The Bright and Morning Star "Mary" Queen of Heaven and husband Allah

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


I love how you completely ignored my factual and historical refutations of your claims that Allah was a moon god and that the Crescent Moon symbol associated with Islam had anything to do with Allah.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

I love how you completely ignored my factual and historical refutations of your claims that Allah was a moon god and that the Crescent Moon symbol associated with Islam had anything to do with Allah.

That's not the only thing being ignored in this thread.

That you are trying to insert facts and reason into the discussion clearly proves that you are part of the conspiracy. Are you a Jesuit plant?

Eric

reply to post by EricD




No. I'm worse than that. I'm one of those moon-worshipping Muslims.

I don't know what's worse, this "Allah is a moon god" lie or the "God is a volcano" nonsense that keeps popping up on ATS.

And while it is 100% false that Allah was ever worshipped as a moon god or that the moon symbol associated with Islam had anything to do with Him, if people like Lonewolf did their research, they'd know that once upon a time Yahweh was worshipped as a sky god by the ancient Hebrews, and that they thought that Yahweh was an "unreachable" god and so they worshipped other idols to intercede between them and Yahweh. This information can be found in Karen Armstrong's "A History of God."

Point being, just because people worshipped the Creator of the Universe a certain way doesn't mean that they were correct in their worship or concept of God.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Babylon hasn't fallen yet, that isn't set to happen yet. Muhammad didn't write the Quran, he captured a christian and a jew and told them he'd spare their lives if they wrote him a holy book and so they agreed, but the jew self destructed and encoded the words "i do not believe" and "this does not matter" all throughout the Quran. After the book was finished Muhammad beheaded them both. Avi Lipkin did a segment on it at the bible prophecy club.

I hadn't heard that before. I'll take a look at the video.

Is there any other support for this claim that I can take a look at?

Thanks!

Eric

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Babylon hasn't fallen yet, that isn't set to happen yet. Muhammad didn't write the Quran, he captured a christian and a jew and told them he'd spare their lives if they wrote him a holy book and so they agreed, but the jew self destructed and encoded the words "i do not believe" and "this does not matter" all throughout the Quran. After the book was finished Muhammad beheaded them both. Avi Lipkin did a segment on it at the bible prophecy club.

Wow, talk about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. What were the names of this anonymous Christian and Jew? What evidence is there for this claim?

reply to post by Jakes51

Catholics knights killed Muslims during the Crusades and often referred to them as "Infidels," as they refer to Christians and Jews today. Does that look like kinship? To this day, they remain at bitter odds with each other over what took place during the Crusades, and over a whole myriad of religious differences. I see no similarities or kinship between Islam or the Catholic Church.

I’m reluctant to post this on this particular thread because I suspect that it will be misinterpreted and skewed but some might be interested...

There actually was cross fertilisation of Catholic and Islamic thought, which paradoxically occurred at the same time as the Crusades. A number of catholic philosophers / theologians - Aquinas, Abelard, Duns Scotus, to name just a few - were actively reading, commentating, incorporating and adapting ideas from Islamic writers such as Averroes and Avicenna (Ibn Sina). Ideas about the nature of god and of the human soul for instance.

This is not just a perceived correlation between ideas. Catholic theologians included in-depth analyses with acknowledged reference to these Islamic philosophers in their writings. I can’t comment on the reverse except to say that both Islam and Catholicism drew on Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus as common sources. I am also not sure how much of this commonality survives - current comparative theology is not something I can claim much knowledge of. However, there certainly was a time when Islam and Catholicism had points of agreement (and dissent) on some important metaphysical concepts,(not dogma) and, perhaps bizarrely, this coincides with the Crusades.

It does seems odd, but just goes to show that there is always more complexity in the world than linear narratives allow for...

Stanford Enclypodedia of Philosophy

reply to post by Murgatroid

Whoever produced that cartoon you posted is a moron.

The Roman Catholic church did not exist in the Middle East during the time of Muhammad. The prevailing faith in those parts was the Eastern Roman Church, better known nowadays as the Greek Orthodox communion.

reply to post by teamhair


Very interesting! I was unaware of some of those scholars exchanging ideas as much as you have claimed. Definitely something to look into a little further. However, still the core principles of both faiths are drastically opposed to each other. At the time, I would say the Muslims were experiencing a renaissance of their own with advancements in science, the arts, medicine, and other academic pursuits. I am not denying that at all.

In the case of the Europeans, there were still crawling out of the Dark Ages. It is only natural for Christian academics and philosophers to borrow some of the ideas from their contemporaries. I do not believe their exchanges had much influence on each of their respective faiths. Maybe at a minute level, but nothing on the scale of drastically changing long held doctrines and teachings. Very interesting, and thanks for the reply!

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Madhouse

 

Sorry, but regarding the crescent moon and star symbol, it was only adopted during the Ottoman Empire by the leader Osman as far as I can recall, when he had a dream one night. During Muhammad's time up until the time of the Ottoman, plain blank coloured flags was only used for the muslims armies, etc.

Doesn't matter when it was adopted by, archeaological evidence found in Hazor proves the crescent moon is the symbol for Allah which makes him Heylel and now you know why it found it's way back to the Arabs. It was always a part of their pre-islamic religion.

Here's that symbolism again....

Yep, before Muhammad was even born there were many other religions in that region. Allah is basically the arabic word for God so it's not really surprising that the locals there back then refer to their gods as such when praying/speaking in arabic.


Regarding the crescent moon symbol that pre-dates Islam symbolising a moon god, we can also find the 'cross' symbol predating christianity all the way back to the time of the pharoahs but have almost no link whatsoever with the cross that christianity adapts today. Get my drift?


Another good example is like when Hitler used the swastika, does that mean that the Nazis were actually hindus/buddhists as the swastika pre-dates nazi germany?

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
So you're going to sit there and tell me, with all this symbolism staring you in the face everywhere you or anyone else goes, that you're going to ignore it?

I honestly don't care two whits about this sort of amateur detective work symbol hunting. To me, it is on the same level as some bored teenager "discovering" the numbers 666 in the logo for Coca Cola, and making a youtube video about how the freemasons all control us through fluoride in our soft-drinks. God has no symbol so obsessing over symbolic representations of stuff, especially in religion, seems a waste of time to me

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
I could reference the bible but if i did that you would attack me on that and since most people on this site lack the Ruach ha Kodesh to show them these things i figured i put it in images people could understand. So what it appears, is that you have a problem with me showing images that lend physical and concrete proof to the deception going on around you because you want to continue on in your fantasy that your religion is the true and right one.

Hahahahha....as have you, my friend. Don't think yourself better than me in that respect. If your "proof" requires that the people you speak to be "filled with the Holy Spirit", it isn't really useful, is it? I never said I had any problem with showing images. I have problems with showing of unsourced images which you yourself have no idea of the source of. It'd be like me posting some random image of a pile of corpses, and using it as proof that Christianity is evil.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
And there's the fact that at Fatima the town named after Muhammad's daughter a so called vision of "Mary" supposedly appeared "clothed in light" who they called "Our Lady" Doesn't strike you as interesting?

No, it doesn't. Why should it? Why are you grasping at straws? Since the witch trials were most famous in Salem, and "Salem" means "Peace", that means the witches were peaceful!
...no it doesn't (I mean, what happened there was a travesty of justice, but the reason it happened is not connected in any way, symbolic or otherwise to with the name of the town).

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Btw read judges 8:21-28 and pay particular attention to 25, thats alot of crescent ornaments from Arabs they gave to Gideon and they ended up "playing the Harlot" with.

There it is again the crescent moon...a.k.a. Heylel.

Arabs? Where does it say arabs? Zebah and Zelmanah were Midianites. There is no evidence to suggest they were Arab, unless one completely throws objectivity out the window, and has already presupposed all these things. If they were arabs, they'd have been called arabs in the Bible (the Bible does use the word when it is actually referencing arabs).

And you keep going on about Heylel ben shachar. Sorry, in hebrew, as you've pointed out, heylel means "brightness" or "shining one" or such. Absolutely nothing about crescent moons. The whole phrase, literally translated, would be something like "Brightness, son of the morning". Again, while Islam has nothing to do with the crescent moon and star symbol, this phrase has nothing to do with it either, even if you attempt to twist it in the most acrobatic fashion. Heylel ben shachar is usually understood to be a reference the morning-star (i.e. Venus), but I suppose you could interpret it to mean the crescent moon (although there is absolutely no precedence for that), if you do a couple of mental flips and consider the crescent moon a "son of the morning". What would be an absolutely absurd and desperate twisting would be to claim that it refers to BOTH the crescent moon AND star, unless, of course, one had thrown objectivity out the window and were just making stuff up at that point.
The word for crescent moon in hebrew is "chodesh/hodesh" (חֹדֶשׁ). THAT is the word one has to attempt to twist to fit into this distortion.

And then why then does it suddenly switch into arabic? You saying the hebrew bible suddenly switched out of its own language to another one to explain a point?
Let me try some of that too! Just a few lines below the one in Isaiah 14 you were talking about is "[That] made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; [that] opened not the house of his prisoners". In this, the word used for "world" in hebrew is "tebel", i.e. "table", in english, and once you read the verse with that understanding, you can see it is talking about tabletop role-playing games!

Or if you say that I am being facetious because the similarity between english and hebrew is nowhere near as similar as arabic and hebrew, let me try it with some arabic as well!
The Song of Songs chapter 5 has a verse that says "... yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem". Since "altogether lovely" in hebrew is "Muhammad", this verse ACTUALLY is referencing the prophet of Islam, and reads
"yea, he is Muhammad. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem"!

By the way, if you take the the "heylel bin shachar" from hebrew, and twist it to turn it into arabic (the letters are not exactly the same, in arabic, there is no yod/y in "hilal"), you'd get "crescent moon, son of gratitude", not son of the morning. So it is still meaningless.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
And here's something else:

www.discerningthetimesonline.net...

So you are not going to respond to any of my points in my previous post? Just post me a link with everything you already said in your first post?

Since I've already covered almost everything in that link in this post and my first one in this thread, I'll address the two remaining points it brings up.

First, it attempts to use Surah Al-Qadr (Surah 97) to draw parallels with this fall of satan. Unfortunately, it doesn't work at all. Islam doesn't consider Satan to be an angel at all. He was a jinn. And then again, in a similar manner that he was trying to twist heylel ben shachar in the hebrew bible, he tries twisting the phrase "emergence of dawn" or "break of dawn" (i.e. matla il-fajr, or مَطْلَعِ الْفَجْرِ) to mean "rise of the morning star", which, honestly is just plain stupid (never mind that he also tries to claim that this rising is symbolic of Satan or Allah). Besides that, he gets the whole narrative wrong anyhow! He seems to think that there is peace AFTER dawn, when the surah is talking about peace UNTIL dawn (speaking about a specific night in the year, the "Night of Power/Fate").

The second point in that link that remains to be addressed is the stupidity of the claim that Hubal (one of the gods in the pre-islamic arab pantheon) is the same as Baal. This LITERALLY cannot be true, because the Islamic scriptures refer to BOTH these entities separately and differently.

You really should look up some sources with less shoddy research, Lonewolf!

I agree completely. All religion is based off of the same underlying story. The only difference are the names of the deities and messiahs. Do really believe that if a messiah came to Earth and performed all these miracles and was actually sent bt god that there would be ANY question of it's validity? Yet, there are so many different religions all with different gods and different messiahs. Doesn't that seem odd that people of all religions 'know' that they are right and everyone else is wrong? The sole purpose of religion is to keep the human race divided, if we are divided we will not work together, if we don't work together then we are easier to manipulate. Religion also keeps us in the dark about the truth, it keeps us ignorant. Deny ignorance, deny religion, come up with your own answers, not what has been pounded into your head since you were a baby. All religion is based on completely natural things. There can be no supernatural god in a natural universe, if you believe otherwise then I'm sorry to say, but you have been brainwashed. God is the universe itself, and just as with your religious god, nothing came before it.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

What it is actually speaking about is one religion based on one woman whom many religions came from.

Actually you are only speaking from your own speculation and interpretation.
You are making your own imaginary connections because YOU personally interpret "woman" in prophetic verses to mean "religion".

Fact : The bible shows that the whore of Babylon is a city.
The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.
-Revelations 17:18

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

In this thread i will endeavor to show the link between catholic Mary the "Queen of Heaven" and Allah the moongod by examining the useage of symbolism....

So you're going to sit there and tell me, with all this symbolism staring you in the face everywhere you or anyone else goes, that you're going to ignore it?

"Symbolism".

You are reading your own meanings into symbolism which exists across many cultures in different contexts.

Your approach to this is like "oh look, theres a crescent symbol here and a crescent symbol there... therefore the two are related".

Want to see more crescents in other cultures? Here you go.


Thats Shiva, a hindu deity who is also depicted with crescent imagery.




Thats a sikh in traditional headdress. And thats also Shivas crescent on his forehead.

So what now? Please tell me how do the cresent moon using hindus and sikhs fit into your conspiracy theory involving crescent symbolism? I mean, I do see a crescent moon being used in their religion.

Or do you suppose that its a mere co-incidence that an entirely unrelated culture also happened to have crescent moon symbolism?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


What I find funny about your comment is that you are doing the same thing, you are speculating and interpreting scripture also, the only difference? You take what someone else has told you since you were a baby and take it as fact instead of figuring it out yourself.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


You just reinforced his theory with this post, lol. His whole point is that ALL RELIGION IS BASED ON THE SAME THING. But you will refuse to see it, because you have been conditioned in a certain way your whole life. His whole point is that the crescent symbolism is NOT a coincidence.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Actually you are only speaking from your own speculation and interpretation.

Pretty sure everyone gets that. This is not information.

The month of Ramadan is determined by cycles of the moon. At one particular point in the month the phase depicted above happens and the crescent moon swallows the "star". So the crescent moon has been a part of Islam for as long as the month of Ramadan has been in existence and this is why the minarettes on mosques have a crescent moon ontop of them. Ofcourse this ritual dates back to the pre-islamic days of Hajj when Muhammad and his father would walk around the Kaaba 7 times for remission of sins (just like muslim do today).

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You just reinforced his theory with this post, lol. His whole point is that ALL RELIGION IS BASED ON THE SAME THING.

Except.... he sees his religion as being an exemption to the point that " ALL RELIGION IS BASED ON THE SAME THING. "

His whole point is that the crescent symbolism is NOT a coincidence.

Again, its pure speculation on his part.
Like I said earlier.. he sees a crescent moon here and a crescent moon there....and makes an imaginary connection...between the two. I'd still like to hear his take on the crescent moon symbolism in hinduism and sikhism... which are NOT middle eastern religions.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

I love how you completely ignored my factual and historical refutations of your claims that Allah was a moon god and that the Crescent Moon symbol associated with Islam had anything to do with Allah.

Dude you don't refute anything. It's a well known fact that the moongod Sin was worshipped by Muhammad and his father before Islam even began, and then the crescent moon and star show up during the month of Ramadan way back at the beginning. So any claiims of the crescent moon not having ties to islam until the Ottoman empire in the 19th/20th century are false.