Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

No one knows for sure Mary's age. Jewish custom would have allowed her to marry at age 12, though most put her age between 15-16 at the time of Jesus' birth.

Historically accurate.

Originally Posted by n david

The notion Joseph was previously married is in much dispute and has been discredited by many scholars. The only child which the Bible calls the son of Mary is Jesus. None of the so-called "brethren" of Jesus are called sons of Mary or Joseph in the Bible. Many disputing this state they were cousins of Jesus, not siblings.

Good post.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

More is revealed about you than me on this issue.

Revealed about you: Obsessed with the topic of sex and children. Not healthy.

Revealed about me: Not a single word has been penned in any book of God's laws on this issue. For a jillionth time - that does not put me in a position to judge something that happened 1400 years ago.

Don't let that stop you. Judge all you want. "So What" if you do though? I am not really seeing your (much wiser) colleagues jumping in with scriptures to support your rants on this. At least one of us knows there aren't any. In fact your scriptures support the Islamic view more than they support your own. We should study them together. Do I need to schedule a "storytime" for you and whomp on your opinions for awhile with the back side of your bible?

Let's play "fun with numbers"

“Rabbi Solomon in his comment on Genesis, says that Rebecca, when she was married to Isaac, was but three Years of Age. His words run thus, ‘When Abraham was come from Mount Moria, he received the joyful News of Rebecca. Isaac was at that Time Thirty seven years old; and then did Sarah die. The time, from birth of Isaac to the death of Sarah, was Thirty seven Years, And Sarah was Ninety Years old when Isaac was born; and One Hundred and Twenty Seven Years old when she died: As it is said in Gen 23:1 . Sarah was one hundred and twenty-seven years old. Behold, the Age of Isaac was Thirty Seven Years, at the Time of the Birth of Rebecca. And when he had waited for her three Years, till she was fit for marriage, he took her to wife.”
According to this Account, Rebecca was a very notable Girl at three years of age. But that a girl of three Years old is fit for marriage, is maintained very plainly in the Jewish writings; particularly, in Emek Hamelech, in the following passage, ‘our blessed sags, of blessed memory, say, that a female is not fit for marriage, ‘till she is arrived at the Age of three years and one day.’ The Talmud supports these Sages here, in the part entitled Avoda Sara. And the Sanhedrin says, A daughter, who is of the age of three years and one day, is, by being bedded with a Man, lawfully married."

Is this math not in your bible friend? Is your bible infallible or not? Do you declare, in place of God Himself, Isaac to be a pedophile? Do you declare Orthodox Jews to be pedophiles?

I don't know that math as being in the Bible. It certainly is present in the talmud however. There are other statements in the talmud as well. I think there is a disagreement about the halachic consequences of a grown man sleeping with a minor between the ages of 3 and 9, some sages claiming it is as "nothing". If I a recall correctly there is allowance made for homosexual pederasty as well.

I don't however believe any of that is allowable or tolerable according to the Bible.

Side note: you should see Four Lions.

[shazeep]

it was funny...anticipating your tie-in here...

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Ah, today it popped up no problem, hmm.
http://www.putlocker.tw/watch-four-l...cker-2010.html

bump

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pliny

LOL! Another ad hominem attack of “my much wiser colleagues”. How sad. Since it has been revealed that you cannot defend the indefensible you resort to personal attacks. What a tragedy. No the Bible does NOT support the Islamic view of pedophilia. Just another sick and twisted attempt to justify a sick religious system. Reminds me of Php. 3:19 and 2 Pet. 3:16.

Cut out the blah blah blah. The only personal attacks are from your side actually.

Not what your friends the Jews say. It's their book, it's their math, take it up with them.

Note: Calling someone "wise" is not a personal attack. Just briefing you.

You can change history in translation all you want to. Small wonder it took 'em awhile to have kids huh? Let's see, 10 years....that would have been about right.

But this thread is about "religions of lies" and the historical evidence appears to imply that you are lying to me.

So let's see what the scholars say on this issue:

Numbers 31:17-18

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones (taph), and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children (taph), that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Hebrew-English Lexicons on the word ‘taph’, it only refers to pre-pubescent girls and boys


What one studious author noted:

"If you go to any Judaic-Christian website, where they give definitions for any word from the Bible, they have always left the word ‘lacham’ unexplained for the passage."

'lacham' means to take them sexually. By force. The passage says to take pre-pubescent girls sexually by force for marriage.


Wil Gafney, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and is an Episcopal Priest canonically resident in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. She is another line of Scholars who comments on Numbers 31:18, she writes:

“The ‘one woman, one man’ relationship of Eve and Adam becomes one man and two women in Genesis 4:19, ONE MAN AND AN UNTOLD NUMBER OF PREPUBESCENT GIRL CAPTIVES IN NUMBER 31:18 and in several other texts. IT APPEARS THAT GOD HAS LEFT IT TO HUMANITY TO DECIDE WHO ARE APPROPRIATE INTIMATE PARTNERS AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES. The evolution of polygamy, both CONSENSUAL AND FORCED, as a human-initiated cultural practice in the scriptures is particularly striking because of God’s lack of condemnation of it (not to mention, according to Deuteronomy, God’s sanction of abduction or rape-marriage during armed conflicts).
When inviting individuals and their descendants into eternal covenant relationships with God, God never required that the matriarchs and patriarchs revert to an Eve-Adam, monogamous pairing.”

Which is why Jewish rabbis, who teach from the whole text, interpret it one way and your translators, who add a jot here and a tittle there (or in this case leave the disagreeable parts out altogether) interpret it another and is why the writings that you do not accept as "infallable" because they were not included in your bible match the ones that are included - what does not match is what you are saying based on what your bible (though it says little) does say and is why I tell you that the Quran, unsavory as it may seem to you, seems to match more closely with your bible than your own words do.

Again, there is no book of God's law that speaks on this issue. There are, unsavory as they may be, texts that allow marriage with very young girls going all the way back to the ancient books.

Unsavory? Yes. Encouraged? Yes. Allowed? Yes. Forbidden? No.

With all of this, you still haven't brought even one single tiny little verse of scripture to back up your judgement. Don't you have even one? A small "Jesus wept" tiny one? Or......are you back to personal attacks to compensate for a lack of a substantive and theologically sound argument for what otherwise appear to be hormone-driven squealing histrionics?

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Historically accurate.



Good post.

Jesus was born to a teenage girl? <gasp>

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

I don't object to disagreement, and don't seek agreement.
I stated: I don't get it! Now I can state, "I don't get it" to your post.
Are you defending the arguments of Islam: or just using their doctrine to
establish their deceit? Comparing lies to lies does not add up to truth. Or
perhaps you are just defending their right to express themselves according
to the dictates of the Constitution? Which is it?

Yeah, you guessed it: I have very shaky self-esteem.

I am not sure I want a dude who walks down the street imagining and picturing who is circumcised or uncircumcised to be my neighbor.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by n david

The notion Joseph was previously married is in much dispute and has been discredited by many scholars. The only child which the Bible calls the son of Mary is Jesus. None of the so-called "brethren" of Jesus are called sons of Mary or Joseph in the Bible. Many disputing this state they were cousins of Jesus, not siblings.

Discredited based on what? The early church fathers believed and taught this.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Discredited based on what? The early church fathers believed and taught this.

Not the Apostles of the New Testament. Joseph was not married before Mary. He did not have a family from before. The only claims are from a few texts in the Apocrypha, which are not part of the Holy Scripture. The ones who believe what you claim are the same who believe Jesus had a wife and children.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by n david

Not the Apostles of the New Testament. Joseph was not married before Mary. He did not have a family from before. The only claims are from a few texts in the Apocrypha, which are not part of the Holy Scripture. The ones who believe what you claim are the same who believe Jesus had a wife and children.

There are a few texts in the Apocrypha, and there are references to brothers (and sisters) in the gospels.

The early church fathers who taught this most certainly never taught that Jesus had a wife and children LOL

apocrypha: neuter plural of apocryphus secret, from Greek apokryphos obscure, from apokryptein to hide away, from apo- + kryptein to hide

Makes sense. Who practices a religion of lies then?