Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[Esaias]

This is interesting:

http://www.meforum.org/3251/did-muhammad-exist

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Actually "torah" to a Jew means "teaching" and refers to both the written law and the oral law, considered together. Torah is often translated "law" but that's not quite exactly what it signifies.

The oral law consisting of mishna does not explain the written law so much as it purportedly gives additional information not found in the written torah. The talmud is the collection of the mishna, gemara (rabbinic commentary on torah), and halakha (rabbinic legislation or application of torah to practical matters).

Altogether it is all considered "torah" to an observant Jew.

I've understood "Talmud" to mean "learning" in Hebrew and "Torah" to mean "instruction" in Hebrew. "Learning" would make sense for the Talmud as it is as you say "oral" containing the collections you mentioned.

It is considered all Torah to the observant Jew, but still the Talmud specifically as "oral" Torah.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I've understood "Talmud" to mean "learning" in Hebrew and "Torah" to mean "instruction" in Hebrew. "Learning" would make sense for the Talmud as it is as you say "oral" containing the collections you mentioned.

It is considered all Torah to the observant Jew, but still the Talmud specifically as "oral" Torah.

Yes. That was my point. In the Talmud, which is the written collection of oral rulings, considered to be law by observant Jews, there are rulings concerning prepubescent marriage. These are not just "commentaries" they are a record of the rulings of Jewish rabbis who applied the Torah in the development of Jewish law.

The original accusation was that the Prophet is guilty of a "sin" in his marriage to Aisha. We cannot define "sin", God defines it. We can define "crime" but not "sin". So in order to determine "crime" or "sin" a search was done, way back in this thread, to see if this was ever specifically identified as a sin. Two sets of records were searched.

The record of Jewish law, as exampled, does not prohibit prepubescent marriage but rather incorporates it into the rules on cleanliness and birth control (and other places, I'm waiting for the evangelist to come back LOL). There is no record that the parable in Ezekiel, which is being gripped with the desperation of a drowning man, is or was ever applied as guidance for "marriage age".

Jewish law, then, cannot be used to define this as "sin" or a "crime". Church records are silent until development of Canon Law, which set age 7 as the "age of consent", the source of the US Delaware law on "age of consent". Probably because the default was Roman law for the first 300-400 years but as soon as Roman law disappeared and the law was strictly "religious" the marriage ages came back down.

So my question is where is the sin?

The current and latest answer is "it was a crime under Roman Law". "Roman Law" did not apply in the 8th century nor was it religious or based on any religious texts. It was pagan.

So I asked 9 times that this "sin" be supported by RELIGIOUS texts and have basically concluded that it never was a "sin". Which, in the light of a discussion on a religious forum, makes it a non-issue.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Yes. That was my point. In the Talmud, which is the written collection of oral rulings, considered to be law by observant Jews, there are rulings concerning prepubescent marriage. These are not just "commentaries" they are a record of the rulings of Jewish rabbis who applied the Torah in the development of Jewish law.

The original accusation was that the Prophet is guilty of a "sin" in his marriage to Aisha. We cannot define "sin", God defines is. We can define "crime" but not "sin". So in order to determine "crime" or "sin" a search was done, way back in this thread, to see if this was ever specifically identified as a sin. Two sets of records were searched.

The record of Jewish law, as exampled, does not prohibit prepubescent marriage but rather incorporates it into the rules on cleanliness and birth control (and other places, I'm waiting for the evangelist to come back LOL).

Jewish law, then, cannot be used to define this as "sin" or a "crime". Church records are silent until development of Canon Law, which set age 7 as the "age of consent", the source of the US Delaware law on "age of consent".

So where is the sin?

The current and latest answer is "it was a crime under Roman Law". "Roman Law" did not apply in the 8th century nor was it religious. It was pagan. So I asked 9 times that this "sin" be supported by RELIGIOUS texts and have basically concluded that it never was a "sin".

The only problem is that the Talmud isn't inspired by God. A Christian is going to believe it's irrelevant. I've always believed that the "Oral Torah" or the "Oral Law" is what Jesus was referring to:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" Matthew 23:23-24

I think that Bro. Benincasa was sticking with the Tanakh, as do I.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The only problem is that the Talmud isn't inspired by God. A Christian is going to believe it's irrelevant. I've always believed that the "Oral Torah" or the "Oral Law" is what Jesus was referring to:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" Matthew 23:23-24

I think that Bro. Benincasa was sticking with the Tanakh, as do I.

Jewish law was only a part of the search and Jesus though addressing divorce on two occasions did not address this. I could find no record that the church, catholic or protestant, set rules or guidelines on this either, prior to the 18th century or so when exploitation of children not for marriage but for utility was recognized and addressed. So I go back to my original position that under current conditions with over 100 countries a party to formally setting ages for consent and marriage the concept of marriage to a very young girl is viewed as wrong. From both a cultural and religious standpoint it seemed to be a normal and accepted practice at the time of Mohammed. Lack of specific guidance in any book recognized as God's law makes it very difficult to judge as a sin while in any state today we can point it out as a crime. Thats where it was left with Pliny and that's where it stands now.
Most Muslim countries have formally adopted standards and a few have not. Absent secular law and based on historical practice i suspect any country operating under strictly religious law would probably look the same.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This is interesting:

http://www.meforum.org/3251/did-muhammad-exist

Seems scholarly.

Shame to spend all this time bashing someone who never existed.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What is there to debate? Both religions are built on different premises. At most it looks like the only debate possible is debating about whether one or the other actually believes as reportedm in other words, "does x religion really believe abc?"

Christianity is based on the resurrection and the testimony of Christ's apostles. Islam is based upon the message of Mohammed. Two different, essentially self contained paradigms.

Or am I missing something?

I dunno. Seems we could debate endlessly on who is better (or worse) LOL