Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - al-Ghazali

Pages: [1] 2 3

The general Epistles are James, 1&2 Peter, 1,2,3 John, the "Pillars" of Apostles, with James being leader of, but not one of, the 12. BTW it's the exact hierarchical structure of the "Ebionim/Zaddikim" "(the) Way movement who left the DSS, Ebionim/Ebionites being the people most close to James/Yakov, or the "Poor" and "Poor Saints of Jerusalem" Paul mentions, coincidence or not....

And Jude (Judah Thomas).

1 Peter, which I was mistaken regarding and says :

2:24"carried up our sins in his body to the tree." (alt. translation in NRSV footnote)

But "cross" is used above.

1 Peter I never really concentrated on not because of that but because it sounds like Paul wrote it. Bit I know of no other mentions in those Epistles.

This I learned from Ahmed Deedat, still have the book which quotes him.

His major issue was the translating of Tontheon as God, ignoring the use of a different word with different meaning, because it deceives people that John 1 clearly say "Jesus is God." The Word was divine/theos, not God/Tontheon.

Look brother, i'm just tryna say that the word "God" has a wider meaning in the bible...when  Paul says that Satan is the god of this world he doesn't mean that the devil is God Almighty himself, what he really means is that Satan has a major Influence on this world and he's kinda like a ruler...please read Psalm 82:1-6 and Exodus 7:1 to understand what i'm trying to say...

The problem isn't that, although there is a chance he was calling God Satan, he used the same spelling reserved for "The God", Tontheon, I believe.

While the Logos/Word is only theirs, divine.

That is what people mean when pointing thus out, it's not capitalized, theos is, which is dishonest and inconsistent with their own system of translating those words.


If one were to comb the writings of the first anti-Marcion, non Apocryphal so historical author, apologist Justin Marty, one might be shocked that Marcion is mentioned many times as theme subject of his polemic, Marcion was the first to use the Pauline Epistles, Justin knows of no Gospel, but a "Memoirs of the Apostles " and never cites a N.T. book or author, any quotes are only cited as words of Isa(as) from "Memoirs."

Next is Iranaeus, who finally mentions Paul and apparently Marcion was the real super missionary as his popular movement forced the acceptance of Paul in the otherwise pure Church, next you have the four forgeries in the name of people who saw almost nothing to nothing if what they wrote about.

I would not be surprised if Marcion was another name for Aher/Saul/Paul/Abuya/Simon, "All things to all men" I believe is how himself puts it.


Teaching of Simon Cephas in the Ancient City of Rome.

The subject of the anti-Pauline faction and N.T. have been so thoroughly established, forgive my Reliance upon such an obscure genre, but I believe it has much to say, by it's almost total silence when it comes to "The Law was ordained by the angels " Saul/Paul (yes he did write that despite no hint in Torah, any literature known, Paul is literally the only person besides Simon Magus to on record state this) is loudest of all.

Not something that escaped the editors, but here is what DID!

After a brief encounter with Simon the Sorcerer/Magus, Simon "fell not into their hands THAT DAY." Implying another day, he did fall into their hands, otherwise there is no need to say "that day."

Simon Cephas rules the region's of/and Rome, "served in the rank of the Superintendence of Rulers 25 years."

Then Simon Cephas is imprisoned by Nero, sets his affairs in order, and is crucified upside down.

Out of the blue Paul is mentioned, like paragraphs earlier Simon Magus gets away "that day" and for no reason is not mentioned, probably because it originally had or was verbally taught that Paul was actually Simon Magus.

A theory supported by scholars according the H. of Clement of Rome who are generally certain it is a parody,  but maybe one more true than a simple pseudonymous caricature.

Paul is Elisa ben Abuyah in the Jerusalem Talmud, Aher in the Babylonian Talmud, meaning "Other" because he uses "other " names, Saul/Paul/Simon (probably pretending to be Simon Peter) Elisah ben Abuyah the Jewish Apostate.

A Pallas, who wrote "Letters to incite the Jews of Syria" in book 20 of Josephus Antiquities, the chapter with all the New Testament doesn't people. A "Poleme of Cilicia" gets circumcised to get a woman, is rejected, and thus explains his obsessive hatred of the circumcised, and circumcision itself more so.

A story that is identical to the reports from the Church father's Iranaeus, Epiphanius, Eusebius too I believe, a sect of Hebrew believers called Ebionites, as well as the original and later Nazarenes, at this time still in Synagogues practicing submission, circled saying about Paul, a Greek convert-reject, the Talmud speaks much of his live of Greek learning, although not about any circumcised fiasco, though I think he might be against it because of a story about his father accidentally cursing him at his briss.


Ante Nicene Fathers vol 8

Ancient Syriac documents

Relating to the earliest establishment of Christianity in EdEssa and the neighboring countries.

From the History of the Church

Story of the King of Edessa.

"..., King Abgar also, who was renowned among the nation's on the east of the Euphrates for his valour, had his body wasting away with a grievous disease, such as there is no cure for among men. ..."

So introduced a scribe a King of good name, character, who is a believer the the miracles of/and the Messiah (as), really sick, who gets healed by the Apostle of Isa (as) Thaddeus/Thaddai on order from Judah Tammus, brother of Yakov, Simon, Joses(I really think is Barnabus because I have read Codes Bezae aka "Western Acts" and is called Barnabas Justus instead of Joses Justus, Aramaic Zaddik or Righteous One, a serious title of the few "Pillars" for whom world exists in ancient and modern Hebrew theology/mythos; Gospel of Thomas, Sefer ha-Zohar, Mariam (sa) a Levite relative of Prophet and Priest Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth, brought up a Temple virgin, daughter of Aaron (sa), the foster brothers of Isa(as) ).

Sorry about the digression but it's need.

Footnote 4 says "By this title all the Toparchs of Edessa were called, just as Roman Emporers were called Ceasars,..."

then..."Abgar in Syriac means 'lame.' "

I am willing to bet not all Eddessan "Toparchs" were infirmed necessitating making a play on words a Dynastic title for "All."

So what gives with ignoring the obvious etymological connection to "Akbar" as in "Allahu Akbar." There is ample  a much greater chance "Greatest" is the meaning, since g and k from Semitic to Latin (Gama/Kama) is common, and the evolution of language a la ibn to the now common bin, for "son of" many other instances like Syriac to Arabic possible loan words having letters reversed (Esu/as3) would easily explain what is already just obvious.

More of an issue for another place, I had to first mention it. It's so strange.

This is the scholar chosen to translates important possibly 1st century work.

I will share later the notes claiming that non mention of Paul was Middle age tampering offering nothing to support it.

"The failure to praise [Paul] the work of him who "laboured more abundantly than all others" is noteworthy,  and CAN ONLY be accounted for by Middle age corruption of the text."

Or he was not important, liked, welcome, until centuries after he was dead, and possibly the simple mention, of nothing of importance just the names Paul and Timothy, a sentence coherent without the award mention. It's not insulting, so no reason exists to suspect corruption.

Paul testifies, he was hated in Asia, loved in Rome, and even that alleged honor is given Simon Peter here, not mentioned about Paul, not even mentioning him going to Rome!

Simon Magus, does, Simon Kepha on his trail to battle his false teachings in the debate in Homilies.


This is the address, if it doesn't work I'll find it on ccel.

As'salamu Alaikum Everyone,

Paul was a rodent from an infestation of rodents from 10s of false messiahs and prophets at the time.  Please visit:

Christian theologians have thoroughly demonstrated that 10s of false messiahs and prophets emerged SHORTLY AFTER JESUS:

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

After Asr I will comment on my observations, I read this today, own the Kitab, Ante Nicene Fathers series vol. 8.

You will probably enjoy this as a literature, but it's a large book. You need to scroll down to Memoirs from Edessa, I can't help but notice that the ability to translate is not akin to being an good or honest exeget, as so much sophistry is employed to gloss over uncomfortable truth, like that as Paul admitted, "All who are in Asia have turned away from me."

Which is recommended in the literature for people fitting Paul's description. Harsh standards, literal Apocryphons were needed to evade his failed treachery, later Rome had to do some serious damage control to give Paul the prominence he doesn't deserve, but enjoys regardless today, like rewriting Lukes Acts, rejected far better books on account of being too Jewish oriented, forged Epistles, and outright denial of the obvious claim to legitimacy, and superiority of Yakov, Simon, Yohan, and the rest of the 12, their Ebionim/Nozrim successors, rejection by.


It must have been written before Rome subjugated Syria, as these Syrians/Edessans have nothing to say of Paul much more than he was a member of the church, certainly nobody important in 1st, 2nd century Syria.

Later writing call Marcionites Christians, Syrian Nazare, "Messianists'' making me wonder if Antioch is alleged to be the origin of the term, if it was talking only about Pauline/Marcionites Christianity and yet another fast one pulled on the uneducated laymen and theologian alike, who don't really regard anything non Pauline as relevant to theology, live and die by Paul's, not the Nozrim/Ebionites.

A lone moment of honesty is the mention that "Hebrew Christians" badmouthed Paul. But this is an attempt only to explain the absence of importance of the heretics apostle in so early a work featuring the real Apostles, so only incidental, not truly honest.

The fact is Paul was a rogue and Apocrypha isn't needed to prove that, still it does though

As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers,

I am going to use it soon in my articles above, insha'Allah.  There is also another link about Paul that was recommended before, which I will also use, insha'Allah.

Jazakum Allah Khayr.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Brother Osama, I recommend reading the "Memoirs of Edessa" and the early Syriac literature like doctrine of Addai which the translators of were baffled by the lack of mention of Paul,  who is denied his New Testament alleged accomplishments, recognition or acknowledgement of his letter.

They actually could not find a better rationalization than to say that "zMedieval interpokations" of an ante Nicene work the cause.

But who in that era was anti-Pauline on record?

Nobody. It's pure conjecture, as possibly the biggest fan of Syriac Apocryphal around I easily can connect it to my H&R of Clement of Rome, an Italian, so my kinsman, and right hand man to Simon Kepha, an ally  of the Jerusalem faction, being why I am so fond of his writings.

Will send a link to the whole genre, and share my exegetical conclusions, but most noticeable to me is these scholars could not see the etymological connection between Abgar(Akbar) the King of Edessa, an Ishmaelite, and it's so obvious the literature is from the earliest of times as it mentions nothing of any epistles of Paul, and they used the Diatessaron, what we know if as Apocrypha.

If anything was interpolated it was the mere mention, no more, of Paul, stating he was in agreement with the 12, absurdities abound in the footnotes, comical at times, and ignorant at others.

It may have been translated 100 or so years ago, but they act oblivious to the facts, and when Peter is said to precede Paul in and have full authority over all the cities laid claim to Paul, again it's because of interpolation or just wrong, they pick and choose based on their already formed conclusions and can't accept the supremacy of the Apostles, are really in denial of the fact Paul isn't just because Paul alone makes said claim.

Which Tertullian disputed against Marcion, calling Paul the Apostle to the heretics who has no testimony to support his (obvious lies).


I meant the man who wrote "Jesus words only" was from whom I learned the word translated "Hard to understand" that leads men astray (not possible if really Word of God) in 2 Peter referring to the letters of Paul is in Lucian translated "nonsensical" in reference to some false prophet.

Which is the sense used by 2 Peter, made less obvious by the translation as it stands in in English.

Assalamualaikum brother Osama,

Those quotes may be useful...

He is a good source for what you say he is, no question.

Assalamualaikum brother Osama,

Those quotes may be useful...

This gentleman is from whom I learned "Hard to understand ", from 2 Peter about the letters of Paul, is translated in Church father Lucian "nonsensical."

Why then is it not translated thus in 2 Peter?

Rhetorical question as obviously if nonsensical was used it would make clear the statement is a reproach, subtle though it is it'd be much less so.

But this man also believes Isaiah's condemnation of the King of Babylon, Helel son of Shachar(can mean Venus, lie, and is not talking about the fall of Satan) actually refers to Satan, as well as Ezekiels King of Tyre.

Modern exegetes, Jewish, Christian alike, are more than aware this is poor exegesis, Judaism has never believed these verses to be referring to the fall of Satan.

He actually believes that this fall of Satan happened during some point after the Torah, in the time of the Prophetic writings, that Satan in Job had yet to fall, though his role in Job hasn't changed.

The fact that his rejection of Paul has not led him to Islam makes me suspicious. If the NT is tainted by Paul, it is unfit to base a religion on leaving him with no reliable scripture, to rely on a corrupt, Pauline influenced Gospel, whether he rejects Paul or not this can't be changed.

If he would learn Islam he could then discern truth from falsehood in the Gospels, not just Paul.

Has he not noticed the Universal epistles don't mention crucifixion? Unless I am mistaken it appears he hasn't.

Pages: [1] 2 3

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube