ALLAH – the Moon God

[Arauna]

I sometimes watch how Imams preach (online in various countries).  They often preach politically against the West.  They say all Christians are vile -  highly immoral (rampant adultery, fornication,  etc) because anything is allowed and women are free without wearing the hijab.  They believe all Christians are idol worshippers because of the use of images and icons in the church and the kissing of statues etc. And believe that the cross is a pagan symbol (Isa will destroy it in the end of time) and also the trinity is a gross misrepresentation of god because God is almighty and only one!   So Christians are the worst of idolaters, except for the polytheists (India) - they are worse.  Jesus was not the son of god because god did not have sex to bring forth a son and the death of Jesus is a lie!

So when I meet them I tell them that we do not participate in pagan traditions, no statues, idolatry of any kind.  We believe that God is ONE and Jesus is not God.  I also say that we are witnesses of Jehovah and totally different to other Christian religions.  We read the bible daily and therefore obey the bible completely and I add that the above false doctrines do not come from the bible but are pagan doctrines.  I demonstrate how all false religions have a history of violence and war and that Satan was very "smart when he created all the "false " religions which love violence and war - to confuse people. We are pure and clean and do not allow any form of idolatry.  Sometimes I mention that we do not celebrate Xmas, Easter, birthdays etc... and sexually clean!

Next I talk about the government of Jehovah - they also believe in a government and extreme muslims do NOT vote.  So I talk about the way which the government of Jehovah under Jesus as king will come rule and hint at the way that Muslims expect it to come to pass with the "sword."  I then give evidence of the violence in the history of Christians as well as Islam religion and mention that God will bring his government at the time when it is ready for HIM... and not when humans decide to bring the government by fighting (Muslim prophesy).  I also show that Jesus is already ruling invisible in heaven - he is not coming back in the flesh to fight with the sword -  Rev 12: 7- 12 and that his ruler ship began when he threw satan out of heaven and that is why there is such an escalation of violence now - time of the end... This is the sign that the time is short - we need a sign that he is ruling.   I demonstrate that God can read hearts and humans (who cannot read hearts) are not supposed to be judging each as heretics and then execute them (like ISIS) who judge others- even other muslims.  They do not have the right to do God's job for him... they are misled because God is strong enough to do his own job very quickly when the time is right for HIM.   I also show the difference between Sharia Law (which requires blind obedience, one does not have to think much) and the "principals of Jesus...(if one looks at a woman too much you have committed adultery, hate is the same as killing and show that one needs to have self control when one follows the law of self-sacrificing love...inspection of self.  I also show the principles of love in 1Cor 13 - because they only understand love as sexual love and are surprised when one can apply this principled love to ALL relationships.  I read many scriptures so they can see the difference between the Qur'an and the Bible.  They get tears when I read the scriptures on how we should treat each other with tender loving care .... so these are a few of the first things I discuss...  Usually I have a good response... I also have a way to demonstrate that Jesus is a son of god because god has heavenly sons and earthly sons because the word "father means life-giver"  and God is the creator of Jesus and heavenly sons and Adam - earthly son.  He created them (sex did not bring them forth). In this way they are "sons". I like to show the "logic of the bible because the Qur'an is such a mess.

I love this field because it is a challenge but very satisfying because these people think in such a different way than we do... I can go on and on about the differences and how I deal with them....

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

JWinsider: If you are referring to research that Allen quoted, you should know that in the past he has quoted much research that he later claimed he did not believe in or which turned out not to be supportive of the idea he apparently thought it was defending.

Once again, a mischaracterization of my intentions. When will you learn? Perhaps you should start blaming your failures of misapplication on scholarly work on yourself instead of trying to push it off on someone else. When I apply; certain works, it’s to show the same line of thought ignorance has embraced.

No mischaracterization at all. I merely stated a fact. And it's a fact that several people on this forum have noticed. It might have been helpful for Aruana to understand that, because right after you posted a lot of research, she asked: "You believe this research?" I assumed you would explain yourself because it was not clear why you posted some of it, and I was pretty sure it was not all research that you believed in yourself. Or as I also said, you may have been using some of it and added some additional research "for context." But at any rate, you certainly haven't made clear what portions of it you believe in and what portions you do not.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Regardless If it's agreeable or not, would be inconsequential since any researcher will read and accept what they want to accept.

If that were the case then they were not really a researcher (if they only read and accept what they want to accept). If a person really is a researcher they will be finding themselves constantly questioning things they have previously accepted. I have finally had to accept many things I didn't want to, but only if there was sufficient evidence against the ideas I had held, and for the idea that came to replace it. And it never means that any of my current ideas are absolutely defined either. Research is a continually humbling experience, because new evidence must always be weighed carefully apart from our preconceived notions. Pride makes us give to much weight to preconceived notions and traditions. But traditions can make the word of God invalid, as Jesus said.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

AllenSmith: Some scholars believe the inert name “Pagan” was derived by the word “Dagan” Fish symbol.

I never saw you or anyone else provide evidence for this. The most likely information I found on the derivation of "Pagan" matches what I see in the Oxford English Dictionary:

pagan, n. and a.

(ˈpeɪgən)

Forms: 4 paygane, 5 pagayne, 5–6 pagane, 5– pagan.

[ad. L. pāgān-us, orig. ‘villager, rustic; civilian, non-militant’, opposed to mīlēs ‘soldier, one of the army’, in Christian L. (Tertullian, Augustine) ‘heathen’ as opposed to Christian or Jewish. The Christians called themselves mīlitēs ‘enrolled soldiers’ of Christ, members of his militant church, and applied to non-Christians the term applied by soldiers to all who were ‘not enrolled in the army’. Cf. Tertullian De Corona Militis xi, ‘Apud hunc [Christum] tam miles est paganus fidelis quam paganus est miles infidelis’. See also Gibbon xxi. note.
Cf. payen.
   The explanation of L. pāgānus in the sense ‘non-Christian, heathen’, as arising out of that of ‘villager, rustic’, (supposedly indicating the fact that the ancient idolatry lingered on in the rural villages and hamlets after Christianity had been generally accepted in the towns and cities of the Roman Empire: see Trench Study of Words 102, and cf. Orosius i Præf. ‘Ex locorum agrestium compitis et pagis pagani vocantur’) has been shown to be chronologically and historically untenable, for this use of the word goes back to Tertullian c 202, when paganism was still the public and dominant religion, and even appears, according to Lanciani, in an epitaph of the 2nd cent.]

If you actually have information on this connection to Dagan by "some scholars" or any scholar, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested. Do you have any?

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

So, what you are suggesting like O’Maly is, ONLY your research is worthwhile and acceptable. That’s the funniest thing you’ve said yet.

Actually, as you can see, I didn't say anything about whose research is acceptable, and I have NEVER indicated that only my research is worthwhile and acceptable. Research is usually a process, anyway, not an end in itself. It usually involved comparing evidence with the research of others, which means that by definition, no one in their right mind would ever think that ONLY their own research was valid.

I only indicated that one of the persons who was very well-known for making use of Hislop, and who spent a lot of time trying to validate Hislop ended up seeing his research as "fake" and he also saw first-hand how people went into denial no matter what they saw with their own eyes. This was exactly what Aruana was talking about. I noticed that you didn't requote the part about the Watch Tower dropping their use of Hislop for all the Babylon connections we once used his research to prove. So far, everything I've seen shows that the Watch Tower was correct to "drop" him. I've seen several bits of so-called research from Hislop that is so easy to prove false.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Paraphrasing, Just like an excellent description of the “scholarship” of Carl Olof Jonsson, and a lot of other sloppy scholars who rely on him and people like him.

This is another great example. I didn't accept any of Carl Olof Jonsson's research at first, and when I finally did see it I knew I had to check all the most relevant points for myself. So I ignored his points and conclusions and started on my own.  I spent many days at the NYPL requesting materials from the "stacks." I spent a lot of money in purchased books and photocopying at the library since most of these books were for reference only. I worked in NYC for 25 years, otherwise this would not have been possible. But after I did this for myself, only then could I respect the research he had done, even though, as I have always said, I am NOT a scholar in this area, and it certainly is NOT my specialty. (I only mention that, because I think I remember you claiming the opposite about me once.) 

 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

I don't know a lot about moon worship. But I do know about the moon. I like it.

[JW Insider]

On 2/23/2017 at 6:22 PM, AllenSmith said:

Some scholars believe the inert name “Pagan” was derived by, the word “Dagan” Fish symbol.

@AllenSmith Do you have any evidence for this connection between the word "Pagan" and "Dagan"?

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

So nice of you to add this, since you believe the WTS to be in error with their conclusions that COJ refutes as “facts” If your own research concluded the same as COJ then you have made my point.

As you probably know, probably 99% of all Neo-Babylonian scholars who have ever researched the topic of the chronology surrounding the reign of Nebuchadnezzar agree entirely with COJ's research. So it's not specifically COJ's research that I find credible; it's the research of 99% of all Neo-Babylonian scholars. If you have found someone in the 1% whose research you find credible, then by all means present it. It's just that you've had this opportunity several times, and have always, so far, ended up presenting evidence that went against your own claims. After that, you have often tried throwing an "ad hominem" tantrum instead of showing any evidence. Then, I notice that you wait a few weeks or months and either forget what happened, or try to pretend it didn't happen. In spite of these tactics, I'm willing to see you try again. If you think you have evidence this time, please start a new topic.

[Arauna]

Tut... tut....

I tend to see the BIG picture in the study of ancient history.  No society lived in isolation but there was trade and social  interaction going on all the time.  Hence the different forms of Baal worship in areas that were geographically quite close in "moden" terms - if one drives a car. Influences spread fast and very wide!  Like the fashion industry.

Russell started his research just after society had broken away from the power of the church - and while others were shooting each other in the wild west and colonizing the east coast (USA).  They were preparing the way for those who would later become the discreet slave.

Although a great body of work had been done - no one had put it together just like A. Hyslop at that time.  So look at his contribution to society in the time frame it was written - do not look back at it with modern eyes.   Looking at history is like going back in a time capsule.... People who only focus on the small minute details always lose sight of this.

I have marveled at the 'timing' of his writings and wondered if Jehovah did have a hand in it. I think his book came out just at the right time: .....because it helped the future "slave" to clean up many of the pagan things that were accepted as 'Christian' in all of society at that time.  Most societies did not have a clue that some of the things they were practicing were at all from pagan origin. So - to me- it is logical that he lashed out at the Catholic church who had ruled the western world with an iron fist and the history of "her daughters" who broke away from the 'mother of all evils'. 

Many of the researchers in the middle east were German and French .... but here comes a 'pastor' writing in English and putting it in such a way that people started to re-evaluate the "churches" who had so much power in the past. And it is put in the hands of an organization that was determined to spread the "truth" as it became available at that time.

This is why I contend that Hyslop made a valuable contribution because he interpreted things that were out there and put them together in one book where it could be popularized.... and not everything he said can be thrown in the garbage.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Ann O'Maly]

On 2/25/2017 at 7:13 AM, Arauna said:

I read your contributions above and you guys carry on like you are scholars arguing back and forth (cherry picking the ideas you like) and not giving any clarity to anyone! ... the reason being is that you are keeping the Bible out of it and just debating for sake of debating..

How does the Bible resolve the question of whether Allah is identified as a moon god?

On 2/25/2017 at 7:13 AM, Arauna said:

As I said before in this forum - when Nimrod and his family turned away from Jehovah they had to fill the void and started a system of spiritism which turned to predictions and superstition inspired by Satan. 

This about Nimrod and his family filling a void and starting a new religious system isn't in the Bible. Where did you get that idea from?

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

Although a great body of work had been done - no one had put it together just like A. Hyslop at that time.  So look at his contribution to society in the time frame it was written - do not look back at it with modern eyes.  

Modern eyes or not, Hislop produced a work based on false premises, false history, false or tenuous associations, thereby resulting in false conclusions. I'll repost what Hislop's contemporaries thought about his book:

The Saturday Review, Sept. 17, 1859 (link to full review):

"We should not have thought it worth while to notice Mr. Hislop's lucubrations if his book had not reached a second edition, and thus revealed the melancholy intellectual condition of a portion at least of the British public. For the sake of this class of readers, it may perhaps not be amiss to state gravely why we dissent from his line of argument.

"In the first place, his whole superstructure is raised upon nothing. Our earliest authority for the history of Semiramis wrote about the commencement of the Christian era, and the historian from whom he drew his information lived from fifteen hundred to two thousand years after the date which Mr. Hislop assigns to the great Assyrian Queen. The most lying legend which the Vatican has ever endorsed stands on better authority than the history which is now made the ground of a charge against it. 

"Secondly, the whole argument proceeds upon the assumption that all heathenism has a common origin. Accidental resemblances in mythological details are taken as evidence of this, and nothing is allowed for the natural working of the human mind.

"Thirdly, Mr. Hislop's reasoning would make anything of anything. By the aid of obscure passages in third-rate historians, groundless assumptions of identity, and etymological torturing of roots, all that we know, and all that we believe, may be converted, as if by the touch of Harlequin's wand, into something totally different. 

"Fourthly, Mr. Hislop's argument proves too much. He finds not only the corruptions of Popery, but the fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, in his hypothetical Babylonian system. ... 

"... But it is idle to speak seriously of a book which only claims attention by its matchless absurdity, and by the fact that it apparently finds readers. We take leave of Mr. Hislop and his work with the remark that we never before quite knew the folly of which ignorant or half-learned bigotry is capable." 

- p. 340 [paragraphs added for ease of reading]

This, in reality, is Hislop's "valuable contribution." 

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

I have marveled at the 'timing' of his writings and wondered if Jehovah did have a hand in it.

Are you suggesting that the 'God of Truth' (Ps. 31:5) had a hand in disseminating falsehood?

 

 

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In spite of these tactics, I'm willing to see you try again. If you think you have evidence this time, please start a new topic.

Yes, go ahead, Allen. Make my day.