Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ishmael in Bible. Ishmael in Islam

GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 9:02:24 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)

What does the Harry potter version say?
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 11:21:56 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 9:02:24 PM, desmac wrote:
At 12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)

What does the Harry potter version say?

The difference is Jesus actually existed and and walked the Earth. How about Harry?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:15:26 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 11:21:56 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/8/2015 9:02:24 PM, desmac wrote:
At 12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)

What does the Harry potter version say?

The difference is Jesus actually existed and and walked the Earth. How about Harry?

Really? Jesus actually existed? I would love to see you support that with GOOD evidence.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:40:03 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 2:15:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:21:56 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/8/2015 9:02:24 PM, desmac wrote:
At 12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)

What does the Harry potter version say?

The difference is Jesus actually existed and and walked the Earth. How about Harry?

Really? Jesus actually existed? I would love to see you support that with GOOD evidence.

There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Socrates or Charlemagne.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:47:09 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 2:40:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:15:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Really? Jesus actually existed? I would love to see you support that with GOOD evidence.

There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Socrates or Charlemagne.

1) Asserting such things does not make it true.
2) There is a different prior probability for Socrates or Charlemagne existing than for Jesus, and thus a greater amount of evidence is required for Jesus than for Socrates or Charlemagne.
3) Quality of evidence is much more important than quantity, and while there might be a quantity of "evidence" for Jesus, there is no QUALITY evidence that he existed.
4) Not even close.
a) Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes are all CONTEMPORARIES of Socrates that wrote about him.
b) Einhard was a contemporary of Charlemagne that wrote a biography about him.
c) THERE ARE NO CONTEMPORARY WRITERS OF JESUS.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
uncung
Posts: 3,432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 3:11:05 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)

Base on the Hebrew Bible the p-r notion in Genesis 16:12 means "fertile man" instead of "wild donkey".
And yes everyone against him just we see nowdays everyone against Islam.

Moreover The Bible itself affirm that The God blessed Ismael.

"And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation".(Genesis 17:20)

And take a look the passage "greatly increase numbers and great nation" is very compatible with the notion "fertile man" or in Hebrew word "p-r".
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 3:18:15 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 2:47:09 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:40:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:15:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Really? Jesus actually existed? I would love to see you support that with GOOD evidence.

There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Socrates or Charlemagne.

1) Asserting such things does not make it true.

But it is true.

2) There is a different prior probability for Socrates or Charlemagne existing than for Jesus, and thus a greater amount of evidence is required for Jesus than for Socrates or Charlemagne.

What gives any of them any probability of being higher than Jesus existing? If you are referring to a Son of God miracle working Jesus than you are really just saying you don't accept things unless they are repeatable.

3) Quality of evidence is much more important than quantity, and while there might be a quantity of "evidence" for Jesus, there is no QUALITY evidence that he existed.

The Quality of the testimonies about Jesus Life are of high quality.

4) Not even close.

You aren't.

a) Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes are all CONTEMPORARIES of Socrates that wrote about him.

Plato is no different than Mathew. A pupil attributing events and teachings to his teacher. Xenophon is no different than Mark only accounting the death of Socrates (that by the way doesn't agree in all details with Plato's recounting).

And Aristophanes mention of Socrates is a copy of a copy of a copy, all the originals lost. But is a play filled with ever conceivable Greek God and half human- half human creature. Socrates could very well be a Hypostasis for an archetypal wise man or teacher.

Again none of these accounts are originals. copies thousands of years after the originals.

b) Einhard was a contemporary of Charlemagne that wrote a biography about him.

ONE BOOK! just one account of Charlemagne by a neophyte written anywhere between 3 and 25 years after his death.

But Mathew, Mark, Pual, Peter, ect... Can't trust them. You are ridiculous.

c) THERE ARE NO CONTEMPORARY WRITERS OF JESUS.

All the disciples were contemporaries of Jesus. Einhard's account is after Charlemagnes death and most the dating is from political details in the work. Socrates has no works of his own and attributions by his students long after his death.

Don't worry I understand what it is... Hear God or Jesus and the evidence has to be standing right in front of you beating you with a catfish... but for everyone else you can lower the threshold a lot.

To deny a historical Jesus would be in intellectual honesty to deny a good many folks from a great many histories.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 3:45:20 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 3:18:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:47:09 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:40:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:15:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Really? Jesus actually existed? I would love to see you support that with GOOD evidence.

There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Socrates or Charlemagne.

1) Asserting such things does not make it true.

But it is true.

Again, pure assertion, no evidence.

2) There is a different prior probability for Socrates or Charlemagne existing than for Jesus, and thus a greater amount of evidence is required for Jesus than for Socrates or Charlemagne.

What gives any of them any probability of being higher than Jesus existing? If you are referring to a Son of God miracle working Jesus than you are really just saying you don't accept things unless they are repeatable.

Jesus falls into the "Rank-Raglan mythotype", the type of person with one of the (if not the) absolute lowest prior probabilities of existing. This does not mean that it has to be repeatable, it doesn't mean that there is no amount of evidence that can support the existence of a person that fits in the mythotype, it just means that there is a certain amount of extra evidence that is required for getting their final probability for existing to be higher than the final probability for not existing.

3) Quality of evidence is much more important than quantity, and while there might be a quantity of "evidence" for Jesus, there is no QUALITY evidence that he existed.

The Quality of the testimonies about Jesus Life are of high quality.

None of them are independent, there are no unbiased sources that are not suspect of being interpolated (which the only ones that would mean anything for asserting an existing Jesus ARE interpolations or not independent). Sorry, but they are not even CLOSE to high quality.

4) Not even close.

You aren't.

Pure assertion.

a) Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes are all CONTEMPORARIES of Socrates that wrote about him.

Plato is no different than Mathew. A pupil attributing events and teachings to his teacher.

1) Matthew was not written by Matthew.
2) Matthew is NOT an independent as it borrows HEAVILY from Mark.

Xenophon is no different than Mark only accounting the death of Socrates (that by the way doesn't agree in all details with Plato's recounting).

1) Mark, like other Gospels, is filled to the brim with Midrash.
2) That in Mark that is not Midrash can be traced back to the writings of "Paul".

And Aristophanes mention of Socrates is a copy of a copy of a copy, all the originals lost. But is a play filled with ever conceivable Greek God and half human- half human creature. Socrates could very well be a Hypostasis for an archetypal wise man or teacher.

The important part is that the play MOCKED Socrates and is traceable to being written by a contemporary. This makes it very useful for supporting his existence when one also looks at the other two sources mentioned above.

Besides, in Ancient History, the ONLY thing we [usually] have are copies of copies of copies, so that is a highly invalid criticism.

Again none of these accounts are originals. copies thousands of years after the originals.

b) Einhard was a contemporary of Charlemagne that wrote a biography about him.

ONE BOOK! just one account of Charlemagne by a neophyte written anywhere between 3 and 25 years after his death.

Of a CONTEMPORARY. There are also some secondary sources for Charlemagne that help, but that is besides the point.

But Mathew, Mark, Pual, Peter, ect... Can't trust them. You are ridiculous.

Mark, written 70 CE AT EARLIEST, that is FULL of Midrash and borrows from the writings of "Paul".
Matthew, which borrows HEAVILY from Mark and was written 80 CE AT EARLIEST, also includes Midrash.
The "Authentic Pauline Epistles", which NEVER MENTIONS A HISTORICAL JESUS.
And which Pater are you talking about? The Epistles that he never wrote that bear his name, or the Gospel that has similar problems as Matthew?

c) THERE ARE NO CONTEMPORARY WRITERS OF JESUS.

All the disciples were contemporaries of Jesus.

And, if they existed, seem to have never wrote anything.

Einhard's account is after Charlemagnes death and most the dating is from political details in the work. Socrates has no works of his own and attributions by his students long after his death.

BUT EINHARD IS A CONTEMPORARY AUTHOR!

Don't worry I understand what it is... Hear God or Jesus and the evidence has to be standing right in front of you beating you with a catfish... but for everyone else you can lower the threshold a lot.

Not even close. I am going to college to study this for a living. The difference is that I hold the question of Jesus to the standards he deserves. Bart Ehrman, one of the biggest proponents for a historical Jesus, has to appeal to EXTREMELY hypothetical sources (which the Law of Parsimony would favor their nonexistence, except possibly Q) and ASSUME what they say in order to make his case.

Also, I have a couple questions for you.
If the evidence for a historical Jesus is so great then why:
1) Are the only books actually dedicated for showing Jesus existed published outside of the peer review?
2) Are there TWO books that support Jesus ahistoricity (one mythicism, one agnosticism) that are published WITHIN the peer review?

To deny a historical Jesus would be in intellectual honesty to deny a good many folks from a great many histories.

Again, not even close.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 2:08:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/9/2015 3:45:20 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 3:18:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:47:09 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:40:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:15:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Really? Jesus actually existed? I would love to see you support that with GOOD evidence.

There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Socrates or Charlemagne.

1) Asserting such things does not make it true.

But it is true.

Again, pure assertion, no evidence.

2) There is a different prior probability for Socrates or Charlemagne existing than for Jesus, and thus a greater amount of evidence is required for Jesus than for Socrates or Charlemagne.

What gives any of them any probability of being higher than Jesus existing? If you are referring to a Son of God miracle working Jesus than you are really just saying you don't accept things unless they are repeatable.

Jesus falls into the "Rank-Raglan mythotype", the type of person with one of the (if not the) absolute lowest prior probabilities of existing. This does not mean that it has to be repeatable, it doesn't mean that there is no amount of evidence that can support the existence of a person that fits in the mythotype, it just means that there is a certain amount of extra evidence that is required for getting their final probability for existing to be higher than the final probability for not existing.

What assigns the probabilities in the first place? Initial probability of something happening is calculated form prior occurrence. So how many times have mythical proportioned humans existed? Exactly the very fact that it is rare makes it rare.

Your mistake is thinking that a low probability implies that it didn't happen. Prosecutor fallacy.


3) Quality of evidence is much more important than quantity, and while there might be a quantity of "evidence" for Jesus, there is no QUALITY evidence that he existed.

The Quality of the testimonies about Jesus Life are of high quality.

None of them are independent, there are no unbiased sources that are not suspect of being interpolated (which the only ones that would mean anything for asserting an existing Jesus ARE interpolations or not independent). Sorry, but they are not even CLOSE to high quality.

You are ridiculous. IF this is your contention then remove Einherdt, which was close friend (suspected of having married one of Charlemagne's daughters) and obviously bias biographer of Charlemagne.

If that is your criteria, then remove PLATO and XENOPHON as a source for Socrates, Both admit to be a student of Socrates.


4) Not even close.

You aren't.

Pure assertion.

a) Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes are all CONTEMPORARIES of Socrates that wrote about him.

Plato is no different than Mathew. A pupil attributing events and teachings to his teacher.

1) Matthew was not written by Matthew.
2) Matthew is NOT an independent as it borrows HEAVILY from Mark.

So if the accounts are similiar they are heavily borrowed from one, but if they disagree then they are shams. So really there is no Gospel that will pass your criteria.


Xenophon is no different than Mark only accounting the death of Socrates (that by the way doesn't agree in all details with Plato's recounting).

1) Mark, like other Gospels, is filled to the brim with Midrash.
2) That in Mark that is not Midrash can be traced back to the writings of "Paul".

Okay so by your own logic.. Mathew (dated 70-110) borrowed heavily from Mark. So you would put mark older than Mathew. And now Mark is traced back to the writing of Paul, who died in 64 A.D.

The gospel of Acts which is a historical account of church progression, doesn't mention things like Paul's death, Nero's persecution of Christians (A.D. 64) or the fall of the Jewish temple. Which would have been a big boost to Jesus' prediction of so.

But you insist the gospels were not contemporary to Jesus around 33 A.D. And yet the oldest Plato's Apology is 1200 years after Plato's death. But that is a contemporary source, independent, and unbiased.


And Aristophanes mention of Socrates is a copy of a copy of a copy, all the originals lost. But is a play filled with ever conceivable Greek God and half human- half human creature. Socrates could very well be a Hypostasis for an archetypal wise man or teacher.

The important part is that the play MOCKED Socrates and is traceable to being written by a contemporary. This makes it very useful for supporting his existence when one also looks at the other two sources mentioned above.

So if there was a gospel with the earliest copy years after Jesus death that mocked Jesus then you would belief in the historical Jesus?

And what is the oldest example of The Clouds do we have?


Besides, in Ancient History, the ONLY thing we [usually] have are copies of copies of copies, so that is a highly invalid criticism.

Again none of these accounts are originals. copies thousands of years after the originals.

b) Einhard was a contemporary of Charlemagne that wrote a biography about him.

ONE BOOK! just one account of Charlemagne by a neophyte written anywhere between 3 and 25 years after his death.

Of a CONTEMPORARY. There are also some secondary sources for Charlemagne that help, but that is besides the point.

How DO YOU KNOW! You say Plato was a contemporary based on what? That he says he knew Socrates? Same thing is said in the Gospels. Is it because there are manuscripts of Socrates and Plato that talk about each other? Nope There are no manuscripts by Socrates or Jesus. Is it because we have manuscripts of Plato that date back to the time of Socrates? Nope.

But by your own time line, it is not outside the rational acceptance to see that Mark, Peter, Paul, and JESUS are ALL real people.


But Mathew, Mark, Pual, Peter, ect... Can't trust them. You are ridiculous.

Mark, written 70 CE AT EARLIEST, that is FULL of Midrash and borrows from the writings of "Paul".
Matthew, which borrows HEAVILY from Mark and was written 80 CE AT EARLIEST, also includes Midrash.
The "Authentic Pauline Epistles", which NEVER MENTIONS A HISTORICAL JESUS.
And which Pater are you talking about? The Epistles that he never wrote that bear his name, or the Gospel that has similar problems as Matthew?

c) THERE ARE NO CONTEMPORARY WRITERS OF JESUS.

All the disciples were contemporaries of Jesus.

And, if they existed, seem to have never wrote anything.

Einhard's account is after Charlemagnes death and most the dating is from political details in the work. Socrates has no works of his own and attributions by his students long after his death.

BUT EINHARD IS A CONTEMPORARY AUTHOR!

Don't worry I understand what it is... Hear God or Jesus and the evidence has to be standing right in front of you beating you with a catfish... but for everyone else you can lower the threshold a lot.

Not even close. I am going to college to study this for a living. The difference is that I hold the question of Jesus to the standards he deserves. Bart Ehrman, one of the biggest proponents for a historical Jesus, has to appeal to EXTREMELY hypothetical sources (which the Law of Parsimony would favor their nonexistence, except possibly Q) and ASSUME what they say in order to make his case.

Also, I have a couple questions for you.
If the evidence for a historical Jesus is so great then why:
1) Are the only books actually dedicated for showing Jesus existed published outside

Can't be consistent with the evidence can we.

You want to belief with impregnable faith that Jesus didn't exist, there is no convincing you otherwise.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 2:11:56 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Can you put it here and then I will respond. I have not even read it yet because we are way off topic from the OP at this point, which I am trying to avoid from now on.

http://www.debate.org...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 4:01:16 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/9/2015 2:15:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:21:56 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/8/2015 9:02:24 PM, desmac wrote:
At 12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)

What does the Harry potter version say?

The difference is Jesus actually existed and and walked the Earth. How about Harry?

Really? Jesus actually existed? I would love to see you support that with GOOD evidence.

You are welcome to argue almost 100% of historians including Atheist ones. So go ahead.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 4:02:55 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/9/2015 2:47:09 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:40:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:15:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Really? Jesus actually existed? I would love to see you support that with GOOD evidence.

There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Socrates or Charlemagne.

1) Asserting such things does not make it true.
2) There is a different prior probability for Socrates or Charlemagne existing than for Jesus, and thus a greater amount of evidence is required for Jesus than for Socrates or Charlemagne.
3) Quality of evidence is much more important than quantity, and while there might be a quantity of "evidence" for Jesus, there is no QUALITY evidence that he existed.
4) Not even close.
a) Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes are all CONTEMPORARIES of Socrates that wrote about him.
b) Einhard was a contemporary of Charlemagne that wrote a biography about him.
c) THERE ARE NO CONTEMPORARY WRITERS OF JESUS.

There are actually more sources secular or theistic both than some of the Caesars. Did Tiberius exist? How about Tutankhamun?
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 4:04:30 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/9/2015 3:11:05 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)


Base on the Hebrew Bible the p-r notion in Genesis 16:12 means "fertile man" instead of "wild donkey".
And yes everyone against him just we see nowdays everyone against Islam.

Moreover The Bible itself affirm that The God blessed Ismael.

"And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation".(Genesis 17:20)


And take a look the passage "greatly increase numbers and great nation" is very compatible with the notion "fertile man" or in Hebrew word "p-r".

And? You know as well as I do that you cherry picked your verse usage. What else does it say?
uncung
Posts: 3,432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 4:07:53 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 4:04:30 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/9/2015 3:11:05 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)


Base on the Hebrew Bible the p-r notion in Genesis 16:12 means "fertile man" instead of "wild donkey".
And yes everyone against him just we see nowdays everyone against Islam.

Moreover The Bible itself affirm that The God blessed Ismael.

"And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation".(Genesis 17:20)


And take a look the passage "greatly increase numbers and great nation" is very compatible with the notion "fertile man" or in Hebrew word "p-r".

And? You know as well as I do that you cherry picked your verse usage. What else does it say?

do you mean should we remove this verse out of the bible?

"And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation".(Genesis 17:20)
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 4:18:21 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 4:01:16 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
You are welcome to argue almost 100% of historians including Atheist ones. So go ahead.

Yet, when it comes to qualified experts (PhD in relevant fields) who have written about the topic, those in favor of Jesus existence have written OUTSIDE of the peer review while there are two who are ahistoricists (one mythicist and the other agnostic) who have written WITHIN the peer review.

Hmm... Interesting, isn't it?

At 12/10/2015 4:02:55 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
There are actually more sources secular or theistic both than some of the Caesars. Did Tiberius exist? How about Tutankhamun?

There are a quantity of sources for Jesus, but not quality.

One diamond is of extreme quality while being without quantity.
A thousand piles of s*** might be of high quantity, but at the end of the day it is still s***.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 5:00:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 4:18:21 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/10/2015 4:01:16 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
You are welcome to argue almost 100% of historians including Atheist ones. So go ahead.

Yet, when it comes to qualified experts (PhD in relevant fields) who have written about the topic, those in favor of Jesus existence have written OUTSIDE of the peer review while there are two who are ahistoricists (one mythicist and the other agnostic) who have written WITHIN the peer review.

Hmm... Interesting, isn't it?

At 12/10/2015 4:02:55 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
There are actually more sources secular or theistic both than some of the Caesars. Did Tiberius exist? How about Tutankhamun?

There are a quantity of sources for Jesus, but not quality.

One diamond is of extreme quality while being without quantity.
A thousand piles of s*** might be of high quantity, but at the end of the day it is still s***.

So Tiberius Caesar did not exist based on your assesment.

So what are the stats on Atheist historians who believe Jesus was a historical, real person? Hmm...interesting isn't it?
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 5:05:43 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
there is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically.

-Wikipedia
Rami
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 9:48:30 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)

This is why we proudly stand by Arabs proclaiming their lineage to Abraham.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 10:05:27 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 9:48:30 PM, Rami wrote:
At 12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)

This is why we proudly stand by Arabs proclaiming their lineage to Abraham.

Ishmael is the father of a violent seed in the Bible. "His hand shall always be against others". He is the "son of the slave" in the Bible. Muslims are the "slaves of Allah" according to Muslims themselves. Isaac is the father of the free and from the free. (Hagar vs. Sarai.) (New Testament) "the children of the freewoman". Christians consider themselves free. This is why America has been "free" all this time. Basic Christian values and concepts.
TheWORDisLIFE
Posts: 1,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 10:36:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 9:48:30 PM, Rami wrote:
At 12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)

This is why we proudly stand by Arabs proclaiming their lineage to Abraham.

Ya but the only problem is they are not the chosen seed LOL.
uncung
Posts: 3,432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 1:38:48 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 10:05:27 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/10/2015 9:48:30 PM, Rami wrote:
At 12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)

This is why we proudly stand by Arabs proclaiming their lineage to Abraham.

Ishmael is the father of a violent seed in the Bible. "His hand shall always be against others". He is the "son of the slave" in the Bible. Muslims are the "slaves of Allah" according to Muslims themselves. Isaac is the father of the free and from the free. (Hagar vs. Sarai.) (New Testament) "the children of the freewoman". Christians consider themselves free. This is why America has been "free" all this time. Basic Christian values and concepts.

Sound like he was similar with jesus:" I bring not peace but sword. "
Ismael always against heathenish, sinners, paganis and disbelievers.
The bible also call Jesus as the slave of God.
Matthew 12:18: "Behold, My servant (Jesus) [i.e., from the Greek pais theo i.e ebed (slave)] whom I have chosen,..
uncung
Posts: 3,432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 1:40:04 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 10:36:06 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 12/10/2015 9:48:30 PM, Rami wrote:
At 12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)

This is why we proudly stand by Arabs proclaiming their lineage to Abraham.

Ya but the only problem is they are not the chosen seed LOL.

who are the chosen seeds then? Vietnamese?
TheWORDisLIFE
Posts: 1,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 3:03:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/11/2015 1:40:04 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/10/2015 10:36:06 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 12/10/2015 9:48:30 PM, Rami wrote:
At 12/8/2015 8:42:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Genesis 16:12
New International Version

(Speaking of Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

In Islam, Ishmael is regarded as a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor to Muhammad. He also became associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba, as well as equated with the term "Arab" by some. (Wikipedia)

This is why we proudly stand by Arabs proclaiming their lineage to Abraham.

Ya but the only problem is they are not the chosen seed LOL.

who are the chosen seeds then? Vietnamese?

Chosen seeds? The only chosen nation God chose was and is Israel.

Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people vnto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people vnto himselfe, aboue all people that are vpon the face of the earth.

Precept to Deuteronomy 7:6

1 Peter 2:9 But yee are a chosen generation, a royall Priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that yee should shewe forth the praises of him, who hath called you out of darknes into his marueilous light:

Isaiah 44:1 Yet now heare, O Iacob my seruant, and Israel whom I haue chosen.

Acts 13:17 The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arme brought he them out of it.

2 Esdras 6:56 As for the other people which also come of Adam, thou hast said that they are nothing, but be like vnto spittle, and hast likened the abundance of them vnto a drop that falleth from a vessell.

Precept to 2 Esdras 6:56

Isaiah 40:15;17
15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, hee taketh vp the yles as a very litle thing.

17 All nations before him are as nothing, and they are counted to him lesse then nothing, and vanitie.

Again, the ONLY CHOSEN nation is Israel. Now the "holy Koran".

O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me. [Qur'an, sura 2:40]

Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other nations (for My Message). [Qur'an, sura 2:47]

Quran means to recite; look it up.
uncung
Posts: 3,432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 4:02:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Ya but the only problem is they are not the chosen seed LOL.

who are the chosen seeds then? Vietnamese?

Chosen seeds? The only chosen nation God chose was and is Israel.

Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people vnto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people vnto himselfe, aboue all people that are vpon the face of the earth.

Precept to Deuteronomy 7:6

1 Peter 2:9 But yee are a chosen generation, a royall Priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that yee should shewe forth the praises of him, who hath called you out of darknes into his marueilous light:

Isaiah 44:1 Yet now heare, O Iacob my seruant, and Israel whom I haue chosen.

Acts 13:17 The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arme brought he them out of it.

2 Esdras 6:56 As for the other people which also come of Adam, thou hast said that they are nothing, but be like vnto spittle, and hast likened the abundance of them vnto a drop that falleth from a vessell.

Precept to 2 Esdras 6:56

Isaiah 40:15;17
15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, hee taketh vp the yles as a very litle thing.

17 All nations before him are as nothing, and they are counted to him lesse then nothing, and vanitie.

Again, the ONLY CHOSEN nation is Israel. Now the "holy Koran".

O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me. [Qur'an, sura 2:40]

Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other nations (for My Message). [Qur'an, sura 2:47]

Quran means to recite; look it up.

what does the chosen people mean then? choose for what?
TheWORDisLIFE
Posts: 1,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 3:44:49 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/11/2015 4:02:42 AM, uncung wrote:
Ya but the only problem is they are not the chosen seed LOL.

who are the chosen seeds then? Vietnamese?

Chosen seeds? The only chosen nation God chose was and is Israel.

Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people vnto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people vnto himselfe, aboue all people that are vpon the face of the earth.

Precept to Deuteronomy 7:6

1 Peter 2:9 But yee are a chosen generation, a royall Priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that yee should shewe forth the praises of him, who hath called you out of darknes into his marueilous light:

Isaiah 44:1 Yet now heare, O Iacob my seruant, and Israel whom I haue chosen.

Acts 13:17 The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arme brought he them out of it.

2 Esdras 6:56 As for the other people which also come of Adam, thou hast said that they are nothing, but be like vnto spittle, and hast likened the abundance of them vnto a drop that falleth from a vessell.

Precept to 2 Esdras 6:56

Isaiah 40:15;17
15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, hee taketh vp the yles as a very litle thing.

17 All nations before him are as nothing, and they are counted to him lesse then nothing, and vanitie.

Again, the ONLY CHOSEN nation is Israel. Now the "holy Koran".

O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me. [Qur'an, sura 2:40]

Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other nations (for My Message). [Qur'an, sura 2:47]

Quran means to recite; look it up.

what does the chosen people mean then? choose for what?

The Most High God chose us to be Kings and Queens over the earth. When Christ returns we will go back into ruler ship (Rev 5:10). The earth was created for us (the Israelites) (2 Esdras 6:55), but because we didn't keep the Laws of our God (Deut 28:15), we went into slavery (Deut 28:15-68) and now the other nations are lords over us (2 Esdras 6:57).
uncung
Posts: 3,432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 5:37:08 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
what does the chosen people mean then? choose for what?

The Most High God chose us to be Kings and Queens over the earth. When Christ returns we will go back into ruler ship (Rev 5:10). The earth was created for us (the Israelites) (2 Esdras 6:55), but because we didn't keep the Laws of our God (Deut 28:15), we went into slavery (Deut 28:15-68) and now the other nations are lords over us (2 Esdras 6:57).

choose us or choose israel people?
TheWORDisLIFE
Posts: 1,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 6:06:22 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/11/2015 5:37:08 PM, uncung wrote:
what does the chosen people mean then? choose for what?

The Most High God chose us to be Kings and Queens over the earth. When Christ returns we will go back into ruler ship (Rev 5:10). The earth was created for us (the Israelites) (2 Esdras 6:55), but because we didn't keep the Laws of our God (Deut 28:15), we went into slavery (Deut 28:15-68) and now the other nations are lords over us (2 Esdras 6:57).

choose us or choose israel people?

The entire bible is about the Israelites, so when it says us, it's referring to the Israelites, not the whole world.
uncung
Posts: 3,432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 11:06:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/11/2015 6:06:22 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:37:08 PM, uncung wrote:
what does the chosen people mean then? choose for what?

The Most High God chose us to be Kings and Queens over the earth. When Christ returns we will go back into ruler ship (Rev 5:10). The earth was created for us (the Israelites) (2 Esdras 6:55), but because we didn't keep the Laws of our God (Deut 28:15), we went into slavery (Deut 28:15-68) and now the other nations are lords over us (2 Esdras 6:57).

choose us or choose israel people?

The entire bible is about the Israelites, so when it says us, it's referring to the Israelites, not the whole world.

How could be we are suddenly addressed as the israilian people?
TheWORDisLIFE
Posts: 1,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 11:10:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/11/2015 11:06:39 PM, uncung wrote:
At 12/11/2015 6:06:22 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:37:08 PM, uncung wrote:
what does the chosen people mean then? choose for what?

The Most High God chose us to be Kings and Queens over the earth. When Christ returns we will go back into ruler ship (Rev 5:10). The earth was created for us (the Israelites) (2 Esdras 6:55), but because we didn't keep the Laws of our God (Deut 28:15), we went into slavery (Deut 28:15-68) and now the other nations are lords over us (2 Esdras 6:57).

choose us or choose israel people?

The entire bible is about the Israelites, so when it says us, it's referring to the Israelites, not the whole world.

How could be we are suddenly addressed as the israilian people?

What?