Categories
Faith

Mel#6: Was it Umar or Abd al-Malik who built the Dome? [Video]

Mel continues this series by proving that the Dome of the Rock which we have today, was not the same Dome which is described by the many eye-witnesses who actually saw it over the years, including some as late as the 15th century, between 700 – 800 years after the time of Abd al-Malik, the purported builder of the Dome.1100s AD: The ‘Santo Sepelcro’ in the city of Pisa, Italy, was built as a copy of the structure on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (where the Dome sits today), yet the drum is octagonal, while today’s Dome is circular, proving that it can’t be the same Drum.1200s (early) AD: Coins help us as we can see the image of the Dome of the Rock on them, and it has a conical shape (almost like a teepee) with a crescent moon displayed on its top.1160s AD: A German priest, Johann from Wurzburg, Germany visited the dome and described it during the time the Crusaders controlled Jerusalem. He describes 4 doors with 36 windows on the octagonal drum. He also noted detailed inscriptions, which were not the same as today’s inscriptions, and were possibly created by the Crusaders.1163 AD: Baldwin III refers to the Dome, saying that it looks conical in shape and tall with a large crescent moon on the top, similar to the coins which were being minted at this time.1170s AD: Theodericus, a German, who went to Jerusalem and refers to the Dome, notes identical inscriptions to those mentioned by Johann from Wurzburg 10 years earlier, which had content from the Gospels (i.e. God knocking at the believer’s door from the book of Revelations), not the Qur’an. He also refers to Mosaics, but not the ones which are there today. The gates he mentions all have Jewish and Latin inscriptions above them, which are definitely like those which are there today.1171 AD: Benjamin, a Jew from Tudela, visited the Dome and mentions that it was built by Umar, which contradicts the classical account. He also says nothing about any of the Qur’anic inscriptions.1183 AD: Baldwin IV and Amalric I (1174 AD) both describe the Drum of the Dome as a conical, almost Teepee shape with a crescent moon on top.1187 AD: Ali of Herat, a Muslim who would know Arabic mentions that the Dome was undergoing refurbishment at this time, and mentions that there are possible Qur’anic inscriptions, but only above the doors, which contradicts the present Qur’anic inscriptions above the out arcade. Could these be the beginnings of the Arabic inscriptions we are looking for?12th c. AD (late): Imad ad-Din visits the Dome and refers to statues of people in the Gospels, including the Messiah’s foot, as well as carved pigs and other animals. Could these have been put there by the Crusaders. Nonetheless, there are no Qur’anic inscriptions.1260 AD: Az-Zahir Baibars, a Mamluk, and Muhammad ibn Kala’un (1318 AD) refer to more refurbishments to the Dome during these times.1300s AD: Ibn Taymiyya is the first to mention that the Dome of the Rock was built by Abd-al-Malik, though he just calls it the ‘Dome”, yet this is over 600 years too late, while up to this time everyone has said it was built by Umar!1355 AD: Ibn Batutah talks about the dome by says nothing about any Qur’anic inscriptions.1420s AD: Hubert Van Eyck draws a picture of the Dome yet it has an ‘Onion shape’ and with many windows; so it’s not rounded like it is today.1448 AD: The Dome is destroyed by fire and repaired, yet are we to believe that this destruction had to impact on the Qur’anic inscriptions which are there now?1453 AD: Yazicioglu writes about the Dome claiming it was built by Umar, contradicting Ibn Taymiyya.1483 AD: Bernhard von Braydenbach also states that the Dome was ‘onion shaped’, supporting Hubert van Eyck, from 60 years earlier, though he mentions that it had an access hatch, and was octagonal, which is quite different from today’s Dome and drum.1483 AD: Felix Fabri says that the Dome was built by Umar, and refers to mosaics which have trees, and olive trees, as well as Cherubim inside the structure, which contradicts the mosaics which are in the Dome today.15th c. AD: Mudschir ed-Din in describing the Dome says nothing about the Qur’anic inscriptions, while referring to mosaics which aren’t there any more.Mel concludes that this all proves that the Dome of the Rock went through quite a few refurbishments over the centuries, and from the descriptions of the eye-witness’s accounts, up to and including the 15th century, which is almost 800 years after Abd al-Malik, the Dome they describe is not the same as the one we can see today in Jerusalem.Nor is there an agreement concerning who built the Dome, with most stipulating it was built by Umar, and only Ibn Taymiyya stating it was Abd al-MalikSo, when was our Dome of the Rock actually built, and by whom? More yet to come!© Pfander Centre for Apologetics – US, 2022(65,060) Music: “Townsong” by Alexander Nakarada, from filmmusic-io

Categories
Faith

Mel #5: The Inscriptions with Qur’anic vss weren’t Original! [Video]

Mel continues by noting that there are real problems with dating the ‘Dome of the Rock’ because, as A.J. Deus writes, the style of the Dome doesn’t match a 7th century environment.The best way to date the Dome, he continues, is to follow the history “on the ground”, and observe the eye-witness accounts of people who traveled to the Dome, and wrote about it, describing what they saw.You can’t get a better description of how the Dome looked like then asking the people who were actually there, whose dates we know, allowing us a pretty good idea of how it changed, and when.Our primary interest, however, is when the large inscriptions above the outer arcade were created and placed within the Dome of the Rock, as they are Qur’anic verses, and until now, were assumed to be the earliest example of any Qur’anic verses, including especially the ‘Shahada’, which is the Statement of Faith for all Muslims and says ‘God is one, and Muhammad is merely a messenger of God’.Up until now we all assumed this statement was first introduced on the Dome in 691 – 692 AD, created by Abd al Malik himself, so the earliest reference to the Shahada anywhere, and the first time that Muhammad’s.Now, however, we are going to re-assess everything we’ve known about the origins of Islam and when the prophet’s name was introduced, and when the Qur’an was created, since these earliest inscriptions look like they weren’t that early at all.1015 AD: Mel notes that in this year there was an earthquake which caused the Dome to fall, so it is unlikely that the inscriptions were able to withstand the damage.1022 AD: The Drum which holds up the Dome as well as the outer arcade was refurbished, due to damage from the earthquake in 1015 AD. They had to redo the columns which held up the arcade. Earlier the INNER ARCADE which holds up the dome had 8 pillars, whereas it now has 12 pillars (note the image Mel put up shows that it had 12 earlier, and then was changed to 16 columns).The OUTER ARCADE which houses the Qur’anic inscription had 24 pillars, whereas it now has 16 pillars (note the image Mel put up shows that it had 32 columns earlier, and then was changed to 24 columns).Nonetheless, what is important is that the Dome which stands today has quite a few different number of Pillars/Columns than it previously had.Why is that significant? Because when you change or renew pillars or columns, which are the base for the arcades, you simultaneously have to destroy the arcades which rest on them.So, certainly the current inscriptions couldn’t have existed prior to 1022 AD, when the columns and thus the arcades were refurbished.1033 AD: In this year there were multiple earthquakes which would have damaged both the drum and the arcades which held it up, thus damaging the inscriptions as well.1047 AD: The Persian known simply as ‘Nasir’ visited the Dome and when describing it doesn’t refer to any inscriptions, nor to any mosaics, but curiously did talk about to the beautiful woodwork inside the Dome. Yet, look at any picture of the interior of the Dome and you will not find any woodwork. It seems that the interior has since been changed substantially.1092 AD: Al ‘Arabi, a native Arabic speaker, visited the Dome and described it in detail, but said nothing about any inscriptions. Why? Unless, of course they still didn’t exist that early.1106 AD: The Russian Abbot Daniel also visited the Dome, and refers to the mosaics which sit at the top of the columns, but doesn’t mention any inscriptions.1352 AD: John de Mandeville came to the Dome, described it, but also doesn’t refer to any inscriptions nor any mosaics.Most curiously, however, he said that “It was simple and the Drum and Dome were twice as high as the building was wide”!But look at any picture of the Dome of the Rock and you will see that the Drum and Dome are only 3/4 as high as the width of the building.His description doesn’t at all sound like the Dome we have today, but a totally different structure. Why is this significant? Because we are now between 600 – 700 years after Abd al-Malik and we still don’t have a building which is anything like the Dome of the Rock which stands today, suggesting that he was not responsible for either the Dome, nor the mosaics, and certainly not the famous Qur’anic inscriptions.They must have been introduced much later, but when, and by whom? Stay tuned, as we have much more yet to introduce…© Pfander Centre for Apologetics – US, 2022(64,950) Music: “Townsong” by Alexander Nakarada, from filmmusic-io

Categories
Faith

Mel#4: The Mosaics are Too Sophisticated for the 7th c.! [Video]

Now Mel goes to the Mosaics, and points out that the mosaics on the inner arcade are much too sophisticated for the 7th century.They are smooth and elegant, and have detailed pictures, many of them with symbolism.When you compare other mosaics from the same time, and from the same area, you will notice that they are much cruder, and not nearly as pretty or well crafted.You can see the frescoes from Qasr Amra, created in the 7th century, which are crude in comparison to what we have in the Dome of the Rock, whose mosaics are more similar to the mosaics of Suleyman of the 16th century, nearly 800-900 years later.This suggests pretty strongly that those inscriptions are not the original ones built by Abd al-Malik, but were added at a much later date; in fact, perhaps 100s of years later!© Pfander Centre for Apologetics – US, 2022(64,820) Music: “Townsong” by Alexander Nakarada, from filmmusic-io

Categories
Faith

Mel#3: DOME’s Inscriptions are 100s of years TOO LATE! [Video]

Mel not moves on to the inscriptions which are on either side of the inner arcade, just outside the arcade which holds up the drum and the dome itself.It is these inscriptions which are important, because they are anti-trinitarian, against Christ’s divinity, and against his sonship, while introducing the Shahada for the first time.Yet, according to all of the accounts in the first few centuries, there are no references to these incriminating inscriptions, which became the basis for the theology of Islam against Christianity, and still is today.978 AD: Mel begins by pointing out that the different descriptions we have of the temple mount by travelers to that place in the 10th century, suggest that the Al Aqsa mosque, which is today situated on the southern wall of the citadel, was located at the south-eatern corner, with one wall along the eastern wall, and the other along the southern wall (see the photo above with the red rectangle pointing to where it was initially located), which means it was initially built further to the East than it is today.We saw earlier that the Dome was not located at the center of the citadel as it is today, as the earliest references to any structure was a Jewish synagogue, located at the northern end of the citadel.The earliest reference we have to the dome is in the late 10th century, and is described as having an octagonal dome, which is not what it is today.Muqadasi in 978 AD describes the dome but forgets to say anything about the inscriptions, which is odd since mocking the Christians was almost his signature piece.Muhallabi in 990 AD likewise mentions the Dome, but says that Al-Walid, the son of Abd al-Malik built it.Al-Wasiti in 1019 AD refers to the Dome as well, but like the others says nothing about the inscriptions.Why would they say nothing about the most important item located in the structure of the Dome, unless, of course the inscriptions were simply not there, but were added 100s of years later.© Pfander Centre for Apologetics – US, 2022(64,700) Music: “Townsong” by Alexander Nakarada, from filmmusic-io

Categories
Faith

Why can’t the ‘SIN Sifters’ ever AGREE? [Video]

With Mel’s most recent series on the Dome of the Rock (taken from A.J. Deus’s research on that building) now being put online, questions are being asked by many of those who are commenting wondering why Mel seems to be changing his views concerning the Dome’s importance, and especially his doubts for the early dates for the inscriptions on the inner ambulatory.Yet, other ‘Sin-Sifters’ like Thomas Alexander do not agree with Mel’s conclusions, which suggests that the team of Sin-Sifters are not consistent.Jay asked Mel to come and explain to the viewers why he is willing to change his views, even when they are not consistent with others on the Sin-Sifting team.He and Jay explained that this is the ‘nature of the beast’ in the quest for historical accuracy. The dictum which Jay has demanded, and which all of those in the SIN-Sifting community have always stood by is that they always ‘follow the evidence’ as they find it ‘on the ground’, and in the case of the Origins of Islam, that evidence must be derived from the 7th century itself, or soon after, but not from the later 9th – 11th centuries, whose material are mere creative redactions back to the 7th century.Because so little work has been carried out on the evidence from that century, it’s a virginal field, with research ongoing in a multiplicity of areas, including the coins, the rock inscriptions, the Qiblas, the Qur’anic manuscripts, as well as its Aramaic antecedents, and also research into the Dome of the Rock itself, because of its importance in so many of these disparate arenas of historical research.As new artifacts, letters, articles, and traveling documents are being found, the narrative has to change, in order to represent the evidence which is coming to light, and this has been the case with the Dome of the Rock. A.J. Deus’s research was one of the first to use eye-witness accounts of individuals who had actually traveled to Jerusalem between the 7th – 19th centuries, who once there had taken the time to describe the Dome of the Rock as they saw it, and even in some cases draw it in pictographic form.This is the best sort of evidence one could hope for, and has been a treasure store for those of us who are deeply interested in when the damning inscriptions against the divinity of Jesus, as well as the introduction to the Shahada, could have actually been written, and by whom. The Standard Islamic Narrative has always stated that this building and those inscriptions were created by Abd al-Malik in 691 AD, and until now none of us had any reason to doubt it; until A.J. Deus came along with his new research on the Dome.A.J. Deus’s research, using the many eye-witness’s travel-logs suggests that this SIN view is now untenable, forcing us to possibly re-date not only the inscriptions, but also the content of their theology, a theology which has become the dead-rock for the last 1400 years of Islamic thinking.Deues’s research may change what we know about early Islam, to say nothing about when the Qur’an was written, and even how it came to be written, and by whom.So, hold this space, as there is much yet to research, and then come to conclusions on. Meanwhile, don’t ask us to come out with any definitive conclusions, due to the tentative nature of the material we are given. Instead, much of what we record and then upload on Pfanderfilms will be known as our “green sheets”, a sort of “What if” scenarios concerning the significance of what we are finding.As we find out more and are able to fill in the pieces of the puzzle better, we will then move on to what we could call “white sheets”, which, when ready, will be written up and then published.But don’t be surprised if we don’t always agree, nor even able to make up our minds; due to the nature of Historical criticism itself.© Pfander Centre for Apologetics – US, 2022(64,700) Music: “Townsong” by Alexander Nakarada, from filmmusic-io

Categories
Faith

Mel#2: The Dome is not mentioned until the 9th c. [Video]

Mel’s new ‘Origins’ channel is here: https://www.youtube.com/c/OriginsofIslam/videosUsing the research of A.J. Deus, Mel carries on with his critique of the History of the Dome of the Rock.In this latest episode he notes that:During the Sufyani period (661-680 AD) the only structure on the Temple Mount was one built on the Eastern wall.Then, according to multiple witnesses, during the Marwanid period (680-749 AD) a new structure, referred to as a “Saracen Synagogue” was built, but not in the central area where the Dome of the Rock stands, but just north of it.Later, according to the Zuquin Chronicle of the late 8th century, there was no structure on the Temple Mount until Al Mansur built one between 745-775 AD, and that it used to be a Christian temple, which was then changed into a mosque.Further evidence suggests that our earliest reference to a Dome of the Rock (i.e. aDome over the Temple Mount foundation rock) is not until the late 9th century, around 897 AD, by the geographer Ya’qubi, who states that it was ‘Abd al-Malik’ who had built it. There is a possibility that a tower existed for a time over the rock if the Codex can be reliably interpreted that way, but even still, this doesn’t have any arcades which are where the crucialinscriptions are located. Then, in 903 AD Ibn al-Fakih al-Hamadhani gives us the first eyewitness account of the Dome of the Rock, but mentions that it has 12 piers and 30 pillars, which doesn’t match the dome we have today.Nonetheless, the evidence would suggest that the Dome is a 9th century creation and that the inscriptions, including a dedication to Abd al Malik, can’t be from the 7th century, but are much later 9th century creations, redacted by the Abbasids back to the 7th century, and attributed to Abd al-Malik.© Pfander Centre for Apologetics – US, 2022(64,660) Music: “Townsong” by Alexander Nakarada, from filmmusic-io

Categories
Faith

Mel: The Dome of the Rock isn’t from the 7th century! [Video]

Mel is moving back to the Dome of the Rock once again, due to some rather startling, new and exciting research being carried out by A. J. Deus, which, hopefully, will change everything we know, or at least have been told about the ‘Dome of the Rock’s historical origins.This first video concerns what Deus has found, and introduces 7 areas which confront everything we had assumed to be true, what Mel calls the “Dome of the Rock’s 7 Holes”:1.Our earliest reference to a Dome of the Rock (i.e. a Dome over the Temple Mount foundation rock) is not until the late 9th century. 2.Our earliest verifiable witness to the Dome of the Rock’s mosaics, and the inner arcade inscriptions as they presently exist today is not until 1523-1543AD. 3.The earliest witnessed inscription concerning who built the Dome was from 1523-1543AD, andit tells us that Umar, the Jewish king from Hira in Iraq, built it, not Abd al-Malik!  4.The earliest verifiable date for the creation of the Abd Al-Malik’s inscription is 1720-1744 AD!5.The complete re-building of the Dome’s drum (from the ground up) from an octagonal shape to a circular shape is not until the mid 18th century!6.The mosaics and inscriptions on the drum and the dome are 18th century creations!7.The earliest verifiable date for the creation of the “Al Ma’mun” correction is sometime between 1817 and 1833 AD!These 7 historical findings completely confront the notion that the Dome of the Rock was built by Abd al-Malik in the late 7th century, or that the inner arcade inscriptions confronting the person of Jesus Christ, and introducing the prophet Muhammad, are nothing more than much later redactions.© Pfander Centre for Apologetics – US, 2022(64,570) Music: “Townsong” by Alexander Nakarada, from filmmusic-io

Categories
Faith

Joe: The Dome’s Inscriptions say ALLAH HAD A SON! [Video]

Joe’s “Red Judaism” channel can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/c/Red-Judaism/videosIn this final and 8th episode, Joe looks at the Inscriptions found on the inner ambulatory of the Dome of the Rock and notes that they don’t have any ‘Harakat’ (diacritical dots) above or below the letters. This means that there are a number of ways one can interpret these inscriptions into Arabic depending on where one puts the dots.One particular inscriptions quotes from what later became Surah 4:171 in the Qur’an, which says today, “For Allah is One Ilah, Glorified is He above having a son.” So, by using the word “an” it denies that God ever had a son. And this is the narrative which the Abbasid Muslim empire wanted their believers to believe, a narrative which is still continued today by all Muslims around the world.But why use the word ‘an’ when it could just as easily be “in”, which means “if”? If we replace the vowel from fatah ‘a’ to a Khasrah ‘i’ it then reads “”For Allah is One Ilah, Glorified is He for there is to him a son” or “because he has a son”.So, by simply changing one vowel (‘a’) to another (‘i’) it completely changes the meaning of this sentence, and supports the notion that Allah is glorified because he has a son. Remember, there are no vowel marks on the inscription, so the ‘i’ is just as logical as the ‘a’ vowel for this verse.The inscription continues on to say in verse 172 “The Messiah will never be proud to reject to be a slave of Allah”, which uses the same words as in verse 171, and rendered in our Qur’ans today as accepting that the Messiah, Jesus, is nothing more than a slave or servant of Allah (the word is ‘abd’).Joe suggests, however, that we go to Deuteronomy 32:43 where the same word ‘Abd’ in Hebrew is used (note: Hebrew and Arabic come from the same root, and so often share the same words, including this word ‘abd’), but here it is clear that ‘abd’ can be both servant and son (which is the closer meaning).Thus, Joe suggests that we accept the meaning of son for the word ‘abd’ instead of servant, which then reads “The Messiah will never be proud to reject his being a son of Allah”.Then on the North-West wall of the Dome, we have the passage from Surah 19:35 which today says, “It befits not Allah that He should beget (adopt) a son. Glory is He. When he decrees a thing, He only says to it “Be” and it is”.Joe suggests that this is support for Jesus’ sonship, by interpreting the above to say that Allah doesn’t need to adopt a son from among mankind. He only needs to say “Be” and it is, proving that Allah can easily have a son simply by saying so.© Pfander Centre for Apologetics – US, 2022(64,420) Music: “Fareoffice, the Tribute” by Mikael Hellman, from filmmusic-io

Categories
Faith

Joe’s Jewish interpretation of the Dome of the Rock! [Video]

Joe’s “Red Judaism” channel can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/c/Red-Judaism/videosIn this 7th episode, Joe looks at the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock and suggests that rather than assume that they are confronting a Christian Jesus, they are really confronting a Jewish Messiah, and that the reference to Mhmd within the inscriptions had nothing to do with Jesus, but with the temple which had previously been located where the Dome of the Rock now stood.© Pfander Centre for Apologetics – US, 2022(64,360) Music: “Fareoffice, the Tribute” by Mikael Hellman, from filmmusic-io

Categories
Faith

Scholars finally agree with Joe about Islam’s Origins! [Video]

Joe’s “Red Judaism” channel can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/c/Red-Judaism/videosJoe has been justifiably frustrated because everyone wants to question his historical acumen, so he decided to shut down their criticisms by quoting two notable scholars in the field of the Origins of Islam, Dr Peter Von Sivers and Dr Fred Donner, who both agreed publicly recently with his views concerning the origins of Islam.He shows two clips in this episode where the two gentlemen admit that almost everything they know about Islam, and about Muhammad, and even about where the Qur’an was written did not come from the Hijaz, which would be Mecca and Medina, but from much further north, in Iraq, and in the Syrian desert, which are located between 600 – 1,000 miles too far north!Though the scholars are very careful not to say publicly that the SIN is fictitious, or even that Muhammad could not have existed (remember they have ‘academic chairs to protect’, and academic institutions which they represent, all of which are dependent on Muslim monies in order to exist), they nonetheless have no difficulty dismissing the notion that any of it could have happened anywhere near where the SIN says it took place.Yet, the SIN is absolutely dependent on Muhammad living in Central Arabia, and the Qur’an being written there; so much so, that if that is proved to be incorrect, then almost everything else would necessarily be suspect.Look to see many more scholars beginning to admit publicly that much of what we have been told about early Islam is not necessarily backed up by the reality on the ground.© Pfander Centre for Apologetics – US, 2022(64,260) Music: “Fareoffice, the Tribute” by Mikael Hellman, from filmmusic-io

Categories
Faith

Joe’s 11 Keys Enlarged & Applied. Try it, It’s easy… [Video]

This is a follow-up to Joe’s previous video where he introduced 11 keys to help you understand what was initially in the book which then became the Qur’an during the Abbasid era.In this video he points out the verses where you can find each of his arguments.So, for instance, the Anti-Adoptionism References are found:19:35, 23:91, 17:111, 25:2, 39:4, 2:116, 10:68, 18:4  No Adoptionism (itihad)5:82 Judaizers (the Judas) bad, Nazarenes closest5:51 Judaizers (the Judas) and Nazarenes not allies57:27 Rahbanis are disobedient9:30-31 Son of the Most High is a name above all other names and does not belong to just any Ezrah or the regular Messiahs.19:88-92 The Father’s Walid is not the Beloved’s adopted.While the Anti-Tripartite Christology References are found:3:45 Jesus is God’s Name4:171 Thalooth not Thalatha / Indeed Yakuna5:75 & 3:144 Jesus-Muhammad-the Archangel of Archangels are ONE!Surah 73 AnnunciationThe Anti-Crucifixion References are found:4:156 Celsus Romans4:157 no one takes his life from him he gave it up willingly to the disciples, the Judeans only killed Adon Shubiha3:52-55 the pharisees are El-Elah’s Helpers and The Father caused Jesus to die then raised him up to himself alive in Heaven.Surah 86 The Pierced One19:15, 33 Resurrected5:17 & 72 Sabellian Modalism compared with Gnostic death cultWhile the Anti-Nicene System references are found:5:73 not Thalooth but is against Tritheism (The Father is the 3rd of 3)5:116-117 Madonna & Child 2 Gods instead of the Father. The Son is subordinate to the Spirit6:100-101 They attribute Genii (Nephilim) to him as family but the Father can have offspring without a Spouse because he is the originator of the heavens and the earth. No need tor Collyridian Mormonism.72:3 Some Genii reject Adoptionism90:3:3 Holy Spirit is the Biblically Neutral Begetter Nicene Creed Ousia & Apostolic Creed Holy Spirit vs Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople Creed. Here it is referred to in a Masculine way but these days it is feminine. The changeover was around this time and the Quran’s authors were probably not happy about the Gender reassignment which was taking place.56:17:3 & 76:19:3 Wildan/Wildan is singular and refers to Jesus19:19:8 & 52:24:3 Ghilman is singular and refers to Jesus112:3 The Father is not the Begotten and did not Beget directly.37:151-152 Walidallah does not refer to the Genii (Nephilim) or daughters43:081 And Jesus has had no Walid (Gnostics)Finally, the Anti-Christmas (Eid) References are found:Surah 97 Christmas5:115 Eid in the Islamic Quran61:6 Eucharist7:157-158 The Elijah Priesthood in communion with the Eucharist as Alter Christus, Alter Rebbe, Rosh Ma’amed, Principal Celebrant/Presider. The Light unto the nations, the prophet for the gentiles) as the Messiah and the Pastor co-celebrate the Eucharist so at the moment of consecration they are one. Hence it is possible to refer to the Pastor as the Celebrant even though the real Celebrant is the Messiah himself in both Hassidic Judaism and and traditional Christianity.© Pfander Centre for Apologetics – US, 2022(64,220) Music: “Fareoffice, the Tribute” by Mikael Hellman, from filmmusic-io

Categories
Faith

Joe’s 11-Keys to understand the original “Proto-Qur’an”! [Video]

Joe’s “Red Judaism” channel can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/c/Red-Judaism/videosJoe now poses a challenge for the Pfanderfilms audience. We know that the present ‘Hafs’ Qur’an is a reworked text by the 8th – 10th century Abbasids borrowed from earlier Judeo-Christian lectionaries, hymns and homilies. So, how can we get back to that earlier text, the book created by the Umayyads in the 7th – 8th centuries, or what we could call the ‘Proto-Qur’an’?Joe has a key made up of 11 steps which he believes can unlock all of the problem verses and chapters in the Qur’an, which include:1. Remember the word or phrase must harmonize with Mishnaic Messianism of the 7th century.2. Open a word-for-word Quranic study resource, such as “Corpus Quranicum”, or “Qur’an Gateway”, both of which are on the Internet.3. Consider that the words Allah/Alrahman/Alrahim were actually references to a trinity, made up of Father/Son/Spirit.4. Apply the Tripartite Christology to the text (i.e. Prophet/King/Priest, or that Jesus was often the Angel in the Old Testament, and also referred to as the ‘Word’, and ‘Spirit of the Lord’).5. Remember that the Oriental Orthodoxy at that time opposed Modalism (i.e. that all three persons of the trinity were together in Jesus like water/ice/steam). So, were the words or phrases confronting Modalism?6. Remember also that the Oriental Orthodoxy opposed Tritheism (a team of 3 separate gods). So, could the earlier text be confronting this view? The word of trinity ‘Thaluth” is not found in the Qur’an, replaced with ‘Thalatha’ (the number 3).7. Did the earlier text oppose Judaizer/Nazarene adoptionists (the idea that Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism, so a sort of Messiah, but not ‘the’ Messiah)?8. Were these earlier texts representative of a Monophysite tradition in opposition to an ‘Apotheosis’ (what Joe suggests was a Mesopotamian Paganism, possibly Zoroastrianism)? An example of this was the word ‘sharkatul’ = associators, which he believes was against paganism, and not Christians, as the popular rendering of this term is used.9. Were these earlier texts representative of Monophysite Christianity (i.e. the view that Jesus was only and entirely divine, but could appear as a human)?10. If all of these 9 keys failed, then try to Cross-reference or look for alternative words. The example he used was the reference to “We make no distinction” could instead mean “we make no division”.11. Finally, if you still cannot find the meaning, remove the diacritical marks and vowelization, and consider then a Judeo-Arabic meaning.12. Once you have gone through all of the above 11, and you still cannot find the meaning of he word or phrase, contact Joe (redjudaism@gmail.com) for a solution from Joe, and if he cannot find any, then the first to find a fault with this key will receive $500 from Joe!© Pfander Centre for Apologetics – US, 2022(64,200) Music: “Fareoffice, the Tribute” by Mikael Hellman, from filmmusic-io