Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[Walks_in_islam]

Pliny - let's play "double jeopardy". Guess how many more places laws on pre-pubescent marriage are referenced under teachings of Shammai and Hilal?

You know: The ones that Jesus referred to when he said to obey what they teach but do not follow what they do?

Didn't they teach you this stuff in "preacher school" or wherever y'all go to learn biblical law and history? No wonder you can't find it. How are you supposed to know who Jesus was referring to if you don't know who the scholars at the time were?

I tell you. There are enough references to fill a Pliny "wall-o-text". Even a wall-o-text that declares a stand-alone bible on one hand and the need for a ministry to fill in the blanks on another.

Homework:

What is the ruling under each school for rejection of a marriage by a "minor"? Can the "minor" reject or not?
Can the "minor" reject the marriage if inherited? It is required that a wife be taken by the brother if her husband dies.

I wonder why there is law on what a "minor" wife has to do to reject a marriage to her brother-in-law on marriages that according to you, never happened?

Stick with Shammai, Hilal, and case law from those before them. That way, you won't "church contaminate" the discussion.

Let's get you started.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...hy/hillel.html

How cool is it that both lived before and during the reign of King Herod? That really clears up EXACTLY who Jesus was referring to when he taught to follow their teaching (but not their works) so I guess you won't be "date-rejecting" their teachings.

Silly rabbit.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by shazeep

p43, Pliny

How long I been around here zeep? This guy doesn't have a leg.

Told you, he's interesting. Like finding a fascinating new bug. You don't have to take action to clinically be a pedophile. You just have to be obsessed with it.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

Yeah -

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

WII What is your honest opinion about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=CY4gNBf2n3o

My opinion is that this is criminal. There are numerous references in Islamic teaching that specifically state that you cannot force a marriage and prohibit forced marriages.

Narrated AbuHurayrah: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: An orphan virgin girl should be consulted about herself; if she says nothing that indicates her permission, but if she refuses, the authority of the guardian cannot be exercised against her will. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2088)"

"A woman without a husband (or divorced or a widow) must not be married until she is consulted, and a virgin must not be married until her permission is sought." (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3303)"

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: "A virgin came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) allowed her to exercise her choice." (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2091)

Are those who did this thing following Islamic teaching or not?

There are more, I just grabbed a sample.

[shazeep]

Sadly we in America are conditioned to having imaginary enemies from the cradle. Righteous indignation is one of our chief exports. It can be very difficult to come out of this mentality, as it is pervasive, especially once a subject has accepted the Lone Ranger doctrine. I used to be Pliny, and i fully understand--so i apologize for my insensitivity here earlier.

And, i think i got a break as i was never comfortable, or very successful, as measured in that system--i can't even imagine how someone considered as 'successful' or even comfortable in a society might be able to view it objectively, as 'objectively' is always going to be made out to be kooky, or conspiracy, etc.

i was taught to fear Islam and the RCC from birth, and hardly know what gift allowed me to see that there is the religion, and then there are the believers who practice it--who have actual hearts--and the two are only loosely correlated. It takes an astute mind to recognize that a "Muslim Terrorist" is really just a convenient propaganda label for "someone who has broken the law." Why aren't banksters called "Financial Terrorists?" the answer is that they are--just not by the News outlets that they own!

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

OK You did NOT agree with that. So you still do not have a position, one way or the other, except your own subjective application on a case by case basis, of what constitutes a valid biblical marriage or not.
Somehow I mistakenly believed that you had taken a position on something. Admission, I was wrong. I forgot that you are apostolic. You reserve the right to apply your own set of subjective standards on a case by case basis. In that case, let me correct my assumption and return to my previous belief that though you have a great deal to say about wrong, you actually do not have a clear message as to what is right. Accepted. Certainly an OOPS on my part.
Quiet note: Good thing you scrambled out of taking a stand. My turn to laugh has arrived however

Well I am glad you recognize that I did not agree with the position of the islamic website. I applaud the honesty here. I do however have a “position”. It’s the same one that’s been said over and over. Jesus pointed to the created order when discussing the issue of marriage/divorce. In the created order there was one man and one woman created in maturity. Also, as mentioned so many times we looked at the text YOU brought up – Rebekah’s betrothal/marriage to Isaac. A quick examination of the TEXT reveals she was a mature young woman as the ESV interpreters reveal. BTW that is not a “subjective application”. It’s called exegesis using hermeneutical principles.

As far as you saying:
“Somehow I mistakenly believed that you had taken a position on something”. There was no mistake. I have. You just don’t like the position. Too bad. I am not going to take a different position just to please you or anyone else. The text is clear in both cases, that of the created order and the text YOU brought up. Your implied accusation that I have not taken a position leaves me with but one observation: willful ignorance on your part as to my position.

If you “forgot” I was Apostolic when YOU logged on to Apostolic Friends Forum then you have serious memory issues! LOL! Certainly you would not be trying to “insult” someone would you? No... LOL!!!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Yes thank you. Again, I made a mistake. My mistake was in assuming you believed something was RIGHT and could declare “this is wrong” and replace it with “this is the right thing to do or right set of circumstances”. It appears that you have a great deal to say about WRONG but little to replace it with what you can declare, from your bible, as RIGHT. It does appear foolish, and I feel foolish, assuming that an apostolic such as yourself was capable of stating the right rather than just pointing out the wrong. How dumb, right?

Oh no mistake. I have clearly declared your prophet was a pervert, a pedophile. That this sin is inherent to islam and codified within Shariah (Islamic law). And what is “right” is for one man and one woman, both mature as opposed to immature, coming together in matrimony. As an example I would use Rebekah and Isaac. You know the passage YOU brought up?

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

It’s worse than that. I read it but erred deeply in believing that you had taken a stand on this. The giggling and stuttering in your posts makes it a bit difficult to comprehend if you are declaring something or giggling about it however this is no excuse. The error is mine alone.
I will not assume that you specifically believe or stand for anything again.

LOL!!! I have indeed taken a very clear stand. You just don’t like it. Too bad. Since you are so concerned about taking a stand, when will you take a stand against the perversion in islam?

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Didn’t finish high school actually. It was boring.

So tell us, if you can comprehend what’s being written, do you agree with the historical fact that Muhammad married Aisha when she was six and consummated that marriage when she was nine?

The marriage contract was signed at age 6, and the marriage was consummated at age 9. I have stated this many times in this thread.

Okay so you wanted me to source something, again, when in fact you already knew and believed this? Just arguing for arguments sake to try to avoid the fundamental fact that Muhammad was a pervert I guess. Sorry to hear you did not finish high school. You can get a GED which could help you with employment some time down the road or perhaps a promotion where you currently work.

BTW reading what I wrote comes across sharply (yes insultingly). I apologize for that. I am trying to not be so caustic.



Posted by Pliny
Your “argument” here was that since he waited until Aisha was nine years old he is not a pedophile. What absurd logic.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

My assumption was that waiting until Aisha was 9 years old and staying married to her until he died does not seem to fit your label of pedophilia (a term developed about 1200 years later).
I will accept the label of absurd if comparing the label pedophile to the actions of the labelled falls under that umbrella.

Pedophilia has nothing to do with him staying married to her until he died. That is absurd logic. Perhaps you feel more at home if I used the term “radical”? Additionally, when the term was developed is just another obfuscation. The term is descriptive of an act.



As pointed out, this is still missing criteria of marriage because “who are mature” was added. What’s a jot here and a tittle there though right? [/QUOTE]

“Who are mature” was not added. It is clear from the text and the context. In other words it’s understood from the Lexical-syntactical analysis as well as the Contextual analysis. I will break this down a little for you.

On day three of creation God created the grass and fruit tree’s etc. In other words on day three vegetation was created.
On day four God created the sun and moon.
On day five god created sea life.
On day six God created animals and humanity.

The animals and humanity would have died if these were not created in a fully mature state, all animals and humanity require food to stay alive. For humanity this would include physical and mental maturity. Adam and Eve were created to work and keep the garden. Contextually this means they had the mental acumen to do so. Therefore, from the lexical and contextual analysis the creation was created in a mature state of existence.

See, so easy even a cave man can do it.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Context of this passage (thank you so much for helping me understand the concept of context as if I friggin needed it)

Your welcome. Apparently you did need help understanding it.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Jesus affirmed the school of Rabbi Shammai in this particular case.

Here is a fundamental problem. You stated earlier:
As pointed out, this is still missing criteria of marriage because “who are mature” was added. What’s a jot here and a tittle there though right? [/QUOTE]

Implying I “added” to the text. Which of course is wrong. An examination of the text both lexically – syntactically along with the context reveals the veracity of what I said. In fact it is you that ignore these hermeneutical principles. Apparently from a position of ignorance (used in its pure sense and not as a pejorative, ignorance in this sense has no bearing on intelligence as we are all ignorant of something).

Now back to the point. You whine about me adding to the text, even when I didn’t, yet here you are doing the very same thing and this time it’s true – you added to the text. Please demonstrate where Jesus referred to Shimmai… Guess what you can’t. What was the reference Jesus made? Let’s look shall we?

(Mat 19:4 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
(Mat 19:5 KJV) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
(Mat 19:6 KJV) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Have you not read that he that made them at the beginning…
Let’s stop here for a second. Who made who in the beginning? Answer - God.
What God has joined together…
Who joined them together? Answer - God.
Not once do I see Shammai’s name. However, it’s so clear that Jesus referred to God’s created order and Shammai remains conspicuously absent. That dog don’t hunt, as they say in the south.

Your premise is flawed and everything you build upon a flawed premise comes crashing down like a building with no foundation.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

In this context (can I ask you to look that up - context) I tell you again this passage has nothing to do with marriage or who is marriageable. This is a clarification of two different schools of thought in existence at the time as to what constitutes grounds for divorce.

See what I mean about the house without a foundation analogy? This is a classic example of the fallacy known as a “false dichotomy”. You assume there can only be two choices, that of Hillel and Shimmai. This premise is wrong. Jesus pointed the Pharisees back to the word of God just like He did with the Devil. In the text it is clear about the created order and who the ultimate authority is, God and His word. I hear the sound of a mighty crash as the “argument” comes crashing down upon itself in a mighty roar! LOL!

Are you copying and pasting from an Islamic apologist website again? The one where they contradict themselves indicating they have no idea what they’re talking about…

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I told you earlier that prepubescent marriages were historically practiced and historically accepted, predating Islam and documented back to ancient Jewish law. By ancient Jewish law, the exact law in existence at the time of Jesus, here is what the same two schools taught about marriage and age of marriage, in reference to first intercourse and menstruation:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_64.html

I told you earlier I don’t care what Rashi said and do not accept the Talmud, ancient cultures, or human government laws as being morally equivalent to the Bible. Those things are only “right” inasmuch as they line up with the Bible. Your logic or the logic of the Islamic apologists is full of false dichotomies, straw men and other fallacious “arguments”.

In the passage where Jesus dealt with the Pharisees on marriage and divorce it’s clear that divorce was allowed by Moses because of their hard hearts. Jesus was clear that no man should put asunder what God has joined together; thereby, invalidating your pet ancient Jewish law on marriage and divorce. Jesus used the created order of God as the authority for His declaration. As we have seen that includes a monogamous relationship between one mature man and one mature woman.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

But you generously searched everywhere, Talmud, all sorts of other sources right? My turn to laugh. Here’s your link, both schools predate Jesus however they are the only schools that were in existence for Jesus to order followed, in your assigned “bible study” passage, which wasn’t assigned to compare you to a hypocrite but was assigned to reference later.

Still trying to build a false moral equivalency. LOL!!! Here’s a hint. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid of the Islamic apologists. “Breaking News” David, Israel’s King, committed adultery. That also predated Jesus. Guess what. That was a sin too!

This post is an example of a Non Sequitur! Just because something predates something else does not mean it is right or that it caused something else. Also, just because Hillel or Shammai had “schools” does not mean they are right. As pointed out Jesus set the standard with: “what does God say”…

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Can’t really use the dates here OH Anointed One (like I can say for instance noting that the term “pedophile” popped up in the 19th century).

LOL! Another “insult”! LOL!!!

Here we have yet another in the long list of fallacious “arguments”. Here it’s implied that no one could be a “pedophile” because that descriptive term had not yet come into existence. Therefore, the logic implies that the descriptive term is the root cause of the actions which of course is absurd. However, I have come to expect these absurd forms of logic from muslim apologists.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

To summarize (I don’t want you to strain your vast comprehension skills or anything) I will give you a nice reference table.

Mishnah One (Niddah Chapter 10)
1) If a young girl, whose age of menstruation has not arrived, married:
a) Bet Shammai says: she is allowed four nights;
b) And Bet Hillel says: until the wound is healed.
2) If the age of her menstruation has arrived and she married:
a) Bet Shammai says: she is allowed the first night;
b) And Bet Hillel says: four nights, until after Shabbat.
3) If she had observed blood while she was still in her father's house:
a) Bet Shammai ruled: she is only allowed the obligatory marital intercourse,
b) And Bet Hillel says: all that night.

LOL!!! Another “insult”!!! ROTFL. Ad hominem attacks are usually done by those who have no argument. Makes sense to me! All the arguments I have seen from the muslim apologists have had about as much substance as a vacuum. LOL!!!

The Mishnah is part of the Talmud. So once again we see:
1) A false moral equivalency. The Talmud is not the Bible.
2) The fallacious argument of arguing from authority. Since the Jews accept it as an authority it must be right – which is actually wrong. The Talmud is only right inasmuch as it agrees with the Bible. There are many scientific authorities that declare evolution is right yet, that does not make evolution true. It doesn’t matter if the entire world rejects the Bible. It’s still true.

BTW you do know what the Mishnah is right?
The Mishnah
In the second century [A.D.], Rabbi Judah the Patriarch published a document in six primary sections, or orders, dealing with agriculture, sacred times, women and personal status, damages, holy things, and purity laws. By carefully laying out different opinions concerning Jewish law, the Mishnah presents itself more as a case book of law.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/text...lmud_101.shtml

As a book of “law” there are regulations. In the case of “niddah”, observe:
“[page xxvii] The Tractate Niddah, which comes seventh in the Mishnah editions of the Order of Tohoroth, is placed first in the editions of the Talmud, since it is the only Tractate in this order which consists of Gemara as well as Mishnah.

The term niddah is applied in Biblical and Rabbinical literature to a woman in menstruation who, by reason of her uncleanness, is subject to certain restrictions during her periods and for a varying number of days subsequently.

The origin of these regulations is Lev. XV, 19ff, which prescribe some general rules concerning niddah and zibah (v. Glos.). These enactments have been expounded and amplified in accordance with Rabbinical methods of interpretation and tradition, and have been made still more onerous by the strict customs adopted by Jewish women themselves.

The following is a brief summary of the ten chapters of this Tractate:
…
CHAPTERS VIII — X indicate the tests to be applied to decide whether a stain is that of menstrual blood or of some other matter; describe the symptoms of the approach of the menstrual period; and deal finally with the condition of uncleanness of the corpse of a menstruant.”
http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_0.html#intro

The purpose of this tract is to determine whether a stain is that of menstrual blood. To read this as a “history book” is to take it out of context.

The problem with the Islamic apologist’s polemic is that it ignores the context it was written in. Poetry is poetry and should be understood as such. Because the Islamic apologist ignores the context of how the Mishna/Talmud was written, he jumps to the conclusion that everything in this is to be considered an acceptable practice. That’s not the case. For example, the Bible is clear that drunkenness is evil yet the Talmud states:
The following quote is from the Babylonian Talmud - Tract Erubin:
“Said R. Gamaliel to his companions: "Have we drunk a quarter of a lug of Italian wine?" and they answered: "Yea, we did." "Then," quoth R. Gamaliel, "let us walk on, the man following us until the effects of the wine wear off," and they walked on for three miles. When they came to the steps leading up to the city of Tyre, R. Gamaliel dismounted, wrapped himself in a robe, sat down and nullified the man's vow, and from these actions we have learned many things; namely: "A quarter of a lug of Italian wine inebriates a man; when a man is inebriated, he must not decide any legal questions; a walk neutralizes the effects of wine…”
New Edition Of The Babylonian Talmud, Michael L. Rodkinson, Book 2, Volume III, Tract Erubin, Chapter VI, P 151 The Talmud Society [1918]

The point here is not the rightness or the wrongness of drunkenness. It is about making legal decisions. So the example posted does not mean a prepubescent marriage is acceptable. It’s a legal hypothetical on how to deal with various “niddah” issues.

Now let me be clear, so I am not taken out of context again, that this is irrelevant to the discussion because they are not morally equivalent. The point is that the Islamic apologist that you have once again received information from does not understand what he has or how to understand it.

You may justify your prophet anyway you like but he still died in his sins. This may help you sleep at night but it’s still wrong. Do yourself a favor and stop drinking the Kool-Aid of the Islamic apologists. Their “arguments” have about as much substance as a vacuum.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Is there something about my earlier point that maybe you missed? Though Jesus AFFIRMED Shammai on grounds for DIVORCE, where (again) did Jesus address marriage and marriage age? Jesus did not, and both schools of teaching include and teach and set rules on marriage to girls before the start of menstruation.

Here we go again. The house with no foundation. Jesus did not affirm Shammai. He affirmed the creative order and the word of God. As shown above the created order is that of a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman that are both fully mature.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Summary: You are mentally numb

LOL!!! Another “insult”…

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

if you believe that ancient Jews did not take young girls captive and allow marriage to them (or young Jewish girls for that matter) before puberty and you are mentally numb if you claim that this practice was prohibited in any religious text or teaching (Jewish, Christian, or Muslim) from times predating Jesus through the ministry of Jesus through the 18th century.

And you know this how? Rashi? A crystal ball? We have been through this. You must be confusing the God of the Bible with the god of islam. Prepubescent marriage is inherent to islam not Christianity or the God of the Bible. Your “evidence” is found in that same vacuum with the arguments of the other Islamic apologists. You have miserably failed to demonstrate from the Biblical text your assertion. Whether or not Jews did this or not is irrelevant. If they did they sinned. Please note the conditional word “if” in the preceding sentence. Just trying to help you keep from jumping to conclusions. It’s clear from the created order, referenced by Jesus, that God intends marriage to be a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman who are both mature. The passage YOU brought up confirmed this. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

So: God never wrote it down or saw to it that it was written down. Jesus never addressed it. You define this as sinful based on what?

I already knew this though. I just wanted to let you giggle on and plod on for a few pages. There is nothing more entertaining than watching an “apostolic” making a fool of himself pompously discussing historical right and wrong while applying current standards to historial events, made all the more interesting if said apostolic is giggling in “triumph” about it.

Oh my! LOL! Another “insult”… LOL!!! Do you mean looking foolish like jumping to conclusions about what someone says then finding out later it was a quote from an Islamic apologist? The same one you appear to get your information from? LOL!!!

Biblical standards don’t change. That’s why Jesus referenced the Biblical standard of the created order when dealing with the Pharisees of His day.

[shazeep]

ok well most Biblical scholars seem to agree that the Bible is one big copy/paste job--"J" source, "E" source, "P" source, etc...plenty of Talmud in there too i think. And Biblical standards change more often than the days of the week lol; eat all the plants, eat everything that moves, don't eat pork, eat anything...etc.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Though you reject the words of “those who sit in the seat of Moses” you cannot ”….torture the passage…” (all 4-5 versions of it) where Jesus specifically directed that their teachings be followed. The fact that Jesus affirmed one school vs. the other on divorce, and that the two schools had slightly different rules about “wedding night blood” does not change the fact that there was ancient law from BOTH schools allowing and setting rules for marriage to young girls (prepubescent), this was in place at the time of Jesus, and there is not a single biblical passage overturning those laws.

Especially a passage that can be attributed to Jesus.

Definitely TBC, I’m not actually done with your genius postings quite yet.

Thank you again for demonstrating your inability to look at context! LOL!
I can only guess this is what you are speaking of:

“NIV sez
2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.
3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Auth "queen james version" sez
2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
3 all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Young's literal translation sez
2 saying, `On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees;
3 all, then, as much as they may say to you to observe, observe and do, but according to their works do not, for they say, and do not;

OH and "queen james" version (appears there is an authorized one and another one for the regular folks LOL):
Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”


This is what I posted:
A.T. Robertson is a well-known Greek scholar. This means he read and interpreted the Greek into English. He wrote a verse by verse word picture of the Greek New Testament. He says this about your verse:

Matthew 23:3
For they say and do not (legousin kai ou poiousin). “As teachers they have their place, but beware of following their example” (Bruce). So Jesus said: “Do not ye after their works “ (mē poieite). Do not practice their practices. They are only preachers. Jesus does not here disapprove any of their teachings as he does elsewhere. The point made here is that they are only teachers (or preachers) and do not practice what they teach as God sees it.

I guess it’s that same comprehension problem coming up again. Oh well. No worries.

As A.T. Robertson stated, as teacher they have a place but don’t follow their example. They are only preachers. That’s the contextual point. In other places He disapproved of their teachings, such as when He said beware the leaven of the Pharisees.

Note the context is what the Pharisees DO (this is called context):
(Mat 23:1 KJV) Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
(Mat 23:2 KJV) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
(Mat 23:3 KJV) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
(Mat 23:4 KJV) For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
(Mat 23:5 KJV) But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
(Mat 23:6 KJV) And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
(Mat 23:7 KJV) And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

Anyone can lift a passage out of context and say the Bible means this or that but that does not make it true. Now note the context here:

(Mat 16:6 KJV) Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
(Mat 16:7 KJV) And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
(Mat 16:8 KJV) Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
(Mat 16:9 KJV) Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
(Mat 16:10 KJV) Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
(Mat 16:11 KJV) How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
(Mat 16:12 KJV) Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

It’s clear that all should beware the doctrine of the Pharisees and not follow their example. So easy even a cave man can understand it.
Anyone can take a passage out of context and make it say what they want. That doesn’t make it true.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

So who tortured the text again?

You did. See above. LOL!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Here it is. Told you, it predates Jesus.

CHAPTER X

MISHNAH. IF A YOUNG GIRL, WHOSE AGE OF MENSTRUATION10 HAS NOT ARRIVED, MARRIED, BETH SHAMMAI RULED: SHE IS ALLOWED11 FOUR NIGHTS,12 AND BETH HILLEL RULED: UNTIL THE WOUND IS HEALED.13 IF THE AGE OF HER MENSTRUATION HAS ARRIVED14 AND SHE MARRIED, BETH SHAMMAI RULED: SHE IS ALLOWED11 THE FIRST NIGHT, AND BETH HILLEL RULED: FOUR NIGHTS, UNTIL THE EXIT OF THE SABBATH.15 IF SHE HAD OBSERVED A DISCHARGE WHILE SHE WAS STILL IN HER FATHER'S HOUSE,16 BETH SHAMMAI RULED: SHE IS ONLY ALLOWED THE OBLIGATORY MARITAL INTERCOURSE,17 AND BETH HILLEL RULED: ALL THAT18 NIGHT.

Definitely my wrong. It was wrong for me to ever assume or assert that you actually believe IN anything.

ROTFL!!! Apparently you and the muslim apologist you seem to get your information from know nothing about the Mishnah/Talmud. LOL! As mentioned above the Tract referenced has nothing to do with what an acceptable marriage is. It's a legal document dealing with hypothetical situations. In this case the context is the state of “niddah” (uncleanness during menstruation). LOL!!!

Here is an example of what is clearly acceptable:
Part II.
Ethics Of The Talmud.
The Conjugal Relation.
"First build a house and plant a vineyard (i.e., provide for the means of the household), and then take a wife." "Let youth and old age not be joined in marriage, lest the purity and peace of domestic life be disturbed."
Babylonian Talmud, Rodkinson, Part II, Ethicas of the Talmud

The “ethics” espoused by the Talmud makes it clear that youth (like prepubescent girls) should not be married to an old man (like you have tried to assert before. Remember Rebekah and Isaac 3 and forty). Also, even the “ethics of the Talmud” would teach against the actions of YOUR prophet. You know the guy that did that distasteful act…

Once again we are presented “evidence” that has the same substance found in a vacuum. Shammai, Hillel and the Talmud are not morally equivalent to the Bible. Whether this is even true or not doesn’t even matter. It’s a straw man.

As can be clearly seen I believe in the Bible.
I also believe, as you do, that Muhammad consummated a marriage with a nine year old (pedophilia).
I also believe that prepubescent marriages is inherent to islam.
I believe you should stop drinking the Kool-Aid of the Islamic apologists.
I believe you should find a Bible believing church somewhere and learn what the Bible says in context.

See how easy that was? Even a cave man can do it….


[QUOTE=Walks_in_islam;1351386]
I yield in humility to your vast expertise on hypocrisy!
ROTFL!!! This was supposed to be another of your tirade of insults but I thought it was funny. ROTFL!!!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

What would be really cool here (for you) is if the differing schools of thought at the time of Jesus somehow were somehow in conflict in regards to marriage as they were in regards to divorce. Unfortunately both schools seem to allow it. It would have been smart of you to find this though, it would have saved you a lot of trouble.

ROTFL!!! Here we go again with the false dichotomy. LOL!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Pretending the teachings at the time of Jesus, which Jesus validated, are not the source of the Talmud is grasping.

What is “grasping” is taking passages out of context.
What is grasping is building a straw man argument.
What is grasping is trying to build a moral equivalency where there is none.
What is grasping is every argument you have presented! LOL!
They all have the same characteristic. That characteristic is that they all have the same substance as found in a vacuum.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I wonder what Bukhari would say about asserting a practice then laying out the laws for it in spite of some super-religious apostolic denying they exist?

Once again misrepresenting other people. I guess in islam that’s okay. Fortunately there is another world other than islam. A world where people look for truth rather than drinking the Kool-Aid of some imam apologist somewhere. I don’t think I ever stated the “laws” did not exist. I don’t care as far as this discussion goes. There is no moral equivalency between them and the Bible; therefore, they are irrelevant to the discussion. Even if you “prove” that a Jew at some point in time was a pedophile does not in any way change what the Bible clearly states.

Based upon the Biblical text your prophet died in his sins.
Your religion is a religion that promotes pedophilia.

When will you repent?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Pliny - let's play "double jeopardy". Guess how many more places laws on pre-pubescent marriage are referenced under teachings of Shammai and Hilal?

You know: The ones that Jesus referred to when he said to obey what they teach but do not follow what they do?

What they taught is irrelevant to the discussion. This is just an obfuscation to keep from dealing with the truth. The truth is that Muhammad is a pervert. Something you agree with. Now you may not like the term but that’s the truth. You admitted he consummated a marriage to a nine year old little girl. You also admitted that it was a “distasteful” act. So there really is not much else to talk about. Unless you can come up with something that’s morally equivalent. After so many pages I think we can say conclusively you have no substantive argument. The substance we have seen from the Islamic apologist has the same substance as found in a vacuum. Well… Maybe a vacuum has more substance! LOL!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Didn't they teach you this stuff in "preacher school" or wherever y'all go to learn biblical law and history? No wonder you can't find it. How are you supposed to know who Jesus was referring to if you don't know who the scholars at the time were?

Still trying to be insulting? LOL!!!
Here’s what I learned in “Preacher School” LOL:
(Luk 4:2 KJV) Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
(Luk 4:3 KJV) And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
(Luk 4:4 KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Man shall live by the “word of God”…
Somehow your pet Shammai, Hillel, the Talmud and all of your other sources are conspicuously absent. ROTFL!!!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I tell you. There are enough references to fill a Pliny "wall-o-text". Even a wall-o-text that declares a stand-alone bible on one hand and the need for a ministry to fill in the blanks on another.

Homework:

What is the ruling under each school for rejection of a marriage by a "minor"? Can the "minor" reject or not?
Can the "minor" reject the marriage if inherited? It is required that a wife be taken by the brother if her husband dies.

I wonder why there is law on what a "minor" wife has to do to reject a marriage to her brother-in-law on marriages that according to you, never happened?

Stick with Shammai, Hilal, and case law from those before them. That way, you won't "church contaminate" the discussion.

Let's get you started.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...hy/hillel.html

How cool is it that both lived before and during the reign of King Herod? That really clears up EXACTLY who Jesus was referring to when he taught to follow their teaching (but not their works) so I guess you won't be "date-rejecting" their teachings.

Silly rabbit.

Nothing new. Still same old tired straw man arguments. Say it enough you might even start to believe this claptrap. Until you can offer something of substance rather than the same false dichotomies etc. you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.

What have we learned?
That Walks in Islam believes his prophet is distasteful.
We have learned that his religion is inherently “distasteful” because pedophilia is inherent to Shariah – Islamic law.
We have learned that muslims will go to any lengths to justify their prophet.
These justifications, as we have seen are (but not limited to these:
1) Colonial laws. He used these as a “Tu quoque” (you too) fallacy. Meaning that it’s okay because others did the same thing. Thus, he inadvertently elevated Colonial laws to an equal status with his religion. It’s either a higher standard or it’s not. Apparently it’s not. This however is not accepted by Apostolics. For Apostolics the Bible is the standard.
2) Foreign cultures are equivalent to the Islamic religion. It was argued that pedophilia was practiced by many ancient cultures. Once again this inadvertently elevates those ancient cultures to equality with the Islamic religion. Islam cannot be a “higher standard” when they justify its practices with a lower one. For Apostolics the Bible is the standard.
3) Judaism and it’s literature outside the Bible. He elevated Jewish extra biblical literature to that of equality with Islam by trying to justify his religions failures with these texts. Thus, inadvertently elevating them to equality with islam.

He has miserably failed to establish any moral equivalency in any of his arguments. Since he also denies that Colonial laws, foreign cultures and Jewish extra biblical literature is not equivalent to his religion then we find that Islam IS a religion of lies. Of course in their defense their god calls it “inventing”.