Judaism, Purgatory, Karaites

Not everything has to be in the bible, the rabbis were given authority over matters and even Jesus recognized this in Matt 23, despite calling them hypocrites. Some of the things called "traditions of men" were modern innovations that were not even approved of by rabbis, like the korban abuse. Deuteronomy 17:11 states unclear matters/matters not in the torah are to be settled by JUDGES, this is the Jewish basis for rabbinical authority, as far as the Karaites go--They were probably a post 2nd temple movement, there's no reference to them in the Hebrew bible or the Christian at all. The the way the New testament DOES accept some rabbinical rulings/"traditions" of law like in Acts 15 where eating strangled animals is forbidden to gentiles--this is never explicitly written in the Torah.

The Christian view of purgatory is in 1 cor 3:15 "shall be saved as though by fire" which is the chief verse used, others can include MAtthew 12:32 "shall not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come", Matt 5:26 "until the last farthing" and 2 Thess 1 where Onesiphorous, seems to be dead, and is prayed for by Paul.

Is Muhammad's name used in Songs of Solomon?

The following is Muslims claim (in blue) and my response (in black) A Muslim's claim: Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h)mentioned by name in old testament in the song of solomon ch 5 v 16"hikko mamittakim we kullo muhammadim zehdoodeh wa zehraee bayna jerusalem"his mouth is most sweet yea he is altogether lovely this is my beloved and this is my friend,o daughters of jerusalem" in hebrew lang "im"is added for respect similarly im is added after the name of prophet muhammad pbuh to make it muhammadim.in english translation they have even translated the name of prophet muhammad pbuh as"altogether lovely"but in old testament name is present.thank u and have a look plz
My response:
The Holy Scripture reads:
 חִכּוֹ, מַמְתַקִּים, וְכֻלּוֹ, מַחֲמַדִּים; זֶה דוֹדִי וְזֶה רֵעִי, בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם
ḥiko, mam'takim, v'challo, maḥamadim. Zeh dodi v'zeh rei, b'not y'rushalam. 

Notice it does not say "muhammad" at all but mahamadim. Mahamadim means most desired. The מַ mem at the beginning of the word has a patach (the horizontal line) which is the "a" sound, not a "u" sound, the u sound is made by a kibbuts (3 diagonal dots) or the Shuruk (a vav with a dot).

Furthermore, the "m" or ם "mem" in the middle of the word is only a SINGLE 'm' sound, if it were doubled like in the name muhammed it would have a mappiq mark (a dot) in the mem like מָּ!

Furthermore, the -im suffix generally refers to the plural! Though some words just have the -im suffix anyway. The plural is used in the same verse when it says hiko, mam'takim--"His mouth is MOST SWEET) see the -im there refers to "most".

What in this chapter would EVER make you think this fits Muhammed at all, considering its a woman talking to other women (daughters of Jerusalem, a city never mentioned by name in the Quran) about her husband?

Finally, the word is used 11 times elsewhere in the Hebrew bible (using the KJV for convenience) in different forms, in red will be the words translation, also notice the tone of every passage--none of them are positive, this is why Muslim apologists probably only use Songs 5:16:

Yet I will send my servants unto thee to morrow about this time, and they shall search thine house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, [that] whatsoever is pleasant [maḥ'mad מַחְמַד] in thine eyes, they shall put [it] in their hand, and take [it] away.--1 Kings 20:6

 כִּי אִם-כָּעֵת מָחָר, אֶשְׁלַח אֶת-עֲבָדַי אֵלֶיךָ, וְחִפְּשׂוּ אֶת-בֵּיתְךָ, וְאֵת בָּתֵּי עֲבָדֶיךָ; וְהָיָה כָּל-מַחְמַד עֵינֶיךָ, יָשִׂימוּ בְיָדָם וְלָקָחוּ  --first Kings 20:6 Masoretic Text 

And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly [ מַחֲמַדֶּיהָ   maḥmaddeyha] vessels thereof.--2 Chronicles 36:19

וַיִּשְׂרְפוּ, אֶת-בֵּית הָאֱלֹהִים, וַיְנַתְּצוּ, אֵת חוֹמַת יְרוּשָׁלִָם; וְכָל-אַרְמְנוֹתֶיהָ שָׂרְפוּ בָאֵשׁ, וְכָל-כְּלֵי מַחֲמַדֶּיהָ לְהַשְׁחִית  -- second Chronicles 36:19

Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned up with fire: and all our pleasant things [maḥmaddeynu, מַחֲמַדֵּינוּ ] are laid waste.--Isaiah 64:11(10)

בֵּית קָדְשֵׁנוּ וְתִפְאַרְתֵּנוּ, אֲשֶׁר הִלְלוּךָ אֲבֹתֵינוּ--הָיָה, לִשְׂרֵפַת אֵשׁ; וְכָל-מַחֲמַדֵּינוּ, הָיָה לְחָרְבָּה--Isaiah 64:11

The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her pleasant things [מַחֲמַדֶּיהָ maḥmaddeha]: for she hath seen [that] the heathen entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command [that] they should not enter into thy congregation.--Lamentations 1:10

יָדוֹ פָּרַשׂ צָר, עַל כָּל-מַחֲמַדֶּיהָ:  כִּי-רָאֲתָה גוֹיִם, בָּאוּ מִקְדָּשָׁהּ--אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָה, לֹא-יָבֹאוּ בַקָּהָל לָךְ--Lamentation 1:10

He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all [that were] pleasant [מַחֲמַדֵּי maḥamaddey] to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire.--Lamentations 2:4

דָּרַךְ קַשְׁתּוֹ כְּאוֹיֵב, נִצָּב יְמִינוֹ כְּצָר, וַיַּהֲרֹג, כֹּל מַחֲמַדֵּי-עָיִן; בְּאֹהֶל, בַּת-צִיּוֹן, שָׁפַךְ כָּאֵשׁ, חֲמָתוֹ--Lamentations 2:4

Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the desire [מַחְמַד maḥ'mad] of thine eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down.--Ezekiel 24:16

בֶּן-אָדָם, הִנְנִי לֹקֵחַ מִמְּךָ אֶת-מַחְמַד עֵינֶיךָ בְּמַגֵּפָה; וְלֹא תִסְפֹּד וְלֹא תִבְכֶּה, וְלוֹא תָבוֹא דִּמְעָתֶךָ--Ezekiel 24:16

Speak unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will profane my sanctuary, the excellency of your strength, the desire [מַחְמַד maḥ'mad] of your eyes, and that which your soul pitieth; and your sons and your daughters whom ye have left shall fall by the sword.--Ezekiel 24:21

 אֱמֹר לְבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל, כֹּה-אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, הִנְנִי מְחַלֵּל אֶת-מִקְדָּשִׁי גְּאוֹן עֻזְּכֶם, מַחְמַד עֵינֵיכֶם וּמַחְמַל נַפְשְׁכֶם; וּבְנֵיכֶם וּבְנוֹתֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר עֲזַבְתֶּם, בַּחֶרֶב יִפֹּלוּ--Ezekiel 24:21

Also, thou son of man, [shall it] not [be] in the day when I take from them their strength, the joy of their glory, the desire [מַחְמַד maḥ'mad] of their eyes, and that whereupon they set their minds, their sons and their daughters,--Ezekiel 24:25

וְאַתָּה בֶן-אָדָם--הֲלוֹא בְּיוֹם קַחְתִּי מֵהֶם אֶת-מָעוּזָּם, מְשׂוֹשׂ תִּפְאַרְתָּם:  אֶת-מַחְמַד עֵינֵיהֶם וְאֶת-מַשָּׂא נַפְשָׁם, בְּנֵיהֶם וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶם--Ezekiel 24:25

For, lo, they are gone because of destruction: Egypt shall gather them up, Memphis shall bury them: the pleasant [מַחְמַד maḥ'mad] [places] for their silver, nettles shall possess them: thorns [shall be] in their tabernacles.--Hosea 9:6

כִּי-הִנֵּה הָלְכוּ מִשֹּׁד, מִצְרַיִם תְּקַבְּצֵם מֹף תְּקַבְּרֵם; מַחְמַד לְכַסְפָּם, קִמּוֹשׂ יִירָשֵׁם, חוֹחַ, בְּאָהֳלֵיהֶם --Hosea 9:6

Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay [even] the beloved [maḥmaddey מַחֲמַדֵּי] [fruit] of their womb. --Hosea 9:16

הֻכָּה אֶפְרַיִם--שָׁרְשָׁם יָבֵשׁ, פְּרִי בלי- (בַל-) יַעֲשׂוּן; גַּם כִּי יֵלֵדוּן, וְהֵמַתִּי מַחֲמַדֵּי בִטְנָם--Hosea 9:16 

 Forasmuch as ye have taken My silver and My gold, and have carried into your temples My goodly [umaḥmadday וּמַחֲמַדַּי] treasures; Joel 3:5/4:5

אֲשֶׁר-כַּסְפִּי וּזְהָבִי, לְקַחְתֶּם; וּמַחֲמַדַּי, הַטֹּבִים, הֲבֵאתֶם, לְהֵיכְלֵיכֶם --Joel 3:5/4:5

No wonder why only Songs of Solomon 5:16 was chosen!

Pope letter to an atheist

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/09/full-text-of-popes-letter-to-atheist.html#more The ACTUAL letter to the atheist, with what the Pope REALLY said about God's forgiveness

 

As for the three questions you asked me in the article of August 7th. It would seem to me that in the first two, what you are most interested in is understanding the Church's attitude towards those who do not share faith in Jesus. First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that - and this is fundamental - God's mercy has no limits *****IF***** HE WHO ASKS FOR MERCY DOES SO IN CONTRITION and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.

 

He's hardly said anything remotely what the newspapers are claiming. In fact his qualifier is ignored by pretty much everyone. If anything the pope is accusing Atheists of NOT obeying their conscience. Some how people get "atheists go to heaven" from the pope saying atheists need to ask God for forgiveness and follow their conscience. Saying their is a condition for atheists getting forgiven is completely the opposite of the media spin. How can an atheist receive forgiveness of sins if the do not believe in sin, God's mercy since they do not even believe in God, obviously the Pope is saying the atheists must repent of their unbelief or die unforgiven.

Landmark Baptists

A person I've talked to for years finally made known that he is a Landmark Baptist, which explains his hatred of infant baptism, Calvinism, Catholicism, the Reformation and being called a Protestant. Part of his "proof" of the Landmark Baptists ancient existence is piggy backing on the Waldensian movement, something Ellen G White did also. His source was a Landmark Baptist writer named David Cloud. Since his books are hard to find, I found his webpage, where in talks in part about the Waldensians and his "scholarly" research around Europe. Some of the hilarity of it is that 1)he could not communicate with the people he talked to that were Waldensians since he did not speak French or Italian, 2)he claims that the Waldensians have screwed up their own church history by claiming to be started by Peter Waldo, instead of going back to the times of the Apostles. Since the later claim was is incompatible with this absurd Baptist theological movement, it MUST be false (in his mind.)

Going back to the original Landmark Baptist I mention, he claims the Catholic Church "created" a rival Waldensian church. Whether he meant this in terms of fabricated in writing, or literally created a new church, does not really seem relevant since his own source David Cloud does not even believe this, since he goes to Waldensian communities believing them to be actual Waldensians, though they've become very liberal.

Furthermore, this person claimed the people of Piedmont had the Syriac bible in the middle ages, a claim for which evidence is lacking, to which he would probably say "because Catholics and Protestants destroyed it" to which I would say "then how can you claim it exist if there is no evidence at all?" (BTW, there were some Medieval books in Syriac and Hebrew in the Middle Ages--around the 10th, 11th, 12th century of parts of the New Testament, but they were done so by people of Jewish origin, either as a polemic against Christianity, or because they converted to Christianity). This claim of a Syriac Bible sounds similar to Joseph Smith's "golden plates" which do not exist, and was only "seen" by his friends. For the sake of argument I said, ok let's say the people of Piedmont did have the Syriac Bible, could the people of this region of Northwest Italy-France read it at all? Knowing the answer was almost certainly not, he responded they would memorize the Bible-- massive sections of it. This answer was hardly even related to the my question. Let's say they did memorize it, did they have translations of the Syriac? If so, in what language, and who made, when was it made, where is the manuscript? The claim about memorizing the Bible is absurd, its too big to be memorized, the only people capable of such a feat have a photographic memory which is very rare, and would not be expected of many people. It's also interesting the Jews tell similar tall tales of Bible memorization abilities by their sages. In any case, if the Bible's preservation was based on people memorizing it, then there is no hope since it would be relying on something worse than pen and paper, but people's recollection which is no where near as permanent as paper.

The Landmark Baptist movement makes 10000 of claim with little to no evidence, other than OTHER Landmark "scholars"--which themselves use little to no evidence, and blame this lack of evidence of their enemies--a common tactic in religious circles and conspiracy theorists in general.

St John Chrysostom on Matthew 1:25

St John Chrysostom, the (Byzantine) Patriarch of Constantinople, created his homilies in the mid-to-late 4th century--only about 200 years after the time the Gospel according to Matthew was penned.  St John Chrysostom, like St Matthew, both were fluent in Greek. St John Chrysostom did not believe the usage of the word "until"--εως ου in Matthew 1:25 was proof that Mary and Joseph had sex. St John uses several example of εως being used where an action does not cease but continues after the εως, in a few  of his examples both εως and ου are used.

Here is St John Chrysostom's Homily V on the gospel of Matthew 1:25, commenting on εως ου:

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him.' "--John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew,V:5 (A.D. 370),in NPNF1,X:33 for Greek text go here

Let's look at the proof texts St John Chrysostom uses:

The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.'--Genesis 8:7

His usage of this verse seems to be a paraphrase, or based on a version of the LXX that I do not have access to. This quotation does use εως ου, the LXX version I have only have εως, in any case how St John uses it in a sentence shows its possible to use.

This other text is Psalm 89:2 in the LXX (which is Psalm 90:2 elsewhere), it reads:

From age until [ἕως] age Thou art--Psalm 89:2 LXX 

ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ--Psalm 89:2 LXX

Unlike, the first text from Genesis 8:7, this one is an exact quote. The Psalm does not use ἕως ου, but simply ἕως, showing St John felt demonstrating ἕως by itself was sufficient to show the meaning.

His third text is:

In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till [ἕως οὗ] the moon be taken away—Psalm 71:7 LXX (Psalm 72 in the most bibles)

 ἀνατελεῖ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ δικαιοσύνη καὶ πλῆθος εἰρήνης ἕως οὗ ἀνταναιρεθῇ ἡ σελήνη --Psalm 71:7 LXX

This text is also a verbatim quote of the Septuagint. However, unlike the last two quotes, this one does contains the phrase ἕως οὗ.  Obviously, the Psalmist did not intend to say that righteous and peace will cease once the moons goes away!