This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why should I believe the Bible over the Qur'an?

#41TheRealJiraiyaPosted 3/23/2013 3:06:10 PM
I think the aforementioned stipulations (continuing from my last post) in Judaism leave room for me to say that, in a case as bizarre as Jesus', the jury is out, and I dont think it is an impossible assumption to say that when God came down from heaven and gave a child to Joseph's wife and paid Joseph a visit to ensure he would be there as the child's father he intended for Joseph to be Jesus' father. For all we know God might have even used one of Joseph's sperm - we cant be certain where the other half of Jesus' genes came from, and as long as there is the possibility that it is Joseph and his mother is Jewish Judaism holds that Joseph is his father. Jesus was in the House of Joseph.

That, along with my previous post, is my opinion on the matter. Agree or disagree if you like (I dont care) but dont pretend like this discussion is certain, because it isnt.
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#42hunter_gohanPosted 3/23/2013 3:40:58 PM
TheRealJiraiya posted...
Do we really have to do this?

*sighs*

Okay, fine, but if this discussion gets too long, Im bowing out.


Not at all, but you don't expect to claim to not have enough time for this and to get in the last word do you?

The ancient Talmudic Rabbis actually interpreted adoption such that a son was in the House of his adoptive father (by their interpretation, Jesus would indeed have been in the house of Joseph - the discussion can be found in the Sanhedrin 19b).


You mean this:

"Halakhah does not recognize the possibility of the dissolution of blood ties with a biological parent, nor does it recognize the possibility of creating a blood tie with an adopting parent. For instance, if Jewish parents adopt a non-Jewish child the child does not become automatically Jewish, but requires formal conversion. An adopted male would be eligible to marry the natural daughter of the adopting parents. The closest that Halakhah comes to adoption in the western sense of the term (which derives from Roman custom) is in the appointment of an Apotropos, a legal guardian. The courts could appoint trustworthy people to administer the estate of orphans and to care for their needs."

"And in a strictly metaphorical (non-legal) sense the Gemara [Sanhedrin 19b] states that anyone who brings up an orphan in his household is considered as if he were the father of the child (just as the biblical Naomi is considered as the “mother” of the son of Ruth and Boaz [see Ruth 4:16-17])."

http://www.bmv.org.il/Shiurim/sanhedrin/san116.html

Wait no that's a commentary on San116 that refrences 19b....

"....whom I betrothed unto me for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines.11"

Not related, but just oh my Odin that is one frelled up dowry.

".... go and bring me [another] hundred foreskins of the Philistines.' "

Seriously this is one messed up fetish.

Another piece of Rabbinic literature, the Tosafot, showed up about 1000 years after Christ and pushed the idea you currently believe, which is the current dominant belief.


San19b keeps referring to "....hence they are called by his name.38" I don't know if this is identical to a House, but it doesn't seem that previous Rabbi thinks so. Which may be because of the Tosafot corrupting these views idk. Regardless, how is this any different than "religion X had it right but then everything was corrupted shortly afterwards, heres the REAL truth". The only thing you can claim, if what you're saying here is true, is that there was a bit more time than "shortly" before it got corrupted.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#43hunter_gohanPosted 3/23/2013 3:46:12 PM(edited)
In Sotah 27, which says that if a wife is adulterous and bears a child that might or might not belong to her husband, it is assumed to be his, because " the majority of the acts of cohabitation are ascribed to the husband." From this Jews derive the idea that if the father of a child is unknown he is assumed to be the child of the mother's husband and is raised that way, provided the mother is Jewish and there is some kind of chance on this. You can find more details of this teaching in “A guide to Jewish Religious Practice” by Isaac Klein (specifically page 437 - I could dig up a link if youre interested)


But you claim to know who the father is. The Holy Spirit. Also there's a slight kink in your logic:

Matthew 1:25 "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

There were 0 acts of cohabitation so it doesn't apply.

Also http://www.jtsa.edu/Documents/pagedocs/Communications/Passover/Klein.pdf is only going up to page 111 for me....

So what of Jesus, who had no father? I dont believe it is absurd to believe he would have inherited his house, given the aforementioned stipulation for children whose fathers are unknown. I think during the day, even with the modern interpretation, he would have been part of Joseph's house because he was the husband, and I think that the Jews of the day held a more favorable stance towards adoption as described above.


There were 0 acts of cohabitation. Sotah 27a can not apply. So he can't be legitimate. He could be adopted. Which may or may not involve inheriting his house. Even if we assume you're right and he can, that still leaves us with the exact same problem you criticized Islam for. Religion X originally had it right, but got corrupted. Here's the REAL truth.

Edit: I have some weird abbreviations in my notes I need to figure out, I havent talked about this in like 2 years because it always takes a lot of my time, but when I figure out what these dumb abbreviations are supposed to be Ill have more sources for you


lol. I honestly don't think it matters right now. Even if I assume you're right; you're still saying it's ok when you do it, but not when they do it.

in Judaism leave room for me to say that, in a case as bizarre as Jesus', the jury is out, and I dont think it is an impossible assumption to say that when God came down from heaven and gave a child to Joseph's wife and paid Joseph a visit to ensure he would be there as the child's father he intended for Joseph to be Jesus' father.


Why would he intentionally completely muddle this up when he could have easily just had Jesus conceived and born after Joseph had sex with Mary? This paints him as quite incompetent. Going along with your "Especially when talking about prophecy - what is the point, again, of prophecy if its all lost?" What is the point of prophecy if you then go and intentionally frell it all up so nobody can say if it was actually fulfilled or not?

Agree or disagree if you like (I dont care) but dont pretend like this discussion is certain, because it isnt.


Well if getting someone's name is identical to getting their house than yeah it wouldn't be. It is certain though that you're criticizing Islam for something Christianity did as well though.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#44LastManStandingPosted 3/23/2013 8:12:54 PM
Jesus Christ is the final Revelation.
---
Divine Mercy - God Loves you as a sinner.
Christ Said: Before the Day of Justice, I am sending the Day of Mercy. (Diary 1588) Day of Mercy was declared in 2000
#45Master CilanderPosted 3/24/2013 4:27:27 PM
Adam is 90 feet tall in Islam.

Not saying anyone should believe the Bible, but definitely don't see justification for believing in the Quran.
---
Neutral but not impartial.
#46AdmiralBisonPosted 3/26/2013 6:29:23 PM
Master Cilander posted...
Adam is 90 feet tall in Islam.

Not saying anyone should believe the Bible, but definitely don't see justification for believing in the Quran.



weren't their references to giants in the Bible itself?
---
If delusions and Illusions are an en-escapable part of our entire lives, why not just pick a positive one?
#47AynRandySavagePosted 3/26/2013 9:50:59 PM
TheRealJiraiya posted...
Setting aside religious belief, from a pure weak atheist/agnostic (there you are, ARS, a slash) .


Much obliged.
#48Julian_CaesarPosted 3/28/2013 8:44:06 PM
From: De Evolution | #001
The Qur'an claims to be the word of God and if it's correct that means Christianity is false.

Why should I accept the Bible as truth when the Qur'an clearly says it's false?


If you're accepting the Qu'ran as true, then you're asking a question which you've already answered. They are both religious texts, and as far as I know they both require a significant measure of "faith" in order to believe that either of them is true. Thus if you really and truly believe one of them, you won't believe the other. And if you don't really believe one of them but are simply accepting it for the sake of argument, then you won't really believe the other one either.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#49IamvegitoPosted 3/29/2013 6:40:05 AM
No reason for universality/ absolutism. Pick one, the other, both, neither. It really doesn't matter.
---
"A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you'll know the debt is paid."