Talmud - Jewish secret "holy" book

[Grace Seeker]

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

I don't know that he would lie. Indeed, I don't doubt that something similar to what he reports was part of a conversation. What I question is the interpretation that Luther is seriously suggesting that Jesus had sex with any of these women. In the context of Luther's theology, wherein Christ's takes our own sins upon himself, it is entirely consistent for Luther to say that Christ was a fornicator, or adulterer, but that doesn't mean Luther believed Jesus to have ever had sex with anyone at all. Luther believed that part of the process by which Christ made atonement for human sin was that God "heaped all the sins of all men upon Him [Jesus], and said to Him: 'Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sin of all men.' " (Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians. 1535. In Luther's Works, vol. 26, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint Louis: Concordia, c. 1963-64, p. 280.)

Luther would even go so far as to say that Christ became "the greatest thief, murderer, adulterer, robber, desecrator, blasphemer, etc., there ever has been in the world" (see above, p. 277), but that doesn't mean that Luther believed Christ literally did any of these things, for he concludes that thought by saying, "...not in the sense that He has committed them but in the sense that He took these sins, committed by us, upon His own body" (see above, also p. 277).

It is in the light of this aspect of Luther's thinking that I think you have to read the comments about Jesus committing adultery.

 

[جوري]

I don't know that he would lie. Indeed, I don't doubt that something similar to what he reports was part of a conversation. What I question is the interpretation that Luther is seriously suggesting that Jesus had sex with any of these women. In the context of Luther's theology, wherein Christ's takes our own sins upon himself, it is entirely consistent for Luther to say that Christ was a fornicator, or adulterer, but that doesn't mean Luther believed Jesus to have ever had sex with anyone at all. Luther believed that part of the process by which Christ made atonement for human sin was that God "heaped all the sins of all men upon Him [Jesus], and said to Him: 'Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sin of all men.' " (Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians. 1535. In Luther's Works, vol. 26, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint Louis: Concordia, c. 1963-64, p. 280.)

Luther would even go so far as to say that Christ became "the greatest thief, murderer, adulterer, robber, desecrator, blasphemer, etc., there ever has been in the world" (see above, p. 277), but that doesn't mean that Luther believed Christ literally did any of these things, for he concludes that thought by saying, "...not in the sense that He has committed them but in the sense that He took these sins, committed by us, upon His own body" (see above, also p. 277).

It is in the light of this aspect of Luther's thinking that I think you have to read the comments about Jesus committing adultery.

I don't believe that prophets sins.. I am not the one inventing philosophies or making gods of men.. so this turmoil obviously has to be dealt within christian circles along with other problems.. It isn't a Muslim's cross to bear (no pun intended)

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

I don't believe that prophets sins.. I am not the one inventing philosophies or making gods of men.. so this turmoil obviously has to be dealt within christian circles along with other problems.. It isn't a Muslim's cross to bear (no pun intended)

all the best

(Though not intended, it's still a pretty good pun. :statisfie)

And you were trying to show that Luther believed Jesus to be an adulterer. That needs to be set in context. Luther believed that Jesus was the worst of all sinners, but not because Jesus himself committed any actual sinful acts, for Luther believed the opposite, that Jesus lived a perfect, holy, and completely righteous life. Nevertheless, to Luther's understanding, Jesus was still the worst of all sinners because in his death on the cross Jesus took all of humanity's sins upon himself. It is in that manner, and none other, that Luther believed Jesus to be an adulterer.

 

[Ramadhan]

in "christian" countries, adoption of children are very much sanctioned, that the adopted children lost their true identities, and as a result, many potentially marry their own siblings.
Not to mention the practices of bank sperm, surrogate mothers etc.

Just from this phenomena you can see that it is not from God. Unless your version of god sanctions incest (just like in the OT, where the best of the very of best of humankind, a noble prophet, got drunk and slept with his daughters)

while in Islam, "adoption" (the practice of taking other's child as their own children and erase their true identity while taking the identity of adopting parents) is not allowed, but "sponsoring" and "raising" children (and especially orphans) of other people while still firmly establishing their true identities are very much encouraged.

Anyone with honest heart and clear mind will be able to see which one is false and which one is true.

 

[Grace Seeker]

In "Christian" countries....

You know that's a red herring. There are no "Christain" countries.

Anyone with honest heart and clear mind will be able to see which one is false and which one is true.

I think you make too much of this potentiality. While it could happen, the likelihood is extremely rare. I know of only one case of it actually happening.

Also, from a purley biological point of view the arguments against familial relationship are not about it a single incident of it, but about regular and continued inbreeding. Thus, marrying over and over again within one clan would be a bigger issue than of a single case of a brother and sisters accidently being married to one another.

Finally, it was my understanding that Muslims believed in the story of God beginning the human line with Adam and Eve. So, surely Muslims have had to address the issue of siblings having children together, as, if you accept that beginning, there wasn't any other option.





Then you raise another issue that I would like to address as well:
If Islam recognizes sponsorship, why didn't Muhammad sponsor rather than marry Aisha? That seems like a much more appropriate relationship.

 

[Predator]

If Islam recognizes sponsorship, why didn't Muhammad sponsor rather than marry Aisha? That seems like a much more appropriate relationship.

Aisha's parents were the ones who married her to our Prophet, and that no Muslim or even a pagan objected to the marriage because it was widely practiced. And even until today in 3rd world countries (Muslims and non-Muslims), little girls as young as 9 or 10 do get married. Anyway, the reason no one objected was to the Prophet's marriage was:

1.)People used to have very short life-spans in Arabia. They used to live between 40 to 60 years maximum. So it was only normal and natural for girls to be married off at ages 9 or 10 or similar.


2) Marriage for young girls was widely practiced among Arabs back then, and even today in many third-world non-Muslim and Muslim countries

 

[Grace Seeker]

Aisha's parents were the ones who married her to our Prophet, and that no Muslim or even a pagan objected to the marriage because it was widely practiced. And even until today in 3rd world countries (Muslims and non-Muslims), little girls as young as 9 or 10 do get married. Anyway, the reason no one objected was to the Prophet's marriage was:

1.)People used to have very short life-spans in Arabia. They used to live between 40 to 60 years maximum. So it was only normal and natural for girls to be married off at ages 9 or 10 or similar.


2) Marriage for young girls was widely practiced among Arabs back then, and even today in many third-world non-Muslim and Muslim countries

I know those details, but given this new information about the option of sponsorship, the reality that marriages between adults and children were ever allowed to take place seems all the more inappropriate. The Prophet had a better option available to him and didn't exercise it.

 

[Predator]

Back on topic more about Talmud and Jews

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis.htm

 

[Grace Seeker]

Airforce, do you consider the halakhah laws of Judaism
a) appropriate within their own text?
b) understandable at one time in history, but repugnant today in a multicultural society?
c) wrong at all times and places?
d) something that shows how much better Islam is for it has no similar laws or jurisprudence?

 

[Hugo]

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)

You are NOT reporting what Luther said, you are reporting what someone alleges he said. You are also insulting Jesus, one of your own prophets, is there nothing sacred to you? The passage of scripture in John chapter 4 says nothing like what you imply here and simple research would show you that.

 

[Hugo]

in "christian" countries, adoption of children are very much sanctioned, that the adopted children lost their true identities, and as a result, many potentially marry their own siblings.
Not to mention the practices of bank sperm, surrogate mothers etc.

Just from this phenomena you can see that it is not from God. Unless your version of god sanctions incest (just like in the OT, where the best of the very of best of humankind, a noble prophet, got drunk and slept with his daughters)

while in Islam, "adoption" (the practice of taking other's child as their own children and erase their true identity while taking the identity of adopting parents) is not allowed, but "sponsoring" and "raising" children (and especially orphans) of other people while still firmly establishing their true identities are very much encouraged.

Anyone with honest heart and clear mind will be able to see which one is false and which one is true.

It is a simple and well know fact that in the UK sadly the number of children born with serious problems is at it highest in Muslim communities where relatively close kin marry. This is simply a biased view of your and far from the truth and no foundation in fact.

 

[Hugo]

I don't believe that prophets sins.. I am not the one inventing philosophies or making gods of men.. so this turmoil obviously has to be dealt within christian circles along with other problems.. It isn't a Muslim's cross to bear (no pun intended)

all the best

Fortunately, what you believe is your own business but the rest of operate in a more realistic manner because we know what human kind is capable of.

 

[جوري]

You are NOT reporting what Luther said, you are reporting what someone alleges he said. You are also insulting Jesus, one of your own prophets, is there nothing sacred to you? The passage of scripture in John chapter 4 says nothing like what you imply here and simple research would show you that.

Were Luther or friend ordained by Jesus so they can speculate one way or the other? I am actually reporting a popular belief amongst Christians. The Jesus you believe in is far removed from the messenger of God that Muslims believe in.

all the best

 

[جوري]

Fortunately, what you believe is your own business but the rest of operate in a more realistic manner because we know what human kind is capable of.

That indeed goes both ways.. so you can quit with your you are insulting so and so, considering your books show reverence to no one!

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

You are NOT reporting what Luther said, you are reporting what someone alleges he said. You are also insulting Jesus, one of your own prophets, is there nothing sacred to you? The passage of scripture in John chapter 4 says nothing like what you imply here and simple research would show you that.

Relax, Hugo. She is reporting what one would find that Luther's friend report him to have said, and is well documented in Luther's Works. Because it occured as part of table conversation, short of a time machine there is no way to verify the exactness of the quote, but there is no reason to doubt the essential content. Sadly, what is needed even more is the context, whether Luther was talking in large theological abstracts and allegory, as he often did (and is know to have said some other pretty outlandish things in the process and which this turn of a phrase would be another example, perhaps distorted slightly by intoxicated memories), or if he was speaking historically and literally (something that he usually did with much more clarity and on which points he is known to had a completely different opinion than that which is portrayed by this quote for which we have no context).

 

[Hugo]

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.

These are easily understood. In the first case the 42 may be referring to the house of Ahab and secondly it may be a scribal error as some manuscripts say 42 and others 22. In the second case the word 'bore' used in the scripture could also mean something like 'brought up' or the name might be mistake and it is speaking of Merab.

Now perhaps you will consider problems within the Qu'ran and of course there were scribal errors as Dr Al Azami testified though he acknowledges it cannot be proved because sadly there are no early manuscript to look at.

1. Interpolations - verse 5:69 offers a particular case of interpolation, since it repeats word for word verse 2.62 - must be an interpolation probably by mistake, inasmuch as it expresses a positive appreciation of the "followers of scripture" and other believers, whereas the context in which it is reproduced is marked by recriminations against them.

2. Contradictions - the Qu'ran affirms inimitability - 17:88 but this cannot be taken literally, for it belongs to a genre that glorifies divine works. Since God is superior to his living creatures, so then everything they are capable of producing could not equal the work of the creator and so it is a mistake to draw from any affirmation of excellence and argument for its inimitable character.

3. Abrogation - its only purpose is to resolve any contradiction.

 

[جوري]

These are easily understood. In the first case the 42 may be referring to the house of Ahab and secondly it may be a scribal error as some manuscripts say 42 and others 22. In the second case the word 'bore' used in the scripture could also mean something like 'brought up' or the name might be mistake and it is speaking of Merab.

Sad thing indeed is a scribal error when it comes to religion.. How does one distinguish fact from fiction, especially when it comes to making gods of men some centuries later.. I don't need you to labor over every scribal error, I think we can fill out volumes.. it is already established that the bible amongst other things has no textual integrity!

Now perhaps you will consider problems within the Qu'ran and of course there were scribal errors as Dr Al Azami testified though he acknowledges it cannot be proved because sadly there are no early manuscript to look at.

If you find errors or contradictions in the Quran, then bring them forth.. The Quran can't be made to compare to the bible and I have listed a thousand reason why previously, but I have never known you to get past the title of the page!

1. Interpolations - verse 5:69 offers a particular case of interpolation, since it repeats word for word verse 2.62 - must be an interpolation probably by mistake, inasmuch as it expresses a positive appreciation of the "followers of scripture" and other believers, whereas the context in which it is reproduced is marked by recriminations against them.

You seem to have a difficulty with that no matter how many times explained to you, but I imagine it is both an ignorance of history and the Quran and it is not surprising seeing how stuck you are in a constant stage of cognitive conservatism!

2. Contradictions - the Qu'ran affirms inimitability - 17:88 but this cannot be taken literally, for it belongs to a genre that glorifies divine works. Since God is superior to his living creatures, so then everything they are capable of producing could not equal the work of the creator and so it is a mistake to draw from any affirmation of excellence and argument for its inimitable character.

The Quran's inimitablity is found in its literally excellence amongst other facets again laid out for all to match.. It is not merely because its verses so allege!

3. Abrogation - its only purpose is to resolve any contradiction.

Someone should teach you the art of logic!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

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.

You may be right but miss the point I was making, you accept without question the story literally even though it is fantastical yet when others others have certain belief you resort to ridicule - schizophrenic?

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!"

Well what is the moral of the story which in any case is a copy of the seven sleepers of Ephesus. Sura 18 give a sheaf of legends from world literature, which is odd because almost everywhere else the Qu'ran draws on Biblical and or Rabbinic material or Arabian lore.

 

[Hugo]

If you find errors or contradictions in the Quran, then bring them forth.. The Quran can't be made to compare to the bible and I have listed a thousand reason why previously, but I have never known you to get past the title of the page!

I have but your only answer is that they don't exist. Read for example Mondher Sfar's book "in Search of there Original Qu'ran' where he lists dozens and dozens of problems in a very scholarly an honest manner even though he loves and respects it.

It is simply beyond belief, way beyond belief that there are no errors and never were, its laughable and undermines Islam because it simply cannot be true and implies that man can do as well as or better than God.

You seem to have a difficulty with that no matter how many times explained to you, but I imagine it is both an ignorance of history and the Quran and it is not surprising seeing how stuck you are in a constant stage of cognitive conservatism!

I have never introduced the interpolation I mention in an early post before so you could NOT have explained it. Sadly it is you trade mark to avoid answering questions in favour of your preferred tactic

The Quran's inimitablity is found in its literally excellence amongst other facets again laid out for all to match.. It is not merely because its verses so allege!Someone should teach you the art of logic!

You know nothing of logic and for you it amounts to blind belief in all things Islamic which are always true and therefore everything else must be false. We have been here before and I amongst others have offered long lists to show that literary merit is not a measure on inimitiability and here I have shown another feature, that of interpolation that further undermines the case.

 

[جوري]

You may be right but miss the point I was making, you accept without question the story literally even though it is fantastical yet when others others have certain belief you resort to ridicule - schizophrenic?

You have no point that is the problem.. you assign yourself and always out of ignorance the task of envisioning what other' believe. Further you don't know what I find allegorical or a fundamental.. I don't ridicule your beliefs, I find them absurd, even more so that you think there is any grounds for comparison whatsoever!

Well what is the moral of the story which in any case is a copy of the seven sleepers of Ephesus. Sura 18 give a sheaf of legends from world literature, which is odd because almost everywhere else the Qu'ran draws on Biblical and or Rabbinic material or Arabian lore.

Go read it... Quran doesn't draw from Rabbinic or biblical lore.. It is the word of God, who knows best the sequence of events of folks of yore as they occurred? Certainly not a Grecian translation of myth about men/gods and their later disciples in an unparalleled lyrical form.
If insistently draw the conclusion that appeases your own personal beliefs, then I suggest you do it on a christian forum, unless you enjoy being made a public display and repeatedly?

all the best