Talmud - Jewish secret "holy" book

[Hugo]

in fact what I wrote is of utmost relevance, if you accept strange occurrences in your bible that are utterly demeaning to God's chosen messengers as fact, then you have no reservations whatsoever if the talmud or Mishna refer to Mary as a (.....) or her son as (.......)!

all the best

The Bible contains many factual stories and those stories do not always show the characters involved in a good light and in its own way that itself is a testimony to their verity.

If you take the view that all God's messengers are without sin then I consider that to be an absurd position to take without a shred of evidence to support it and if anything demeans God this assertion does, it puts God in a position that he somehow owes us something, we deserve his favour.

The Mishna and its supplement the Talmud records all kind of things including the traditions and no one but an idiot would assume they are all true or correct but they may well be useful to see how a religion develops and of course they help with refuting error. They are not unlike your hadith which also contain to my mind very odd not to say fanciful stories, the Qu'ran itself has strange stories as well such as the cave or such things as Prophet Mohammed's heart being removed and washed with snow - in short I cannot see you are making any valid point and so far what you say has zero relevance

 

[جوري]

The Bible contains many factual stories and those stories do not always show the characters involved in a good light and in its own way that itself is a testimony to their verity.

Really?
How can lay people distinguish facts from fiction? with errors as these to name a few:
2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." 2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" 2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul" 2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..." 1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..."

If you take the view that all God's messengers are without sin then I consider that to be an absurd position to take without a shred of evidence to support it and if anything demeans God this assertion does, it puts God in a position that he somehow owes us something, we deserve his favour.

I have no idea what this gibberish means? surely folks who are delegated to the highest spiritual paths should be able to fulfill that and not by falling into worse sin than the smote sinners. Now, mistakes can be made by messengers, there is no doubt, but not cardinal sins!

The Mishna and its supplement the Talmud records all kind of things including the traditions and no one but an idiot would assume they are all true or correct but they may well be useful to see how a religion develops and of course they help with refuting error. They are not unlike your hadith which also contain to my mind very odd not to say fanciful stories, the Qu'ran itself has strange stories as well such as the cave or such things as Prophet Mohammed's heart being removed and washed with snow - in short I cannot see you are making any valid point and so far what you say has zero relevance

Things that deal with the unseen differ greatly from passages that deal with every day life. Whether or not the prophet's heart was purified has no bearing on any other aspect of Islamic jurisprudence, monotheism, politics, etc.
and if you'd bother actually read the story of the those in the cave, you'd have gleaned at least one mathematical and one medical sign and a counsel in the form of:

18: 26 Say: "God knows best how long they remained [there]. His [alone] is the knowledge of the hidden reality of the heavens and the earth: how well does He see and hear! No guardian have they apart from Him, since He allots to no one a share in His rule!"


in other words, the number of years was never the moral of the story...
Islam really is light years away from the christian dark ages!

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

and I am asking you what on earth does:


mean or has anything to do with the topic?..
in fact what I wrote is of utmost relevance, if you accept strange occurrences in your bible that are utterly demeaning to God's chosen messengers as fact, then you have no reservations whatsoever if the talmud or Mishna refer to Mary as a (.....) or her son as (.......)!

all the best

First, I would argue that every single person is God's chosen messenger. We all have the responsibility to bear the light that we have each received to the degree that we have received it (and all, even the pagans, have received at least some) and share that light with all others whom we might come into contact in this world.

Second, I would also argue that (save Jesus) there is none righteous, no not one. And this includes the prophets. They, no less than the rest of us, are human and have from time to time been guilty of sin. That statement does not demean them any more than it does when you point out my sins. To demean them would be to ascribe a sin to them that is not true. But simply to report the truth with regard to the reality of their sins is not, IMHO, demeaning. To deny that the prophets have ever sinned, seems to me a denial of reality. It does not follow from what we know to be true of human beings. Now, if your scriptures say it is so, then I understand you will accept it as so. But to me, if your scriptures say it is so, then it is just one more bit of evidence of the imperfectness of those scriptures.

Third, as for what the Talmud says about Jesus or anyone else, I don't really care. I don't accept the Talmud as being anything other than informational about how Jews at different points in their history have viewed certain things. At times it is helpful in providing background understanding to the scriptures that I do accept. And it may also be helpful in providing a better understanding of the views and ways of thinking that Jews have today. But it isn't the source I go to when looking for the absolute truth with regard to the nature and character of Jesus, Mary, or anyone else. The best it can do is give subjective truth. So, if it says that Mary was a harlot, I deal with that the same as I do when the Qur'an says that Jesus is something less than he really is. I consider the source.

 

[جوري]

First, I would argue that every single person is God's chosen messenger. We all have the responsibility to bear the light that we have each received to the degree that we have received it (and all, even the pagans, have received at least some) and share that light with all others whom we might come into contact in this world.

You are free to make up rules as you go along

Second, I would also argue that (save Jesus) there is none righteous, no not one. And this includes the prophets. They, no less than the rest of us, are human and have from time to time been guilty of sin. That statement does not demean them any more than it does when you point out my sins. To demean them would be to ascribe a sin to them that is not true. But simply to report the truth with regard to the reality of their sins is not, IMHO, demeaning. To deny that the prophets have ever sinned, seems to me a denial of reality. It does not follow from what we know to be true of human beings. Now, if your scriptures say it is so, then I understand you will accept it as so. But to me, if your scriptures say it is so, then it is just one more bit of evidence of the imperfectness of those scriptures.

Is that why Luther saw him as thrice the adulterer?

Third, as for what the Talmud says about Jesus or anyone else, I don't really care. I don't accept the Talmud as being anything other than informational about how Jews at different points in their history have viewed certain things. At times it is helpful in providing background understanding to the scriptures that I do accept. And it may also be helpful in providing a better understanding of the views and ways of thinking that Jews have today. But it isn't the source I go to when looking for the absolute truth with regard to the nature and character of Jesus, Mary, or anyone else. The best it can do is give subjective truth. So, if it says that Mary was a harlot, I deal with that the same as I do when the Qur'an says that Jesus is something less than he really is. I consider the source.

Well, I am glad you don't care what the talmud says it matters to Muslims though to combat lies not nod to them

all the best!

 

[Grace Seeker]

surely folks who are delegated to the highest spiritual paths should be able to fulfill that and not by falling into worse sin than the smote sinners. Now, mistakes can be made by messengers, there is no doubt, but not cardinal sins!

If Adam, who was created without sin, living in an unspoiled enviroment that was in God's own words not just "good", but "very good", and given unfettered free will to follow God could still misuse that freedom to seek his own will rather than that of God his creator, then I cannot see why it would be hard to believe that God's later messengers who lived in a world that was already out of God's will to likewise not just make mistakes but to actually turn from God's will as well. This does not mean that God could not still use them, and that they would never submit to God. But the idea that there was never any rebellion in them, or that they should never have sought their own will instead of God's will, I find to stretch creduality by that which I am willing to accept.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Is that why Luther saw him as thrice the adulterer?

I'm unfamiliar with the reference. Who did Luther see as "thrice the adulterer"?

 

[جوري]

I'm unfamiliar with the reference. Who did Luther see as "thrice the adulterer"?

Jesus! You have heard of table talk?

Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: "Whatever has he been doing with her?" Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died. (D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33)

 

[جوري]

If Adam, who was created without sin, living in an unspoiled enviroment that was in God's own words not just "good", but "very good", and given unfettered free will to follow God could still misuse that freedom to seek his own will rather than that of God his creator, then I cannot see why it would be hard to believe that God's later messengers who lived in a world that was already out of God's will to likewise not just make mistakes but to actually turn from God's will as well. This does not mean that God could not still use them, and that they would never submit to God. But the idea that there was never any rebellion in them, or that they should never have sought their own will instead of God's will, I find to stretch creduality by that which I am willing to accept.

There is a difference between mistakes and sins, especially when one is unaware of the value of say eating a fruit.. completely differs from sleeping with your daughters after being sent to warn people about sleeping with men!

all the best

 

[Amadeus85]

Ok so the thing with jews is that when they rebuild their third temple the end of the world will begin. The antichrist will appear then.

The thing is also that judaism is younger than orthodox christianity (catholicism and greek orthodox). Judaism as we know today, the rabinic judaism began to be formed after the collapse of the second temple in Jerusalem in 70's A.D. From the monotheistic religion in Old Testament, religion of Israel, two religions were made - christianity and rabinic judaism.For the second one very important was the creating of books of talmud, in 4th and 5th century A.D.

 

[Grace Seeker]

There is a difference between mistakes and sins, especially when one is unaware of the value of say eating a fruit.. completely differs from sleeping with your daughters after being sent to warn people about sleeping with men!

all the best

Eating fruit that one has been told by God to not eat and sleeping with one's daughters that God says to not sleep with would both be sins, and equally so, in my book. Perhaps you have a different definition of sin, but I cal anything that falls short of God's purposes for our lives a sin. And I make no distinction how much they fall short as if that lessens any sin's severity. To human beings there may be a difference between "little white lies" and murder. But I don't think there is in God's eyes.

 

[جوري]

Eating fruit that one has been told by God to not eat and sleeping with one's daughters that God says to not sleep with would both be sins, and equally so, in my book. Perhaps you have a different definition of sin, but I cal anything that falls short of God's purposes for our lives a sin. And I make no distinction how much they fall short as if that lessens any sin's severity. To human beings there may be a difference between "little white lies" and murder. But I don't think there is in God's eyes.

There are gradation of sins, some of them are cardinal again especially if one is sent to warn against that very crime.. although I do love the lengths you go to to defend something so abominable! .. another counter-intuitive problem with Christianity that is apparent to everyone except Christians!

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus! You have heard of table talk?

Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: "Whatever has he been doing with her?" Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died. (D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33)

Luther has been known to say a few strange things, but this would take the cake. I have a copy of Table Talk, but never got around to reading it. I may have to now; especially as, in doing a search of it online, I couldn't find the references you claim where Jesus is supposed to have committed adultery. What exactly does Luther say that leads you to believe that Luther saw Christ as an adulterer?

Table Talk, by Martin Luther

 

[Grace Seeker]

There are gradation of sins, some of them are cardinal again especially if one is sent to warn against that very crime.. although I do love the lengths you go to to defend something so abominable! .. another counter-intuitive problem with Christianity that is apparent to everyone except Christians!

all the best

Catholics would agree with you that there are gradations of sins. But I do not. I find the idea that there are just a way for sinners to make themselves feel better about there sin. Seems we prefer to look at our sin as not as bad as what someone else has done, thus making us to feel good about ourselves. Rather, we should compare ourselves to God's standard of perfection and realize that we aren't. Then instead of falsely believing that we can pull ourselves up to God's level by our own bootstraps, we can begin to see that we can't reach God's standard of righteousness, but we might, by whollly relying on God, yet be made acceptable in his sight by his gift of mercy and grace, rather than by our own imperfect works.

 

[جوري]

Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: "Whatever has he been doing with her?" Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died. (D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33)

Luther has been known to say a few strange things, but this would take the cake. I have a copy of Table Talk, but never got around to reading it. I may have to now; especially as, in doing a search of it online, I couldn't find the references you claim where Jesus is supposed to have committed adultery. What exactly does Luther say that leads you to believe that Luther saw Christ as an adulterer?

Table Talk, by Martin Luther

I have already referenced you to a specific page, btw a direct translation taken from a christian website, why do insist on referencing me to the entire compendium.. why not go directly to the volume and page I have given you above?
I have to say your methods of deflection are getting tedious. I am not here to do your homework twice. First about your allegedly sinless god, of whom the reformers think of as an adulterer, and then then to find it again in the translation of your choosing!

Catholics would agree with you that there are gradations of sins. But I do not. I find the idea that there are just a way for sinners to make themselves feel better about there sin. Seems we prefer to look at our sin as not as bad as what someone else has done, thus making us to feel good about ourselves. Rather, we should compare ourselves to God's standard of perfection and realize that we aren't. Then instead of falsely believing that we can pull ourselves up to God's level by our own bootstraps, we can begin to see that we can't reach God's standard of righteousness, but we might, by whollly relying on God, yet be made acceptable in his sight by his gift of mercy and grace, rather than by our own imperfect works.

Well if God is an adulterer then how can we hold ourselves to any moral standards? if God can't choose apostles to shoulder the responsibility after his death, how can pull ourselves by our own bootstraps? If god can't fulfill his commandments when he is alive and instead has to do it covertly through some nemesis, how can we trust what he actually wants of us?

The whole 'gift' of 'mercy and grace' is nice and all, but I see no incentive for one to live as 'close to sin free as possible' or sinning all the way, when god is gifting us all, well almost all, but not those who refuse to believe that he died for not eating our sins!

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

I have already referenced you to a specific page, btw a direct translation taken from a christian website, why do insist on referencing me to the entire compendium.. why not go directly to the volume and page I have given you above?

Because you did not provide a link, and I don't own that particular sourcebook. Either a link to the page you claim it is on or a better reference that I may find it in the source I do have would be most helpful. Short of that, it is you saying that Hermann Bohlau Verlag says Luther said something. What you allege Luther to have said, doesn't sound like an actual, in context quote from Luther. And given what you have provide I remain unable to verify its authenticity without more information.

 

[جوري]

Because you did not provide a link, and I don't own that particular sourcebook. Either a link to the page you claim it is on or a better reference that I may find it in the source I do have would be most helpful. Short of that, it is you saying that Hermann Bohlau Verlag says Luther said something. What you allege Luther to have said, doesn't sound like an actual, in context quote from Luther. And given what you have provide I remain unable to verify its authenticity without more information.

I don't read nor understand German, so I don't know who is translating for you, cheery picking or not, it is all over the web, if you'd google or use the source used in the Quotes and not reference me to your desired renditions:

Quote:
“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”
(Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107)

Other quotes from Luther:


Quote:
“If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out – chase yourself to the Jews”
(Martin Luther, Lecture at Wittenberg)

Quote:
"If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly . . . as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. . . . No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day"
(Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther's Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82).

Quote:
“If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies”
(Comm. ad Galat, p.310).

Quote:
"Moses must ever be looked upon with suspicion, even as upon a heretic, excommunicated, ****ed, worse than the Pope and the devil"
(Commentary on Galatians).

Quote:
"I will not have Moses with his Law, for he is the enemy of the Lord Christ"
(Tischreden (Table Talk), L.C.12.s.17).

Quote:
"When the devil comes to tempt and harass you . . . indulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit and to torment him . . . otherwise we are beaten if we are too nervously sensitive about guarding against sin . . . I tell you, we must put all the Ten Commandments, with which the devil tempts and plagues us so greatly, out of sight and out of mind."
(Table Talk in De Wette, 5.188; De Wette was a protestant scholar who collected the most significant sayings of Luther in several volumes).

Quote:
“I look upon God no better than a scoundrel”
(Weimar, Vol. 1, Pg. 487. Cf. Table Talk, No. 963)


Quote:
“I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ”
(Table Talk, 2397b)

Quote:
"Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me"
(Luther's Works, Erlangen ed., 61:422)

Quote:
“St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.”
(Erlangen, Vol. 61, pg. 422.)

Quote:
"They are fools who attempt to overcome temptations [to lust] by fasting, prayer and chastisement. For such temptations and immoral attacks are easily overcome when there are plenty of maidens and women"
(Luther's Works, Jena ed., 1558, 2, 116; cited in P. F. O'Hare, "The Facts About Luther", Rockford, 1987, 311).

Quote:
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture"
(De Wette, 2.459).

http://forums.carm.org/v/showpost.php?p=5690510&postcount=168

and can also be found here, amongst others..

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=191368

Are Catholics heretics or are the protestants?
personally I think all of you are..

all the best

 

[waqas maqsood]

Apparently the Talmud is like a puzzle... Got to decipher and work out the meaning...

I had a chance to look at the book and blimey... its straight forward and to the point.. Exactly whats mentioned in the 1st post and worst of course

And the worst part is their Rabbi is trying to prove all these accusation and doubters wrong... It is literally a filfthy book! Cannot be compared alongside the Torah...

 

[Grace Seeker]

The only place that I can find Mary Magdalene even mentioned in Luther's "Table Talk" is:

God will have his servants to be repenting sinners, standing in fear of his anger, of the devil, death and hell, and believing in Christ. David says, “The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart, and helpeth them that be of an humble spirit.” And Isaiah “Where shall my Spirit rest, and where shall I dwell? By them that are of humble spirit, and that stand in fear of my Word.” So with the poor sinner on the cross. So with St Peter, when he had denied Christ; with Mary Magdalene; with Paul the persecutor, etc. All these were sorrowful for their sins, and such shall have forgiveness of their sins, and be God’s servants.

The great prelates, the puffed up saints, the rich usurers, the ox drovers that seek unconscionable gain, etc., these are not God’s servants, neither were it good they should be; for then no poor people could have access to God for them; neither were it for God’s honor that such should be his servants, for they would ascribe the honor and praise to themselves.

In the Old Testament, all the first-born were consecrated to God, both of mankind and of beasts. The first-born son had an advantage over his brethren; he was their Lord, as the chief in offerings and riches, that is, in spiritual and temporal government; for he had a right to the priesthood and dominion, etc. But there are many examples in Holy Scriptures, where God rejected the first-born, and chose the younger brethren, as Cain, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, etc., who were first-born; from them God took their right, and gave it to their younger brethren, as to Abel, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, etc. And for this cause: That they were haughty, proud, and presuming on their first-birth, and despised their brethren, that were more goodly and godly than they; this God could not endure, and therefore they were bereaved of their honors, so that they could not boast themselves of their prior birth, although they were highly esteemed in the world, and were possessed of lands and people.

(The Table-Talk of Martin Luther, "Of God's Works", CIV, translated by William Hazlett, Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society)

Having done some more research, I find the quote to which you refer is NOT part of Table-Talk. It is NOT even something publish by Luther, but rather by John Schlagenhaufen who reports it as a recollection of something Luther supposedly said informally at his Wittenberg dinner table in 1532. Today that story is included in the Weimare Ausgabe edition of Luthers Werke.

One can read more detail about this alleged statement in article in the Christian Century:

No one knows if Luther actually said this. The critical apparatus in the Weimar Ausgabe reveals the textual and grammatical problems in this supposed quotation. Schlagenhaufen recorded only a portion of what he remembered Luther to have said that day (and after how many beers?). No context is given.

Scholars know how difficult, if not impossible, it is to link the lapidary "table notations" of Luther's friends to Luther's own views. The editors of the American Edition speculate in a footnote that the "probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer" (LW 54:154).

A more probable context is Luther's account of the atonement. One of his basic assertions is that our sins become Christ's and Christ's perfect righteousness becomes ours by faith. This idea of "the happy exchange" is found in many Luther texts. Given his central soteriological and christological concern, the theological irony in Schlagenhaufen's remembered notation becomes clearer: The "godly" Christ becomes or is made a sinner through his solidarity with sinners, even to the point of dying as a God-forsaken criminal on the cross. This is how Luther understood Paul's statement, "God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21).

So Christ "becomes" an adulterer, though he does not actually commit adultery with Mary or anyone else. He puts mercy front and center, and rejects the legalism which demanded that the woman caught in adultery be killed and the woman at the well and Mary Magdalene be shunned. The holy one becomes the sinner by putting himself into the situation of sinners, by loving and forgiving them, and ultimately by taking their sins on himself. For this gospel reason, Luther could also remark that God made Jesus "the worst sinner of the whole world," even though he also acknowledged that the sinless, righteous Christ actually committed no sin himself.

Trapped in a literalistic approach to Schlagenhaufen's contextless note, some readers have missed the metaphorical character of the remark, which Luther may have made, if he made it at all, with a twinkle in his eye. I'm confident that Luther would not be a fan of The Da Vinci Code--except perhaps with a beer in hand and that twinkle in his eye.

(What did Luther say? Jesus and Mary Magdalene, Christian Century, May 16, 2006 by Matthew Becker.)

But more to the point to what I had said previously (those who wonder where this started see post #123 on the previous page) , even if Luther really did see Jesus as "thrice an adulterer" (which I don't believe he did, and you're just grasping at straws to make such a claim), the scriptures proclaim that Jesus was in fact "without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). And I'll choose to except the testimony of scripture over that of either you or even Luther.

 

[Muslim Woman]

...“Christ committed adultery .... even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”
(Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107)

I am sad and angry imsad :heated: such a nasty allegation against our respected Prophet Jesus pbuh ? imsad

 

[جوري]

The only place that I can find Mary Magdalene even mentioned in Luther's "Table Talk" is:



Having done some more research, I find the quote to which you refer is NOT part of Table-Talk. It is NOT even something publish by Luther, but rather by John Schlagenhaufen who reports it as a recollection of something Luther supposedly said informally at his Wittenberg dinner table in 1532. Today that story is included in the Weimare Ausgabe edition of Luthers Werke.

John Schlagenhaufen is Luther's friend, why would he lie?

One can read more detail about this alleged statement in article in the Christian Century:


But more to the point to what I had said previously, even if Luther really did see Jesus as "thrice an adulterer" (which I don't believe he did, and you're just grasping at straws to make such a claim), the scriptures proclaim that Jesus was in fact "without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). And I'll choose to except the testimony of scripture over that of either you or even Luther.

Yes but your scriptures as constantly pointed on this very thread are always at odds with each other with passages not agreeing and thus left for many to reform and open interpretation whether Luther or john smith, the way I see it, it is you who is grasping at straws, for you don't know where the truth is about your faith at all, and having a heck of a time convincing anyone else of truth in it!

all the best