An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings
A Moon-God?
While looking for something else, I saw a link to this page: Allah - the Moon God
I find it rather interesting that no one ever talks about the archaeological history of Islam. And reading through this page, dated, 1997-1998, I’m fairly sure I know why now. I can’t verify the accuracy of the statements made here, but I do know it does bring up some interesting points.
For example:
The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of “Allah.” The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was “Allah” the biblical God or a pagan god in Arabia during pre- Islamic times? The Muslim’s claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if “Allah” is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in biblical religion. Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre- Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted.
Hmmm….. So, are the Muslims not actually worshiping God, as the Jews and Christians know Him?
Archaeologists have uncovered temples to the Moon-god throughout the Middle East
A moon-god? Well, that certainly puts things in a different light, doesn’t it.
This fact answers the questions, “Why is Allah never defined in the Qur’an? Why did Muhammad assume that the pagan Arabs already knew who Allah was?” Muhammad was raised in the religion of the Moon-god Allah. But he went one step further than his fellow pagan Arabs. While they believed that Allah, i.e. the Moon-god, was the greatest of all gods and the supreme deity in a pantheon of deities, Muhammad decided that Allah was not only the greatest god but the only god.
So, is what this is telling me is that 3000 people died on 9/11 for a flippin’ MOON-GOD????? Have countless others been forced in to worship of an IDOL, or die?
In effect he said, “Look, you already believe that the Moon-god Allah is the greatest of all gods. All I want you to do is to accept that the idea that he is the only god. I am not taking away the Allah you already worship. I am only taking away his wife and his daughters and all the other gods.”
Mohamed took away the family, and left the ‘daddy’ for his followers to worship. I suppose that would explain the oppression of women in Islam?
This is seen from the fact that the first point of the Muslim creed is not, “Allah is great” but “Allah is the greatest,” i.e., he is the greatest among the gods.
Sorry, no, he’s not. He’s a statue, and statues mean nothing!
Dr. Newman concludes his study of the early Christian-Muslim debates by stating, “Islam proved itself to be…a separate and antagonistic religion which had sprung up from idolatry.” Islamic scholar Caesar Farah concluded “There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews.”
If the basis of Islam is an idol, then they have no right, as they claim, to the land given to the Isaelites God! They have no rights to Jerusalem, and they surely have NO right to push their religion down OUR throats.
CONCLUSION
The pagan Arabs worshipped the Moon-god Allah by praying toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called the Kabah; kissing the black stone; killing an animal in sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the devil; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc.
The Muslim’s claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence. Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult. It has taken the symbols, the rites, the ceremonies, and even the name of its god from the ancient pagan religion of the Moon-god. As such, it is sheer idolatry and must be rejected by all those who follow the Torah and Gospel.
This all leads me to ask: Was the murderous pedophile trying to emulate the Jews and Christians in the believe of One True God, by forcing his neighbors to follow him with the intent of destroying all others? I’ve often wondered why the Muslims seem to put Mohamed in the forefront, instead of God. Now, I think I’m beginning to understand.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
If Allah is a MOON god, does that mean Muslims are MOON Bats??
An interesting thought huh??
@TexasFred:
With the way religions have changed and metamorphosed through-out human history I am surprised anyone takes any of them seriously. The symbls of Islam all seem to support the Moon-God. Christianity seems to be more Egyptian Sun God Like. At least from my perspective
@Sean:
Well, ya might be right, with the exception of that One Thing a couple of thousand years ago……The Resurrection.
Well that is assuming I believe in the resurrection…which I don’t. If anything that Myth(and I do not use that word offensively, I simply view the Bible as mythology), only strengthens my view of an Egyptian influence. The story of the Eygyptian God Osiris is a resurrection Myth, told to explain the the times of the year when the Nile Floods(resurrection), and when it recedes. (it is also a fertility myth). Again like it or not Religions have a tendency to change every few thousand years(Mesopotamian, Egyptians, Greek, Roman, and countless others predating Mesopotamia).
@Sean:
Sorry to hear that, but that’s your choice.
Anyways, there is a big difference between the Osiris story and the Resurrection of the Bible. There are actual written accounts of witnesses. And yes, there have many religions over the eons. However, how many can say it’s roots go back over 5000 years?
I would think quite a few…The Romans based much thier Gods, and stories, on those of the Greeks, who in turn incorporated stories of the Egyptians), who in turn incorporated ancient Mesopotamia. Chirstianity even incorporates a few of those stories …”The Great Flood” is the best example off the top of my head. But anyway I think I have just covered anywhere from 10-15,000 years of roots.
@Sean:
I’ll be darned….I wasn’t aware the Romans were still burning pigeons to Jupiter? Hmmm….
Yes, there has been incorporation. The early church changed the date of Christ’s birth to December to appease the pagans. Darned, if we weren’t doin’ it way back when too.
LOL…I didn’t say they were still doing it, but Ancient Roman Mythology did include Gods & Godesses similar to those of the Greeks.
OK, I am guessing they are MOON Bats… Right or Wrong?? Inquiring minds want to know…
@Sean:
I have this odd mental image…. and I’ll leave it at that. LOL
@TexasFred:
….and spreading the guano.
The early church didn’t change the date of Christ’s birth to December to appease the pagans, it co-opted pagan festivals in order to shoe horn the pagans into church.
And Sean’s right – it’s all a bunch of rehashed fable retooled to fit the constituency of the day. Witnesses to the resurrection? Who?
Heckuva site, Katie!
Cheers
Elroy
@Elroy:
Elroy, you are welcome to comment, but I warn you, I’m not as tolerant to rudeness as I use to be. One advantage of being old and in ill health, I get to be pissy when I feel like it!
When you start insulting my faith, I draw the line! I’m not a placater! If you had bothered to actually READ the Bible, I’ve no doubt your brain would have retained the names. Mary of Magdalene and all 11 of the disciples.
All 11? And Mary? I thought they merely found the stone rolled away and then bumped into JC down the road awhile. Did all the disciples actuall see JC rise from the dead? If so, then wouldn’t that clear up the mystery of who rolled the stone away? Enquiring minds want to know.
And I’m not insulting your faith, I am questioning it’s veracity. If it can’t handle that, well…
Cheers
Elroy
@Elroy:
Elroy, sometimes I think you intentionally “play” dense! They saw Him dead. They saw Him alive again. I’d said that was a witness, or 12.
Not necessarily. Maybe he wasn’t dead. Crucifixion works by one’s suspended body weight eventually collapsing one’s chest cavity and crushing one’s lungs, causing suffocation. This takes days, yet JC was only on the cross for a matter of hours.
How about the Gospel of Philip? ‘Those who say that the Lord died first and then rose up are in error, for he rose up first and then he died.’ The Dead Sea Scrolls say that the disciples drugged JC so that he passed out and sprang then him from the cave, and the reckoning is that he died in Rome in AD 64.
http://hamsa.org/resurrection.htm
What sayest thou?
Cheers
Elroy
@Elroy:
Since I don’t subscribe to the Apocrypha, I basically say nothing.
Those Jews, following the laws of the Old Testament, wouldn’t allow a person to continue hanging on a cross past sundown of the Sabbath. And I don’t know for sure, although, since you are still capable of typing, you’ve never suffocated in any manner. The two hanging with Him had their legs broken, since the Christ had already given up the Ghost, it wasn’t necessary. However, there was that spear that was thrust into His side…. I’d say that would pretty much do it.
Who decided what is Apocrypha and what isn’t? What went in and what stayed out? And what was the criteria? And what were the credentials of those that made those decisions? What conflicts of interest did they have? What was their agenda? Until those questions can be definitively settled, the whole of the Bible is Apocrypha.
‘Those Jews, following the laws of the Old Testament, wouldn’t allow a person to continue hanging on a cross past sundown of the Sabbath.’
The Jews didn’t crucify him, the Romans did, so what the Jews would or wouldn’t allow seems irrelevant.
‘And I don’t know for sure, although, since you are still capable of typing, you’ve never suffocated in any manner.’
So? What has that to do with it? I still know that suffocation is possible, I am aware of as a principle.
‘The two hanging with Him had their legs broken, since the Christ had already given up the Ghost, it wasn’t necessary.’
Which adds even more credence to the idea that we wasn’t dead and could, indeed, walk.
‘However, there was that spear that was thrust into His side…. I’d say that would pretty much do it.’
Not necessarily. What did the doctor’s report say? And did it really happen anyway? Was John’s evidence corroborated by the other disciples?
Cheers
Elroy
@Elroy:
Never read the Bible, have ya.
No, that’s why I’m asking you about it.I haven’t read the Koran either, but that does not stop me asking questions about it, and nor should it.
So, care to put me straight?
Cheers
Elroy
@Elroy:
Then, I would suggest reading Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for some answers. I prefer the King James Version myself, but many use the NIV, because it’s in more modern day language. However, there are verses left out of the NIV version. I would also suggest to you, what someone suggested to me a long time ago….if you are going to read the Bible, start with Acts, then go back to Matthew and go from there. Of course, read the Old Testament too. If you have to buy a Bible, get one that has study verses, and references. It can make things a lot easier. Or, you could go to Bible Gateway, and read it online. As for the Qu’ran…I know there is an online link, but can’t remember it right now.
As for the Jews VS the Romans….yeah, the Romans carried out the crucifixion, but the head honchos at the Temple egged it on. They feared for their authority, which was based in law, not in faith. The first Christians were actually Jews, and they followed Jewish law. Jesus was raised Jewish too, by the way. The Sabbath was still kept as a holy day, they took it rather seriously. They couldn’t leave him up on the Cross after sundown. So, they asked remove Him, so he could be buried before sundown.
Thanks, Kate. But I find it even stranger that he was taken down early if both the Romans AND the Jews wanted shot of him. Why would they do that? Surely if leaving him on the cross violated the Sabbath, so much the better huh?
And we still cannot verify whether or not he was definitively dead. The plot thickens…
And why can’t I start with Judas, Thomas and Philip?
Cheers
Elroy
@Elroy:
Do you think the Romans really wanted a riot on their hands?
Perhaps you find this amusing?
Why would the Romans have a riot on their hands? And why wouldn’t they have been able to handle it? This is the Romans! They weren’t very PC, y’know! They weren’t known for being pussycats.
Do I find what amusing? This discussion? No, I find it interesting.
Cheers
Elroy
@Elroy:
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: 23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
It was the law. Now, consider how we behave towards the Iraqis. Don’t we do our best to acquiesce to their laws, show some respect? The Romans, oddly enough, did the same thing. If they wanted to retain power, they would have to give a little to get a LOT. Perhaps I’m not explaining this very well. Let’s say I come into your house, and claim it as mine. Gonna piss ya off, isn’t it. Well, in order to placate, the Romans had to allow the Jews to follow their traditional religious laws.
The name, Palestine, was given to the land by the Romans, as an insult to the residents, by the way.
Just a tad of trivia for ya.
If you are asking sincere, serious questions, I’ll do my best to answer them. If I don’t have the answer, I’ll do my utmost to find it. On the other hand….
Thank you for your answers. I am sincere, but there are things I do not understand. To me, that quote from Deuteronomy says that the sinner is put to death BEFORE being hung on the tree. And ‘being hung on a tree’, dead, is not crucifixion. And as I have mentioned, death by crucifixion takes days, that’s the point of it - if the Romans allowed the crucified to be taken down at the end of any given day then nobody would die of crucifixion and the whole exercise would be pointless.
And by the way, we don’t acquiesce to the Iraqi laws – we rewrite them and ignore them. The USA military and the contractors operate in a legal void. The military are only subject to their own internal laws and the contractors are not subject to ANY laws, Iraqi or US. None. So if the Romans acted in the Middle East as the USA do, then I cannot see them honoring Jewish law or anything else.
Cheers
Elroy
@Elroy:
Um…. I don’t read it that way, but you are free to interpret.
The US military has rules they answer to. And yes, we do accept Iraqi laws. If we just blindly went into a village and set up bars, what do you think the reaction would be. Bad analogy, but you get the picture.
I’m free to interpret? So I’m right? So truth is relative? Gee! I thought that the Bible is the indeterminate word of God!
But if the Bible is interpretable, then there is no conclusive proof that Jesus was dead when he came down from the cross, right?
The military, as I said, have their own rules, but that’s all – they are not answerable to Iraqi law, and the private contractors are not answerable to any law. I’m not inventing this – look it up.
And as for ’setting up bars’, what do you think happens in the Green Zone and in the biggest embassy on the face of the earth currently under construction in Baghdad?
Cheers
Elroy
@Elroy:
I said YOU are free to interpret. Doesn’t mean you’re right. The Bible says what it says. What you took away from the passage? That’s between you and your Maker when you stand before the Throne.
It doesn’t mean I’m wrong either! The Bible may say what it says, but it appears that I am the final arbiter for what I think it says. Truth, then, is relative.
I’m sure the Big Cheese will understand that I interpreted according to my free will and not punish me for getting it wrong because, according to you, there is no wrong way to get it.
Unless the Big Cheese is particularly cryptic and obtuse, in which case he will forgive us for getting it wrong because he is a forgiving Cheese, isn’t he?
And we still don’t know if Jesus was dead or not.
Cheers
Elroy
@Elroy:
It’s very simple, truth is truth.
And yes, He was dead. He rose from the dead.