Topic: Allah in Arabic

[ag_vn]

Mashallah in the Balkans when used means God has willed it and Inshallah If God Wills it (Ako Bog da)

The Slavic Mashala Ona Je Mashala Na Mene [Past tense]...Or She Waved At Me....
Or Present Tense[ Ona Mashe na mene....Or She's waving at Me,The word sound the same but different meaning....[Middle east Mashallah] and [Slavic
Mashala]......Oh well.....

A Bulgarian Girl told they say Mahala ......Again Oh Well.....

Yes, in Bulgarian it is Mahala. I'm waiving - Maham. Mashalla is used to approve something, mainly in regions with Turkish population, as synonym of "well done" or "bravo" 

[Theophilos78]

I tend to doubt the hypothesis that "Allah" is from "al-ilah". Is there any other Arabic word that is a result of such a contraction?

The word El-lat (the name of a goddess in the Meccan pantheon/Cube) was known as Allat, which is the female form of Allah.


Some argue that the word Allah was actually derived from the Hebrew Elah or a similar Aramaic word (Alaha?).

[ialmisry]

this came up on the shout out (I still don't get that).

Allaah is just God in Arabic (only with the capital).  Its cognate in Hebrew is Elohim (plural of majesty), in Aramaic/Syriac Alaahaa.  Similar in construction to Coptic P-Noudi (the God).  It carries no religious (meaning Muslim) connotation at all, except monotheist.

It is premuslim.  It is a contraction of al- (the) and ilaah (a god).  Hence it is never plural (the gods is al-aalihah), nor feminine (the goddess is al-ilaahah, but the goddess name "Allaat" is from a similar contraction as Allaah).

When it is defined by a suffix possessive pronoun, the contraction is broken down and you get, for instance, ilaahii "my God" (like eli eli lama sabachthani) yaa ilaahanaa O Our God, etc.


in shaa' Allaah God willing.  Always said with reference to the future.  Per the Lord's brother (James 4:15) I say in shaa' al-Rabb.

al-Hamdi lillaah Praise be to God.  The muslim doxology. The Christian one begins "al-majdu lillaah fi-l'ulyaa"

maa shaa' Allaah (as) what God wanted.  Said in approval of something.

In Arabic script:

الله

ayy su'aal  any questions?

Hello Isa A Arabic Friend Of Mine  From Lebanon, converted to Protestant Christianity from Islam, I asked Him About The Word Mashala, He Mentioned That It Was A expression, Like If One Saw A Beautiful Woman and said  Oh My God Is This Correct or just one of the expression of the word...In the Balkan Language we have the word Mashala ,for us it means waving or a woman waving,,For a Guy  waving is Mashao...

Just one use of the phrase maa shaa'a Allah.  You would say it seeing a baby (to say "what a beautifl baby!" would invite the evil eye) or your friend's new watch (saying "what a nice watch!" if he sticks to Arabic traditional hospitality, he will offer it to you).

Interesting about the mashala/mashao: I wonder if it has anything to do with, in Arabic, men say the "l" further back than women do (at least in Egypt).

[ialmisry]

I tend to doubt the hypothesis that "Allah" is from "al-ilah". Is there any other Arabic word that is a result of such a contraction?

A few others.  It's not a hyposthesis, but a fact: the "i-" reappears whenever complementary distribution requires the definite article to drop, etc. al-kitaab, the book, but kitaabii, my book, Allah God, ilaahii my God.  It's initial syllable acts as the definite article does (e.g. the "w" looking thing above, called a shaddah, is part of this).

[Jetavan]

I tend to doubt the hypothesis that "Allah" is from "al-ilah". Is there any other Arabic word that is a result of such a contraction?

A few others.  It's not a hyposthesis, but a fact: the "i-" reappears whenever complementary distribution requires the definite article to drop, etc. al-kitaab, the book, but kitaabii, my book, Allah God, ilaahii my God.  It's initial syllable acts as the definite article does (e.g. the "w" looking thing above, called a shaddah, is part of this).

I don't see why "ilaahii" can't simply refer to "ilaha", rather than "Allah".

[Jetavan]

I tend to doubt the hypothesis that "Allah" is from "al-ilah". Is there any other Arabic word that is a result of such a contraction?

The word El-lat (the name of a goddess in the Meccan pantheon/Cube) was known as Allat, which is the female form of Allah.

Perhaps, but in that case, you don't have a vowel disappearing. In the supposed "al-ilah --> Allah" transformation, "i" simply disappears.

Some argue that the word Allah was actually derived from the Hebrew Elah or a similar Aramaic word (Alaha?).

I think this is more likely.

[Jetavan]

[ignore]

[ialmisry]

Pardon? On what basis do you make this accusation? If you're going accuse me of setting up my own god in my own image, then provide evidence to support your claim.

I make this accusation on the basis of having seen Messianic Jewish worship, and having had several friends in high school who were Messianic Jews.

Oh so your accusation is not based on anything I said on this forum. So this is an attack on what you think my beliefs are, not on what I said my beliefs are. A case of “paint them all with the same brush”, do you think that's fair?

First, the worship is non-liturgical, and there is no episcopacy. This is not the nature of orthodox worship. It is not up to a single congregation, a single preacher, or a single lay person to worship how they wish. A god who does not care how he is worshipped is not the Christian God.

Did you bother to read the description I gave of the practices done in my synagogue? These are authentic Nazarene traditions which the Orthodox churches inherited from the Apostles who themselves were Nazarenes. As for an Episcopacy, well we lost ours when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE by the Romans and our Bishop St. James was martyred. Don’t you read Church history?

The throne of St. James still exists, St. Epiphanios (from Palestine, btw) says it will always exist, as I've posted:

For this group didn not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus own name, but "Nazoraeans."  However, at the time all Christians were called Nazoraeans.  They also came to be called "Jessaeans" for a short while, before the disciples began to be called Christians at Antioch.  But they were called Jessaeans because of Jesse, I suppose, since David was descended from Jesse, but Mary from David's line.  This was in fulfillment of sacred scripture, for in the Old Testament the Lord tells David, "Of the fruit of thy belly shall I set upon thy throne."

.....since the Lord had told David, "Of the fruit of thy belly shall I set upon the throne," and "The Lord swore unto David and will not repent," it is plain that God's promise is an irreversible one.  In the first place, what does God have to swear by but "By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord?"-for "God hath no oath by a greater" [Heb. 6:13]  What is divine does not even swear; yet the statement has the function of providing confirmation.

For God swore with an oath to David that he would set the fruit of his belly upon his throne.  And the Apostles bear witness that Christ had to born of David's seed, as Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ indeed was.  As I said, I shall pass ove most of the testimonies, to avoid a very burdensome discussion.

But someone will probably say, "Since Christ was physically born of David's see, that is, of the Holy Virgin Mary, why is He not sitting on David's throne?  For the Gospel says, "They came that they might anoint him king, and when Jesus perceived this He departed....and his himself in Ephraim, a city in the wilderness."   But now that I reach this place for this, and I am asked about this text, and why it is that the prophecy about sitting on David's throne has not been fulfilled physically in the Savior's case-for some have thought that is has not-I shall still say that it is a fact.  Not a word of God's Holy Scripture can come to nothing.

David's throne and kingly seat is the priesthood in the Holy Church.   The Lord had combined this rank, which is both that of king and high priest, and conferred it on His Church by transferring David's throne to it, never to fail. [mh dialeiponta eis ton aiwna]  Formerly David's throne continued by succession until Christ Himself, since the rulers from Judah did not fail until he came "for whom are the things prepared, and he is the expectation of the nations," as scripture says.[Gen. 49:10]

With the advent of the Christ the rulers in line of succession from Judah, reigning until the time of the Christ himself, came to an end.  Until His time the rulers were anointed priests but after His birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and changed with Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. After Alexander on this heritage form the time of Salina, who is also called Alexandra, died out under Herod the king and Augustus the Roman emperor. (Although Alexander was crowned also, since he was one of the anointed priests and rulers.  For once the two tribes, the royal and the priestly, meaning Judah and Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi, had been joined together, the kings were also made priests; nothing based on a hint in holy scripture can be wrong.  But then finally a foreign king, Herod, was crowned, and not David's descendants any more.

But because of this change in the royal house, the rank of king passed in Christ the kingly seat passed over to the church, the kingly dignity being transferred from the fleshly house of  David and Israel, Judah and Jerusalem; and the throne is established in the holy church of God forever, having a double dignity because of both its kingly and its high-priestly character, both ranks of king and high-priest, for two reasons: the royal dignity coming from Our Lord Jesus Christ in two ways, from the fact that he is of King David's seed according to the flesh and from the fact that in Godhead He is, as is certainly true, a greater king from eternity in His divinity, and the priestly dignity coming from the fact that He is high priest and chief of high priests, since James having been ordained at once the first bishop immediately, he who is called the brother of the Lord and apostle.  Actually he was Joseph's son, but was said to be in the position of the Lord's brother because they were reared together.

For James was Joseph's son by Joseph's [first] wife, not Mary, as I have said, and discussed with greater clarity, in many other places.  And I find that he is of David's stock through being Joseph's son and moreover that he was a Nazarite (for he was Joseph's firstborn and hence consecrated), and we have found furthermore that he exercised the priesthood according to the priestly order of old. Thus it was permitted him once a year to enter the holy of holies, as the law ordered the high priests according to what is written. For many of the historians before me of him, Eusebius, Clement, and others have reported this of him. He was also allowed to wear the priestly mitre on his head [also said of St. John e.g. Eusebius III.31.3] besides, as the trustworthy persons mentioned have testified in the same historical writings.

Now as I said Our Lord Jesus Christ is "priest forever after the order of Melchizedek," and at the same time king after the order on high and so may transfer the priesthood with its legal charter.  But since David's seed through Mary is seated on a throne, his throne endures forever, and of His kingdome there will be no end.   He would need now to reposition the former crown; for His Kingdom is not earthly, as He said to Pontius Pilate in the Gospel, "My Kingdom in not of this world."  For since Christ fulfills all that was said in riddles, the beginnings have reached a limit.

For He who is always a king did not come to achieve sovereignty.  Lest it be thought that He advanced from a lower estate to a higher, He granted the crown to those whom He appointed.  For His throne endures, and there will be no end of His Kingdom.  And He sits on the throne of David, and has transferred David's crown and granted it, with the high priesthood, to his own servants, the high priests of the Catholic Church.

...Not "nazarites"-that means "consecrated persons."  Anciently this rank belonged to firstborn sons and men dedicated to God...John the Baptist too was one of these persons consecratd to God, for "He drank neither wine nor strong drink." (This regimen, befitting their rank, was prescribed for persons of that sort)....but besides as I indicated, everyone called the Christians Nazoreans, as they say in accursing the Apostle Paul, "We have found this man a pestilent fellow and a perverter of the people, a ring leader of the sect of Nazoreans." (Acts 24:5) And the holy apostle did not disclaim the name-not to profess the Nazorean sect, but he was glad to own the name his adversaries' malice had applied to him for Christ's.  For he says in court, "They neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, nor have I done any of those things whereof they accuse me.  But this I confess unto thee, that after the Way which they call heresy, so worship I, believing all things in the Law and and the Prophets." (Acts 24:12-14)

And no wonder the Apostle admitted to being a Nazoraean!  In those days everyone called Christians this because of the city of Nazareth-there was no other usage of the name then.  People thus gave the name of "Nazoraeans" to believers in Christ, of Whom it is written, "He shall be called a Nazoraean." (Mat.) Even today in fact, people call all the sects, I mean Manichaeans, Marcionites, Gnostics and others, by the common name of "Christians," though they are not Christians. However, although each sect has another name, it still allows this one with pleasure, since it is honored by the name.  For they think they can pren themselves on Christ's name; not on faith and works!

Thus Christ's holy disciples called themselves "disciples of Jesus" then, as indeed they were.  But they wre not rude when others called them Nazoraeans, since they saw the intent of those who called them this.  They did it because of Christ, since our Lord Jesus was called the Nazoraean" himself-so say the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles-because of His upbringing in Joseph's home in the city of Nazareth, which is now a village.  (Though He was born in the flesh at Bethlehem, of the ever-virgin Mary, Joseph's betrothed.  Joseph had settled in Nazareth after leaving Bethlehem and taking up residence in Galilee.)

But these sectarians whom I am now sketching disregareded the name of Jesus, and did not call themselves Jessanaeans, keep the name of Jews, or term themselves Christians-but "Nazoraeans," form the place-name, "Nazareth," if you please!  However they are simply complete Jews...As to Christ, I cannot say whether they too are captives of the wickedness of Cerinthus and Merinthus, and regard Him as a mere man-or whether, as the truth is, they affirm His birth of Mary by the Holy Spirit.

Today this sect of the Nazoraeans is found in Beroea near Coelesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and in Bashanitis at the place called Cocabe-Khokhabe in Hebrew.  For that was its place of origin, since all the disciples had settled in Pella after they left Jerusalem-Christ told them to abandon Jerusalem and withdrew from it because of its coming siege.  And they settled in Perea for this reason and, as I said, spent their lives there.  That was there the Nazoraean sect began.

But they too are wrong to boast of circumcision, and persons like themselves are still "under a curse," since they cannot fulfil the Law.  For how can they fulfill the Law's provision, "Thrice a year thou shalt appear before the Lord they God at the feasts of Unleavened Bread, Tabernacles and Pentacost," on the site of Jerusalem.  As the site is closed off, and the Law's provisions cannot be filfilled, anyone with sense can see that Christ came to be the Law's fulfiller-not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill the Law-and to lift the curse that had been put on transgression of the Law.  For after Moses had given every commandment he came to the point of the book and "included the whole in a curse" with the words, "Cursed is he that continueth not in all the words that are written in this book to do them."

Hence Christ came to free what had been fettered with the bounds of the curse.  In place of the lesser commandments which cannot be fulfilled, He granted us the greater, which are not inconsistent with the completion of the task as the earlier ones were.  For I have discussed this many times before, in every Sect, in connection with the Sabbath, circumcision and the rest-how the Lord has granted something more perfect to us.

there's more there.

Second, the prayers are said only in the name of Yeshua, not in the name of the Trinity.

Question for you: What is the Name of the Trinity? Yeshua said to “baptize in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, so what is their Name? Here it is:

{Exodus 3:15} And Elohim* said further to Moses, "Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: YHWH, the Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, has sent me to you: This is My name forever, This My appellation for all eternity. (Hebrew Tanakh)

*Elohim is plural, the Trinity is speaking, get it? Had I used the LXX, I wouldn’t have known this!

The plural here is the lashon rabbim plural excellientiae, a regular feature of Hebrew (and Semitic) grammar.
http://books.google.com/books?id=n3cKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA418&dq=gesenius+hebrew+pluralis+excellentiae&hl=en&ei=z6UsTOCbMZ2QnweEz9H0Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Btw, this is the "I Am" speaking:

notice how it spells "aim" (sin is literally "missing the mark"). If you prefer the origianl LXX:

Amen! Amen! I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.

{Philippians 2:9-11} Because of this, Alaha also elevated Him highly and gave Him the Name that is greater than all names, that at the name of Yeshua* every knee should bow that is in heaven and on earth and that is under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Yeshua Meshikha is MarYah**, to the glory of Alaha His Father. (Aramaic Peshitta)

*You do know that the name Yeshua means “the salvation of YHWH”, don't you?
**MarYah literally means “Master Yah”, Yah is an abbreviation of YHWH (see the Targums). Don't you know these things? I wouldn’t know that Yeshua really is YHWH if I used the Greek NT!

Odd that you have that problem. The Apostles didn't. Nor do their successors, the Orthodox bishops, in Jerusalem and elsewhere.

You might not understand what this means to me, but I’ll tell you this much: Names are extremely important to Jews!

{Ezekiel 11:5} Thereupon the Spirit of YHWH* fell upon me, and He said to me, “Speak: Thus says YHWH...” (Hebrew Tanakh)

*Need I elaborate on the obvious, or are you starting to get it now?

That your use of argumentation like the Jehovah witnesses belies the recent origin of your sect, rather than a continuation of the original, Orthodox Catholic, Nazarenes?

The Father is YHWH, the Son is YHWH, the Holy Spirit is YHWH. We do pray in the Name of the Trinity, YHWH is the Name of the Trinity.

Now can I ask you a question: Where in either Scripture or Tradition does God say that His name is “Trinity”?

the great canon of St. Andrew, song 6, for one:

I am the Trinity, simple and undivided, divided Personally, and I am the Unity, united in nature, says the Father, the Son, and the Divine Spirit.

http://www.orthodox.net/greatlent/great-canon-fifth-week.html

Messianic Judaism, like many Protestant denominations, claims to be Trinitarian, yet upon inspection is revealed to be Unitarian, with the god Yeshua being the sole deity in one part. YHWH is given a nod only as being the father of Yeshua, and the Holy Spirit, if He is mentioned at all, is only a vague power that displays Himself through controlling worshippers Voodoo-style (speaking in tongues, slaying in the Spirit, etc.). Never are the three given equal weight: Yeshua alone saves, not the Trinity. A unitarian god is not the Christian God.

I don't know about speaking in tongues, this is certainly not done in my synagogue we don't believe that the “Pentecostal mambo jumbo” is either Scriptural or an authentic Nazarene tradition. Did you know that “Messianic Judaism” is not monolitic? I can't speak for everyone who calls themselves a “Messianic Jew” but I can speak for Nazarenes, which are BTW a real historical sect. The worship and doctrine you describe does not resemble my sect at all.

The Nazarenes were Orthodox Christians, who of course continue today.  You have not demonstrated an historical connection to the sect of Nazrones which broke off from us in ancient times.

The three Qnume of the Godhead are given equal weight in worship, that I can assure you. As I stated on the “Messianic Judaism” thread that we avoid calling YHWH Elohim a “Trinity” for reasons I gave, but for your sake I'll refer to the Trinity. It is the Trinity which saves, we understand that just fine, thank you very much, and boldly acknowledge and proclaim it to our fellow unbelieving Jews who still have a “veil over their eyes”, so that they too may believe :

I need not remind you of our understanding of exactly who YHWH Elohim is. Now keeping in mind what I said earlier, read this:

{Isaiah 43:11} I, yes I, am YHWH, And besides Me there is no saviour.

No one saves but YHWH Elohim. And how does He do it? With His arm/right hand:

{Exodus 6:6} Say, therefore, to the Israelite people: I am YHWH. I will free you from the labours of the Egyptians and deliver you from their bondage. I will save you with an outstretched arm and through extraordinary chastisements.

Do you now understand why we celebrate Yeshua’s crucifixion as the fulfilment of Pesakh/Paskha? Just as the Son saved humanity from sin, likewise the Son, the Qnuma of YHWH Elohim who saves, saved our ancestors from Egyptian bondage.

Of old You did bury the pursuing tyrant
beneath the waves of the sea.
Now the children of those who were saved
bury You beneath the earth.
But like the maidens we will cry to the Lord
for greatly has he been glorified!

You cannot comprehend how sacred Paskha is to us Nazarenes!

No one outdoes the Orthodox on Pascha.

The Miltha (Logos) may have “become flesh” in the incarnation but He was always with us in our history as our deliverer from us enemies:

{Exodus 15:6} Your [/u]right hand[/u], O YHWH, glorious in power, Your [/u]right hand[/u], O YHWH shatters the foe!

And just so you know that Yeshua is indeed the arm of YHWH:

{Isaiah 53:1-5}  Who can believe what we have heard? To whom has the arm of the YHWH been revealed? For He has grown, by His favour, like a tree crown, Like a tree trunk out of arid ground. He had no form or beauty, that we should look at Him: No charm, that we should find Him pleasing. He was despised, shunned by men, A man of suffering, familiar with disease. As one who hid his face from us, He was despised, we held Him of no account. Yet it was our sickness that He was bearing, Our suffering that He endured. We accounted Him plagued, Smitten and afflicted by Elohim; But He was wounded because of our sins, Crushed because of our iniquities. He bore the chastisement that made us whole, And by His wounds we were healed.

Should we be surprised that the angel Gabriel told Mariam to name her son Yeshua (the salvation of YHWH)? And need I mention what Emmanuel means? Oh and of course that He will return to judge the nations:

{Isaiah 52:10} YHWH will bare His holy arm In the sight of all the nations, And the very ends of earth shall see The victory of our Elohim.

And as for Ruakh HaQodesh/Rukha D’Qudsha (the Holy Spirit), yes we know what Yeshua meant by calling Him The Comforter, as did the Disciples:

{Isaiah 51:12-13}  I, I am He who comforts you! What ails you that you fear man who must die, Mortals who fare like grass? You have forgotten YHWH your Maker, Who stretched out the skies and made firm the earth! And you live all day in constant dread Because of the rage of an oppressor who is aiming to cut you down. Yet of what account is the rage of an oppressor?

I could go on and on, but this should suffice.

Third, sola Scriptura is primary, and within that, only Scripture in the Hebrew or Aramaic languages are acceptable.

Nazarenes are not Solas Scriptura like Protestants. We divide divine revelation into two basic categories: The Word of God and The Inspiration of God, this is similar to what’s done in Rabbinical Judaism.

You can walk in the way of the Apostles and walk on the path of the Pharisees, Sadduccees and Scribes.  We have one Rabbi.

The Word of God is anything spoken by YHWH Elohim directly, i.e. when we see “Thus says YHWH” or “the word of YHWH came to _____ and said”. BTW note “the word of YHWH”, another reference to Yeshua.

LOL. Sounds like Protestant red lettering.

So The Word of God includes the Torah, Prophets & Gospels (cause Yeshua is YHWH). The rest is The Inspiration of God and is classified according to weight of authority, the Writings and the Epistles of the Apostles bearing the highest authority in this category. Everything else (Maccabees, Ben Sirah, Diadache, Polycarp, etc.), as long as it’s not in conflict with what is specifically commanded by the higher authorities, is accepted as authentic Nazarene tradition. We only make mandatory what is specifically commanded otherwise we might get lost in tradition like the Phrasisees did and therefore nullify The Word of God. Other things are optional, and yes they may be “unscriptural” but they must never be antiscriptural.

And what’s the problem with us chanting the Scriptures in our sacred languages?

Nothing, except accepting the rabbis text you rejected the Churches.

Even English translations do not use the Greek name Jesus, but the Hebrew Yeshua. Some tradition is kept, such as the refusal of adherents to spell out God's name, even in English (they write instead G-d).

This is the case with many of the Messianic Bible translations yes, and I’m personally not satisfied with any of them. There is nothing wrong with the preference of Yeshua over Jesus, Yeshua is Messiah’s real name after all, and it’s just easier for us to make the connection to YHWH, especially when witnessing to non-believing Jewry.  As for G-d, this is an unnecessary practice carried over from Orthodox Judaism, like I said before, many converts to Messianic Judaism bring baggage with them. Anyway God’s name is YHWH not God.

God's name is Jesus.

But Bible translation is not my focus at the moment, our liturgical traditions are.

Yet the greater traditions are not, and like other Protestants, Messianic Jews ignore everything that occurred within Christianity between the second and sixteenth centuries. A god who does not speak except through Scripture is not the Christian God.

It is unfortunate that most Messianic Jews have no interest in learning about the early Church, after all it was Nazarenes like St. Peter who established it, and hence the baggage of Protestantism amongst many converts. However there is a growing interest and many like me are now diligently researching early Christian tradition (that’s why I’m here!). But we are not confining our studies exclusively the “Roman Church” but also to the Christianity outside the Roman empire.

Fourth, Messianic Judaism recognizes no saints. No great martyrs, no great confessors, no great bishops are recognized. There is no "cloud of witnesses," as St. Paul describes them, to watch over the Church. A church with no saints is not the Christian Church.

Nazarenes do indeed recognize the righteous dead. Though the way we honour them differs from Gentile Christianity, we do it the Jewish way through the principle of “YHWH remembers”. I would love to explain how this works, but since I’m saved for space, I’ll do so on the “Messianic Judaism” thread when I get a chance. Feel free to remind me in case I forget.

In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek.

In short, Messianic Judaism is nothing more than ethnic Jewish converts to Protestantism, and Protestants who mistake Judaism for historical Christianity. The Messianic god, Yeshua, is created in the image of these people who want to be both Jewish and Protestant. He is not the Christian God.

Since it’s the Protestants who have been most active in witnessing to the Jews, why should we be surprised that modern Messianic Judaism is such a mess? Though I hope from what I’ve written you are able to distinguish mainstream Messianic Judaism from the modern Nazarenes – those who seeking the ancient traditions of the Apostles which have been preserved by the Church.

You had that in the Orthodox Church.

So when I see both Messianic Judaism and Islam re-creating God to fit their theology, I find it ironic that each side would reprimand the other for that of which they both are guilty.

I would only really apply this to certain Messianic Jews who are Arians – i.e. the modern Ebionites (yet they call themselves Nazarenes!) who only see Yeshua as a human Messiah (thereby denying the Father and the Son), and yes they still exist, see this www.netzarim.co.il.

Someone repeating your mistakes is not the same as still existing.

[ialmisry]

I tend to doubt the hypothesis that "Allah" is from "al-ilah". Is there any other Arabic word that is a result of such a contraction?

A few others.  It's not a hyposthesis, but a fact: the "i-" reappears whenever complementary distribution requires the definite article to drop, etc. al-kitaab, the book, but kitaabii, my book, Allah God, ilaahii my God.  It's initial syllable acts as the definite article does (e.g. the "w" looking thing above, called a shaddah, is part of this).

I don't see why "ilaahii" can't simply refer to "ilaha", rather than "Allah".

1) it doesn't fit the case endings of Arabic.
2) it doesn't fit the word pattern of Arabic (arabic has a limited number of patterns a noun can fall into).

[Jetavan]

I tend to doubt the hypothesis that "Allah" is from "al-ilah". Is there any other Arabic word that is a result of such a contraction?

A few others.  It's not a hyposthesis, but a fact: the "i-" reappears whenever complementary distribution requires the definite article to drop, etc. al-kitaab, the book, but kitaabii, my book, Allah God, ilaahii my God.  It's initial syllable acts as the definite article does (e.g. the "w" looking thing above, called a shaddah, is part of this).

I don't see why "ilaahii" can't simply refer to "ilaha", rather than "Allah".

1) it doesn't fit the case endings of Arabic.
2) it doesn't fit the word pattern of Arabic (arabic has a limited number of patterns a noun can fall into).

How would one write "my god", using "ilaha"?

[ialmisry]

I tend to doubt the hypothesis that "Allah" is from "al-ilah". Is there any other Arabic word that is a result of such a contraction?

A few others.  It's not a hyposthesis, but a fact: the "i-" reappears whenever complementary distribution requires the definite article to drop, etc. al-kitaab, the book, but kitaabii, my book, Allah God, ilaahii my God.  It's initial syllable acts as the definite article does (e.g. the "w" looking thing above, called a shaddah, is part of this).

I don't see why "ilaahii" can't simply refer to "ilaha", rather than "Allah".

1) it doesn't fit the case endings of Arabic.
2) it doesn't fit the word pattern of Arabic (arabic has a limited number of patterns a noun can fall into).

How would one write "my god", using "ilaha"?

You can't:ilaha isn't a pattern that occurs in Arabic.  If it was a loan, it would first have to be changed to either ilahu or ilahaa to fit, in which case ilahii and ilahaaya would be your answers.

[GabrieltheCelt]

Pardon? On what basis do you make this accusation? If you're going accuse me of setting up my own god in my own image, then provide evidence to support your claim.

I make this accusation on the basis of having seen Messianic Jewish worship, and having had several friends in high school who were Messianic Jews.

Oh so your accusation is not based on anything I said on this forum. So this is an attack on what you think my beliefs are, not on what I said my beliefs are. A case of “paint them all with the same brush”, do you think that's fair?

First, the worship is non-liturgical, and there is no episcopacy. This is not the nature of orthodox worship. It is not up to a single congregation, a single preacher, or a single lay person to worship how they wish. A god who does not care how he is worshipped is not the Christian God.

Did you bother to read the description I gave of the practices done in my synagogue? These are authentic Nazarene traditions which the Orthodox churches inherited from the Apostles who themselves were Nazarenes. As for an Episcopacy, well we lost ours when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE by the Romans and our Bishop St. James was martyred. Don’t you read Church history?

The throne of St. James still exists, St. Epiphanios (from Palestine, btw) says it will always exist, as I've posted:

For this group didn not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus own name, but "Nazoraeans."  However, at the time all Christians were called Nazoraeans.  They also came to be called "Jessaeans" for a short while, before the disciples began to be called Christians at Antioch.  But they were called Jessaeans because of Jesse, I suppose, since David was descended from Jesse, but Mary from David's line.  This was in fulfillment of sacred scripture, for in the Old Testament the Lord tells David, "Of the fruit of thy belly shall I set upon thy throne."

.....since the Lord had told David, "Of the fruit of thy belly shall I set upon the throne," and "The Lord swore unto David and will not repent," it is plain that God's promise is an irreversible one.  In the first place, what does God have to swear by but "By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord?"-for "God hath no oath by a greater" [Heb. 6:13]  What is divine does not even swear; yet the statement has the function of providing confirmation.

For God swore with an oath to David that he would set the fruit of his belly upon his throne.  And the Apostles bear witness that Christ had to born of David's seed, as Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ indeed was.  As I said, I shall pass ove most of the testimonies, to avoid a very burdensome discussion.

But someone will probably say, "Since Christ was physically born of David's see, that is, of the Holy Virgin Mary, why is He not sitting on David's throne?  For the Gospel says, "They came that they might anoint him king, and when Jesus perceived this He departed....and his himself in Ephraim, a city in the wilderness."   But now that I reach this place for this, and I am asked about this text, and why it is that the prophecy about sitting on David's throne has not been fulfilled physically in the Savior's case-for some have thought that is has not-I shall still say that it is a fact.  Not a word of God's Holy Scripture can come to nothing.

David's throne and kingly seat is the priesthood in the Holy Church.   The Lord had combined this rank, which is both that of king and high priest, and conferred it on His Church by transferring David's throne to it, never to fail. [mh dialeiponta eis ton aiwna]  Formerly David's throne continued by succession until Christ Himself, since the rulers from Judah did not fail until he came "for whom are the things prepared, and he is the expectation of the nations," as scripture says.[Gen. 49:10]

With the advent of the Christ the rulers in line of succession from Judah, reigning until the time of the Christ himself, came to an end.  Until His time the rulers were anointed priests but after His birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and changed with Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. After Alexander on this heritage form the time of Salina, who is also called Alexandra, died out under Herod the king and Augustus the Roman emperor. (Although Alexander was crowned also, since he was one of the anointed priests and rulers.  For once the two tribes, the royal and the priestly, meaning Judah and Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi, had been joined together, the kings were also made priests; nothing based on a hint in holy scripture can be wrong.  But then finally a foreign king, Herod, was crowned, and not David's descendants any more.

But because of this change in the royal house, the rank of king passed in Christ the kingly seat passed over to the church, the kingly dignity being transferred from the fleshly house of  David and Israel, Judah and Jerusalem; and the throne is established in the holy church of God forever, having a double dignity because of both its kingly and its high-priestly character, both ranks of king and high-priest, for two reasons: the royal dignity coming from Our Lord Jesus Christ in two ways, from the fact that he is of King David's seed according to the flesh and from the fact that in Godhead He is, as is certainly true, a greater king from eternity in His divinity, and the priestly dignity coming from the fact that He is high priest and chief of high priests, since James having been ordained at once the first bishop immediately, he who is called the brother of the Lord and apostle.  Actually he was Joseph's son, but was said to be in the position of the Lord's brother because they were reared together.

For James was Joseph's son by Joseph's [first] wife, not Mary, as I have said, and discussed with greater clarity, in many other places.  And I find that he is of David's stock through being Joseph's son and moreover that he was a Nazarite (for he was Joseph's firstborn and hence consecrated), and we have found furthermore that he exercised the priesthood according to the priestly order of old. Thus it was permitted him once a year to enter the holy of holies, as the law ordered the high priests according to what is written. For many of the historians before me of him, Eusebius, Clement, and others have reported this of him. He was also allowed to wear the priestly mitre on his head [also said of St. John e.g. Eusebius III.31.3] besides, as the trustworthy persons mentioned have testified in the same historical writings.

Now as I said Our Lord Jesus Christ is "priest forever after the order of Melchizedek," and at the same time king after the order on high and so may transfer the priesthood with its legal charter.  But since David's seed through Mary is seated on a throne, his throne endures forever, and of His kingdome there will be no end.   He would need now to reposition the former crown; for His Kingdom is not earthly, as He said to Pontius Pilate in the Gospel, "My Kingdom in not of this world."  For since Christ fulfills all that was said in riddles, the beginnings have reached a limit.

For He who is always a king did not come to achieve sovereignty.  Lest it be thought that He advanced from a lower estate to a higher, He granted the crown to those whom He appointed.  For His throne endures, and there will be no end of His Kingdom.  And He sits on the throne of David, and has transferred David's crown and granted it, with the high priesthood, to his own servants, the high priests of the Catholic Church.

...Not "nazarites"-that means "consecrated persons."  Anciently this rank belonged to firstborn sons and men dedicated to God...John the Baptist too was one of these persons consecratd to God, for "He drank neither wine nor strong drink." (This regimen, befitting their rank, was prescribed for persons of that sort)....but besides as I indicated, everyone called the Christians Nazoreans, as they say in accursing the Apostle Paul, "We have found this man a pestilent fellow and a perverter of the people, a ring leader of the sect of Nazoreans." (Acts 24:5) And the holy apostle did not disclaim the name-not to profess the Nazorean sect, but he was glad to own the name his adversaries' malice had applied to him for Christ's.  For he says in court, "They neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, nor have I done any of those things whereof they accuse me.  But this I confess unto thee, that after the Way which they call heresy, so worship I, believing all things in the Law and and the Prophets." (Acts 24:12-14)

And no wonder the Apostle admitted to being a Nazoraean!  In those days everyone called Christians this because of the city of Nazareth-there was no other usage of the name then.  People thus gave the name of "Nazoraeans" to believers in Christ, of Whom it is written, "He shall be called a Nazoraean." (Mat.) Even today in fact, people call all the sects, I mean Manichaeans, Marcionites, Gnostics and others, by the common name of "Christians," though they are not Christians. However, although each sect has another name, it still allows this one with pleasure, since it is honored by the name.  For they think they can pren themselves on Christ's name; not on faith and works!

Thus Christ's holy disciples called themselves "disciples of Jesus" then, as indeed they were.  But they wre not rude when others called them Nazoraeans, since they saw the intent of those who called them this.  They did it because of Christ, since our Lord Jesus was called the Nazoraean" himself-so say the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles-because of His upbringing in Joseph's home in the city of Nazareth, which is now a village.  (Though He was born in the flesh at Bethlehem, of the ever-virgin Mary, Joseph's betrothed.  Joseph had settled in Nazareth after leaving Bethlehem and taking up residence in Galilee.)

But these sectarians whom I am now sketching disregareded the name of Jesus, and did not call themselves Jessanaeans, keep the name of Jews, or term themselves Christians-but "Nazoraeans," form the place-name, "Nazareth," if you please!  However they are simply complete Jews...As to Christ, I cannot say whether they too are captives of the wickedness of Cerinthus and Merinthus, and regard Him as a mere man-or whether, as the truth is, they affirm His birth of Mary by the Holy Spirit.

Today this sect of the Nazoraeans is found in Beroea near Coelesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and in Bashanitis at the place called Cocabe-Khokhabe in Hebrew.  For that was its place of origin, since all the disciples had settled in Pella after they left Jerusalem-Christ told them to abandon Jerusalem and withdrew from it because of its coming siege.  And they settled in Perea for this reason and, as I said, spent their lives there.  That was there the Nazoraean sect began.

But they too are wrong to boast of circumcision, and persons like themselves are still "under a curse," since they cannot fulfil the Law.  For how can they fulfill the Law's provision, "Thrice a year thou shalt appear before the Lord they God at the feasts of Unleavened Bread, Tabernacles and Pentacost," on the site of Jerusalem.  As the site is closed off, and the Law's provisions cannot be filfilled, anyone with sense can see that Christ came to be the Law's fulfiller-not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill the Law-and to lift the curse that had been put on transgression of the Law.  For after Moses had given every commandment he came to the point of the book and "included the whole in a curse" with the words, "Cursed is he that continueth not in all the words that are written in this book to do them."

Hence Christ came to free what had been fettered with the bounds of the curse.  In place of the lesser commandments which cannot be fulfilled, He granted us the greater, which are not inconsistent with the completion of the task as the earlier ones were.  For I have discussed this many times before, in every Sect, in connection with the Sabbath, circumcision and the rest-how the Lord has granted something more perfect to us.

there's more there.

Second, the prayers are said only in the name of Yeshua, not in the name of the Trinity.

Question for you: What is the Name of the Trinity? Yeshua said to “baptize in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, so what is their Name? Here it is:

{Exodus 3:15} And Elohim* said further to Moses, "Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: YHWH, the Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, has sent me to you: This is My name forever, This My appellation for all eternity. (Hebrew Tanakh)

*Elohim is plural, the Trinity is speaking, get it? Had I used the LXX, I wouldn’t have known this!

The plural here is the lashon rabbim plural excellientiae, a regular feature of Hebrew (and Semitic) grammar.
http://books.google.com/books?id=n3cKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA418&dq=gesenius+hebrew+pluralis+excellentiae&hl=en&ei=z6UsTOCbMZ2QnweEz9H0Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Btw, this is the "I Am" speaking:

notice how it spells "aim" (sin is literally "missing the mark"). If you prefer the origianl LXX:

Amen! Amen! I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.

{Philippians 2:9-11} Because of this, Alaha also elevated Him highly and gave Him the Name that is greater than all names, that at the name of Yeshua* every knee should bow that is in heaven and on earth and that is under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Yeshua Meshikha is MarYah**, to the glory of Alaha His Father. (Aramaic Peshitta)

*You do know that the name Yeshua means “the salvation of YHWH”, don't you?
**MarYah literally means “Master Yah”, Yah is an abbreviation of YHWH (see the Targums). Don't you know these things? I wouldn’t know that Yeshua really is YHWH if I used the Greek NT!

Odd that you have that problem. The Apostles didn't. Nor do their successors, the Orthodox bishops, in Jerusalem and elsewhere.

You might not understand what this means to me, but I’ll tell you this much: Names are extremely important to Jews!

{Ezekiel 11:5} Thereupon the Spirit of YHWH* fell upon me, and He said to me, “Speak: Thus says YHWH...” (Hebrew Tanakh)

*Need I elaborate on the obvious, or are you starting to get it now?

That your use of argumentation like the Jehovah witnesses belies the recent origin of your sect, rather than a continuation of the original, Orthodox Catholic, Nazarenes?

The Father is YHWH, the Son is YHWH, the Holy Spirit is YHWH. We do pray in the Name of the Trinity, YHWH is the Name of the Trinity.

Now can I ask you a question: Where in either Scripture or Tradition does God say that His name is “Trinity”?

the great canon of St. Andrew, song 6, for one:

I am the Trinity, simple and undivided, divided Personally, and I am the Unity, united in nature, says the Father, the Son, and the Divine Spirit.

http://www.orthodox.net/greatlent/great-canon-fifth-week.html

Messianic Judaism, like many Protestant denominations, claims to be Trinitarian, yet upon inspection is revealed to be Unitarian, with the god Yeshua being the sole deity in one part. YHWH is given a nod only as being the father of Yeshua, and the Holy Spirit, if He is mentioned at all, is only a vague power that displays Himself through controlling worshippers Voodoo-style (speaking in tongues, slaying in the Spirit, etc.). Never are the three given equal weight: Yeshua alone saves, not the Trinity. A unitarian god is not the Christian God.

I don't know about speaking in tongues, this is certainly not done in my synagogue we don't believe that the “Pentecostal mambo jumbo” is either Scriptural or an authentic Nazarene tradition. Did you know that “Messianic Judaism” is not monolitic? I can't speak for everyone who calls themselves a “Messianic Jew” but I can speak for Nazarenes, which are BTW a real historical sect. The worship and doctrine you describe does not resemble my sect at all.

The Nazarenes were Orthodox Christians, who of course continue today.  You have not demonstrated an historical connection to the sect of Nazrones which broke off from us in ancient times.

The three Qnume of the Godhead are given equal weight in worship, that I can assure you. As I stated on the “Messianic Judaism” thread that we avoid calling YHWH Elohim a “Trinity” for reasons I gave, but for your sake I'll refer to the Trinity. It is the Trinity which saves, we understand that just fine, thank you very much, and boldly acknowledge and proclaim it to our fellow unbelieving Jews who still have a “veil over their eyes”, so that they too may believe :

I need not remind you of our understanding of exactly who YHWH Elohim is. Now keeping in mind what I said earlier, read this:

{Isaiah 43:11} I, yes I, am YHWH, And besides Me there is no saviour.

No one saves but YHWH Elohim. And how does He do it? With His arm/right hand:

{Exodus 6:6} Say, therefore, to the Israelite people: I am YHWH. I will free you from the labours of the Egyptians and deliver you from their bondage. I will save you with an outstretched arm and through extraordinary chastisements.

Do you now understand why we celebrate Yeshua’s crucifixion as the fulfilment of Pesakh/Paskha? Just as the Son saved humanity from sin, likewise the Son, the Qnuma of YHWH Elohim who saves, saved our ancestors from Egyptian bondage.

Of old You did bury the pursuing tyrant
beneath the waves of the sea.
Now the children of those who were saved
bury You beneath the earth.
But like the maidens we will cry to the Lord
for greatly has he been glorified!

You cannot comprehend how sacred Paskha is to us Nazarenes!

No one outdoes the Orthodox on Pascha.

The Miltha (Logos) may have “become flesh” in the incarnation but He was always with us in our history as our deliverer from us enemies:

{Exodus 15:6} Your [/u]right hand[/u], O YHWH, glorious in power, Your [/u]right hand[/u], O YHWH shatters the foe!

And just so you know that Yeshua is indeed the arm of YHWH:

{Isaiah 53:1-5}  Who can believe what we have heard? To whom has the arm of the YHWH been revealed? For He has grown, by His favour, like a tree crown, Like a tree trunk out of arid ground. He had no form or beauty, that we should look at Him: No charm, that we should find Him pleasing. He was despised, shunned by men, A man of suffering, familiar with disease. As one who hid his face from us, He was despised, we held Him of no account. Yet it was our sickness that He was bearing, Our suffering that He endured. We accounted Him plagued, Smitten and afflicted by Elohim; But He was wounded because of our sins, Crushed because of our iniquities. He bore the chastisement that made us whole, And by His wounds we were healed.

Should we be surprised that the angel Gabriel told Mariam to name her son Yeshua (the salvation of YHWH)? And need I mention what Emmanuel means? Oh and of course that He will return to judge the nations:

{Isaiah 52:10} YHWH will bare His holy arm In the sight of all the nations, And the very ends of earth shall see The victory of our Elohim.

And as for Ruakh HaQodesh/Rukha D’Qudsha (the Holy Spirit), yes we know what Yeshua meant by calling Him The Comforter, as did the Disciples:

{Isaiah 51:12-13}  I, I am He who comforts you! What ails you that you fear man who must die, Mortals who fare like grass? You have forgotten YHWH your Maker, Who stretched out the skies and made firm the earth! And you live all day in constant dread Because of the rage of an oppressor who is aiming to cut you down. Yet of what account is the rage of an oppressor?

I could go on and on, but this should suffice.

Third, sola Scriptura is primary, and within that, only Scripture in the Hebrew or Aramaic languages are acceptable.

Nazarenes are not Solas Scriptura like Protestants. We divide divine revelation into two basic categories: The Word of God and The Inspiration of God, this is similar to what’s done in Rabbinical Judaism.

You can walk in the way of the Apostles and walk on the path of the Pharisees, Sadduccees and Scribes.  We have one Rabbi.

The Word of God is anything spoken by YHWH Elohim directly, i.e. when we see “Thus says YHWH” or “the word of YHWH came to _____ and said”. BTW note “the word of YHWH”, another reference to Yeshua.

LOL. Sounds like Protestant red lettering.

So The Word of God includes the Torah, Prophets & Gospels (cause Yeshua is YHWH). The rest is The Inspiration of God and is classified according to weight of authority, the Writings and the Epistles of the Apostles bearing the highest authority in this category. Everything else (Maccabees, Ben Sirah, Diadache, Polycarp, etc.), as long as it’s not in conflict with what is specifically commanded by the higher authorities, is accepted as authentic Nazarene tradition. We only make mandatory what is specifically commanded otherwise we might get lost in tradition like the Phrasisees did and therefore nullify The Word of God. Other things are optional, and yes they may be “unscriptural” but they must never be antiscriptural.

And what’s the problem with us chanting the Scriptures in our sacred languages?

Nothing, except accepting the rabbis text you rejected the Churches.

Even English translations do not use the Greek name Jesus, but the Hebrew Yeshua. Some tradition is kept, such as the refusal of adherents to spell out God's name, even in English (they write instead G-d).

This is the case with many of the Messianic Bible translations yes, and I’m personally not satisfied with any of them. There is nothing wrong with the preference of Yeshua over Jesus, Yeshua is Messiah’s real name after all, and it’s just easier for us to make the connection to YHWH, especially when witnessing to non-believing Jewry.  As for G-d, this is an unnecessary practice carried over from Orthodox Judaism, like I said before, many converts to Messianic Judaism bring baggage with them. Anyway God’s name is YHWH not God.

God's name is Jesus.

But Bible translation is not my focus at the moment, our liturgical traditions are.

Yet the greater traditions are not, and like other Protestants, Messianic Jews ignore everything that occurred within Christianity between the second and sixteenth centuries. A god who does not speak except through Scripture is not the Christian God.

It is unfortunate that most Messianic Jews have no interest in learning about the early Church, after all it was Nazarenes like St. Peter who established it, and hence the baggage of Protestantism amongst many converts. However there is a growing interest and many like me are now diligently researching early Christian tradition (that’s why I’m here!). But we are not confining our studies exclusively the “Roman Church” but also to the Christianity outside the Roman empire.

Fourth, Messianic Judaism recognizes no saints. No great martyrs, no great confessors, no great bishops are recognized. There is no "cloud of witnesses," as St. Paul describes them, to watch over the Church. A church with no saints is not the Christian Church.

Nazarenes do indeed recognize the righteous dead. Though the way we honour them differs from Gentile Christianity, we do it the Jewish way through the principle of “YHWH remembers”. I would love to explain how this works, but since I’m saved for space, I’ll do so on the “Messianic Judaism” thread when I get a chance. Feel free to remind me in case I forget.

In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek.

In short, Messianic Judaism is nothing more than ethnic Jewish converts to Protestantism, and Protestants who mistake Judaism for historical Christianity. The Messianic god, Yeshua, is created in the image of these people who want to be both Jewish and Protestant. He is not the Christian God.

Since it’s the Protestants who have been most active in witnessing to the Jews, why should we be surprised that modern Messianic Judaism is such a mess? Though I hope from what I’ve written you are able to distinguish mainstream Messianic Judaism from the modern Nazarenes – those who seeking the ancient traditions of the Apostles which have been preserved by the Church.

You had that in the Orthodox Church.

So when I see both Messianic Judaism and Islam re-creating God to fit their theology, I find it ironic that each side would reprimand the other for that of which they both are guilty.

I would only really apply this to certain Messianic Jews who are Arians – i.e. the modern Ebionites (yet they call themselves Nazarenes!) who only see Yeshua as a human Messiah (thereby denying the Father and the Son), and yes they still exist, see this www.netzarim.co.il.

Someone repeating your mistakes is not the same as still existing.

Thank you, Isa.  I for one am growing weary of this person's proselytizing and trying to "correct" us Orthodox. 

[synLeszka]

St. Harith (Aretas) of Yemen and the other martyrs of Najran: the Quran refers to them as the "People of the Ditch" (they were burned in a pit).


That will have to do for now.

There were Christians in Yemen??

Also, the mashala/mahala Slavic debate. In Polish it is in the infinitive machać . the "ch" in Polish is pronounced the same as the letter "h"  ja machałem do niego, I waved to him

[mike]

the "ch" in Polish is pronounced the same as the letter "h"  ja machałem do niego, I waved to him

Yes, Polish pronunciation degenerates. A few dozens year ago they were separate sounds.

[Jetavan]

I tend to doubt the hypothesis that "Allah" is from "al-ilah". Is there any other Arabic word that is a result of such a contraction?

A few others.  It's not a hyposthesis, but a fact: the "i-" reappears whenever complementary distribution requires the definite article to drop, etc. al-kitaab, the book, but kitaabii, my book, Allah God, ilaahii my God.  It's initial syllable acts as the definite article does (e.g. the "w" looking thing above, called a shaddah, is part of this).

I don't see why "ilaahii" can't simply refer to "ilaha", rather than "Allah".

1) it doesn't fit the case endings of Arabic.
2) it doesn't fit the word pattern of Arabic (arabic has a limited number of patterns a noun can fall into).

How would one write "my god", using "ilaha"?

You can't:ilaha isn't a pattern that occurs in Arabic.  If it was a loan, it would first have to be changed to either ilahu or ilahaa to fit, in which case ilahii and ilahaaya would be your answers.

"La ilaha" in "La ilaha illallah" is actually "La ilahaa"?

[SamB]

Actually, it's supposed to be laa ilaaha with a long 'a' on the second syllable.  Ilaaha is ilaah with an 'accusative' case ending 'a'.  To clear up an ambiguity, in a different context, a homophonous form ilaaha is the feminine form absent a case ending (as distinguished from the masculine ilaah with the accusative 'a') with a silent feminine 't' (so better to write it as ilaaha(t) instead) that appears once a case ending is attached, hence ilaahatu/a/i.

[ialmisry]

I tend to doubt the hypothesis that "Allah" is from "al-ilah". Is there any other Arabic word that is a result of such a contraction?

A few others.  It's not a hyposthesis, but a fact: the "i-" reappears whenever complementary distribution requires the definite article to drop, etc. al-kitaab, the book, but kitaabii, my book, Allah God, ilaahii my God.  It's initial syllable acts as the definite article does (e.g. the "w" looking thing above, called a shaddah, is part of this).

I don't see why "ilaahii" can't simply refer to "ilaha", rather than "Allah".

1) it doesn't fit the case endings of Arabic.
2) it doesn't fit the word pattern of Arabic (arabic has a limited number of patterns a noun can fall into).

How would one write "my god", using "ilaha"?

You can't:ilaha isn't a pattern that occurs in Arabic.  If it was a loan, it would first have to be changed to either ilahu or ilahaa to fit, in which case ilahii and ilahaaya would be your answers.

"La ilaha" in "La ilaha illallah" is actually "La ilahaa"?

It's laa 'ilaaha, and laa 'ilaaha 'illallaah.

[Jetavan]

I tend to doubt the hypothesis that "Allah" is from "al-ilah". Is there any other Arabic word that is a result of such a contraction?

A few others.  It's not a hyposthesis, but a fact: the "i-" reappears whenever complementary distribution requires the definite article to drop, etc. al-kitaab, the book, but kitaabii, my book, Allah God, ilaahii my God.  It's initial syllable acts as the definite article does (e.g. the "w" looking thing above, called a shaddah, is part of this).

I don't see why "ilaahii" can't simply refer to "ilaha", rather than "Allah".

1) it doesn't fit the case endings of Arabic.
2) it doesn't fit the word pattern of Arabic (arabic has a limited number of patterns a noun can fall into).

How would one write "my god", using "ilaha"?

You can't:ilaha isn't a pattern that occurs in Arabic.  If it was a loan, it would first have to be changed to either ilahu or ilahaa to fit, in which case ilahii and ilahaaya would be your answers.

"La ilaha" in "La ilaha illallah" is actually "La ilahaa"?

It's laa 'ilaaha, and laa 'ilaaha 'illallaah.

Would you  say that the Aramaic for "God" -- "Elahh", or "Alaha" -- originally meant "the God" as well (as claimed here)?

[Gamliel]

I tend to doubt the hypothesis that "Allah" is from "al-ilah". Is there any other Arabic word that is a result of such a contraction?

A few others.  It's not a hyposthesis, but a fact: the "i-" reappears whenever complementary distribution requires the definite article to drop, etc. al-kitaab, the book, but kitaabii, my book, Allah God, ilaahii my God.  It's initial syllable acts as the definite article does (e.g. the "w" looking thing above, called a shaddah, is part of this).

I don't see why "ilaahii" can't simply refer to "ilaha", rather than "Allah".

1) it doesn't fit the case endings of Arabic.
2) it doesn't fit the word pattern of Arabic (arabic has a limited number of patterns a noun can fall into).

How would one write "my god", using "ilaha"?

You can't:ilaha isn't a pattern that occurs in Arabic.  If it was a loan, it would first have to be changed to either ilahu or ilahaa to fit, in which case ilahii and ilahaaya would be your answers.

"La ilaha" in "La ilaha illallah" is actually "La ilahaa"?

It's laa 'ilaaha, and laa 'ilaaha 'illallaah.

Would you  say that the Aramaic for "God" -- "Elahh", or "Alaha" -- originally meant "the God" as well (as claimed here)?

Sometimes the Hebrew in the Old Testament uses the definite article with 'elohym, so we have Ha-'elohym.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Forgive me if this has already been answered. I haven't read the entire thread. Is it acceptable for Orthodox Christians to say, "Alahu Akbar?"

I have often thought about what I would say if I were about to be executed by Islamic terrorists. I think I would say:

"Bismillah Rahmanir Rahim: (In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful):
"Alahu Akbar!' (God is great!)"

Proclaim the mercy and greatness of God in their own language, and dare them to violate their own profession.


Selam

[SamB]

We do not use the phrase Al'laahu akbar, but there is nothing objectionable about it.  The same is true in the case of the second phrase pronounced bismil'Laahir-rahmaanir-raheem  If the former ever crossed my lips, I must have been listening to some excellent tarab music at the time.  

Muslims would not use the second phrase when facing a violent death (Al'laahu akbar or the shahaadah in those cases).  It is used when beginning a Qur'aanic recitation or when one begins undertaking an action (such as when an Islamist prefaces his reply to a question on television).  At times it is shortened to bismil'Laah, such as when one is about to begin eating.

[minasoliman]

We as Copts do not even say "Salamo a'alikum," even though there's nothing wrong with it.  Many times you hear Copts say, "Salam," "Salam lakom," "Salam li game'ikom," "Salam wa ni'ma" in private practice.  It's a form of dissociation of Islamic customs.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Thanks Sam and Mina.



Selam

[Andrew21091]

Here is something of interest perhaps. Yemenite Jews say Allah. I found a recording of the traditional Yemenite recitation of the Shema Yisroel. They recite each verse three times first in Hebrew, then Aramaic, and then Arabic and they saw Allah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh5Zok4yUWQ

[SamB]

True, and the Yemenites are prone to mocking and scoffing at their Askhenazi co-religionists in America caught up in their own 'Allah is the evil, demonic name of a pagan moon god' ravings.  Plus, they pronounce Hebrew as people of a Semitic background ought to.

[Bowman]

this came up on the shout out (I still don't get that).

Allaah is just God in Arabic (only with the capital).  Its cognate in Hebrew is Elohim (plural of majesty), in Aramaic/Syriac Alaahaa.  Similar in construction to Coptic P-Noudi (the God).  It carries no religious (meaning Muslim) connotation at all, except monotheist.

It is premuslim.  It is a contraction of al- (the) and ilaah (a god).  Hence it is never plural (the gods is al-aalihah), nor feminine (the goddess is al-ilaahah, but the goddess name "Allaat" is from a similar contraction as Allaah).

When it is defined by a suffix possessive pronoun, the contraction is broken down and you get, for instance, ilaahii "my God" (like eli eli lama sabachthani) yaa ilaahanaa O Our God, etc.


in shaa' Allaah God willing.  Always said with reference to the future.  Per the Lord's brother (James 4:15) I say in shaa' al-Rabb.

al-Hamdi lillaah Praise be to God.  The muslim doxology. The Christian one begins "al-majdu lillaah fi-l'ulyaa"

maa shaa' Allaah (as) what God wanted.  Said in approval of something.

In Arabic script:

الله

ayy su'aal  any questions?

Arabic etymology of the term ‘allah’ shows us that it is derived from the same exact root word as other pagan Arab deities.

As such, we should consider that the ‘allah’ of the Koran is merely another false god.

Arabic Christians who use the same term do so as a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek Biblical scriptures – thus relegating the original pagan connotation to that of the Koran.

[ialmisry]

this came up on the shout out (I still don't get that).

Allaah is just God in Arabic (only with the capital).  Its cognate in Hebrew is Elohim (plural of majesty), in Aramaic/Syriac Alaahaa.  Similar in construction to Coptic P-Noudi (the God).  It carries no religious (meaning Muslim) connotation at all, except monotheist.

It is premuslim.  It is a contraction of al- (the) and ilaah (a god).  Hence it is never plural (the gods is al-aalihah), nor feminine (the goddess is al-ilaahah, but the goddess name "Allaat" is from a similar contraction as Allaah).

When it is defined by a suffix possessive pronoun, the contraction is broken down and you get, for instance, ilaahii "my God" (like eli eli lama sabachthani) yaa ilaahanaa O Our God, etc.


in shaa' Allaah God willing.  Always said with reference to the future.  Per the Lord's brother (James 4:15) I say in shaa' al-Rabb.

al-Hamdi lillaah Praise be to God.  The muslim doxology. The Christian one begins "al-majdu lillaah fi-l'ulyaa"

maa shaa' Allaah (as) what God wanted.  Said in approval of something.

In Arabic script:

الله

ayy su'aal  any questions?

Arabic etymology of the term ‘allah’ shows us that it is derived from the same exact root word as other pagan Arab deities.

As such, we should consider that the ‘allah’ of the Koran is merely another false god.

Arabic Christians who use the same term do so as a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek Biblical scriptures – thus relegating the original pagan connotation to that of the Koran.

It is same root as Heb. Elohim and Aram. Alaha, which like Greek theos and Latin Deus, are derived from the same exact root word as pagan deities (ex. deus is the cognate of Greek Zeus), so what are you talking about?

[Bowman]

this came up on the shout out (I still don't get that).

Allaah is just God in Arabic (only with the capital).  Its cognate in Hebrew is Elohim (plural of majesty), in Aramaic/Syriac Alaahaa.  Similar in construction to Coptic P-Noudi (the God).  It carries no religious (meaning Muslim) connotation at all, except monotheist.

It is premuslim.  It is a contraction of al- (the) and ilaah (a god).  Hence it is never plural (the gods is al-aalihah), nor feminine (the goddess is al-ilaahah, but the goddess name "Allaat" is from a similar contraction as Allaah).

When it is defined by a suffix possessive pronoun, the contraction is broken down and you get, for instance, ilaahii "my God" (like eli eli lama sabachthani) yaa ilaahanaa O Our God, etc.


in shaa' Allaah God willing.  Always said with reference to the future.  Per the Lord's brother (James 4:15) I say in shaa' al-Rabb.

al-Hamdi lillaah Praise be to God.  The muslim doxology. The Christian one begins "al-majdu lillaah fi-l'ulyaa"

maa shaa' Allaah (as) what God wanted.  Said in approval of something.

In Arabic script:

الله

ayy su'aal  any questions?

Arabic etymology of the term ‘allah’ shows us that it is derived from the same exact root word as other pagan Arab deities.

As such, we should consider that the ‘allah’ of the Koran is merely another false god.

Arabic Christians who use the same term do so as a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek Biblical scriptures – thus relegating the original pagan connotation to that of the Koran.

It is same root as Heb. Elohim and Aram. Alaha, which like Greek theos and Latin Deus, are derived from the same exact root word as pagan deities (ex. deus is the cognate of Greek Zeus), so what are you talking about?

False.

The pagan god 'allah' is not related to the Biblical God at all.

[ialmisry]

this came up on the shout out (I still don't get that).

Allaah is just God in Arabic (only with the capital).  Its cognate in Hebrew is Elohim (plural of majesty), in Aramaic/Syriac Alaahaa.  Similar in construction to Coptic P-Noudi (the God).  It carries no religious (meaning Muslim) connotation at all, except monotheist.

It is premuslim.  It is a contraction of al- (the) and ilaah (a god).  Hence it is never plural (the gods is al-aalihah), nor feminine (the goddess is al-ilaahah, but the goddess name "Allaat" is from a similar contraction as Allaah).

When it is defined by a suffix possessive pronoun, the contraction is broken down and you get, for instance, ilaahii "my God" (like eli eli lama sabachthani) yaa ilaahanaa O Our God, etc.


in shaa' Allaah God willing.  Always said with reference to the future.  Per the Lord's brother (James 4:15) I say in shaa' al-Rabb.

al-Hamdi lillaah Praise be to God.  The muslim doxology. The Christian one begins "al-majdu lillaah fi-l'ulyaa"

maa shaa' Allaah (as) what God wanted.  Said in approval of something.

In Arabic script:

الله

ayy su'aal  any questions?

Arabic etymology of the term ‘allah’ shows us that it is derived from the same exact root word as other pagan Arab deities.

As such, we should consider that the ‘allah’ of the Koran is merely another false god.

Arabic Christians who use the same term do so as a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek Biblical scriptures – thus relegating the original pagan connotation to that of the Koran.

It is same root as Heb. Elohim and Aram. Alaha, which like Greek theos and Latin Deus, are derived from the same exact root word as pagan deities (ex. deus is the cognate of Greek Zeus), so what are you talking about?

False.

The pagan god 'allah' is not related to the Biblical God at all.

the pagan god Zeus is not related to the God of the Vulgate either, but the word Deus is.

Ditto Elohim and Allah (which, btw, the pre-Islamic Arab Christians used).
http://books.google.com/books?id=zNrTAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR49&dq=gesenius+hebrew+lexicon+m.+God+(Arab.+with+art.+of+the+true+God%3B&hl=en&ei=o4geTe2SNc2Ynwex-ty4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Bowman]

the pagan god Zeus is not related to the God of the Vulgate either, but the word Deus is.

Ditto Elohim and Allah (which, btw, the pre-Islamic Arab Christians used).
http://books.google.com/books?id=zNrTAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR49&dq=gesenius+hebrew+lexicon+m.+God+(Arab.+with+art.+of+the+true+God%3B&hl=en&ei=o4geTe2SNc2Ynwex-ty4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Genenius’ Lexicon is not even Arabic, brother.

Nor does it provide any etymology at all for the term ‘allah’.

You googled the wrong reference.


Here is the classic Arabic definition for the “allah” of the Koran, straight from the world’s leading classic Arabic lexicography…
 


الله = “allah”

“allah” definition:

Written with the disjunctive alif, meaning God, i.e. the only true god, according to the most correct of the opinions respecting it.  It is a proper name to the Being who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all of the attributes of perfection; a proper name denoting the true god (TA), comprising all the excellent divine names; a unity comprising all of the essences of existing things; the “al” being inseparable from it; not derived. 

It comes from the root “ilaha”, which means he served, worshipped, or adored; to adore, worship, deify any one, call any one god.  He was, or became, confounded, or perplexed, and unable to see his right course.  An object of worship or adoration; i.e. a god, a deity; anything that is taken as an object of worship or adoration, according to him that takes it as such.  It signifies the goddess; and particularly the serpent; because it was a special object of worship of some of the ancient Arabs; or the great serpent; and the new moon.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 82 - 83
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 28 - 29


Key points:

•   Observe the revealing definition for “allah”, that is given by Lane...“i.e. the only true god”
•   Lane is referencing a very specific example in his definition by his illustrated example (i.e.)
•   It is abundantly clear that he is referencing a “god” (lower case) to represent the “allah” of the Koran
•   To re-enforce the fact that the “allah” of the Koran is no more than a “god”, and to erase any notion of error, Lane repeats his very same remarks a few lines farther down in his lexical definition for “allah”, by referencing a separate entry – this time from the legendary “Ta’j el-‘Aroos” (TA)
•   (TA;) “a proper name denoting the true god, comprising all the excellent divine names; a unity comprising all the essence of existing things”
•   Further, “allah” is derived from the root “ilaha”, which means “he was, or became, confounded, or perplexed, and unable to see his right course”
•   This would hardly seem a logical definition for true deity
•   “ilaha” also means “an object of worship or adoration; i.e. a god, a deity; anything that is taken as an object of worship or adoration, according to him who takes it as such”…which signifies idolatry as mentioned in Revelation
•   “ilaha” also signifies the goddess; and particularly the serpent; because it was a special object of worship of some of the ancient Arabs; or the great serpent; and the new moon



Clearly…

There is no idol worship associated with the true creator God of the Holy Bible.

However, with the "allah" of the Koran, idol worship is an inherent part of its root origin!

The Triune Creator God of the Holy Bible is the true God.

Thus, right from the get-go, The god of the Koran is no more than a pagan Arab god dressed-up to look like the Biblical God.

[ialmisry]

the pagan god Zeus is not related to the God of the Vulgate either, but the word Deus is.

Ditto Elohim and Allah (which, btw, the pre-Islamic Arab Christians used).
http://books.google.com/books?id=zNrTAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR49&dq=gesenius+hebrew+lexicon+m.+God+(Arab.+with+art.+of+the+true+God%3B&hl=en&ei=o4geTe2SNc2Ynwex-ty4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Genenius’ Lexicon is not even Arabic, brother.

Neither is Elohim, but its cognate Allah is, and Gensenius' Lexicon gives cognates-Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac, Akkadian, Egyptian etc. You are aware that Hebrew and Arabic are related, no?

Nor does it provide any etymology at all for the term ‘allah’.

You googled the wrong reference.

No, I googled the right reference. He gives the cognates.  Here he goes intot the etymology of Elohim, and hence its cognate 'allah'
http://books.google.com/books?id=wi-9AHlmV80C&pg=PA41&dq=Hebrew+lexicon+2006+assumed+god,+God+are+from+the+same&hl=en&ei=OJseTcnLGsSonAeGsunTDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here is the classic Arabic definition for the “allah” of the Koran, straight from the world’s leading classic Arabic lexicography…
 


الله = “allah”

“allah” definition:

Written with the disjunctive alif, meaning God, i.e. the only true god, according to the most correct of the opinions respecting it.  It is a proper name to the Being who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all of the attributes of perfection; a proper name denoting the true god (TA), comprising all the excellent divine names; a unity comprising all of the essences of existing things; the “al” being inseparable from it; not derived. 

It comes from the root “ilaha”, which means he served, worshipped, or adored; to adore, worship, deify any one, call any one god.  He was, or became, confounded, or perplexed, and unable to see his right course.  An object of worship or adoration; i.e. a god, a deity; anything that is taken as an object of worship or adoration, according to him that takes it as such.  It signifies the goddess; and particularly the serpent; because it was a special object of worship of some of the ancient Arabs; or the great serpent; and the new moon.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 82 - 83
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 28 - 29


Key points:

•   Observe the revealing definition for “allah”, that is given by Lane...“i.e. the only true god”
•   Lane is referencing a very specific example in his definition by his illustrated example (i.e.)
•   It is abundantly clear that he is referencing a “god” (lower case) to represent the “allah” of the Koran
•   To re-enforce the fact that the “allah” of the Koran is no more than a “god”, and to erase any notion of error, Lane repeats his very same remarks a few lines farther down in his lexical definition for “allah”, by referencing a separate entry – this time from the legendary “Ta’j el-‘Aroos” (TA)
•   (TA;) “a proper name denoting the true god, comprising all the excellent divine names; a unity comprising all the essence of existing things”
•   Further, “allah” is derived from the root “ilaha”, which means “he was, or became, confounded, or perplexed, and unable to see his right course”
•   This would hardly seem a logical definition for true deity

The reference isn't to the deity, but to the awe he inspires. Like Otto's numinous.

•   “ilaha” also means “an object of worship or adoration; i.e. a god, a deity; anything that is taken as an object of worship or adoration, according to him who takes it as such”…which signifies idolatry as mentioned in Revelation
•   “ilaha” also signifies the goddess; and particularly the serpent; because it was a special object of worship of some of the ancient Arabs; or the great serpent; and the new moon



Clearly…

There is no idol worship associated with the true creator God of the Holy Bible.

The same word for God is used for god in Hebrew and Greek. And Arabic.

However, with the "allah" of the Koran, idol worship is an inherent part of its root origin!

not anymore than Elohim or Theos.

The Triune Creator God of the Holy Bible is the true God.

And in the Arabic Bible He is Alllah.

Thus, right from the get-go, The god of the Koran is no more than a pagan Arab god dressed-up to look like the Biblical God.

Btw, all the references to the Quran in Lane and the Arabic lexiconographers-the 'ulamaa' al-lughah-would be of no interest to the pre-Islamic Christians. There are of marginal interest to the post Islamic Christians.

[Bowman]

the pagan god Zeus is not related to the God of the Vulgate either, but the word Deus is.

Ditto Elohim and Allah (which, btw, the pre-Islamic Arab Christians used).
http://books.google.com/books?id=zNrTAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR49&dq=gesenius+hebrew+lexicon+m.+God+(Arab.+with+art.+of+the+true+God%3B&hl=en&ei=o4geTe2SNc2Ynwex-ty4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Genenius’ Lexicon is not even Arabic, brother.

Neither is Elohim, but its cognate Allah is, and Gensenius' Lexicon gives cognates-Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac, Akkadian, Egyptian etc. You are aware that Hebrew and Arabic are related, no?

Nor does it provide any etymology at all for the term ‘allah’.

You googled the wrong reference.

No, I googled the right reference. He gives the cognates.  Here he goes intot the etymology of Elohim, and hence its cognate 'allah'
http://books.google.com/books?id=wi-9AHlmV80C&pg=PA41&dq=Hebrew+lexicon+2006+assumed+god,+God+are+from+the+same&hl=en&ei=OJseTcnLGsSonAeGsunTDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Not only is the Arabic ‘allah’ not a cognate for the Hebrew Yahweh, it is also not a cognate for Elohim, as thus…


“Yahweh” definition:

H3068 Singular noun.  The Tetragrammaton YHWH, the Lord, or Yahweh, the personal name of God and His most frequent designation in scripture, occurring 5321x.  The word refers to the proper name of the God of Israel, particularly the name by which He revealed Himself to Moses (Ex: 6.2-3).   It comes from the root “hawa” H1961, which means either existence, or development; “to be”.  “The existing one”.

H1961  “hawa” A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

H1933 “havah” A primitive root supposed to mean properly to breathe; to be (in the sense of existence): - be, X have.


References:
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, & Geoffrey W. Bromiley, volume three, pp. 1067 - 1081
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) #484a, Harris, Archer, Waltke, volume 1, pp. 210 – 212
The Complete Wordstudy Dictionary of the Old Testament, Warren Baker, Eugene Carpenter, p. 426
 
 


“Elohim” definition:

H430   A masculine plural noun.  God, gods, judges, angels. This is not a “Plural of Majesty”.  A better reason can be seen in scripture itself where, in the very first chapter of Genesis, the necessity of a term conveying both the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons is found (Gen 1.2, 26).  This is further borne out by the fact that the form “Elohim” occurs only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic language, not even in Biblical Aramaic.  Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

H433  “eloah” Masculine singular noun.    God or god.  From H410; a deity or the deity: - God, god. See H430.


References:
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) #93c, Harris, Archer, Waltke, volume 1, pp. 41 - 45
The Complete Wordstudy Dictionary of the Old Testament, Warren Baker, Eugene Carpenter, p. 54
The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible Red-letter Edition, James Strong, LL.D., S.T.D., Hebrew and Aramaic dictionary, p. 17

 

[Bowman]

And in the Arabic Bible He is Alllah.

The Holy Bible was never written in Arabic, brother.

Thus, the term 'allah' is merely a translation and not of the original languages.

Further, the Allah of Arabic Christians has an only begotten Son named Jesus Christ.

[ialmisry]

And in the Arabic Bible He is Alllah.

The Holy Bible was never written in Arabic, brother.

It was never written in English either, but yet we have the English Bible.

Thus, the term 'allah' is merely a translation and not of the original languages.

who, except you, claimed it was?

Further, the Allah of Arabic Christians has an the only begotten Son named Jesus Christ.

fixed that for you.

And that has nothing to do with the word at all.

[ialmisry]

the pagan god Zeus is not related to the God of the Vulgate either, but the word Deus is.

Ditto Elohim and Allah (which, btw, the pre-Islamic Arab Christians used).
http://books.google.com/books?id=zNrTAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR49&dq=gesenius+hebrew+lexicon+m.+God+(Arab.+with+art.+of+the+true+God%3B&hl=en&ei=o4geTe2SNc2Ynwex-ty4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Genenius’ Lexicon is not even Arabic, brother.

Neither is Elohim, but its cognate Allah is, and Gensenius' Lexicon gives cognates-Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac, Akkadian, Egyptian etc. You are aware that Hebrew and Arabic are related, no?

Nor does it provide any etymology at all for the term ‘allah’.

You googled the wrong reference.

No, I googled the right reference. He gives the cognates.  Here he goes intot the etymology of Elohim, and hence its cognate 'allah'
http://books.google.com/books?id=wi-9AHlmV80C&pg=PA41&dq=Hebrew+lexicon+2006+assumed+god,+God+are+from+the+same&hl=en&ei=OJseTcnLGsSonAeGsunTDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Not only is the Arabic ‘allah’ not a cognate for the Hebrew Yahweh, it is also not a cognate for Elohim, as thus…


“Yahweh” definition:

H3068 Singular noun.  The Tetragrammaton YHWH, the Lord, or Yahweh, the personal name of God and His most frequent designation in scripture, occurring 5321x.  The word refers to the proper name of the God of Israel, particularly the name by which He revealed Himself to Moses (Ex: 6.2-3).   It comes from the root “hawa” H1961, which means either existence, or development; “to be”.  “The existing one”.

H1961  “hawa” A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

H1933 “havah” A primitive root supposed to mean properly to breathe; to be (in the sense of existence): - be, X have.


References:
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, & Geoffrey W. Bromiley, volume three, pp. 1067 - 1081
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) #484a, Harris, Archer, Waltke, volume 1, pp. 210 – 212
The Complete Wordstudy Dictionary of the Old Testament, Warren Baker, Eugene Carpenter, p. 426

Since no one, except you, said YHWH was a cognate to allah, I don't know why you went through all that trouble.
 
Btw, as Gesenius shows, Elohim is the cognate of allah.

“Elohim” definition:

H430   A masculine plural noun.  God, gods, judges, angels. This is not a “Plural of Majesty”.  A better reason can be seen in scripture itself where, in the very first chapter of Genesis, the necessity of a term conveying both the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons is found (Gen 1.2, 26).  This is further borne out by the fact that the form “Elohim” occurs only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic language, not even in Biblical Aramaic.  Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

H433  “eloah” Masculine singular noun.    God or god.  From H410; a deity or the deity: - God, god. See H430.


References:
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) #93c, Harris, Archer, Waltke, volume 1, pp. 41 - 45
The Complete Wordstudy Dictionary of the Old Testament, Warren Baker, Eugene Carpenter, p. 54
The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible Red-letter Edition, James Strong, LL.D., S.T.D., Hebrew and Aramaic dictionary, p. 17

btw, Arabic has analogous usages of the plural to the plural of majesty.

[Bowman]

And in the Arabic Bible He is Alllah.

The Holy Bible was never written in Arabic, brother.

It was never written in English either, but yet we have the English Bible.

Thus, the term 'allah' is merely a translation and not of the original languages.

who, except you, claimed it was?

Further, the Allah of Arabic Christians has an the only begotten Son named Jesus Christ.

fixed that for you.

And that has nothing to do with the word at all.

Now you can begin to understand the difference between a translated word and the original word.

[Bowman]

btw, Arabic has analogous usages of the plural to the plural of majesty.

False.

Plural of Majesty simply never existed in the ANE (Ancient Near East) which included Arabia.

Thus...when the authors of the Koran state "us", or "we", they are referring to a plural entity.

[humblyinChrist]

Arabic was one of the languages God used to reveal the Gospel at the beginning of our Christian Church: "Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." Acts 2:11 The Word of Allah is Truth in The Holy Bible.

Paul even used the false god idol that referred to the God above all gods to present God of the Bible to the pagans in Holy Scripture : "as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth" Acts 17:23-24

Also, as one raised in islam, I know that mohammad's ideas of God are opposite than the God of Love of Holy Scriptures, but when Mohammad used Allah for God, his primary audience that he was trying to reach were the Jews and Christians (people of the Book). Never once did they object to the use of Allah for God and it would have been foolish for mohammad to refer to pagan god when he was trying to convert all the pagans to his misguided idea of the God of the Christians and the Jews.

humbly in Christ,
Anthony
http://www.facebook.com/ServantCEO

[ialmisry]

btw, Arabic has analogous usages of the plural to the plural of majesty.

False.

False nothing. Check your Arabic grammar, if you have one.

Plural of Majesty simply never existed in the ANE (Ancient Near East) which included Arabia.

Check the edicts in Esther and Maccabees on that.

Btw, the ANE doesn't include the Arabia of Muhammad's day. Antiquity had already ended centuries earlier.

Thus...when the authors of the Koran state "us", or "we", they are referring to a plural entity.

You seem as agenda driven as Muslim commentators on the Quran, just with less knowledge.

[Bowman]

Arabic was one of the languages God used to reveal the Gospel at the beginning of our Christian Church: "Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." Acts 2:11 The Word of Allah is Truth in The Holy Bible.

There is no mention that 'allah' was used.

Paul even used the false god idol that referred to the God above all gods to present God of the Bible to the pagans in Holy Scripture : "as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth" Acts 17:23-24

Do you think that the idol represented 'allah'...?

[Bowman]

Also, as one raised in islam, I know that mohammad's ideas of God are opposite than the God of Love of Holy Scriptures, but when Mohammad used Allah for God, his primary audience that he was trying to reach were the Jews and Christians (people of the Book). Never once did they object to the use of Allah for God and it would have been foolish for mohammad to refer to pagan god when he was trying to convert all the pagans to his misguided idea of the God of the Christians and the Jews.

humbly in Christ,
Anthony
http://www.facebook.com/ServantCEO

The Koranic authors' usage of the term 'allah' refers to Satan.....not the true Biblical God, Jesus Christ.

[Bowman]

False nothing. Check your Arabic grammar, if you have one.

Done.

Plural of Majesty simply never existed in the ANE (Ancient Near East) which included Arabia.

Check the edicts in Esther and Maccabees on that.

Done.

Btw, the ANE doesn't include the Arabia of Muhammad's day. Antiquity had already ended centuries earlier

.

'Muhammad' never wrote the Koran.

[ialmisry]

Arabic was one of the languages God used to reveal the Gospel at the beginning of our Christian Church: "Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." Acts 2:11 The Word of Allah is Truth in The Holy Bible.

There is no mention that 'allah' was used.

الله‎كريتيون وعرب نسمعهم يتكلمون بألسنتنا بعظائم

For those, like Bowman, who do not know Arabic, the last word is the same in boldface, and in Arabic it is pronounced Allaah.

Paul even used the false god idol that referred to the God above all gods to present God of the Bible to the pagans in Holy Scripture : "as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth" Acts 17:23-24

Do you think that the idol represented 'allah'...?

That is what St. Paul (who, btw, spent time in Arabia, Gal. 1:17) says.

[ialmisry]

Also, as one raised in islam, I know that mohammad's ideas of God are opposite than the God of Love of Holy Scriptures, but when Mohammad used Allah for God, his primary audience that he was trying to reach were the Jews and Christians (people of the Book). Never once did they object to the use of Allah for God and it would have been foolish for mohammad to refer to pagan god when he was trying to convert all the pagans to his misguided idea of the God of the Christians and the Jews.

humbly in Christ,
Anthony
http://www.facebook.com/ServantCEO

The Koranic authors' usage of the term 'allah' refers to Satan.....not the true Biblical God, Jesus Christ.

Care to quote the Qur'an on that?

[ialmisry]

False nothing. Check your Arabic grammar, if you have one.

Done.

Good. What grammar do you use?

Plural of Majesty simply never existed in the ANE (Ancient Near East) which included Arabia.

Check the edicts in Esther and Maccabees on that.

Done.

So you notice the "We" and "our" when the Kings speak?

Btw, the ANE doesn't include the Arabia of Muhammad's day. Antiquity had already ended centuries earlier

.

'Muhammad' never wrote the Koran.

Didn't say he did, but it does date from his time.