samaritan: 'el
> > Ugaritic: 'il ; 'ilm ; 'ilhm : fem. 'ilt ; 'ilht
> > Akkadian: 'ilu : fem. 'iltu ; ilati: goddess[es]
> > Arabic: 'il ; 'ilah ; allah [with the article 'al] ;
> > 'allaha [he deified] ; 'iluha ; 'uluha :
> > fem. 'al`itat ; 'allat
> > OS Arabic: 'ilh : fem. 'ilht
>

> Perhaps I should have been clearer. The god Allah, if mentioned
> in the Greek Bible would be noted as a god.

Yet, in Greek, it would still be ho Theos / ton Theon.

<snip>

[Up from the Abyss]

"Pete" wrote:
> r wrote:
> > Pete wrote:
> >>

> >> Perhaps I should have been clearer. The god Allah, if
> >> mentioned in the Greek Bible would be noted as a god.
> >

> > How would that be?
> >
> > Does Arabic lack the indirect article like Koine Gk, too?
>
> Whatever they call their god it still isn't GOD. They know the
> name of the Hebrew God, so why not be upfront and use that
> name?

It is to them. And as 'Allah is a cognate of 'Elah and 'Eloah, it
is no different than refering to your "God" as 'Elohim.

You know the name of the Hebrew God, why not be upfront
and use that name?

> > Our English word 'God' is not the Bible either. It's not a
> > transliteration of theos nor YHWH, for instance.
>

> By George I think you got it! Allah is not a transliteration for
> God, it IS the name of their god.

No, it is a title. Just as 'Elohim is a title. Just as Theos is a title.
It is not a name. It literally means, "The God", no different than
ho theos or ton theon.

[Up from the Abyss]

<// .> wrote:
> Pete wrote:

> > r wrote:
> >>
> >> Our English word 'God' is not the Bible either. It's not a
> >> transliteration of theos nor YHWH, for instance.
> >
> > "By George I think you got it! Allah is not a transliteration for
> > God, it IS the name of their god."
>

> It is the name of God in arabic. In an arab church you will hear
> the exact same name for God being used.

Is "God" the name of your "God"?

[Sam Taylor]

"Up from the Abyss" wrote in message
news:ucidnZ1yns4XSTrM...@earthlink.com...

****************************************************************
DUH! Because it is NOT a Name, but a Title
Good Shabbis
Love
Sam
********************************************************************

[Up from the Abyss]

"Sam Taylor" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:

> > "Pete" wrote:
> >>
> >> So why not use the name they did then?
> >
> > Why not use it now?
>
> *************************************

> DUH! Because it is NOT a Name, but a Title

LOL Sam

[Sam Taylor]

"Up from the Abyss" wrote in message
news:9smdnUDJuJpyJjXM...@earthlink.com...

****************************************
Xtianity, and Islam Worship A title, and Judaism
Has the Name, but is too afraid to speak it.
So they are worshiping a title, thinking it's
a Name to be held in reverence .
Sam

Sam

[r]

On May 31, 8:36 am, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
> "Pete" wrote:
> > r wrote:
> > > Pete wrote:
>
> > >> Jesus is NOT the son of Allah!
>
> > > Yea, verily.  Christians in Islamic countries say that they
> > > Christianized Allah as much as we have Christianized the
> > > English spelling of "God" (from pagan origins).  As in any
> > > other language translations of the Bible, the 'god' of the
> > > recipient language is used.
>
> > > I don't think that Christians in Islamic countries have
> > > compromised their faith as much as ourselves with the
> > > English spelling of God.
>
> > I do.
>
> I agree with Roy.

........ and I agree with Abyss :-)

> > When Allah stood for BAAL I see no other alternative.
>
> In Judges 8:33, Baal Berith is their 'Elohim.
>
> > The word god one could say is generic. As was the word
> > "Theos" for all the various deities were a theos.
>
> "God", is generic.  Just as
>
> Hebrew: 'el / 'eloah / 'elohim.
> Aramaic: 'elah
> Phoenician: 'el, 'elon
> Samaritan: 'el
> Ugaritic: 'il ; 'ilm ; 'ilhm : fem. 'ilt ; 'ilht
> Akkadian: 'ilu : fem. 'iltu ; ilati: goddess[es]
> Arabic: 'il ; 'ilah ; allah [with the article 'al] ;
> 'allaha [he deified] ; 'iluha ; 'uluha :
> fem. 'al`itat ; 'allat
> OS Arabic: 'ilh : fem. 'ilht
>
> Are all generic.
>
> 'Allah, is the equivalent of the Greek ton Theon.

Yea. Verily.

> > I could almost guarantee you that in the 1st 550 years of
> > Christianity in Arabia that God was never called "Allah".
>
> And I say you are mistaken.  In Arabic, 'Allah would have
> been used for 'Elohim.
>
> > So why not use the name they did then?
>
> Why not use it now?

Depends if we want to transliterate nor translate.

r

[r]

On May 25, 7:34 am, ;; "". wrote:

> >> I don't think that Christians in Islamic countries have compromised
> >> their faith as much as ourselves with the English spelling of God.
>
> >I do. When Allah stood for BAAL I see no other alternative. The word god
> >one could say is generic. As was the word "Theos" for all the various

> >deities were a theos. ...

Aye. As much as we use the English 'god'. The Christian 'god' is
usually given caps as in 'God'.

> ... I could almost guarantee you that in the 1st 550
> >years of Christianity in Arabia that God was never called "Allah". ...

That line of argument is well outside my league. Is there enough
material to shift that POV towards a guarantee?


> ... So why

[Up from the Abyss]

"Sam Taylor" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:

> > "Sam Taylor" wrote:
> >>
> >> DUH! Because it is NOT a Name, but a Title
> >
> > LOL Sam
>
> *************************************

> Xtianity, and Islam Worship A title, and Judaism
> Has the Name, but is too afraid to speak it.
> So they are worshiping a title, thinking it's
> a Name to be held in reverence .

Indeed.

[Up from the Abyss]

"r" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:

> > "Pete" wrote:
> >>
<snip>

> >
> > I agree with Roy.
>
> ........ and I agree with Abyss :-)

LOL No wonder I always liked you.

No, actually I always appreciated your approach
to things. The person that you come across as.

> > 'Allah, is the equivalent of the Greek ton Theon.
>
> Yea. Verily.

Indubitably even.

> >> So why not use the name they did then?
> >
> > Why not use it now?
>
> Depends if we want to transliterate nor translate.

Indeed.

Other than differences for phonetic reasons,
do our own names ever really change from
language to language.