Abrogation In The Torah

[Ariella 0]

We have been thru this before and i asked you a question regarding this issue which you failed to acknowledge let alone answer.

Well, considering I very seldom even visit this board, that might be why I didn't answer the question.

The three letters yud-shin-vav in the Talmud do NOT refer to "Jesus". They are a generic reference to a person who has been cursed for some reason. They are the initials of "y'mach shemo u'zicharon" -- "May his name and memory be erased". Furthermore, both the facts of the cases presented in the Talmud, and the punishments so prescribed, are incorrect. For example, one supposed reference to Jesus in the Talmud refers to a person with four or five disciples (Jesus had 12) who was stoned to death (Jesus was crucified). Secondly, assuming that Mary and Joseph were "betrothed", Jesus would not have been a "mamzer" ([Edited Out]) unless there was proof that Mary had been intimate with someone other than Joseph. Since Jews don't believe G-d runs around getting people pregnant, the Christian claim that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus wouldn't count as mamzerut. However, even if Mary and Joseph were not formally married, sexual intercourse is one of the three ways people become married, and Mary would have to have been married to someone else for the supposed accusation of adultery to be true.

Considering that "Mary" and "Joshua", Jesus' most likely Hebrew name in it's less Christianized English form, were common Hebrew names -- "Mary" because of Miriam the Prophetess, and "Joshua" because he is the person who led us into Eretz Yisrael -- there are going to be mentions of those names in the Talmud. And none of them refer to Jesus or Mary.

[Ariella 0]

And now all I have is paste my previous rebuttal, since you once again brought nothing new to the table

[b]

That is not an answer. That is answer you made up and has no mentioning in the Torah, unless you can prove otherwise

I'm sorry you haven't a clue how to read the Torah. The answer you were given is based on the Torah -- exactly no prophets after that commandment was given have been allowed to change the law. Zero, zilch, zip, nada. Not a single one. Moses died very shortly after that verse and unless I'm missing something, no other laws were added or subtracted.

you have NOT addressed what makes Moshe pbuh.gif a special prophet that only he can change laws

Well, he died after G-d said that the law couldn't be altered, so even HE couldn't alter the law.

What you're claiming would be like me claiming that Muhammed must have been the only prophet since he was the "Seal" of the prophets. Except that's absurd since he was born long after all those other prophets.

you have NOT addressed the unjust parts of the law that remained after his death, which still needed abrogating

And you've yet to demonstrate that any of the existing laws needed abrogating. Or need it today.

you have NOT addressed why your rabbis can change the law, yet prophets from God can't

If you'd stop associating with Reformim, you'd find that rabbis cannot change the law.

And once again you are lying your butt of with the 'there is no concept of abrogation in the Torah', when that is exactly what I proved with the opening of this thread.

Yes, and I'm sure the Reformim you associate with think that's an example of "abrogation". But it isn't.

As for your comparison of muslims who do a good job of refuting you with evangelical christians, all I have to say is that we don't care nor need the Torah's approval for our religion. However, since you have a habit of lying about Jewish concepts in order to undermine islam, as you did when you claimed abrogation does not exist within Judaism, I feel it is my duty to set the record straight for my fellow muslims.

Of course you feel it's your "duty". It's completely inconsistent with Islamic teaching, but you use Islam the same way a drunk uses a lampost -- more for support than illumination.

You know, Islam isn't a bad religion. You should try actually practicing it some day, instead of wagging your male member about, trying to prove what a hot shot you are.

[koroigetsuga 5]

I'm sorry you haven't a clue how to read the Torah. The answer you were given is based on the Torah -- exactly no prophets after that commandment was given have been allowed to change the law. Zero, zilch, zip, nada. Not a single one. Moses died very shortly after that verse and unless I'm missing something, no other laws were added or subtracted.

Its exactly because I am reading the Torah that I am exposing your deceit.

The above statement has NO mentioning in the Torah. Its doesn't exist as you've been told countless times. Unless you produce the verse that says only so and so prophets can change the law but everyone else can't, you lose.

I noticed in your usual selective replying you totally ignored KnightsTemplar's statement on the P and D authors on the previous page.

Well, he died after G-d said that the law couldn't be altered, so even HE couldn't alter the law.

Except the person who wrote that passage said none of the law could be altered, he didn't specify that only Moshe (pbuh) could change the law but after him no one can.

What you're claiming would be like me claiming that Muhammed must have been the only prophet since he was the "Seal" of the prophets. Except that's absurd since he was born long after all those other prophets.

Nope. When we say he was the last prophet thats exactly what we mean, that he is the last.

comparing apples and oranges as usual

And you've yet to demonstrate that any of the existing laws needed abrogating. Or need it today.

Well your rabbis have done a job of that. Which remains the ultimate, most unreftable argument there is. You believe Muhammed (pbuh) can't change the law, yet your rabbis can

And I 'have' countless times demonstrated what needed changing; for one being the marriage of the raped to the rapist. And as better laws replace old ones, keeping with the Torah tradition, the islamic inheritance system surpasses the Jewish system in justice and that is what the opener showed was the requirement for changes in the law. Not to mention we don't treat our marriages to women as some sort of property purchase; which btw is exactly why most feminist jews don't want to get married in Israel and go to cyprus for a secular wedding

If you'd stop associating with Reformim, you'd find that rabbis cannot change the law.

Do rabbis then prescribe that raped women get married to rapists? Yes or no.

That is the double standard that screws you over. You let your rabbis do with the law that you don't let your prophets do

Yes, and I'm sure the Reformim you associate with think that's an example of "abrogation". But it isn't.

The opener that I showed was a prime example of abrogation in the Torah; coming from a Jewish site where a third of the writers are from your denomination (conservative). They see it as abrogation. All you have to deny this now are semantics, you play with the Torah.

And once again with your selective replying you skipped over the link I showed where other jews have left comments for that blog post in the opener and shown up with other examples of abrogation in the Torah such as Ezekial (pbuh) changing the law on sin being visited upto the fourth generation on a family. There are plenty others over there as well. The link is still available; check it out in my last post if you dare

Of course you feel it's your "duty". It's completely inconsistent with Islamic teaching, but you use Islam the same way a drunk uses a lampost -- more for support than illumination.

When you outright lie to us about abrogation being foreign to Judaism, then yes it is my duty to set the record straight.

You know, Islam isn't a bad religion. You should try actually practicing it some day, instead of wagging your male member about, trying to prove what a hot shot you are.

Then you should try practicising yours. How many times have we caught you red-handed on this forum violating the rules of shabbat? For which the punishment in the Torah is execution....oopps I forgot your rabbis ABROGATED that one

Seriously, for all the [Edited Out] you pout against the reform guys its seems you are just like them. You want religion easy. Hence why you told me on msn that the reason you couldn't marry a shia was because you couldn't give up the vodka ;) .

Edited July 24, 2008 by Path2Felicity

[Ariella 0]

Its exactly because I am reading the Torah that I am exposing your deceit.

The above statement has NO mentioning in the Torah. Its doesn't exist as you've been told countless times. Unless you produce the verse that says only so and so prophets can change the law but everyone else can't, you lose.

Look, Deuteronomy is a single day's speech. That is very well understood. The verse which says the Torah cannot be modified was given by G-d very near the beginning of the speech. Here it is again --

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

The speech continues until it ends here --

Deu 33:29 Happy [art] thou, O Israel: who [is] like unto thee, O people saved by the LORD, the shield of thy help, and who [is] the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places.

In the next chapter Moses dies --

Deu 34:5 ¶ So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.

So, prior to 4:2, obviously Moses was revealing the law, as G-d gave it to him. Thus, obviously, "adding" was permitted. Between 4:2 and 34:5, Moses was speaking to the Jewish people. Then, in 34:5, he died.

What is unclear here? What part of this don't you understand?

[koroigetsuga 5]

I don't wish to continue repeating myself. And I see that you are trying to derail the thread from other arguments I have made such as rabbis "evolving" the law, as well as the unjust parts of the law that remained post Moshe's (pbuh) death

Now let's take another spin at this deutronomy passage. 4:2 remains rather ambiguous as all it says is you shall not add or subtract from the law; it does not say only post Moshe's (pbuh) must you stop adding or subtracting from the law.

Now you are making the claim that the context of the verse and the timing implies that after Moshe's (pbuh) death this law became applicable.

So wait then. Was it not applicable then before Moshe (pbuh) existed? What about prophets such as Abraham (pbuh) and Adam (pbuh), who came before Moshe (pbuh)? Were people then allowed to add or subtract from God's swt law before Moshe's (pbuh) time? Were the people under Abraham (pbuh) and Adam (pbuh) allowed to change laws?

Do you see the problems you run into when you make the claim that this law was only applicable post Moshe's (pbuh) death?

An easy way to solve the issue is to see it as a common law for all times. Adam's (pbuh) and Abraham (pbuh) could similarly have such a law for their followers. At face value, the idea is simple which is that it is asking people not to add or subtract from God's law; but to leave that for prophets. People shouldn't add or subtract from God's law anyway, only God should be able to do that, through his prophets. And indeed when we read 4:2 that is exactly how it comes off; its no saying God will never add or subtract from the law, its simply telling the people they can't add or subtract from it.

But then we come back to square one which is that its a commandment for the people; not a promise by God swt that he will not add or subtract from the law. So then what do you have left to deny either Jesus (pbuh) or Muhammed (pbuh) as prophets, when they simply come as representatives of God's new set of laws? Judaism has no end to prophethood, unlike islam, so the possibility of new prophets is left up in the open.

The other argument is this claim that after Moses (pbuh) nobody can add or subtract from the law makes no sense. What was so special about Judaism at that time that it didn't need altering, when not too long after that did the exile of the Jews begin? The punishment for rapists was still marriage to those who they raped. Why was that law not changed, following the procedure outlined in the opener? Today were you raped would accept the methodology outlined in the Torah? And that's just one example.

You will now tell me that the law evolved beyond that; which in my opinion is a fancy way of avoiding the obvious that you did indeed change the law into a more modern form. Which further undermines your use of Deutronomy 4:2; as you cannot criticize Mohammed (pbuh) or Jesus (pbuh) when the Jews themselves never stuck by it in the first place.

In conclusion, I see no reason of why you can criticize the islamic method of abrogation when as the opener shows; its in the Torah as well. Not to mention also the idea that the sins of the father visit upon his family until the fourth generation were abrogated by the prophet Ezekiel (or Isaiah) Alayhimah as salam. So to say that there is no abrogation either in the Torah or scripture is baseless.

[Ariella 0]

If you read the Qur'an, which you apparently do not do, it is clear from the QUR'AN that G-d and B'nei Yisrael entered into a unique and different covenant --

002.040 O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me.

002.047 Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other (for My Message).

002.122 O Children of Israel! call to mind the special favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My Message).

So, the simple question is thus -- why do the messages to Adam and Abraham even come into play in what is a discussion IN THE QUR'AN about B'nei Yisrael?

Let's look at what the Qur'an says about "substitution" --

002.106 None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things?

002.211 Ask the Children of Israel how many clear (Signs) We have sent them.

But if any one, after God's favour has come to him, substitutes (something else), God is strict in punishment.

Does the Qur'an ever say it is "completed"?

005.003 Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than

Allah

. that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me.

This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.

But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression,

Allah

is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Does the Qur'an ever validate Jewish scriptures?

002.062 Those who believe (in the Qur'an),

and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures)

, and the Christians and the Sabians,-

any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness

, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

022.017 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- God will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for God is witness of all things.

Why I have to teach you about G-d, seeing as you're a Muslim, is a mystery, but oddly one that is mentioned in the Torah ...

Edited July 25, 2008 by Ariella

[Son of Placid 1,454]

I'm sorry you haven't a clue how to read the Torah. The answer you were given is based on the Torah -- exactly no prophets after that commandment was given have been allowed to change the law. Zero, zilch, zip, nada. Not a single one. Moses died very shortly after that verse and unless I'm missing something, no other laws were added or subtracted.

So Moses made the 613 laws Jews follow today?

[Ariella 0]

So Moses made the 613 laws Jews follow today?

No, they were made by G-d.

Unlike Christianity, the laws of both Judaism and Islam are divinely revealed. When Paul argues for this doctrine or that, or some church council creates this policy or that, they are inventing their own religion.

[koroigetsuga 5]

Wow Ariella. Your cowardice astounds me because you have totally ignored anything and everything that I just wrote in post # 40. You are once again shooting yourself in the foot by making up a totally new paradigm without even answering the previous arguments. I should stop debating you right here and now because its obvious you have NO answer, but because I'm having such a good time I'll continue to play with you.

I'll answer your questions, but I am not going to let you derail the thread as its obvious you have NO answer to my previous argument

If you read the Qur'an, which you apparently do not do, it is clear from the QUR'AN that G-d and B'nei Yisrael entered into a unique and different covenant --

There is no dispute here, nor did I ever argue against it. And you do realize that the Quran later also claims that your people lost that special favor with God, which is also nominal Jewish explanation for their exile from Israel

So, the simple question is thus -- why do the messages to Adam and Abraham even come into play in what is a discussion IN THE QUR'AN about B'nei Yisrael?

I was criticizing the wording of Deutronomy 4:2

A criticism you have NOT answered. Was 4:2 only applicable post Moshe's (pbuh) death, even though the text doesn't state it? If yes then does that mean Adam (pbuh) and Abraham's (pbuh) followers could add or subtract from the laws God gave them, because they didn't have this law. Yes or No?----To solve this problem the only option is to see 4:2 as a law for all times for all prophets as that is the only way it makes sense. But then you can't use it against Jesus (pbuh) or Mohammed (pbuh), because the law is simply asking people not to add or subtract, its not saying that God himself will not add or subtract from it.

Let's look at what the Qur'an says about "substitution" --

002.106 None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things?

There you have your answer ;)

002.211 Ask the Children of Israel how many clear (Signs) We have sent them.

But if any one, after God's favour has come to him, substitutes (something else), God is strict in punishment.

And I see nothing objectionable here

Does the Qur'an ever say it is "completed"?

005.003 Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than

Allah

. that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me.

This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.

But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression,

Allah

is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Yes it does and you just showed it. What's your point?

Is there any passage in the Torah that says that God's word is completed, or ended with the torah....No. The Torah leaves the possibility for future revelation wide open hence its doesn't end prophethood

Does the Qur'an ever validate Jewish scriptures?

002.062 Those who believe (in the Qur'an),

and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures)

, and the Christians and the Sabians,-

any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness

, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

022.017 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- God will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for God is witness of all things.

these verses have been explained to you before.

Despite your previous rants about islam demanding bloodlust, violence, etc you see from this verse that the Quran is asking us to unite with monotheists. Had you read tafsir al-mizan or some other tafsir of these verses you would also realize that the call to unite with other monotheists is not only restricted to these religions but ALL monotheists, so even monotheistic hindus would fit in this category.

However uniting and making peace is not the same as agreeing. For example following that verse we would have to make peace with christians. However does that mean we accept their doctrine on original sin, trinity, etc. Nope. That's not possible. So you see the verse isn't asking us to agree with misguided people, but simply to make peace and unite with those who are monotheists among them

Why I have to teach you about G-d, seeing as you're a Muslim, is a mystery, but oddly one that is mentioned in the Torah ...

Everything has been answered, now go back to post#40 and properly rebuttal my criticism of Deutronomy 4:2

[Ariella 0]

Is there any passage in the Torah that says that God's word is completed, or ended with the torah....No. The Torah leaves the possibility for future revelation wide open hence its doesn't end prophethood

Prophets aren't allowed to change the Torah either. And that's also explicitly stated in the Torah.

Sorry.

The entire premise of Islam as a superseding religion to Judaism is absolutely foreign to Judaism. Fortunately, some of the verses I included that you didn't include also make it clear that it's absolutely foreign to Islam.

Now, is "uniting" the same as "destroying", "driving into the sea", "KILL THE JEWS!" (one of your recent favorites) and "YOU MUST BECOME A MUSLIM!" (another apparent favorite of yours)? No. I'd suggest you more carefully read

002.062 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

This time, for comprehension.

[koroigetsuga 5]

No, they were made by G-d.

Unlike Christianity, the laws of both Judaism and Islam are divinely revealed. When Paul argues for this doctrine or that, or some church council creates this policy or that, they are inventing their own religion.

You know I find interesting that many of my Jewish friends criticize Christianity and claim that Jesus (pbuh) is just a mish mash of various pagan ideas (not that I totally disagree with them)

But I find rather interesting that one could similarly make an argument against the Jewish 613 mitzvohs as being ripped off the Code of Hammurabi

Hammurabi has a direct link with his sun god, Shamash. hmmmm a guy speaking to God directly does sound familiar. but wait there's more.............he wrote his law on STONE TABLETS that are in display in Louvre. Except he predates Moshe (pbuh) by around 300 years.

Oh and check this out. For example take this one from the code on the principle of an-eye-for-an-eye:

"If a citizen shall put out the eye of another, then let his own eye be put out.

If a citizen shall knock out the teeth of another who is higher in rank, then let his own teeth be knocked out."

This closely parallel�s one of the Lord�s commands in Exodus:

Exodus 21:23-24: "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot..."

Here is another example, the code gives the following principle:

"If a citizen steals the son of another citizen, he shall be put to death."

The principle and wording is closely followed in the verse below from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 24:7

"If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel...then that thief shall die..."

Guess christians aren't the only one who did a lot of borrowing. But don't sweat even Hammurabi got his materials from the Sumerians first ;)

Edited July 26, 2008 by koroigetsuga

[koroigetsuga 5]

Prophets aren't allowed to change the Torah either. And that's also explicitly stated in the Torah.

Sorry.

Oh but they do. Here is sarajicili's example that you didn't respond to:

It is clear there is abrogation of the "Torah" within the "Torah" and Bro KOro's observation is a good one. Also, the idea that the sins of the father visit upon his family until the fourth generation were abrogated by the prophet Ezekiel (or Isaiah) Alayhimah as salam. So to say that there is no abrogation either in the Torah or scripture is baseless. That the Rabbinate also has decided against the Torah is well known.

The entire premise of Islam as a superseding religion to Judaism is absolutely foreign to Judaism. Fortunately, some of the verses I included that you didn't include also make it clear that it's absolutely foreign to Islam.

Islam doesn't claim to be a superseding religion. The idea is that God sends new laws to replace old ones. Make sense as time changes and despite your attempts to show this doesn't exist in Judaim, everyone can see the example in the opener of the Torah passage where abrogation takes place. There are others.

Now, is "uniting" the same as "destroying", "driving into the sea", "KILL THE JEWS!" (one of your recent favorites) and "YOU MUST BECOME A MUSLIM!" (another apparent favorite of yours)? No. I'd suggest you more carefully read

I have never said any of that. You know what uniting means. If not go back to grade school and re-do your english 101.

002.062 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

This time, for comprehension.

I explained the verse above.

If the verse said that we have to agree with what those monotheists and their doctrines are saying then that means we would have to accept the trinity, etc. But we don't. The verse is asking use to unite with them, but that doesn't mean we agree with them. The Quranic passage is simply asking us to make peace with our fellow monotheists and its goes hand in hand with passages such as "on to you your religion, and to me mine", "there is no compulsion in religion", etc.

Over all you have shown is that you are blind to context whether its the Torah or the Quran.

Now I'm asking for the second time. Please go back and answer my criticism of Deutronomy 4:2

Edited July 25, 2008 by koroigetsuga

[Ariella 0]

Islam doesn't claim to be a superseding religion. The idea is that God sends new laws to replace old ones. Make sense as time changes and despite your attempts to show this doesn't exist in Judaim, everyone can see the example in the opener of the Torah passage where abrogation takes place. There are others.

"New laws to replace old ones" IS a superseding religion.

And no, no matter how many times you beat your chest you've still yet to prove the premise.

The test for a real prophet is

1). What they say comes true.

2). They DO NOT contradict the Torah. Period.

THAT, my dearest Koro, is in the Torah.

If a rabbi contradicts the Torah, he is to be ignored. My former rabbi (he moved, I had nothing to do with it) insisted that we not only IGNORE a ban on "kitniyot", but that we make it a point to EAT kitniyot.

The rabbis that come the closest to making up new laws are the Orthodox, but even what they do is permitted by the Torah. And even a 4 year old frummie knows the difference between a "law" and a fence around the law, and is able to tell you the difference between torahaic laws and rabbinic laws.

I'm sorry, but you're just as wrong as can be and I've explained why several times now. Judaism is such that Judaism cannot be changed. Not by Muhammed, not by Jesus, not by Rabbi Hillel, and not even by G-d. And yes, G-d said so.

[Son of Placid 1,454]

No, they were made by G-d.

Unlike Christianity, the laws of both Judaism and Islam are divinely revealed. When Paul argues for this doctrine or that, or some church council creates this policy or that, they are inventing their own religion.

No, they were made by Rambam.

Nobody said anything about Paul, but now you mention it, it was Paul who freed Christianity from the mess the Jews had made of the laws of the time. Most laws somehow managed to become profitable to the Jews. Jesus condemned the "Law keepers" and these extra laws, Paul only put it to practice. Think Paul knew the Jewish law? You bet he did. Think he could see thru it? You bet he could.

Rambam's new laws, (not the only one who compiled Jewish laws, but made the most acceptable list), didn't write them by divine revelation, he just tried to do the best he could to keep Jews within acceptable boundries. 10 Commandments weren't enough, so they had to be expanded 61.3 times each. The Rabbis made more laws as required to keep Jews in line.

And God said "Law #1, you have to know God exists" How about You have to know "I" exist?

All this talk about no trinity, but you accept that God speaks of Himself in the third person?

Edited July 26, 2008 by Son of Placid

[koroigetsuga 5]

"New laws to replace old ones" IS a superseding religion.

Then the Torah itself is made of a bunch of superceding religions as that is just what happened with the inheritance abrogation I showed in the opener, not to mention Ezekial's (pbuh) abrogation of sin being inherited till the fourth generation.

And no, no matter how many times you beat your chest you've still yet to prove the premise.

done more times on these two pages than I count

The test for a real prophet is

1). What they say comes true.

Muhammed (pbuh) and likely Jesus (pbuh) made prophecies that came true, such the famous prediction of the end of the Roman empire 9 years before it happened, which lead to thousands of conversions for us

2). They DO NOT contradict the Torah. Period.

Then that's too bad because the the Torah contradicts itself. Two conflicting accounts of creation in Genesis....enough said

THAT, my dearest Koro, is in the Torah.

If a rabbi contradicts the Torah, he is to be ignored. My former rabbi (he moved, I had nothing to do with it) insisted that we not only IGNORE a ban on "kitniyot", but that we make it a point to EAT kitniyot.

The rabbis that come the closest to making up new laws are the Orthodox, but even what they do is permitted by the Torah. And even a 4 year old frummie knows the difference between a "law" and a fence around the law, and is able to tell you the difference between torahaic laws and rabbinic laws.

NUMBERS

If a man dies and has no son, then his inheritance goes to his daughter. But if he has a son, then the daughter gets nothing. Also no mention is made of wives, sisters, or aunts. 27:8

If men make vows, then God expects them to keep them. But a woman cannot make a vow, unless it is "allowed" by her husband or father. If it is "allowed," then she must keep it -- but even so, she is not responsible (her husband or father is). 30:3-16

Deuteronomy

Don't covet your neighbor's wife or ass -- or any thing that belongs to your neighbor. You see, in the eyes of God, women are the possessions of men. 5:21

Three times a year all of the males are to appear before God. The females he never wants to see. 16:16

In the cities that god "delivers into thine hands" you must kill all the males (including old men, boys, and babies) with "the edge of the sword .... But the women ... shalt thou take unto yourself." 20:13-14

If you see a pretty woman among the captives and would like her for a wife, then just bring her home and "go in unto her." Later, if you decide you don't like her, you can "let her go." 21:11-14

Rules for those who have two wives: "one beloved, and another hated." 21:15

When a man dies, his sons inherit his property. Wives and daughters get nothing at all. 21:16

Women are not to wear men's clothing -- it's an "abomination unto the Lord." 22:5

If a man marries, then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they were married. If her father can't produce the "tokens of her virginity" (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep. 22:13-21

Do you still follow any of that? Yes or No? If not and as usual you will tell me that Jewish law "evolves" thanks to your rabbis, then what you are literally telling me is your rabbis can abrogate the law but prophets from God cannot. "Evolving" or "abrogating" it doesn't matter which, because its all a game of semantics you have played for two whole pages, but at the end of the day its all about changing what the Torah says.

I'm sorry, but you're just as wrong as can be and I've explained why several times now. Judaism is such that Judaism cannot be changed. Not by Muhammed, not by Jesus, not by Rabbi Hillel, and not even by G-d. And yes, G-d said so.

I told you before you're shooting yourself in the foot by not answering the arguments presented and instead try to derail the thread every opportunity you got.

-You have not addressed why Rabbis can abrogate laws (which you call evolving) but prophets from God cannot.

-You have not addressed my criticism of Deutronomy 4:2 and the theological problems it creates in post#40. And this is the third time I am reminding you.

Instead what you did after that was go into citing koranic passages in an attempt to derail the thread, when you ran out of counter arguments. this is the same tactic that you employed in the "Jews in Islam" thread and have yet to post a rebuttal to the "Three Oaths" post I made, despite me reminding you of it.

People here can judge for themselves and see past the selective replying you are employing in your arguments. And I am not going to continue repeating myself again and again and again and again and again. I have a life outside this forum. One last chance, either answer the questions properly or end the discussion.

[Ariella 0]

Koro,

Rabbis CANNOT change the law. PERIOD. Invalid premise, no point in debunking it.

And Deuteronomy 4:2 creates precisely ZERO problems (and the repeats in other places in the Torah, all of which agrees the issue with "future prophets") because THE LAW CANNOT BE CHANGED. There's just no problem with Jewish law, and you misunderstanding and misrepresenting it doesn't make your demented misunderstanding true.

Lahore: extremists attack church, beat children

Armed with guns and steel rods, Islamic extremists attack the New Apostolic Church in Hadyara. A final attack is announced for the end of Ramadan, nearby mosque loudspeakers warn.

Lahore (AsiaNews) – A Muslim mob armed with guns and steel rods attacked the New Apostolic Church in Hadyara, on the outskirts of Lahore. They beat up worshippers, including a child, and damaged property.

After the incident the attackers through mosque loudspeakers called on Muslims from nearby villages to gather for a “final attack” after Ramadan. They also urged businesses and farmers not to allow Christians on their properties or do business with them.

Lahore police arrived only after the incident, but remained overnight to patrol the area around the church building.

According to local political leaders, Christians will be safe until the end of Ramadan. But local police could not confirm the information.

Elsewhere in the country near Peshawar Islamic extremists stormed six stores selling records and a barber shop for violating Muslim morality. One person was killed and two wounded as a result of the violence. The stores were destroyed.

[koroigetsuga 5]

Koro,

Rabbis CANNOT change the law. PERIOD. Invalid premise, no point in debunking it.

And Deuteronomy 4:2 creates precisely ZERO problems (and the repeats in other places in the Torah, all of which agrees the issue with "future prophets") because THE LAW CANNOT BE CHANGED. There's just no problem with Jewish law, and you misunderstanding and misrepresenting it doesn't make your demented misunderstanding true.

Repeating debunked arguments will do squat. Repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat all you want. The refutations are all over this thread.

You can go back to post#50 and see all the laws I posted from Numbers and Deutronomy that Jews don't follow because rabbis abrogated them, which you call "evolving". Your deceit won't change what we see in plain sight.

People reading this thread can see that for themselves. Not to mention the VARIOUS other arguments all over the thread that you have not addressed, and carefully derailed the thread at every turn you got.

So far you just come off as bad noise. No arguments, no nothing. And I'm not going to let you take me on a spin of straw-mans for 10 pages like you did with persianshah and macissac in the other thread. People here can see that for themselves, and since I am repeatedly being told by muslims to stop debating you because you have been exposed as an absolute fraud on Judaism, I guess its time I followed their advice.

Case closed with this one as well. You lose. ^_^

Edited July 26, 2008 by koroigetsuga

[Ariella 0]

And again, you cannot take parts of the Torah out of context and claim it is a "law" or a "refutation" of a law or an "abrogation".

The Rebellion Within

An Al Qaeda mastermind questions terrorism.

by Lawrence Wright

Last May, a fax arrived at the London office of the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al Awsat from a shadowy figure in the radical Islamist movement who went by many names. Born Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, he was the former leader of the Egyptian terrorist group Al Jihad, and known to those in the underground mainly as Dr. Fadl. Members of Al Jihad became part of the original core of Al Qaeda; among them was Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s chief lieutenant. Fadl was one of the first members of Al Qaeda’s top council. Twenty years ago, he wrote two of the most important books in modern Islamist discourse; Al Qaeda used them to indoctrinate recruits and justify killing.