Gods Proof

[AV1611VET]

What would you make of a waning crescent moon? Would that be proof of Allah?

That's not a good comparison --- which came first, the waning crescent moon, or Allah?

(And before you answer --- No, Allah is not Jehovah.)

 

[Melethiel]

I just started getting on this site yesterday..... I think it was yesterday.. I'm in the wrong spot I guess.. So this is the intellectual side huh... Well I am curious...

What do you guys think caused the formation to look like that... other than God did it i'm curious on the science status.. I believe that God does things in a scientific manor too. NOt just spiritually. I mean it's a black hole.. Isn't black holes suppose to be round? That's what the scientist say anyways... that the cross is a black hole in the whirlpool Galaxy. I am glad What you told me cuz I have another topic that actually is an intellectual in such....

Yeah, most of us in this segment of the board are either scientists, studying science, or have a significant background in science, so we tend to jump at things from the intellectual side first.

I'm the medical person here, so I'll let the physics people (shernren) explain the black hole bit.

 

[Melethiel]

That's not a good comparison --- which came first, the waning crescent moon, or Allah?

(And before you answer --- No, Allah is not Jehovah.)

The Muslims would say that it was Allah. How would you answer them?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Muslims would say that it was Allah. How would you answer them?

Starting with the facts.

1. Allah had no son --- Jehovah did.
2. Allah is the primary deity of the Quraysh Tribe --- their symbol is the Crescent Moon.
3. Muhammad was from the Quraysh Tribe.

 

[theFijian]

That's not a good comparison --- which came first, the waning crescent moon, or Allah?

(And before you answer --- No, Allah is not Jehovah.)

I don't really follow what you mean but I think it's a perfectly good comparison. What does 'coming first' have to do with it?

If one celestial body is put forward proof of Jehovah then what's to stop Muslims saying another celestial body is proof of Allah.

 

[theFijian]

Starting with the facts.

1. Allah had no son --- Jehovah did.
2. Allah is the primary deity of the Quraysh Tribe --- their symbol is the Crescent Moon.
3. Muhammad was from the Quraysh Tribe.

And how is that supposed to refute that the waning crescent moon is proof of Allah?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't really follow what you mean but I think it's a perfectly good comparison. What does 'coming first' have to do with it?

The question was --- how would I answer them --- that's how I would answer them.

If one celestial body is put forward proof of Jehovah then what's to stop Muslims saying another celestial body is proof of Allah.

What celestial body is put forth as proof of Jehovah? And if Jehovah created a moon ex nihilo, how is it that a tribe of people can say that that moon is indicative of their particular deity? Truth in fact is, they adopted the moon as an icon of their deity, a clear violation of the Second Commandment ---

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Muhammad claimed to have been a prophet of God (as did Joseph Smith), but Christians who know their Bibles, know that after AD96, there were no more prophets.

 

[theFijian]

The question was --- how would I answer them --- that's how I would answer them.

uh ok, i think most muslims wouldnt have made much sense of your answer either. And you failed to show how it wasn't a good comparison.

What celestial body is put forth as proof of Jehovah?

it was in the OP, and your 'gospel in the stars' book (I presume that's why you mentioned it). The rest of your post is pretty irrelevant not to mention erroneous.

 

[gluadys]

That's cute, Gluadys --- that's very cute. Since you know astrology, and this is supposedly a book on astrology, then I take it you can tell me why the sun went dark for three hours during the crucifixion? Or maybe you can tell me what Gemini really stands for? (Not that Greek junk, but the Hebrew interpretation.) Or perhaps you can tell me what the Egyptian Sphynx has to do with the Mazzaroth (Zodiac)? Better yet, tell me what would happen if Orion was to lower that club, or Sagittarius was to let fly that arrow.

I have studied the Greek stuff (Hermetic tradition) not Jewish mysticism, but of course there are similarities and differences. I know that the zodiac signs are used for various correspondences according the principles of the Sephiroth, but I am not familiar with the details. And I couldn't begin to tell you the relationship with Gematria. But I do know the major arcana relate to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In the Tarot, Gemini is the number 6, the Hebrew letter 'zayin', the Lovers.

The Sphinx is an amalgam of the four elements as represented by the fixed signs (bull/earth, lion/fire, eagle/water, man/air) These, of course are also presented as the four living creatures around the throne of God in heaven (Revelations 6-9) and in Ezekiel's vision of the chariot (1:10) Christian tradition also connects each with one of the four evangelists. John, for example is the eagle. IIRC the synoptics are Matthew/lion, Mark/bull, Luke/man. Or maybe Matthew & Mark should be the other way around.

I think we can rule out astrology, don't you?

Modern science has ruled out astrology as a description of efficient causation. But both Jewish and Christian symbolism is deeply intertwined with astrological lore from the days when it was considered legitimate science.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have studied the Greek stuff (Hermetic tradition) not Jewish mysticism, but of course there are similarities and differences. I know that the zodiac signs are used for various correspondences according the principles of the Sephiroth, but I am not familiar with the details. And I couldn't begin to tell you the relationship with Gematria. But I do know the major arcana relate to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In the Tarot, Gemini is the number 6, the Hebrew letter 'zayin', the Lovers.

The Sphinx is an amalgam of the four elements as represented by the fixed signs (bull/earth, lion/fire, eagle/water, man/air) These, of course are also presented as the four living creatures around the throne of God in heaven (Revelations 6-9) and in Ezekiel's vision of the chariot (1:10) Christian tradition also connects each with one of the four evangelists. John, for example is the eagle. IIRC the synoptics are Matthew/lion, Mark/bull, Luke/man. Or maybe Matthew & Mark should be the other way around.

Nope --- Mr Fleming mentions none of that stuff. Let me make a suggestion: read the book before you holler "astrology".

 

[Assyrian]

Newspaper horoscopes don't mention that stuff either, they are astrology too.

 

[AV1611VET]

Newspaper horoscopes don't mention that stuff either, they are astrology too.

Neither does Mr Fleming mention newspapers.

 

[Mallon]

saurondidit

 

[Assyrian]

Neither does Mr Fleming mention newspapers.

John Dee and Nostradamus didn't mention newspaper astrology columns either (though you can never be sure with Nostradamus) but they were still astrologers. It is the astrology you use that makes you an astrologer, not the bits you leave out.

 

[gluadys]

Hi, BlessedBaptist --- --- nice to meet you!

The star that the Wise Men followed was not a sun, a comet, or any other type of astronomical object.

(What it was exactly, in my opinion, I'll save elaboration for another time.)

What difference does it make if the star the Wise Men followed was a different kind of heavenly body? It looked like a star to them. They called it a star. And they divined from it that Christ was born.

The nature of the object doesn't take away from the fact that they were using astrology to interpret its meaning.

 

[gluadys]

(And before you answer --- No, Allah is not Jehovah.)

The Christians of Lebanon, Palestine and other Arabic-speaking countries would disagree with you. "Allah" is the term they use to refer God. It is the word used for "Elohim" when translating the OT into Arabic, including when it is used in the phrase YHVH Elohim. It is the word used when for the Greek "theos" when translating the NT into Arabic.

"Allah" is not a name like YHVH or Jehovah. It is the Arabic cognate of "Elohim" and means "God" in Arabic, whether one is Muslim, Christian, Baha'i or Jewish.

 

[gluadys]

Nope --- Mr Fleming mentions none of that stuff. Let me make a suggestion: read the book before you holler "astrology".

So, he's probably not using traditional Jewish astrology either. Love people who make up their own stuff out of whole cloth. What makes him think his own unique symbolic interpretation is somehow truer than anyone else's?

 

[AV1611VET]

What difference does it make if the star the Wise Men followed was a different kind of heavenly body? It looked like a star to them. They called it a star. And they divined from it that Christ was born.

No, they didn't divine from it.

The nature of the object doesn't take away from the fact that they were using astrology to interpret its meaning.

To attribute astrology to something is to attribute cause-and-effect to suns, moons, and planets in outer space (i.e. Second Heaven). This thing, whatever it was [Chuck Missler believes it was a hologram, as do I.], appeared in the atmosphere (i.e. First Heaven) after Jesus was born, and led the Wise Men to a specific address.

 

[gluadys]

No, they didn't divine from it.To attribute astrology to something is to attribute cause-and-effect to suns, moons, and planets in outer space (i.e. Second Heaven).

One can tell that you never studied astrology.
Ancient dictum: "the stars impel; they do not compel."
"Cause & effect" is not a feature of astrology. Timing and symbolism is. The stars were read as signs, not as causes.

This thing, whatever it was [Chuck Missler believes it was a hologram, as do I.], appeared in the atmosphere (i.e. First Heaven) after Jesus was born, and led the Wise Men to a specific address.

The text doesn't say it appeared after he was born. Herod inquired as to the time it appeared on the assumption that it appeared when he was born. And since he subsequently ordered the murder of all male children 2 and under, it apparently appeared 2 years before they reached Jerusalem. Do we have anything that suggests Jesus was born more than 2 years earlier than their visit to Herod?

btw, no one in that era could tell whether an object shining in the night-time sky was within or beyond the atmosphere, so the distinction you are making is irrelevant in practical terms. For that matter, they did not think of the atmosphere as thinning out into space either.

A hologram? As good a guess as any, I suppose. But what it was and what the magi thought is was can be quite different things. From their perspective they took it for a star and treated it as their profession taught them to. And apparently, for two years it acted pretty much like a star.

 

[AV1611VET]

And apparently, for two years it acted pretty much like a star.

Nope ---

1. Had the star been a celestial object --- everyone would have seen it.
2. The star initially led them to Jerusalem, not Bethlehem --- it was Herod that sent them to Bethlehem with orders to search-and-locate.
3. The star then reappears and guides them to an exact address.

What celestial object can lead someone to an exact address, yet not be seen by anyone but a few chosen men?