Jesus's virgin birth between Talmud,New Testimony, and Quran

Tumah · Mar 2, 2017

Limo said:
I don't think that pregnancy in absence of the husband is not an evidence for adultery.

Do you want to fix this sentence?

On the other hand, if it became so famous in the city, There should be a single good/bad/relative to tell the idol husband about his wife. It doesn't make any sense that the whole city or village know except the idol husband.
If the husband knew the rumors,He should have undergo ordeal of bitter water or ordeal of jealousy as described and prescribed in the Priestly Code, in the Book of Numbers,

I don't think you mean idol. I'm not sure what word you meant to say, but its not idol.

In order to bring his wife to the trial by bitter waters, he has to first warn her with at least two witnesses that she not be in private with a specific man. If he didn't warn her first, his only recourse is to divorce her. So in this case, the trial of bitter waters wouldn't have been permitted.

Do you really believe any Rabbi without an evidence ?

Not any Rabbi, but the Rabbis of the Talmud, yes.

Do you consider what he's saying is holy and a revelation from Yahweh ?

Holy, maybe. A revelation from G-d, depends on the case.

In Islamic law, a severe punishment to allegations on women without evidence. (I know it waits zero in your book).
I think there should be something like this in Mosa law as well otherwise innocent people name is not protected

There is something called "putting out a bad name" in Jewish Law. But that wouldn't apply here because its true.

Do you mean ?
If a unmarried woman get pregnant and laid a child, she'll not be subject to the Law and her child will not be called a ******* ?

That's right. In Jewish Law, a ******* is only a child born from a Jewish married woman who committed adultery with a man who isn't her husband. If she wasn't married at the time, the child isn't a ******* by Jewish Law and can marry anyone.

See above comment

There's a bunch of them.

If you mean by Holy of Holies the small room that is accessible by High Priest only then she wasn't there.
I think the wider area is the Mountain Temple or whatever it's called where everyone was allowed to be there. Also, some students/servants/priest were allowed to live there.

The Temple Mount.

From pure logic and history, apparently what you're saying is true but deeper discussion proofs opposite.

That has not yet happened here.

Beside the 2 stories are completely contradicted, both have gaps and not comprehensive.

You have not yet shown any problems with the Talmudic version that I haven't been able to answer.

I don't think so.
If she isn't married then for sure she'll be punched.

I think you mean "punished". If she isn't married, then there's no punishment for an unmarried woman to have relations with a man on an infrequent basis (unless there's money involved).

If she's married, Husband should have known the rumors and would go for ordeal of bitter water or ordeal of jealousy

As I mentioned before, the trial of bitter waters doesn't work on rumor. The husband has to hear from witnesses (or see himself) that his wife was in a private place with another man and then he has to warn her not to do so again. Only after she goes to a private place with that man again can he bring her for the trial.

He's one day or so old.
If even one month old infantry speak from Yehwa telling his story defending his mother, Don't you consider this as miracle
Don't you think Priests and people would believe in the miracle and convinced that the mother is innocent from adultery ?

I don't think miracles are admissible as evidence in Jewish Law. Maybe you'd have to prove first that it wasn't a lie done through black magic.

Brickjectivity · Mar 2, 2017

buddhist said:
... or, different people thought up different angles to the "Jesus" story as a way to control and manipulate their respective followers. This argument seems the most logical to me.

Limo said:
I agree with you If we consider the history of Gospel only, the story should be rejected.

Two people who care little and know next to nothing about it, just trash talking. Whatever is the worst is what they assume, so they can talk trash.

Flankerl · Mar 2, 2017

Muffled said:
I believe the Jews have historically acted as antichrist and have lied to promote their own views so anything in the Talmud should be viewed skeptically.

Says the one with the wrongly translated text. Christians will never stop until we are no more.

David T · Mar 2, 2017

I

Limo said:
I'm discussing how logical these story not belief in a book or in Jesus or even in God.

The story of virgin birth in NT and Talmud are insulting to Mariam and Al-Masseh,
In NT:

Mariam cousin married her to cover the scandal till he sew a dream

Close relatives are not sure if she's innocent from adultery or not

Issues :

Nobody witness the miracle of virgin birth

The child was deceived and grown up calling his mother's husband as father till 12 years

Imagine this deceived child is suppose to be God the Son who created universe or God himself

We don't know who documented Mariam's story as Jesus didn't say a word

Talmud story : If we believe that Yeshu ben Pandera is Jesus Christ:

Mariam was a married woman

She did adultery with a roman soldier Pandera

If she's married and did adultery it's normal to be pregnant

issues:

How people knew about adultery ? Why they didn't stone her according to law ?

The answer is because there were no 2 eyewitness

If there is no 2 eyewitness, then there might be one who repeated these allegations

. The guy should kept his mouth shut or people shouldn't believe but this is not the case

Rabbis repeated this allegations, taught , and wrote it in books without telling the evidence(s)

There might be be a strong evidence for these allegations such as she's not married (virgin)

There should be a strong reason for not stoning her although she's a virgin

The issues of these 2 stories are explained in Quran story :

Mariam was virgin, not married, spent her life in Holy of Holies

She get pregnant, she laid the child Al-Masseh

Everybody knew and see the child, everybody believed that she did adultery, She should be stoned

Miracle happened, the child spoke to all in a miraculous way that shuts everyone's mouth

He told his mother's story and exposes who is he, and his mission

Mother and son lived in pride and glory

Everyone see the Virgin birth

This is a logical discussion, I hope nobody tells about disbelieve of a book or the story or the miracle or god. These are all known.
We're discussing how logical these stories.

Its not "logical" at all As intended by the writers.

buddhist · Mar 2, 2017

Brickjectivity said:
Two people who care little and know next to nothing about it, just trash talking. Whatever is the worst is what they assume, so they can talk trash.

IMO the stories are trash, and have arguably manifested in the worst in humanity. The Abrahamic religions are the root causes of most of the world's troubles (especially manifested in their innumerable wars down thru history).

Yes, I judge them by their fruits, and the fruits are rotten.

Brickjectivity · Mar 2, 2017

buddhist said:
Yes, I judge them by their fruits, and the fruits are rotten.

You wouldn't know! You can't even stay on topic, and there is no 'Abrahamic' religion. There are no Abrahamic hats or hymns or books. You keep imagining a religion and blaming it for the worlds problems and then jumping into conversations you don't understand about other people's religions. If we go by your definition of Abrahamic religion then Hindus and Buddists are Abrahamic and ham sandwiches too.

buddhist · Mar 2, 2017

Brickjectivity said:
You wouldn't know! You can't even stay on topic, and there is no 'Abrahamic' religion. There are no Abrahamic hats or hymns or books. You keep imagining a religion and blaming it for the worlds problems and then jumping into conversations you don't understand about other people's religions. If we go by your definition of Abrahamic religion then Hindus and Buddists are Abrahamic and ham sandwiches too.

I said "Abrahamic Religions", which covers multiple religions. Please stop misquoting me.

I will categorically say that I do understand the Abrahamic Religions, because I was one of them, for decades.

Limo · Mar 2, 2017

YmirGF said:
I can only 2nd @Tumah here and ask how it is logical that stories that began with a people far removed from the events AND 600 years after the fact could possibly shed any meaningful information on the matter. How is that supposed to be logical?

My 2nd reason to doubt the Muslim narrative here is in point #4 and #5. There is no recorded event of an infant speaking a day or two after their birth. The Christian texts and Jewish texts are virtually silent on this matter. What I find amusing is that IF this had indeed happened, it would surely have become one of the most widely reported events in history. It did not... ...until 600 years later when some guy hundreds of miles away and far removed from the events and people involved came up with this nifty new story. Even after Muhammad made these claims Christians and Jews alike are almost silent on the matter. Have no doubt. If true, this would have been a momentous event that would have become part of the Christian narrative about Jesus. Since it has not become a large part of the Christian narrative, about the life of their central personality, we can conclude that this Muslim invention is likely a fabrication.

My 3rd point is that we have no evidence, whatsoever, that Mary and Jesus lived in pride and glory. From what I recall they continued to live in relative obscurity until Jesus made a name for himself when he was far past childhood.

I guess the thrust of my point is that there is no logical reason to give the Muslim version events any credibility whatsoever.

Quran is not a narration of history moved from generation to another.
The 3 stories have no serious of narration via known narrators to an eyewitness
So, let put this aside.
I suggest to deal with the 3 stories anonymously as if you don't know which story is from which book.
The Christians destroyed and excluded many books. They have lost a lot of Jesus history
For examples nothing in the NT about Jesus till he's 12 years old then complete silence till he's 30 years old
The interesting part is that there is a book church marked as apochraphi is speaking about Jesus childhood miracles that exist in Quran but not in NT.
Nothing even in Talmod about how people agrees with Ben Pandira and his mother on light of adultray allegations that is known to everyone as Tumah suggested
Instead Talmod tells stories while he was studying to be a Rabbi
He was not in the list of sons of ***** vice versa he was prepared to be a Rabbi

Brickjectivity · Mar 2, 2017

buddhist said:
I said "Abrahamic Religions", which covers multiple religions. Please stop misquoting me.

I do not think you know enough to be able to speak about Abrahamic Religions as if they were all related. They are not. That's what everybody continually tells you, but you just don't like that. Its not bad enough for you. It doesn't suit the tragic history that you wish to impugn several religions with.

buddhist said:
I will categorically say that I do understand the Abrahamic Religions, because I was one of them, for decades.

There is no 'One of them'. There are not 'Abrahamic religions'. You are relating completely different groups of people. Christians are not Jews and are not Muslims. They are not one thing.

Tumah · Mar 2, 2017

Limo said:
Nothing even in Talmod about how people agrees with Ben Pandira and his mother on light of adultray allegations that is known to everyone as Tumah suggested

I don't know what this means.

Instead Talmod tells stories while he was studying to be a Rabbi
He was not in the list of sons of ***** vice versa he was prepared to be a Rabbi

Why can't a ******* become a rabbi...?

buddhist · Mar 2, 2017

Brickjectivity said:
I do not think you know enough to be able to speak about Abrahamic Religions as if they were all related. They are not. That's what everybody continually tells you, but you just don't like that. Its not bad enough for you. It doesn't suit the tragic history that you wish to impugn several religions with.
There is no 'One of them'. There are not 'Abrahamic religions'. You are relating completely different groups of people. Christians are not Jews and are not Muslims. They are not one thing.

I stated one characteristic which I perceive covers multiple religions, I never claimed that the multiple religions were "one thing".

Brickjectivity · Mar 2, 2017

buddhist said:
I stated one characteristic which I perceive covers multiple religions, I never claimed that the multiple religions were "one thing".

The goal here is not to misunderstand but to criticize what you are doing. You describe multiple religions as Abrahamic and the root cause of the worlds problems. Your argument is that you wasted twenty years in *something* you don't name and now anything that remotely reminds you of your past must be part of a giant evil conspiracy which you label 'Abrahamic religions' and the root of the worlds problems. Its a terrible uninformed argument, and you don't even care what the topic of the thread is actually about. You don't even address the topic! You keep doing this, showing up to conversations about X so you can complain about R, and I suspect that you do not seem to know R.

buddhist · Mar 2, 2017

Brickjectivity said:
The goal here is not to misunderstand but to criticize what you are doing. You describe multiple religions as Abrahamic and the root cause of the worlds problems. Your argument is that you wasted twenty years in *something* you don't name and now anything that remotely reminds you of your past must be part of a giant evil conspiracy which you label 'Abrahamic religions' and the root of the worlds problems. Its a terrible uninformed argument,

I'm sorry your opinion is that my argument is uninformed - I believe otherwise.

and you don't even care what the topic of the thread is actually about. You don't even address the topic! You keep doing this, showing up to conversations about X so you can complain about R, and I suspect that you do not seem to know R.

I was on topic, addressing the OP's concern that we address the logic behind these stories, and I certainly did.

YmirGF · Mar 2, 2017

Limo said:
Quran is not a narration of history moved from generation to another.
The 3 stories have no serious of narration via known narrators to an eyewitness
So, let put this aside.
I suggest to deal with the 3 stories anonymously as if you don't know which story is from which book.
The Christians destroyed and excluded many books. They have lost a lot of Jesus history
For examples nothing in the NT about Jesus till he's 12 years old then complete silence till he's 30 years old
The interesting part is that there is a book church marked as apochraphi is speaking about Jesus childhood miracles that exist in Quran but not in NT.
Nothing even in Talmod about how people agrees with Ben Pandira and his mother on light of adultray allegations that is known to everyone as Tumah suggested
Instead Talmod tells stories while he was studying to be a Rabbi
He was not in the list of sons of ***** vice versa he was prepared to be a Rabbi

Oy vey, Batman!

Apocrypha are works, usually written works, that are of unknown authorship, or of doubtful origin.

<source>

Limo · Mar 2, 2017

Jayhawker Soule said:
Why?

By the way, I would suggest that, given three variants of a narrative authored by different authors in different centuries, the more recent should have a better chance for logical consistency simply because its author can learn from debates surrounding the previous two efforts.

What if he's illeterate and never studied judicial or Christian books?

Oh but you agreed that the Quranic story is much logical

Limo · Mar 2, 2017

YmirGF said:
Oy vey, Batman!

Apocrypha are works, usually written works, that are of unknown authorship, or of doubtful origin.

<source>

The only difference between canonical books and Apocrypha books is the acceptance of Nicaea
Noore, no less

David T · Mar 2, 2017

buddhist said:
Logic is not the same as evidence, and evidence is not the same as proof either.

I think you are on the right track. We can see something and we believe it's evidence but pareodil

YmirGF · Mar 2, 2017

Limo said:
The only difference between canonical books and Apocrypha books is the acceptance of Nicaea
Noore, no less

That IS funny. You do understand that not very many people see them as being anything more than interesting stories, right? You could look at them as being like the less than authentic hadiths that your scholars do not believe are genuine.

Jayhawker Soule · Mar 2, 2017

Limo said:
Oh but you agreed that the Quranic story is much logical

So is the Wizard of Oz.

arthra · Mar 3, 2017

The Baha'i view is that the birth of Jesus was miraculous... and so basically we agree with the Gospels and the Qur'an.

Jesus's virgin birth between Talmud,New Testimony, and Quran

Veteran Member

wind and rain touch not this brain

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

wind and rain touch not this brain

Well-Known Member

Active Member

wind and rain touch not this brain

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

wind and rain touch not this brain

Well-Known Member

Bodhisattva in Recovery

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Bodhisattva in Recovery

-- untitled --

Baha'i