Tumah
Veteran Member
Thanks for that verse!
He only said two, because you only need two in Jewish Law. At least they got that part right!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus's virgin birth between Talmud,New Testimony, and Quran
- Thread starter Limo
- Start date
RESOLUTION
Active Member
Luke 1:
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
That makes 3.
RESOLUTION
Active Member
Like yourself, what is it to the Israelites and the Egyptians?
God said it would happen no mention of names of witnesses???
We know the wise men and the shepherds knew the birth of the Messiah,
Limo
Active Member
Mosa miracles like steak turn to snake, like a dry Passover in the sea,,, have been witnessed by all Israelites and Egyptians
Ibrahim's miracles like survive in fire, elder birth were witnessed by all Iraqis and Palestinians
These miracles were witness by many people that nobody at that time doubted or hesitated.
Now according to NT, who witnessed the virgin birth of a married woman ?
Her husband, aunt, shepherds, wise man, who else ?
Did these persons go to Israelites and tell them Messiah is virgin birth?
Can you imagin her allegated husband Jseph goes out in streets and temple with high voice "Hi Israelites my wife has done a virgin birth"
Who from Israilites heard about Messiah virgin birth ?
How many Israelites get convinced that this is the Messiah who is virgin birth ?
Nevertheless, the king was supposed to kill children, they can't even tell many people that Mariam has laid a boy.
It's a inconvenient and full of gaps story
RESOLUTION
Active Member
Reading through your post, I see nothing within the post which poses any type of evidence which would question the truth of the virgin birth or the word of God in the OT regarding the Messiah Yeshua and his birth.
It appears you question the NT without knowledge of what is actually written and therefore unable to make comment in the light of the OT. I will however point out that the first Christians were Jews who themselves were educated and learned the OT off by heart. If you doubt anything in the NT then please bring arguments using the OT. Mere uneducated opinions do not count.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Can you prove that or is that a mere uneducated opinion?
Limo
Active Member
If the term Adultery in Judaism implies stone to death, What I've seen is that the unmarried woman is not stoned. A Rabbi Ibn Ezra (I think he's well known) said even if the woman is unmarried.
At the end of the day the sex outside marriage is called adultery sin.
My question is, Is there is a punishment less than stone to death in Judaism for unmarried woman or a man?
Why statement need to be fixed ?
You're talking about something well known to whole city
This what is called worship Rabbis and priests.
I believe that Mosa law is from Almighty, it's not fair not to punish unmarried woman and unmarried man.
May be punishment is less that stoning like Islamic Law.
If you and for sure Israelite at that time beleive that all Talmud Rabbis sayings are true and some cases a revelation, then proof the adultery on that woman should depend on Rabbis words without a need for 2 eyewitnesses. right ?
Mariam was an Israelite woman, lived in an Israelite society, how and from whom she might learnt black magic ?
At the end of the day the sex outside marriage is called adultery sin.
My question is, Is there is a punishment less than stone to death in Judaism for unmarried woman or a man?
If unmarried woman get pregnant,
Why statement need to be fixed ?
I mean (naive, stupid ,sucker)
You're talking about something well known to whole city
On what basis do you believe all Rabbis in Talmud and in some cases it's a revelation from Yehwa ?
This what is called worship Rabbis and priests.
Again someone is "putting out a bad name" by destroying a woman's reputation without an evidance
mmmm, strange
OK
It's a long one. It'll take us away from the main point
You've answered questions but it doesn't mean all answers are convenient for me
Ibn Ezra sees the opposite.
I believe that Mosa law is from Almighty, it's not fair not to punish unmarried woman and unmarried man.
May be punishment is less that stoning like Islamic Law.
You know better than me but if the scandal is up to the level of Rabbis who Israelites
If you and for sure Israelite at that time beleive that all Talmud Rabbis sayings are true and some cases a revelation, then proof the adultery on that woman should depend on Rabbis words without a need for 2 eyewitnesses. right ?
Did Mosa peace be up on him proofed that he didn't use a black magic ?
Mariam was an Israelite woman, lived in an Israelite society, how and from whom she might learnt black magic ?
RESOLUTION
Active Member
Yes I can prove it.
But aren't you worried your response shows you to be uneducated and hazarding a guess?
Example:
King James Bible
Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.
King James Bible
And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
The Israelites/Jews learn the scriptures off by heart. Furthermore the bible also teaches that the New Covenant given to us through Christ...
Jeremiah 31:31-34 (KJV)
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
The first Christians were Jews as Christ was. All Christians are now Jews.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I haven't made any guesses.
This appears to be an example of a commandment that Israel put G-d's word in their heart.
This appears to be an example of the NT's storytelling abilities.
There seems to be a disconnect here. You've brought a verse indicating that Jews should put G-d's word in their heart. Which if you like, that can mean that they should learn in by heart. That's fine. But you haven't established that all Jews fulfilled this commandment.
Does that prove that the first Christians were educated and learned the OT by heart? All I see is that you've established how the NT authors intended to portray the first Christians. You haven't established anything about the first Christians at all. Perhaps John had just finished reading Psalm 69 and decided it would make a good addition to his narrative so he worked it in.
And here you've established that you don't know Hebrew and how to read a text critically.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Let's get things clear first:
The punishment for regular adultery (meaning a married woman with a man who isn't her husband) is not stoning, its choking. Stoning is only when an engaged woman has relations with a man who isn't her fiance or if she (or a man) has relations with a relative.
Depending on the circumstances, relations outside marriage can come with no punishment whatsoever. Ibn Ezra is quite well known, but you're going to have to tell me where he says that. I think you may be misunderstanding.
In some cases.
It entirely depends on the case. It could be nothing. It could be lashes. It could be choking, it could be burning. It could be stoning. Tell me which case and I will tell you what punishment (if there is one).
In the case of an unmarried woman who is suspected of having relations with a man one time, there is no punishment. If she is testified against that she had relations many times, than she gets lashes. Biblically its permitted unless she was menstruating.
What you said was that you "don't think that pregnancy in absence of the husband is not an evidence for adultery." That means that you think pregnancy when the husband isn't around is proof of adultery. I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but I was saying that circumstantial evidence doesn't help in Jewish Law.
Yes, I'm talking about something well known to the whole city. Jewish Law is very specific. If the conditions weren't met, than it doesn't matter if everyone knows.
On the basis that they were taught from their Rabbis who learned it from their Rabbis who learned it from their Rabbis... who learned it from Moses.
If that's called worshiping Rabbis then you also worship Muhammad.
You're assuming that she didn't already have a bad name at the time and the Rabbis simply recorded it. Why?
Judaism isn't Islam.
That's true. But if you don't say anything, how can I know where we disagree?
We'll see about that.
Why should they be punished if they didn't sin?
No, the Rabbis aren't establishing something in court, they are recording what happened. If the Rabbis say the sky is blue, do they have to bring two witnesses? No, of course not. They are only recording what is known.
Yes. That was part of what the plagues established as Moses was able to cause miracles that were beyond the scope of black magic. Although even then, they didn't believe his prophecy until he actually fulfilled it by taking them out of Egypt. One of the requirements to be considered a prophet in Judaism, is that you have to prophecy and it has to come true exactly as said. After a few times this happens (and other conditions are fulfilled) then you can be considered a prophet (so long as you don't ever transgress any of the conditions).
From Jewish sinners. Not all Jews do the right thing.
RESOLUTION
Active Member
HEBREW? You know the ancient Hebrew the original text written in? I thought not. I guess you have no hope in the truth of God. You know most the text used today was taken from the Samaritan scroll?
Please do not try and turn this into the education of languages. The fact is Gods people live in Spirit and Truth.
KJV
Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.
You appear to want to argue based on an intellectual level of knowledge of the bible rather than the truth of the bible as given
by God. Useless arguments are like personality contests they often are about ego rather than the truth.
You want to discuss the truth of the word that is okay. But do not make this about an argument of who knows what.
It really has no place here. The LORD will give me what I need as I need it. He does here when I speak on the threads because the words to speak come to me and I speak them. Correction is something we all need to accept and be thankful for.
It is not about our personal outlook it is just about truth with Gods Word.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Yes.
The text I use is the Masoretic text. Its different than the Samaritan text.
This is a non-sequitur.
This is a verse talking about getting permission to rebuild the Temple. What its doing here is anyone's guess.
If you are calling an argument based on what the text actually says an "intellectual" argument, than yes. That's what I want to do.
You'll have to be a little clearer. If you've formulated an argument based on a lack of knowledge, wouldn't my pointing out that mistake be a positive thing that would lead you to the truth?
Are you monologue-ing???
Limo
Active Member
What does adultery mean in the 7th commandment?
From the page
"Commentaries such as Sforno (cited above) suggest that the Ten Commandments also signify categories that encompass the entirety of the commandments; thus, the specific commandment was "don't do ne'ifa", but the philosophical category from that illustration is intended to cover all prohibited sexual relations."
"
The word is sin'af, תִנְאָף. Rashi and Rosh say it refers to sexual relations with a married woman not one's wife. Chizkuni says it refers to any prohibited sexual relations, and, if I understand him correctly, ibn Ezra says the same. S'forno says it refers primarily to the former but also to the latter. (All these sources are in their commentaries on this verse.)
"
From the above, there should be a kind of punishment to Mariam (We totally believe she's the purest woman) If she's not married.
Even She's married and it was well known to the whole city that she did adultery, there should be someone tells him the he should take her to bitter water.
Nevertheless, If Rabbis get convinced that she did and they tech it and wrote in Talmud, they would do that in one case, She was punished. But nobody told that she was punished.
It's not ethically and accepted from anyone to say bad words about a woman that is recorded for next generations without an evidence or assurance.
Logically, She didn't commit neither ne'ifa nor zonah. She wasn't punished.
If it's something narrated to Mosa or any prophet,yes it should be believed.
In Islam, people who narrates Hadeeth should tell the series of narrators. We've studied all the names and categorized to trusted and not trusted. We accept some and some are rejected.
But for sure, the talks about Mariam is not from Mosa.
Prophet Mohamed is like Mosa (and Isa, Ibrahim,,,) peace be up on them are prophets. They are narrating from Allah. The words that are surely said by them and narrated by trussed narrators without doubt, should be taken as facts.
I said here as well but we're repeating ourselves.
You know it was just a challenging question to your claim about infantry speaks is black magic. All Mosa's miracles which are 9 are recorded in Quran.
Same with Al-Maseh, he saved his mother not even from punishment but at least from blame
Tumah
Veteran Member
Now that you have a quote, we can understand what the problem is. You are assuming that forbidden relations includes that of a non-married woman with a man. It doesn't. The other relations that ibn Ezra and the Chizkuni are those mentioned in Lev. 18 and 20, things like relations with various relatives or animals. Rashi and the Rosh say that the 7th commandment doesn't refer to all those listed in Lev. 18 and 20, just the first one in Lev. 20:10.
Now we understand that that's not the case and there is no punishment for an unmarried woman who had relations once.
Again, that's not how it works. Before he can take her to the bitter waters, he first has to warn her in front of witnesses that she can't be in seclusion with a specific man. And then she has to be seen in seclusion with that specific man. The whole point of the bitter waters is to find out whether or not she committed adultery. If is clear that she committed adultery, there wouldn't be any reason to even bring her. This is the Jewish Law. I know this, because I just learned the Talmud tractate about the bitter waters last year. If you are going to respond again without relating to what I'm telling you, then there's no point in continuing.
Again, without any witnesses seeing her committing adultery, even if we know she did, there is no punishment. The only way she could be killed is if two witnesses come to court and say that they saw her committing adultery and they warned her not to. Without that, even if we're 100% sure that she committed adultery because her husband hasn't been home in a year and a man is constantly seen entering her house and she gives birth 11 months after her husband left, she still wouldn't be killed. That's the Law.
Its only wrong if she's innocent.
You have not proven that logically according to Jewish Law and I keep explaining to you why that is so. You are looking at the story from the laws of Islam to decide how Jews will treat her if she was guilty. You don't realize that our laws are different from yours.
Then your 3ulama learned to do that from our Talmud. The Talmud was written by Rabbis who gathered together what was being taught in the schools by other Rabbis. Those Rabbis always quote who they are teaching from.
We can play the my belief/your belief game.
The Rabbis are holy. They are capable of performing miracles, seeing angels and hearing voices from G-d. Surely the words said by them are trusted without doubt and should be taken as facts.
You didn't refute my claims. And Moses did a lot more than 9 miracles.
He didn't do anything.
Limo
Active Member
Look, I totally believe that Torah is from Almighty (The Creator) No way to believe the Just (The Creator) Law allows :
- Sex (Zonah) with unmarried Jewish woman is allowed with no punishment.
- As if unmarried women are available for everyone Like "herd of animals" (request from Allah to forgive me saying that)
- Pregnancy of unmarried woman is not an evidence in Mosa Law for Zonah
- Pregnancy of a married woman in absence of her husband is not an evidence in Mosa Law for Zonah
- All people in town knows that the married woman sleeps with someone
- No single good/bad relative tells the husband
- Husband doesn't take any actions
- Rabbis are absolutely sure and no action
Tumah
Veteran Member
A Zonah is a prostitute - meaning a woman who sells herself for money. In Jewish Law it means a woman who had relations with a man she's not allowed to. The only real sigificance of the status is that she's not allowed to marry a priest.
No and I specifically kept saying "one time". An unmarried woman who makes herself available for everyone is called a kadeshah. An unmarried woman who has relations with one man mutliple times is either a pilegesh (which may be permisisible) or a kadeshah. I believe the punishment is lashes if there are witnesses that testify to it.
For punishment, that's right. As a court, they will force the husband to divorce his wife, because she clearly committed adultery. But for the purpose of punishment, it doesn't help. Especially since she had no warning. We're not trying to kill people here if we can avoid it. In fact even in a case where there are witnesses and everything, if all of the judges agree that she deserves to be killed she's not killed. We try to keep people alive, not kill them.
No, I will not agree to that at all.
I haven't mentioned anyone peddling woman, so I'm not sure what you mean.
It could be they told the husband when he got back and he divorced her. End of story. Once she committed adultery, he's not allowed to remain married to her. Or maybe he was a sinner to and didn't care about what happened.
- He wouldn't bring her to the bitter waters because he knows that she committed adultery and the bitter waters are for finding out if adultery was committed.
- She wouldn't be choked to death, because there were no witnesses that warned her before she committed adultery.
If the Rabbis want, they can whip her on their own volition if they think it will help prevent the problem from getting worse. But if nothing will be gained by it, there's nothing to do. She's a free person and G-d will have to work it out Himself.
I don't see why not. Here it is. It happened.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe it is logical because God is still speaking. So even today it is logical for God to say what happened.
I believe that is totally illogical. There are millions of events that are never reported.
I believe that phrase is in error. Muhammed claims he received his information from an angel.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I beleive it is illogical to say that Luke plagiarized Matthew when Luke has made the claim that he is ascertaining the facts for himself and the person he is writing to.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe if you are speaking of antichrist, then the answer is that you are correct. If your are saying that Christians wish to eliminate those who are antichrist the answer is that you are incorrect.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe you are not judging by the fruits of the religions but by the fruit of adherents who have not followed the precepts of those religions.