Home » Posts tagged 'judaism'

Tag Archives: judaism

Islam Punishes the Rapist

Kaleef K. Karim

One of the misconceptions towards Islam is that a rape victim gets punished while the rapist gets unpunished and can walk away free. It is assumed by critics that men in Islam can commit rape with impunity. Another lie Islamophobes, Anti-Islam propagandists do spread is that a victim who has been raped has to produce four witnesses in order for the rapist to get convicted and punished. Critics have never produced any evidence either from the Quran or Hadith anywhere indicating that there has to be four eye-witnesses for a rapist to get punished, this is just made up by crazy deluded Islamophobes, they are a bunch of hateful mischief-makers. The only time when there has to be four eye-witnesses needed is for adultery, and this is practically impossible to convict anyone with this.

At the time of Prophet Muhammad (p) a woman went out for prayer and a man tried raping her, ‘she shouted’ and ran off, she got away. The woman informed a man, that such and such happened to her. This incident was reported to Prophet Muhammed (p) and he declared the man who had done such evil thing, to be stoned to death. Here is the Hadth:

Narrated Wa’il ibn Hujr: When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had intercourse with her and brought him to her. She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Messenger of Allah. When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Messenger of Allah, I am the man who did it to her. He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (Abu Dawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death. Abu Dawud said: Asbat bin Nasr has also transmitted it from Simak. Reference: Sunan Abi Dawud [Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud)] 437 In-book reference: Book 40, Hadith 29. English translation: Book 39, Hadith 4366

What we see from the above Hadith, is a woman reported what had happened to her, that a man tried raping her and the accused when proved was stoned. One main important thing in this Hadith, if you all noticed is that the woman did NOT need four witnesses, her own testimony was enough to convict/punish the perpetrator.

In another Hadith it’s reported that a slave who was in charge of other slaves, he forced a slave-girl among the slaves who he was in charge, he had forced intercourse with her. When the companion of Prophet Muhammad (p), Umar Ibn Khattab found out what had happened, he had the slave who raped the girl to be flogged and the victim walk away without getting punished:

Malik related to me from Nafi that a slave was in charge of the slaves in the khumus and he forced a slave-girl among those slaves against her will and had intercourse with her. Umar ibn al-Khattab had him flogged and banished him, and he did not flog the slave-girl because the slave had forced her. Muwatta Malik » Hudud English reference: Book 41, Hadith 15 Arabic reference : Book 41, Hadith 1517

As we see from the Hadith already shown, it’s evident that a victim does not get punished. The assumption by Anti-Islam evil mischief makers that the victim gets flogged because she reports been raped is false. The only person that gets punished if found to be guilty, is the rapist. In another hadith the head of State, the ruler of the Muslims Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (5th Caliph) gave judgement on a rapist:

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab that Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan gave a judgement that the rapist had to pay the raped woman her bride- price. Yahya said that he heard Malik say, “What is done in our community about the man who rapes a woman, virgin or non-virgin, if she is free, is that he must pay the bride-price of the like of her. If she is a slave, he must pay what he has diminished of her worth. The hadd-punishment in such cases is applied to the rapist, and there is no punishment applied to the raped woman.” English reference: Book 36, Hadith 14 Arabic reference: Book 36, Hadith 1418
Muwatta Malik » Judgements

Again we see clear evidence that the rapist gets punished and there is no punishment for the victim. You would have also noticed in the above Hadith that the rapist had to pay compensation to the victim.

Oliver Leaman who is a Professor of Philosophy and Zantker Professor of Judaic Studies at the University of Kentucky reiterates what I mentioned at the start of this article that the only time when there is four witnesses needed is for adultery:

“Critics also point to the lack of equal protection for victims of rape in Muslim countries that follow Sharia. They allege that it is impossible to prove rape. For purposes of this discussion, it is important to note that the Sharia makes a distinction betweenadultery and rape and applies different rules. As the Quran clearly states, the proof that adultery has occurred requires four eye-witnesses to the act, which must have been committed by a man and a woman not validly married to one another, and the act must have been wilfully committed by consenting adults. Proof can also be determined by a confession. But this confession must be voluntary, and based on legal counsel; it must be repeated on four separate occasions, and made by a person who is sane. Furthermore, those who bring a charge of adultery against an individual must provide four eye-witnesses. Otherwise, the accuser is then accorded a sentence for defamation (which means flogging or a prison sentence), and his or her testimony is excluded in all future court cases. Thus it is clear that the required testimony of four male witnesses having seen the actual penetration applies to illicit sexual relations, not to rape. The requirements for proof of rape are less stringent.
Rape charges can be brought and a case proven based on the sole testimony of the victim, providing that circumstantial evidence supports the allegations. It is these strict criteria of proof which leads to the frequent observation that where injustice against women does occur, it is not because of Islamic law. It happens either due to misinterpretation of the intricacies of the Sharia laws governing these matters, or a cultural traditions; or due to corruption and blatant disregard of the law, or indeed some combination of these phenomena.”[1]

Conclusion: It is evident from Prophet Muhammad (p) and all the way to the followers of the companions, they have always punished anyone who had forced intercourse with a female. The assumption by critics that there has to be four witnesses in order for a rapist to get convicted is outright lie as shown already. Four witnesses are not needed when it comes to rape, the only time four witnesses are needed is for adultery. In light of the evidences shown Islam forbids rape, and anyone found to be engaged in such under Islamic law, would be punished severely.

Article: Islam on Forced Marriages:
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/12/15/islam-on-forced-marriages/

Reference:

[1] Controversies in Contemporary Islam By Professor Oliver Leaman page 78

Jewish sources on Jesus Crucifixion, genuine or forgery?

The article Below was Originally Posted from this website – Link:
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/10/28/examining-jewish-sources-on-jesus-crucifixion-genuine-or-forgery/

J.R: Josephus work is a huge volume. It consists of twenty books. What is strange, many pages are devoted to irrelevant leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of one king alone. Yet Jesus who was the greatest man, a person who was foretold thousands of times by the Prophets, greater than any King on earth, gets only a few lines about him in his book? It doesn’t make sense at all.

What would be a good historical non-Christian source on Jesus? A good reliable source would be a contemporary historian that lived and wrote during the time in which Christ was alive. Any historian living or writing about him after he had ascended cannot be taken as 100% fact, that we can rely on, because they never witnessed anything personally with their own eyes. A devastating fact to Christians is that there is not one single contemporary historian, when Jesus was alive, who had ever wrote about Christ, does not exist. All the supposed sources Christians cling to, were written decades after Jesus alleged crucifixion. In other words none of the historians that Christians cite have ever met Jesus in real life. Any historian writing decades after Jesus life is merely writing whatever others are saying. In other words, he is writing hearsay, not facts he himself witnessed.

So, what is the evidence Christians use in defence of the Crucifixion, outside the Bible? Flavius Josephus, who was a well renowned Jewish historian, was born two years after the alleged Crucifixion of Jesus. In the year 93 A.D to 94 A.D. Josephus wrote a book called:- “Antiquities of the Jews”, the book consists of 20 volumes. In the 18th Volume there is a passage which speaks of Jesus, according to Christians it was written by the pen of Josephus. Here is the passage on what it said about this so-called Jesus:

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” [1]

Isn’t it just wonderful in this little piece of info, we have (1) Jesus is more than just a Human (god). (2) Miracles he performed. (3) His Ministry among Jews & Gentiles. (4) He is the Messiah. (5) He is condemned by the Jewish Priests. (6) Sentenced by Pilate. (7) He died on the Cross. (8) Came back to life on the third day. (9) He fulfilled the Divine Prophecy.

Would any sane person really believe that a hardcore Jew, a Pharisee would write something like this? This statement is written by a Christian not Josephus.

This brief passage is the ‘best proof’ for the crucifixion of Jesus outside the Bible; this is according to Christian Apologists. However, when one examines the passage and its historicity it becomes clear, that this passage was inserted into the work of Josephus. The passage was never quoted once by any of the Church Fathers such as:- Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and many, many more. Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea who flourished in the 4th century was the first Christian who made mention of it. Many Christian Scholars believe the passage was inserted into the work of Josephus by Eusebius. Isn’t it ironic for well over 200 years not one Church father quotes such a passage? Origen who was an early Church Father, quoted extensively from the work of Josephus in defence of Christianity. Yet neither he, nor any Church fathers quoted the passage before Eusebius in the fourth century. Before I proceed, showing evidences from Christian Scholars that the passage is a forgery, I would like to answer fictitious arguments raised by some desperate Evangelists who still cling to the passage being genuine.

Missionary arguments:

• TF is found in every manuscript
• It is the style of Josephus to write like that
• Some part of the TF is genuine

I will sum up all three arguments into one. When desperate Evangelists say: ‘TF is found in every Manuscript’, they mislead people, they do not tell their fellow Christians that the earliest manuscript for Testimonium Flavianum is an Arabic Manuscript from the tenth century. They do not have any Manuscript before Eusebius time, nor is it mentioned by any Church father before 3rd Century. Another fictitious argument they bring up, is they say:- ‘it is the style of Josephus to write like that’. How can we know what the style of Josephus is, when we don’t have any of his works intact from the time when he wrote it? They don’t even have one church fathers testimony before Eusebius saying anything on the TF. If the works of Josephus were in the hands of Jews, then we can give more credit that the passage is genuine. But Josephus Books were not stored by Jews, but Christian fathers, who copied, deleted, added stuff that should not be there. The last argument that ‘some part of TF is genuine’ came into the scene not long ago. Missionaries didn’t know what to do with overwhelming Christian and non-Christian Scholars condemning the passage as an outright forgery. Their new argument was simple; they removed all the parts that were Christian like.

Removal of parts in the TF:

(1) if it be lawful to call him a man.
(2) For he was a doer of wonderful works.
(3) He was [the] Christ.
(4) for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him

This is what we will be left with, when the above four is deleted:

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” [Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3]

The problem again as before, they do not provide any evidence how they came to conclusion that this what Josephus actually wrote. All this is mere guess-work. In order for missionaries to convince people the TF is genuine, they have to produce historical evidence that goes back before Eusebius. Origen whom I mentioned before, who used Josephus work widely never once came across any passage that mentions Jesus as the ‘Messiah’ or Christ being crucified. Actually in Origen’s work, he makes mention that Josephus did NOT believe Jesus was the Messiah. Here is what he wrote: “did not accept Jesus as Christ” [2] Isn’t the testimony from Origen enough proof that the whole passage, TF is a forgery? How can we believe that TF is genuine and say he is the ‘Messiah’, yet, Origen who wrote massively (using Josephus work) in defending Christianity says, Josephus did ‘not’ believe Jesus to be the Messiah. This evidence alone from Origen is enough to crush any desperate missionary in trying to defend the TF as genuine. I would like pseudo missionaries answer this question of mine. Since Origen makes mention in his work that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the messiah, where is Josephus statement what Origen has stated? Where is Josephus statement where he denies Jesus being the Messiah? This is another prove that Church fathers have deleted statements from Josephus work.

Scholarly evidences that the TF is an outright forgery

Professor Oskar Holtzmann who is a Christian, was born in 1859, he was a German theologian and a New Testament scholar. He goes in detail on Testimonium Flavianum, he writes:

“Origen must still have read something like this in his Josephus; for in two places he tells us that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah (Contra Celsum i. 47; cp. In Matth. X. 17). On the other hand, Eusebius already (Hist. Eccl., i. 11, and Dem. Evan., iii. 5, 105, 106) contains that passage about Jesus (Jos., Ant xviii. 63 f.)- now given all the MSS.- which, in view of its content and form CANNOT POSSIBLY BE GENUINE. If this section were indeed derived from Josephus, it would mean that he, a Jew, who everywhere steps forward as a champion of his Judaism, first called Jesus a wise man, and then added the hesitating qualification, ‘if indeed he may be called a man at all.’ The writer then proceeds to justify this qualifying clause by adding further, ‘for he was a performer of acts incredible’; though what those acts were he does not tell us. The same passage also goes on to say that Jesus was a teacher of such men as willingly accept the truth.
That is to say, Josephus here describes the nature and content of Jesus’ teaching by the simple term, ‘the truth’ (…..). Jesus drew to himself those who thirsted for the truth- SUCH A SENTENCE CAN ONLY HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY ONE RECKONED HIMSELF TO BELONG TO THE COMMUNITY OF CHRIST. Again, it is said Jesus, in distinct contradiction to historical fact, ‘and many Jews, many also of the people of the Greeks, did he draw to himself.’ Josephus the historian, in describing the earthly Jesus, COULD NEVER HAVE MADE SUCH A STATEMENT as that contained in the second clause. But the account goes on to say of Jesus, ‘this man was the Messiah.’ IF JOSEPHUS HAD WRITTEN THUS, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONTENT TO DEVOTE ONLY ONE SHORT CHAPTER TO THE ACCOUNT OF JESUS’ LIFE; for we must remember that Josephus was a Jew and perfectly familiar with the Messianic belief. If he could have so written, Jesus must have been for him the man of men, the future lord of the world; at any rate, from this particular passage onwards the fate of Jesus must have seemed important for the whole future development of his narrative. But of this there is not the slightest trace. The only further passage in which Josephus makes mention of Jesus is that already cited (Ant., xx. 200). This circumstance, more than any other, PROVES THAT THE PASSAGE UNDER CONSIDERATION (XVIII. 63, 64) IS NOT GENUINE. This same passage then goes on to speak of the end of Jesus: ‘When the chief men amongst us had notified him unto Pilate, and Pilate had punished him with the death on the cross, those who had formerly loved him fell not away, for on the third day he appeared unto them again alive, as the holy prophets had foretold (and many other wonderful things also); and even down to this present time the Christian folk who are called after him have not ceased to be.’ Here, then, the whole body of Old Testament prophecy is referred to Jesus; this is the standpoint of a Christian. Nor is the expression ‘the Christian folk’ (….) appropriate in the mouth of one who is a Jew and wishes to remain so.
The word ….expresses really the idea of a common descent; it is precisely the characteristic element of the idea that was manifestly wanting in Christianity, made up as it was of an assemblage from all peoples. Christianity knows differently: to it all the members of the Christian community are children of God and brethren of Christ. Almost the only designation for the Christian community that was available for a Jew to use was the term ….. (Acts xxiv. 5, 14, xxviii. 22).
THUS THE PASSAGE ATTRIBUTED TO JOSEPHUS IS UNQUESTIONABLY SPURIOUS. And as there no inherent contradictions discernible in it, it would be a piece of pure arbitrariness to ATTEMPT TO PICK OUT GENUINE KERNEL FROM WAS IS AS A WHOLE SPURIOUS. On the contrary, we are obliged to hold that the text which we now have has supplanted another which was LESS AGREEABLE to the Christians of a later date. And the time when his substitution took place was no doubt the period between Origen and Eusebius. THE CHURCH, STRUGGLING AS SHE WAS AFTER POWER, DELETED FROM JOSEPHUS, AN AUTHOR BOTH WIDELY READ AND IN MANY RESPECTS SERVICEABLE TO HER, A PASSAGE WHICH WAS REPUGNANT TO HER, AND SUBSTITUTED FOR IT A TEXT WHICH FROM HER STANDPOINT WAS UNASSAILABLE, BUT WHICH, AS A MATTER OF FACT, IS IN NO SENSE COMPATIBLE WITH THE AUTHORSHIP OF JOSEPHUS.” [3]

Dutch Experts such as Dr. Henricus Oort who is Professor of Hebrew Antiquities, Dr. I. Hooykaas [was a Pastor in Rotterdam] and Dr. A. Keunen Professor of Theology At Leiden, wrote a book called: ‘The Bible for Learners’, all three them agree that the TF is not genuine, but inserted into the work of Josephus by ‘Christian hand’ later, they wrote:

“……for this knowledge we have hardly any sources but the four books with which the New Testament begins. No other authorities deserve to be mentioned by their side. Paul gives us a few general characteristics, and makes a few allusions in his letters, but this is all. He had never known Jesus personally. Flavius Josephus, the well-known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A.D. 37, only two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of inestimable value as our chief authority for the circumstances of the times in which Jesus and his disciples came forward, yetHE DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE EVER MENTIONED JESUS HIMSELF. At any rate, the passage in his ‘Jewish Antiquities’ that refers to him is certainly SPURIOUS, and was INSERTED BY A LATER AND A CHRISTIAN HAND.” [4]

Alexander Campbell who was a Bible teacher, Minister and a Leader in a Church also admits that the passage concerning Jesus from Josephus work is not original, but ‘spurious’:

“Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion.
Respecting the founder of his religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, AND AS THIS PASSAGE IS NOT QUOTED OR REFERRED TO TILL THE BEGINNING OF THE FOURTH CENTURY, IT IS, FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS GENERALLY ACCOUNTED SPURIOUS.” [5]

Leonhard Goppelt was born in the year 1911; he was a theologian and pastor in Germany. He writes:

“We would be very much inclined to ascribe special significance to non-Christian information about Jesus because of its ostensible lack of bias. Our expectations would be high, e.g., if the trial folios of Pilate should be discovered on a piece of papyrus. In all probability, however, such a discovery would lead to disappointment since they would offer only a sum of misunderstandings, much like the accounts of Plinius about the Christians.
Such is the confirmed the small number of extant non-Christian sources of information about Jesus from the 1st and 2nd centures. Among the Roman historians, Jesus is mentioned only once each by Tacitus and Suetonius. What they have to say about him ca. A.D, 110 has been taken from statements of Christians.
This fact is not astonishing at all since, after all, for the empire in this period, the activity of Jesus and his disciples was nothing more than a remote affair with hardly more than local significance. Conspicuous, however, is the fact that even Josephus, the Jewish historian of the epoch, is entirely or almost entirely silent on Jesus. THE TWO BRIEF REMARKS ABOUT HIM IN JOSEPHUS WORKS BEAR ALL THE MARKS OF EXTENSIVE CHRISTIAN EMENDATION, if they are not entirely interpolated. What is the reason for this silence? He was writing for a Hellenistic-Roman audience for one thing, and wished for this reason to avoid any identification of his movement with Judaism. It had, after all, fallen under suspicion in the entire Kingdom since Neronian persecution. The inner-Jewish, rabbinic tradition speaks only rarely and in veiled terms about Jesus or the Nazarenes. The references are so disguised and the information SO DISTORTED THAT ONE CAN HARDLY SAY WITH CERTAINTY THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT JESUS OR THE CHRISTIANS AT ALL.”
Footnote 11 in the same page Leonhard Goppelt writes:

“Ant. 20.9.1 reported briefly that ‘a man James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ,’ was executed. This could have been genuine. In contrast, however, ANT 18.3.3 WAS SURELY INTERPOLATED: ‘About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.’ To what extent the interpolator used Josephus text as a source CANNOT BE DETERMINED. The places that mentioned Jesus in the Slavic text of the War are inauthentic.” [6]

Richard Brodhead Westbrook was born 1820 in Pike County, Pennsylvania. By 1839 he had obtained a license to preach. He remained a Methodist Episcopal preacher until 1852, but left the Methodist Church that year. Beginning in 1853 Westbrook served as a Presbyterian pastor in Burlington, NJ. Around the same time he was awarded an honorary Master of Arts (A.M.) degree from Princeton University. In 1854 he was serving as the secretary of the American Sunday School Union. Westbrook received another honorary degree, Doctor of Divinity (D.D.), in 1860 from Washington College (Maryland). Three years later (1863) he received a degree in law from New York University and admittance to the New York State Bar. [7] He is another Christian, thoroughly explaining and also saying that the TF is not original, but a ‘forgery’, he writes:

“The failure of Jewish writers of the first century to recognise Jesus of Nazareth, even in the most casual way, is significant fact. Philo, the celebrated writer of his day, was born about twenty years before the Christian era, and spent his time in philosophical studies at that centre of learning, Alexandria in Egypt. He labored diligently and wrote voluminously to reconcile the teachings of Plato with the writings of the Old Testament, and though in the prime and vigor of manhood when Jesus is said to have lived, and dwelling in the immediate vicinity of Judea, and in the very city where Christianity was early introduced, yet this learned, devout, and HONEST JEW MAKES NO MENTION OF JESUS OF NAZARETH.
Even more strange is the silence of Josephus, the Jewish Historian, who was born about A.D. 35, and lived and wrote extensively until after the destruction of Jerusalem, and yet he never mentioned the name of Jesus. THE CELEBRATED PASSAGE REGARDING CHRIST IS KNOWN TO BE A FORGERY, and the one respecting ‘James the brother of Jesus, called the Christ,’ is by no means worthy of confidence. It must be certain that in the first century of our era Jesus of Nazareth did not attract the attention of these fair distinguished Jewish writers, if he in fact existed.
In early times the name Jesus, as has been shown, was as common as the names John or James, and when the name is mentioned it is impossible to say who is referred to. Gibbon says: IT WAS FORGED BETWEEN THE TIME OF ORIGEN (A.D. 230) AND EUSEBIUS (A.D. 315). THE CREDIT OF THE FORGERY, HOWEVER IS GENERALLY GIVEN TO EUSEBIUS, WHO FIRST QUOTED IT. The distinguished authors of the Bible for learners distinctly state that Josephus never mentioned Jesus, and cite Josephus’s close following of the atrocious career of Herod up to the very last moments of his life, WITHOUT MENTIONING THE SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS, AS INDUBITABLE PROOF THAT JOSEPHUS KNEW NOTHING OF JESUS. The Rev. Dr. Giles, author of the Christian Records, adds to the reasons for rejecting the passage, as follows, “Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus and the style of his writings have no hesitation in condemning THIS PASSAGE AS A FORGERY INTERPOLATED IN THE TEXT DURING THE THIRD CENTURY BY SOME PIOUS CHRISTIAN, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the Gospels or of Christ their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well-known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion; and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it.
IF IT HAD BEEN GENUINE, WE MIGHT BE SURE THAT JUSTIN MARTYR, TERTULLIAN, AND CHRYSOSTOM WOULD HAVE QUOTED IT IN THEIR CONTROVERSIES WITH THE JEWS, AND THAT ORIGEN OR PHOTIUS WOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT. BUT EUSEBIUS , THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIAN (I. 11), IS THE FIRST WHO QUOTES IT, AND OUR RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT, OR EVEN HONESTY, OF THIS WRITER IS NOT SO GREAT AS TO ALLOW OUR CONSIDERING EVERYTHING FOUND IN HIS WORKS AS UNDOUBTEDLY GENUINE.”
Oxley in his great work on Egypt says: “However, I have found in some papers that this discourse was not written by Josephus, but by on Caius, a presbyter.” Here, according to their own showing, what had passed for centuries as the work of Josephus WAS A FRAUD PERPETRATED BY A DIGNITARY OF THE CHURCH. This is in perfect keeping with ancient custom. In addition to all this, there is not original manuscript of Josephus in existence…………
ANOTHER FORGED REFERENCE TO CHRIST IS FOUND IN THE ANTIQUITIES, BOOK XX. CHAPTER IX. SECTION 1, WHERE JOSEPHUS IS MADE TO SPEAK OF JAMES, “THE BROTHER OF JESUS, WHO WAS CALLED CHRIST.” Some theologians who reject the longer reference to Jesus accept this as genuine. But they do it without reconciling the discrepancies between the stories regarding the end of this same James. According to this passage, James was put to death under the order of high priest. But according to Hegesippus, a converted Jew who wrote history of the Christian church about A.D. 170, James was killed in a tumult, not by sentence of a court. Clement of Alexandria confirms this, and is quoted by Eusebius accordingly. Eusebius also quotes the line from Josephus without noticing that the two do not agree. The statement is quoted in various ways in early writers, and the conclusion is irresistible that the copies of Josephus were tampered with by copyists.” [8]

In light of the evidences I have presented from Christians scholars, Josephus statement on Jesus is a forgery, it was most certainly not written by him, which is a fact. The offender who is most likely to have inserted it into Josephus work, mentioned by some of the experts is Eusebius. He was the first person to have quoted it, as I mentioned earlier many Church fathers used Josephus work extensively, yet not one them came across such a passage. 

Examining Sanhedrin 47a, on Jesus Crucifixion

Another interesting passage Christian missionaries love to cite that Jesus was put to death, is Sanhedrin 43a. They assume that the Yeshu (Jesus) that is mentioned in the passage is the same Jesus from the New Testament. There are however many problems which Christian Apologists won’t be able to solve, if they still try to argue that the passage is talking about Yeshu (Jesus) of the New Testament. The passage in question is certainly not referring to the same Jesus of the Gospels. Reasons are very simple: The person who is mentioned in Sanhedrin 43a is a different Jesus to the one from the Gospels, this Jesus lived at the time of King Yannai that is well over 100 years before the Jesus of the Gospels was born.

Yeshu (Jesus) was a student of a Rabbi Yeshoshua ben Perahia (Sotah 47a). There is mention of NO teacher that Jesus had, in the four Gospels. Rabbi Yeshoshua ben Perahia (Sotah 47a) most certainly did NOT live at the time of Jesus, of the Gospels. Historical evidence shows that he lived at the time of King Yannai, which is well over 100 years before Jesus was born. Let’s read Sanhedrin 47a, it says:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu
34 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!
35 — Ulla retorted: ‘Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence Dilling Exhibit 47 Begins could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?
36 With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].’ Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before God?
37 Thereupon they retorted; Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, When Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish.
38 When Nakai was brought in he said to them; Shall Nakai be executed? It is not written, Naki [the innocent] and the righteous slay thou not?
39 Yes, was the answer, Nakai shall be executed, since it is written, in secret places does Naki
40 [the innocent] slay.
41 When Nezer was brought in, he said; Shall Nezer be executed? Is it not written, And Nezer [a twig] shall grow forth out of his roots.
42 Yes, they said, Nezer shall be executed, since it is written, But thou art cast forth away from thy grave like Nezer [an abhorred offshoot].
43 When Buni was brought in, he said: Shall Buni be executed? Is it not written, Beni [my son], my first born?
44 Yes, they said, Buni shall be executed, since it is written, Behold I will slay Bine-ka [thy son] thy first born.
45 And when Todah was brought in, he said to them; Shall Todah be executed? Is it not written, A psalm for Todah [thanksgiving]?
46 Yes, they answered, Todah shall be executed…… [9]

The above passage from the Talmud does not only say this Yeshu was hanged, but he had a teacher, his name was ‘Yeshoshua ben Perahia’. Another thing, it also mentions that this Yeshu had five disciples who got executed. Question to pseudo missionaries, how can this passage be referring to the same Jesus of the Gospels, when we know Jesus had way more disciples than what is mentioned in Sanhedrin 47a? Where in the Gospels does it ever mention anything about five of Jesus disciples bring murdered with him? Mark Allan Powell (Ph.D Union Theological Seminary) is the Robert and Phyllis Leatherman Professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary, he writes:

“Scholars debate whether there may be obscure references to Jesus in some of the collections of ancient Jewish writings, such as the Talmud, the Tosefta, the targums, and the Midrasim. Occasional polemical comments in these writings are sometimes thought to be veiled references to Jesus, but since he is not mentioned by name, no one knows for sure. The text that is most often accepted as referring to him comes from Babylonian Talmud. The main problem is here that the materials that make up this work were collected over a long period of time, finally coming together around 500-600 C.E. Thus, there is NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW EARLY (OR RELAIBLE) the references may be…….
Later this same text also says. ‘Jesus had five disciples: Mattai, Maqai, Metser, Buni, and Todah.’ THIS OF COURSE IS NEITHER THE TRADITIONAL LIST OF NAMES NOR THE TRADITIONAL NUMBER.” [10]

Talmud Sanhedrin 107b and Sotah 47a make mention that Rabbi Yehoshua fled to Egypt, but in Sotah 47a there is no mention of Jesus. Interesting thing, both of the passages mentioned from the Talmud says, Rabbi Yehoshua fled because of King Yannai (or jannaeus), this was well over a century before Jesus of the Gospel was born. Here is what is said:
What of R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah?
When John [Hyrcanus] the king killed the rabbis, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah [and Yeshu] went to Alexandria of Egypt. When there was peace, Shimon Ben Shetach sent to him “From me [Jerusalem] the holy city to you Alexandria of Egypt. My husband remains in your midst and I sit forsaken.”
[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] left and arrived at a particular inn and they showed him great respect. He said: How beautiful is this inn [Achsania, which also means innkeeper].
[Yeshu] said: Rabbi, she has narrow eyes.
[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] said to him: Wicked one, this is how you engage yourself?
[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] sent out four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him.
[Yeshu] came before [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] many times and said: Accept me. But [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] paid him no attention.
One day [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] was reciting Shema [during which one may not be interrupted]. [Yeshu] came before him. He was going to accept [Yeshu] and signalled to [Yeshu] with his hand. [Yeshu] thought that [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] was repelling him. He went, hung a brick, and bowed down to it.
[Yeshu] said to [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah]: You taught me that anyone who sins and causes others to sin is not given the opportunity to repent.
And the master said: Yeshu {the Notzri} practiced magic and deceive and led Israel astray. [11]

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus), Yannai (or Alexander Jannaeus ) was king of Judea from 103 BC to 76 BC. This is a century before Jesus of the New Testament was born. How can this passage be talking about the Jesus of the New Testament, when these incidents occurred a century before Jesus was born? All this evidence presented by me proves that the references mentioned by Christians from the Talmud, could not be the same person it’s speaking about.

Here is Rabbi Boteach who makes it clear that this Jesus (Yeshu) is not the same person from Gospels. He writes:

“To be sure, there is a famous Talmudic citation that says that the high Jewish court condemned Jesus to death (Sanhedrin 43a). But the Jesus it is referring to cannot be the founder of Christianity. In the Talmud there is more than one Yeshu (Jesus). A case in point is where the Talmud says that Jesus if Nazareth was a student of Yeshoshua ben Perahia (Sotah 47a), a sage who died at least 100 years before the Jesus of the New Testament was born. More importantly, whoever this ‘Yeshu’ is, it most certainly is not Jesus of the New Testament because the narrative of their deaths is completely different. There is no Roman involvement, no crucifixion, and a number of students are put to death with this Yeshu, something that does NOT happen in the New Testament.” [12]


Conclusion: I believe all the evidence I have presented from Academics has thoroughly debunked Josephus’s TF as being genuine. I went in detail explaining and bringing Christian Professors who also acknowledged and thoroughly exposed the TF as an out-right forgery. Them sincere Christian Professors also made mention that the TF is a work of a Christian hand; it could not possibly be from Josephus, who was a devout Jew, a Pharisee. I also went over the citation in Sanhedrin 47a, which was assumed by Christian missionaries, strong evidence that it referred to Jesus. However as I have gone over the passage in detail, the verse could not talk about Jesus of the Gospels. As you would have read already the evidence presented, this Yeshu who was hanged, lived 100 years before the Jesus of the New Testament. Another evidence that the passage in Sanhedrin 47a was not the same Jesus of the Gospels, is how the Talmud Sanhedrin 107b and Sotah 47 state that Rabbi Yeshoshua ben Perahia fled to Egypt because of King Yannai, as stated before King Yannai lived one century before Jesus of the Gospels. It seems clear by now all the supposed sources Christians have used, that it is to do with Jesus of NT, is forgery or as in the case of the Talmud, it referred to a completely different Yeshu who lived a century before Jesus of the Gospels. All in all I believe I have presented enough evidence that there is no mention of Jesus of the  New Testament in any early Jewish source.

References:

[1] [Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3
[2] [Vol. IX, Origen on Matthew, Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, Book X by Origen, translated by John Patrick Chapter 17 –http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_IX/Origen_on_Matthew/Origen%27s_Commentary_on_Matthew/Book_X/Chapter_17 ]
[3] The life of Jesus (1904) Professor Oskar Holtzmann D.D. Translated by J.t. Bealby, B.A. And Maurice A. Canney, M.A. [London Adam and Charles Black 1904] page 15 – 16
[4] The Bible for Learners. By Dr. Henricus Oort [Professor of Hebrew Antiquities At Leiden] and Dr. I. Hooykaas [Pastor At Rotterdam] with the Assistance of Dr. A. Keunen [Professor of Theology At Leiden] – [Boston: Roberts Brothers 1879] Volume 3 page 27
[5] Debate on the evidences of Christianity; containing an examination of the social system, and of all the systems of scepticism of ancient and modern times, held in the city of Cincinnati, for eight days successively, between Robert Owen and Alexander Campbell. With an appendix by the parties (1839) Page 300
[6] The Ministry of Jesus in Its Theological Significance By Leonhard Goppelt Volume 1 [Copy Right 1981] page 18 – 19
[7] http://dla.library.upenn.edu/dla/pacscl/ead.pdf?id=PACSCL_WFIS_93003WFIS93003
[8] The eliminator; or, Skeleton keys to sacerdotal secrets By Richard Brodhead Westbrook, D. D., LL.D [Printed for the Author By J.B Lippincott Company, Philadelphia. 1894] Page 198 – 203
[9] http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html
[10] Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee [Copy Right 1998] By Mark Allan Powell page 34
[11] http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_47.html
[12] A Jewish Philosophy of History: Israel’s Degradation & Redemption By Paul Eidelberg page 282

examing Jewish sources on Jesus Crucifixion

Mary worshipped as a God?

The article Below was Originally Posted from this website – Link:

http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/08/15/trinity-mary-worshipped-as-a-god/

It is common among Christians (missionaries) to say: – “the Quran got the Trinity wrong.” Hence they assume that the Trinity that is mentioned in the Quran speaks of Mary as part of the Christian Trinity. What they do not perceive, no where in the Quranic verses they cite, does it even indicate Mary of being part of the Trinity, as we will investigate shortly.  What I will do in this article is, cite as many references from Christians that Mary was indeed God by certain Christians and she was part of the Trinity. I will also respond to all the passages missionaries use as evidence against the Quran. Let’s now read the verses they use as proof that the Quran says ‘Mary is part of the Trinity’:

Quran 5:116 – And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?’” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

From this passage Christians think it speaks about the Trinity, but they are wrong. If they read the verse from start to end they will NOT find the word “Trinity” in the passage. I will cite references shortly that Mary indeed was believed to be part of the Trinity, by some Christian sects. Another passage they use as proof that the Quran got the Trinity wrong is:

Quran 4:171 – “O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not “Trinity” : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.”

Again the above verse does not say anything about Mary being part of the Trinity. If anybody reads the passage carefully, it is clear that the verse is mainly speaking of Jesus. The name of Mary is used, because Allah is elucidating, making Christians ponder that Jesus son of Mary was only a messenger of God, and through His (God’s) command he (Jesus) became a created being that was born in the womb of Mary. Then after that, Allah says: “say not Trinity” (or Three). It is quite clear that the verse does not say anything about Mary being part of the Trinity. So, the Quran is not wrong, it is the missionaries who are lying and distorting the Quranic verses who are wrong.

 The Quran does speak about the Trinity somewhere else, but says nothing about Mary being part of the Trinity. Here is the verse:


Quran 5:73 –
 “They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.”

As you have read the above passage it speaks about the Trinity, but does not mention anything about, Mary being part of the Trinity.

Another thing critics (Missionaries) love citing for chapter 4 verse 171, is classic commentaries such as Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, by that they conclude the Quran is a false book and not from God, since they believe the Trinity consists of “the Father, Son and Mary.” Nowhere in the verse (Quran 4:71) does it indicate that the Trinity consists of, “the Father, Son and Mary.” Even if we agree with what some of the commentators like: Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs said, it will not refute anything. The Scholars made that comment, because they were referring to some Christian heretics who believed that Trinity doctrine consisted of the “Father, the Son and Mary.” Another thing if you read their exegesis, nowhere will you see them mention that this belief was believed by ALL Christians. There is vast amount evidence from the Church Fathers that, there was a certain sect in Arabia that believed the Trinity consisted of: “Father, the Son and Virgin Mary.” Let’s read the evidence for this:

1. George Sale
“This notion of the divinity of the virgin Mary was also believed by some at the council of Nice, who said there two gods besides the Father, viz., Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were thence named Mariamites. Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified; which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition in calling her the compliment of the Trinity, as if it were imperfect with her. This foolish imagination is justly condemned in the Koran as idolatrous….” [1]

2. Reverend Gilbert Reid D.D.
“As to Christianity as it was represented in Arabia, it was not a clear untarnished theism, but tritheism. The Heavenly Father, Mary the mother of God and Jesus their son, were WORSHIPPED as three Gods, and their images appeared in the churches along with the images of other saints. Christianity as taught by Christ had lost its identity in the formalism and errors of the church of Arabia. Still more the truths pro-claimed by God through all the ages had been lost sight amid the vain imaginings of men’s hearts. The only God of, an omnipresent spirit, without form or body. The reformation of Mohammed was thus a return to the first and second commandment of the Prophet Moses, which Jesus himself had taught.” [2]

3. Washington Irving
“The Mariamites, or worshippers of Mary, regarded the Trinity as consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Virgin Mary. The Collydrians were a sect of Arabian Christians, composed chiefly of females. They worshipped the Virgin Mary as possessed of divinity…..” [3]

4. English theologian Theophilus Lindsey writes: 
“The followers of Christ had been for some ages quarrelling and destroying each other in their heat’s and disputes, not concerning the Supreme Father of all, to whom they paid little attention; but about the nature of Christ. And of the Holy Spirit, and many other objects of worship, which they invented. (t) The notion of the divinity of the Virgin Mary was believed by some even at the council of Nice: who said there were two gods besides the Father, viz. Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were thence names Mariamites. Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified: which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition, in calling her the complement of the Trinity….” [4]

5. William Cook Taylor
“In Arabia itself some of the worst heresies were propagated: the chief of these were the heresies of the Ebonites, the Nazareans, and the Collydrians, the last of which derived its name from the collyris, or twisted cake offered by them to the Virgin Mary, whom they worshipped as a deity. It is known to all readers of ecclesiastical history that a sect called Mariamites exalted the Virgin to a participation in the Godhead, and that writers of the Romish Church have named her the ‘complement of the Trinity.’….” [5]

6. John Holmes
“….Jacobites, so called from Jacobus, Bishop of Edessa in Syria, and whose doctrine, directly contrary to that of the Nestorians in one point, denied the double nature of Christ in his state of incarnation: Mariamites, so called because they worshipped the Virgin Mary, and regarded her as, along with the Father, and the Son one of the persons of the Divine Trinity…. “[6]

7. John Henry Blunt D.D. :
“In Accordance with which are the statements of certain writers, logically in agreement with the worship they advocate, that St. Mary has been assumed into the Trinity, so as to make it a quaternity, that Mary is the ‘compliment of the Trinity.’” [7]

8. Allan Freer
Nestorians, so called from their founder, Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople and whose heresy consisted in a recondite distinction between Jesus the man, and Christ the God-man; Jacobites, so-called from Jacobus, Bishop of Edessa in Syria, and whose doctrine directly contrary to that of the Nestorians in one point, denied the double nature of Christ in his state of incarnation: Mariamites, so-called because they worshipped the virgin Mary, and regarded her as, along with the Father and the Son, One of the persons of the divine Trinity: and collydrians, a sect guilty of similar heresy, and deriving their name from their practice of offering to the virgin Mary a particular kind of cake, called Collyris.[8]

9. John William Draper
In the east, in consequence of the policy of the court of Constantinople, the Church had been torn in pieces by contentions and schisms. Among a countless host of disputants may be mentioned Arians, Basilidians, Carpocritains, Collydrians, Eutychians, Gnostics, Jacobites, Marcionites, Marionites, Nestorians, Sabellians, Vallentians. Of these the Marionites regarded the Trinity as consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Virgin Mary; the Collydrians worshipped the Virgin as a divinity, offering her sacrifices of cakes…. [9]

We can see from all the references quoted, that Mary was indeed believed to be part of the Trinity, by certain Christian sects of Arabia.


Question: “why does the Quran in chapter 5 verse 116 state Mary is a God?”

 

Well it is obvious the Quran is in dialectic discussion with the native Arabs of the time, when it was first revealed. The Quran naturally responds to ideas and teachings of people had at that time. So the Quran is correcting their error in worshipping Mary and bringing them back to the path of worshipping God as One and none else besides Him i.e. no worship of Mary or Jesus. The Quran also makes it abundantly clear that Jesus never told people any of this. Allah is asking Jesus on the day of judgement “did you tell people to worship You and your Mother as Gods?” In the presence of the people, to bring them to judgement. It will be obvious that Jesus won’t accept any responsibility as he is NOT the one who commanded such thing.

Question: ’Was Virgin Mary worshipped as a God’? Yes she was. Here is more academic sources that attest to this:

1. Reverend Henry Adelbert Thomson (Cincinnati, Ohio)
It is plain that the tendency to sail with the popular wind, which existed in church dignitaries of that age as well as in this, easily prevailed on many who held ecclesiastical office, so that they approved or winked at beliefs and practices which more independent clergymen considered erroneous. The people carried the clergy along with them. Even the fearless and powerful Augustine, and with him such strenuous men as John Chrysostom and two Gregories of Nazianzen and Nyssa, were unable to stem the tide in some matters of which were disapproved. The worship of Mary and the Saints met the popular mood and pleased the popular fancy; so the great leaders. Confronted by an enthusiasm they were really powerless to curb, endeavoured to the point out and maintain a distinction between latreia and douleia. But, once having given way, even partially, to the prevailing opinion, these same great men were afterward quoted as conservators and expounders of the tradition which, through them, thus received the more impressive authority….. the pure Christian doctrine had led to veneration of Saints; the adoration of the feminine ideal, together with the peculiar relationship of Mary to Christ, had designated her as “Queen of Saints;”….. the practice of Mariolatry gained a tremendous impulse, along with the Worship of Saints, especially in the post Nicene period….. the Church was still more effectually darkened and its doctrine debased. In such a period those elements of the Faith which almost readily lent themselves to idolatry suffered most in purity and gained most in practice. Saints, relics, images, with Mary, as Queen of Heaven, at their head, almost completely absorbed the worship of the people. [10]

2. Ernst Benz
The virgin birth entered into creeds of all Christendom and became one of the strongest motifs in the liturgy and worship of the early Church. Veneration of the mother of God took a tremdous leap from the moment Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire and the pagan masses began pouring into the Church. For thousands of years the religious mentality of the peoples of the Mediterranean basin and near East had been shaped by the cult of the great Mother Goddess and Divine Virgin. From the ancient popular religions of Babylonian Ishtar to the mystery religions of the late Hellenistic age the great Goddess had been worshipped under a variety of forms. The peoples who had practiced her cult could not easily adjust to the sole dominance of the Father God and to the strictly patriarchal structure of Judaic religiosity, which had been taken over by the early Christians. This ancient tradition sought a new mode of expression within the Christian Church and found it in adoration of the Virginal Mother of God in whom the mysterious union of the divine Logos with human nature had been accomplished…. In Egypt the veneration of Mary began very early. Origen, the Alexandrian father of the Church, employed the term theotokos- God bearer in the third century. The second council of Ephesus gave its sanction to this title. The second council of Constantinople added the epithet ever-lasting Virgin.” The prayers and hymns of the Orthodox Church invoke the name of the Mother of God as often as the names of Christ and the Holy Trinity. A god example of such homage is found in the Eucharistic liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, at the conclusion of the great intercessory prayer: “Truly worthy is it to praise Thee God bearer, eternally blessed and perfectly irreproachable Mother of our God, who art more worthy of honor than the cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the seraphim, who intact, hast borne the Divine Logos-Thee the true Mother of God, we Praise.”[11]

3. Professor of the New Testament Beverly Roberts Gaventa writes:
“Orthodox theologians insist Mary is deserving of this grace, and it is for that reason that she is identified as Panhagia, or All Holy. From birth she is without sin. Her own holiness and her divine maternity warrant the high veneration given to her by the Church. Mary is “the first of all humanity to have attained, through the complete transfiguration of her being, that to which every creature is summoned. She has already transcended the boundary between time and eternity and now finds herself in the Kingdom which the Church awaits with the second coming of Christ.” Because of Mary’s own holiness, she stands in solidarity with the sanctified humanity who constitute with the Church. For those reasons, Orthodox Christian tradition icons and hymns praise Mary at ‘the centre of the Saints as a representation of the worshipping and praying community.’”[12]

4. Professor James R. Adair
“….the highest veneration was given to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Historically Marian veneration can be connected with the controversies over the use of the term theotokos, rejected by Nestorius but accepted by most Christians of the day. The veneration of Mary was especially popular among the common people and the Monks, particularly in the EAST.” [13]

5. Reverend James Gardner
“Mariolatry, the worship of the Virgin Mary. In the fourth century, in consequence of prevalence of the ascetic spirit, the most extravagant opinions began to be entertained of the merit of virginity, and Mary, the mother of our blessed Lord, was venerated as the ideal of the celibate life. About this time an opinion arose that there were in the temple of Jerusalem virgins consecrated to God, among whom Mary grew up in vows of perpetual Virginity. In the end of the fourth, it became customary to apply to Mary the appellation, “Mother of God.” …the worshippers of Mary prevailed, and in the fifth century images of the Virgin were placed in the Churches holding the infant Jesus in her arms. Once introduced, this species of worship spread rapidly, and Mary became a conspicuous object of veneration in the Churches, both of the East and West. .. towards the close of the tenth century the custom became prevalent among the Latins, of celebrating masses, and abstaining from flesh on Saturdays, in honour of Mary. About the same time the daily office of St. Mary, which the Latins call lesser office, was introduced, and it was afterwards confirmed by Pope Urban II. In the council of Clement. The Rosary also came into use, consisting of fifteen repetitions of the Lord’s prayer, and one hundred salutations of St. Mary; and the Crown of St. Mary, as it was called by the Latins consisted of six or seven repetitions of the Lord’s prayer, and sixty or seventy salutations according to the age ascribed by different authors to the Holy Virgin. Mariolatry now became an established doctrine and practice in the Church of Rome, and down to the present day has continued to occupy a very spicuous place in her ritual; while with equal intensity Mary receives the worship of Oriental Church under the name of Panagia, or All-Holy….” [14]

6. German Professor Johann Heinrich Kurtz
….the Collydrians- a female sect in Arabia dating from the fourth century- who offered to her bread-cakes (in imitation of the heathen worship of ceres). Epiphanius, who opposed that sect, maintained:…. On the Antidicomarianites, comp. 92. But during the Nestorian controversy Mariolatry became again more general in the Church. In the fifth century, the 25th march was celebrated as the Feast of the Annunciation…… [15]

7. Church of England Magazine
I will next give you a quotation from the Psalter of St. Bonaventura, which was published at Rome in 1834 with the sanction of the master of the so-called apostolical palace and his deputy. This at least is authorized. Its compiler was made a saint of the Roman Church: “in thee, O lady, have I put my trust; I shall not be confounded for ever: receive me into thy favour. … Thou art my strength and my refuge, my consolatation and my defence. …. Into thine hands, O lady I commend my spirit, all my life, and my last day” (Ps. Xxx.). the Te Deum was parodied by the same writer; and they who use his devotional books are taught thus to address the Virgin Mary; “We praise thee, the mother of God; All earth doth worship thee, the spouse of the eternal Father. To thee all angels ad archangels, to thee thrones and principalities, humbly do service. …. Praise becometh thee, empire becometh thee: to thee be virtue (or power) and glory forever and ever. Amen”. These extracts are quite sufficient to prove that acts of worship are paid to the Virgin Mary, with the sanction and approbation of your church….. this practice, so dishonouring to God, began towards the latter part of the fourth century. It was devised by the Collyridians, who “worshipped the blessed Virgin as a goddess, and judged it necessary to appease her anger and seek her favour and protection, by libatations, sacrifices, and oblations of cakes (collyridiane), such like services. …… the ancient father, Epiphanius, condemned the Collyridians for believing that the blessed Virgin was God; and hence he tells them: ‘The body of Mary was truly holy, but not a god.’… [16]

8. Reverend John Dowling
When we observe, on the one hand, the earnest manner in which these fathers contend for perpetual virginity of Mary, and on the other hand the extravagant honors attached to the virgin state, we need not be surprised that the notion soon became prevalent among some that ‘ the mother of God.’ As she was now frequently denominated, was herself worthy of the honors of divine worship. Accordingly, about this time, we find that a sect sprang up, whose peculiar tenet it was, that the Virgin Mary should be adored in worship, and that religious honors should be paid to her. They were called Collyridians, from collyridae, the cakes which they offered to the virgin…… [17]

9. Church of England quarterly review
The first persons upon record, as offering divine honours to the Virgin Mary, were the Collyridians, who derived their names from the…, or certain cakes, which they offered annually to Saint Mary, in sacrifice upon her festival, when they worshipped her as a goddess. This superstition came from Thrace, and the yet more distant regions of Scythia and Arabia…… [18]

10. Professor of the New Testament studies Amy-Jill Levine writes:
“There are even stronger hints that Mary was venerated as a goddess. By the fourth century, Epiphanius (315-403 CE) was ordering the faithful not to worship Mary but only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, suggesting that such activity had been transpiring for a while.” [19]

11. Professor of religious studies Gail Paterson Corrington:
“It would certainly not have been surprising if the Christian women of Egypt had found another divine mother with whom to identify; the Christian women of Arabia, to Epiphanius’s consternation, did a similar thing in their worship of Mary rather than Jesus… The cakes (kollybas) offered by the Collyridians to Mary in the worship are described in a way similar to the cakes offered Isis as the queen of heaven….” [20]

12. Mary Walsh
“The first council’s decision was approved, and Mary was the theotokos, ‘The Mother of God.’ This date, A.D. 431, marks the time when Mary was in the ascendancy, and her veneration and worship began. …. About the middle of the fourth century, according to Jerome, Augistine, Gregory, Epiphanius, and others, teachings came in regarding Virgins who had taken the vows of sanctity and chastity and who devoted their lives to the service of the temple at Jerusalem. Among these virgins was Mary, who had consecrated her life to God by taking the vow of perpetual virginity. It was declared that her marriage to Joseph was formal, and that she continued a virgin until her death. This was the new teaching, and it caused long debated arguments as to whether Mary was actually was a perpetual virgin. The other phrase of the new teaching was that Mary was the ‘Mother of God’ and was therefore entitled to devotion and honor. These extravagant honors conferred on Mary led to the development of a sect called Collyridian, derived from the word collyridae, the cakes which were offered to the Virgin. This sect regards Mary as worthy of divine worship. Thus the floodgates were opened for the beatification of the Virgin.” [21]

13. Thomas Anthony Trollope
Collyridians, from Greek word signifying a piece of bread or cake in a cylindrical form; a sect of Christians, who arose towards the conclusion of the fourth century, and, together with another sect, called the Antidico-Marianites, filled all Arabia with controversies and disorder. These latter maintained that the Virgin Mary did not preserve immaculate state after the birth of Christ, in jospeh autem mariti sui concubitu adhuc indulgebat. The Collyridians, on contrary, who are said to have chiefly consisted of women, worshipped the Virgin as a goddess, and sought favours by libations, sacrifices, and oblations of cakes. [22]

14. Professor Maxwell E. Johnson
“Epiphanuis of Salamis (315-403 CE), according to his witness, not only was there in existence an anti-marian group called the Antidicomarianites, who denied Mary’s perpetual virginity, but also an EXTREME pro-marian group, known as the Conllydrians (from cakes), a group compromised mostly of women who worshipped Mary as a goddess, offered her and then consumed small cakes, and had a female priesthood…..” [23]

15. German Protestant theologian and Church historian Phillip Schaff also makes mention that Mary was worshipped:
“Epiphanius, in his seventy-eighth heresy, combats the advocates of the opposite view in Arabia toward the end of fourth century (367), as heretics under the title of Antidiomarianites, opposer’s of the dignity of Mary i.e., of her perpetual virginity. But, on the other hand, he condemns, in the seventy-ninth heresy, the contemporaneous sect of the Collyridians in Arabia, a set of fanatical women, who, as priestesses rendered divine Worship to Mary…..”[24]

16. Reverend George William D. Evans
The religious worship now paid to the virgin seems clearly deducible from that which was paid to the female deities of old. How reluctantly the converts from heathenism bade adieu to that sex as objects of worship, is evident from heretical opinions held by the sect of the Collydrians- a sect which arose towards the close of the fourth century, and offered up cakes (collyridae) to the Virgin Mary, as a goddess, and the Queen of heaven…..[25]

17. Erich Fromm
“In the Nestorian controversy a decision against Nestorius was reached in 431 that Mary was not only the mother of Christ but also the mother of God, and at the end of the fourth century there arose a cult of Mary, and men addressed prayers to her. About the same time the representation of Mary in the plastic arts also began to play a great and ever-increasing role. The succeeding centuries attached more and more significance to the mother of God, and her worship became more exuberant and more general. Altars were erected to her, and her pictures were shown everywhere.” [26]

18. English historian Edward Gibbon writes:
“The Christians of the Seventh century had insensibly relapsed into a semblance of paganism: their public and private vows were addressed to the relics and images that disgraced the temples of the East: the throne of the Almighty was darkened by a cloud of martyrs, and saints, and angels, the objects of popular veneration; and the Collydrian heretics, who flourished in the fruitful soil of Arabia, invested the Virgin Mary with the name and honors of a goddess. The mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation appear to contradict the principle of the Divine unity. In their obvious sense, they introduce three equal deities, and transform the man Jesus into the substance of the Son of God: and orthodox commentary will satisfy only a believing mind: intemperate curiosity and zeal had torn the veil of the sanctuary; and each of the Oriental sects was eager to confess that all, except themselves, deserved the reproach of Idolatry and Polytheism. The Creed of Mahomet is free from suspicion or ambiguity; and the Koran is a glorious testimony to the unity of God. The Prophet of Mecca rejected the worship of idols and men, of stars and planets, on the rational principle that whatever rises must set, that whatever is born must die, that whatever is corruptible must decay and perish.” [27]

We can conclude that the Quran nowhere does say that “Mary is part of the Trinity.” I refuted the critics attacks on the Scholars (commentators of the Quran), they also NEVER said, “Mary is believed by ALL Christians to be part of the Trinity.” Their views were based on certain sects of Arabia, which believed Mary is part of the Triune formula. I also referenced two dozen or more quotes from Christian experts, that Virgin Mary indeed was worshipped and she was part of the Trinity. I believe everything I have presented is in my favour that the Quran is not wrong in responding to the Christians of that time, hence the people who are wrong and lying are the cunning missionaries, who are desperate to say anything to degrade Islam.

References:

[1] George Sale, The Koran translation and Notes (2007), page 27
[2] Gilbert Reid The Biblical World > Volume. 48, Number. 1, Page 12
[3] Washington Irving Mohammed [Edition published 2007 by Wordsworth Editions] Page 47
[4] Theophilus Lindsey An Examination of Mr. Robinson of Cambridge’s Plea for the Divinity of Our Jesus Christ [London: Printed for J. Johnson, No. 72 St. Paul’s Church-Yard] page 124
[5] William Cooke Taylor Readings in Biography: A Selection of the Lives of Eminent Men of All Nations [The second Edition. London: John W. Parker, West Strand. (1899)] Page 192
[6] The Eclectic Magazine: Foreign Literature science and Art. [September to December 1850.] Volume 21 By John Holmes Agnew, Walter Hilliard Bidwell page 40
[7] Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology edited by John Henry Blunt page 441
[8] Allan Freer: The North British Review [Febraury 1850 – August 1850. Volume 13, Page 197
[9] John William Draper: History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science page 78 – 79 [New York : D. Appleton and company 1875]
[10] Henry Adelbert Thompson The Catholic Cultus of the Virgin Mary The American Journal of Theology: Volume. 10, No. 3, Page 480 – 484
[11] Ernst Benz The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its Thought and Life, page 61 – 62
[12] Beverly Roberts Gaventa Mary: Glimpses of the Mother of Jesus page 15 -16
[13] James R. Adair, Introducing Christianity Page 207
[14] Reverend James Gardner, The faiths of the world : an account of all religions and religious sects, their doctrines, rites, ceremonies, and customs (1858) Volume 6, page 372 – 373
[15] German Professor Johann Heinrich Kurtz History of the Christian Church to the Reformation page 223
[16] The Church of England Magazine Under The Superintendence of Clergymen of the United Church of England and Ireland, Volume 30, January to June 1851 page 364
[17] Reverend John Dowling The History of Romanism: from the Earliest Corruptions of Christianity to the present time [sixth edition 1845] Page 82
[18] The Church of England quarterly review, volume 9 page 172 [London: William Edward Painter, 342 strand]
[19] A Feminist Companion to Mariology edited by Amy-Jill Levine, Maria Mayo Robbins page 173
[20] Gail Paterson Corrington Her Image of Salvation: Female Saviors and Formative Christianity page 96 – 97
[21] Mary Walsh Bible Lessons For Catholics [Copy right 2002, Published by TEACH services, INC.] Page 70 – 71
[22] Thomas Anthony Trollope An encyclopædia ecclesiastica; or, A complete history of the Church page 403
[23] Maxwell E. Johnson Praying and believing In early Christianity page 83
[24] Phillip Schaff History of the Christian Church, Volume 3
[25] Reverend George William D. Evans The classic and connoisseur in Italy and Sicily, with an appendix: volume 2 page 59 (1835)
[26] Erich Fromm. The Dogma of Christ: And Other Essays on Religion, Psychology and Culture page 62 – 63
[27] [Edward Gibbon. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Volume 6 page 249 [Philadelphia 1816]

 

Mary worshipped as a God

Mary worshiped as a God

 

Does Deuteronomy 21:10-14 condemn rape or does it sanction rape-forced marriage?

The article Below was Originally Posted from this website – Link:
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/12/does-deuteronomy-2110-14-condemn-rape-or-does-it-sanction-rape-forced-marriage/

The answer to the above is that, Yahweh does not condemn rape, but actually encourages/allows rape-forced marriage. The above passage mentioned is thrown around by Evangelists, according to them this passage gave captives a right, they were not allowed to be mistreated i.e., they were not allowed to be raped. However it is evident from this passage (Deuteronomy 21:10-14) and other verses from the Bible, that Moses on a number of occasions encouraged his men to capture virgins for their own pleasure-to rape them. Let’s now look at the passage they cite as evidence that Yahweh condemned rape. The passage reads as:

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Expanded Bible (EXB)
10 When you go to war against your enemies, the Lord will •help you defeat them [give them into your hands] so you will take them captive. 11 If you see a beautiful woman among the captives and are attracted to [desire; fall in love with] her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home, where she must shave her head and cut her nails 13 and change the clothes she was wearing when you captured her. After she has lived in your house and cried for her •parents [L father and her mother] for a month, you may marry her. You will be her husband, and she will be your wife. 14 But if you are not pleased with her, you must let her go anywhere she wants. You must not sell her for money or make her a slave, because you have taken away her honor [humiliated; exploited her].
The command from Yahweh to soldiers, whoever goes out to war and he sees a woman, if he is attracted to her, he can “TAKE” the woman and force her to marry him after one month of mourning. Does that sound anything like this passage forbids rape? The word ‘Take’ is in itself evidence that the woman was taken without her consent i.e., she was forced. Verse 14 makes it even more evident by the words:- “because you have •taken away her honor [humiliated; exploited her]”, in other words you raped her, you have humiliated her enough, just let her go if you like to, not what she wants, but what the man desires. There was no consent involved, all the man had to do is wait one month, so he can be sure that she is not pregnant and after that, he could do what he wills, and the woman had no choice in the matter. Missionaries must be living in fairyland for them to try bring this verse as a defence that woman were not allowed to be raped according to the Bible. There are dodgy Bible translations for the above passage, so to make things extra clear that the verse allows rape and not forbid it. We have to look and see what the word ‘take’ in Hebrew means, when used in Deuteronomy 21:10-14. The word that is used for verse 11 ‘take’, in Hebrew is laqach (or lakakh):

Hebrew word lakakh

Let’s see what the Hebrew word ‘Laqach’ (לָקַח ) means:
I. to take, get, fetch, lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away
A. (Qal)
i. to take, take in the hand
ii. to take and carry along
iii. to take from, take out of, take, carry away, take away
iv. to take to or for a person, procure, get, take possession of, select, choose, take in marriage, receive, accept
v. to take up or upon, put upon
vi. to fetch
vii. to take, lead, conduct
viii. to take, capture, seize
ix. to take, carry off
x. to take (vengeance) [1]
Notice the Hebrew word ‘Laqach’ means:- ‘lay hold of’, ‘seize’, ‘snatch’. According to the above definitions for the word, the passage Christians cite as defence that the Bible forbids rape actually backfires on missionaries. As we have read so far, the verse is clear that the soldier when taking a woman in war as a captive, he took it by ‘force’, there was no consent. The passage itself nowhere says that the woman agreed to be taken, to be the soldier’s wife. Let’s read further evidence that is passage is about rape-forced marriage.

One of the best known Bible Translations is the ‘Good News Translation’. The passage, Deuteronomy 21:10-14 translated from Hebrew to English, reads as:
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
10 “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 Take her to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.
What I been discussing all along that the passage is about rape-forced marriage, GNT agrees and makes it plain in verse 14 that the soldier forced to have sex with the captive woman. From the words:- “Since you forced her to have intercourse with you”, it is clear that this is the clearest example that the Bible encourages forced marriage-rape. Let’s show even more evidences from Scholars that the passage is about forced marriage-rape. Let’s now bring more evidences, this time for verse 14 that the word translated in English Bible translations ‘humiliated’ is Anah’ which means rape, i.e. the soldier humiliated her by having forced sex with the woman.

hebrew word anah

According to the Book: ‘The International Standard Bible Encloypedia’, the Hebrew word ‘Anah’ means:
1. OT.-A. As a verb. 1. Sexual Intercourse. Heb. ‘ana’ is used in Gen. 34:2 of Shechem’s rape of Dinah. Ezekiel condemns the men of Jerusalem who ‘humble’ (ana) women ‘unclean in their impurity’ (22:10). The verb is thus a euphemism for sexual intercourse (cf. Dt. 21:14; 22:24, 29) and is frequently equivalent to rape (Jgs. 19:24; 20:5; 2S. 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Lam. 5:11). [2]
Biblical Scholar K. Renato Lings also echoes the same words as the previous statement on the word ‘Anah’, he writes:
“The verb ‘anah’ is deployed in some parts of the HB to describe seduction, sexual assault, or rape-like scenarios. On account of its primary meaning ‘oppress’ or ‘humiliate’, sexual aggression is regarded as an act of humiliation. In genesis 34:2, for instance, Shechem saw Jacob’s daughter Dinah and took her, lay with her and ‘humiliated’ or ‘debased’ her.” [3]
Notice how the Hebrew word ‘anah’ is ‘equivalent to rape’ or how Biblical scholar K..Renato Lings states that the word ‘anah’ is deployed in the Holy Bible for “sexual assault, or rape-like scenarios.”

Conclusion: It is abundantly clear from the evidences shown that Deuteronomy 21:10-14 encourages rape, and it clearly does not condemn rape. The evidence presented so far, has totally debunked the fanciful thinking by Christian Apologists about the passage giving captives rights i.e. they were not allowed to be raped. The word ‘humiliated’ in vast majority of Bible translations, meant that the man sexually forced himself upon the woman. The man raped her.

References:

[1] On the word Laqach http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3947&t=KJV
[2] The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J Volume 2 [Copy Right 1982] edited by Geoffrey W. Bromile page 775
[3] Love Lost in Translation: Homosexuality and the Bible By K. Renato Lings page 464

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 rape forced marriage

Bible: Does Numbers 31:18 sanction pre-pubescent marriages (child marriage)?

The article Below was Originally Posted from this website – Link:

http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/14/bible-does-numbers-3118-sanction-pre-pubescent-marriages-child-marriage-2/

Before one of our brothers or sisters get into conclusion, thinking this is an article bashing Judaic-Christian faith, this is not true. The main reason I took to task to write this article, is in response to some individuals who are of Judaic-Christian faith, who constantly bash, twist Islamic scripture claiming that the Quran somehow sanctions ‘Prepubescent marriages’. This is a lie, far from the truth. I will address this fictitious claim very soon, God willing. It is only right to write this article and give these individuals (missionaries), who spread lies about Islam, a taste of their own medicine. Let’s see what their Holy Bible, God breathed scripture have to say on pre-pubescent marriages. Does the Bible sanction pre-pubescent marriages or is it forbidden? We shall find out shortly.

Webster’s Bible Translation Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones (taph), and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children (taph), that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

In order for me to go further on the verse, let’s first show the part where the Hebrew word ‘taph’ is used in verse 17 and 18 for chapter 31 of Numbers that, it only refers pre-pubescent girls and boys. Below is the text in Hebrew for Numbers 31: 17-18

Hebrew word taph (or taf), pre-pubescent

What does the word ‘taph’ (or taf) in verse 17 and 18 for chapter 31 of Numbers mean? According to Webster’s Bible translation it means ‘children’ or ‘little ones’, meaning pre-pubescent girls or boys. Hebrew lexicons on the word ‘taph’:

Professor Selig Newman:
Child , an infant … טַף… an offspring,… get with-……[1]

Karl Feyerabend:
טַף (taf) ., i.p. .., w.s…. coll. Children, little ones. [2]

Samuel Pike
טַף little ones or children… mincing in a childish manner, Isai. Iii. 16. –… to drop, or distil… to prophecy, or distil instruction, Micah ii. 6, 11 [3]

English – Hebrew Lexicons commenting on the word ‘taph’, the word only refers to children or infants. As we have got this out of the way and made plain that the verse is referring only to children (pre-pubescent) and not grown up girls. Let’s now read the verse again to get a better understanding that it sanctions child marriage:

Webster’s Bible Translation Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones (taph), and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children (taph), that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

As you start reading from verse 17, the verse begins by Moses commanding the soldiers to execute all the male children (infants), and all the women who have slept with a man, in other words woman who are not virgin. When we get to the next verse (verse 18), Moses tells the soldiers that they can take for themselves all the female children. Why would the male children be not shown any mercy, get executed but the female children left alive? It is obvious from the words:- “for yourselves”, Moses meant that they can have the female children for their own pleasure, to cohabit with. When I started investigating Numbers 31:17-18, reading the Hebrew words for verse 18 at the end, one word was left un-explained. This is not the case of just one English Bible translation; all the modern Bible translations have blatantly crossed out the word. The word I am referring to is ‘lakhem’ (or lacham), this word is left unexplained. This same word (lacham) is used in many other passages such as: Exd 1:10, Deu 1:41, Jos 10:5, Jdg 1:8, 1Sa 31:1, 1Ki 12:24, Isa 19:2, in all these verses mentioned, when the Hebrew word ‘lacham’ is used , it means:- ‘fight’, ‘fought’, or ‘warred’. Here is Hebrew text for the mentioned passage:

Hebrew word laqach or lakakh, meaning, fight, warred, fought, sexually, sexual

You can see I have circled in red, where the word ‘lacham’ is used in them verses. If you go to any Judaic-Christian website, where they give definitions for any word from the Bible, they have always left the word ‘lacham’ unexplained for Numbers 31:18. Usually when I do research on certain words which are disputed from Biblical verses, I visit these sites such as; Blueletterbible.org, biblestudytools.com, and they have always given an explanation in detail, what a word means. But when I started examining Numbers 31:18, what caught my eye was the word ‘lacham’, it was left blank. What made it even strange is, I was not allowed (able) to click on the word, to see what the meaning of the word is. I have many Scholars who agree, that Numbers 31:18 is referred to sexually and there is no doubt about it. First in line of experts, who gives their view is Shaye J. D. Cohen who is a renowned Professor, he writes:
“Moses enjoins upon the returning warriors to kill their Midianite female captives who have lain with a man, but ‘spare for yourselves every young woman who has not had carnal relations with a man’; WE MAY BE SURE THAT ‘FOR YOURSELVES’ MEANS THAT THE WARRIORS MAY ‘USE’ THEIR VIRGIN CAPTIVES SEXUALLY.52 The law in numbers differs from the law in Deuteronomy- perhaps the most significant distinction is that the law in Deuteronomy does not care whether the captive is a virgin or not- but it too permits Israelite warrior to marry (or ‘marry) a foreign woman.”

In the same page, in footnote 52, Professor Shaye J.D. Cohen goes further on Numbers 31:18, he writes:
“I do not know why the new Jewish version omits ‘for yourselves’; the Hebrew lakhem is unambiguous. That the intent of ‘FOR YOURSELVES’ IS SEXUAL OR MATRIMONIAL IS OBVIOUS; the passage is correctly understood by Rabbi Simeon Yohai in the Sifrei ad loc (177 212H).” [4]

If you remember earlier I commented that the word ‘lakhem’ was left out blank without any definition, the professor highlighted this. We can see the deceit of missionaries trying hard to cover up the truth. Thankfully we have sincere Scholars as Shaye J.D. Cohen. The other thing I also pointed out is the word ‘lakhem’ can only referred to sexually, Professor Shaye Cohen also highlighted this and made it clear that the word can only mean ‘sexual’ or ‘matrimonial’. Either way the passage we have examined refers to pre-pubescent girls being married to fully grown man.

Wil Gafney, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and is an Episcopal Priest canonically resident in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. She is another line of Scholars who comments on Numbers 31:18, she writes:
“The ‘one woman, one man’ relationship of Eve and Adam becomes one man and two women in Genesis 4:19, ONE MAN AND AN UNTOLD NUMBER OF PREPUBESCENT GIRL CAPTIVES IN NUMBER 31:18 and in several other texts. IT APPEARS THAT GOD HAS LEFT IT TO HUMANITY TO DECIDE WHO ARE APPROPRIATE INTIMATE PARTNERS AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES. The evolution of polygamy, both CONSENSUAL AND FORCED, as a human-initiated cultural practice in the scriptures is particularly striking because of God’s lack of condemnation of it (not to mention, according to Deuteronomy, God’s sanction of abduction or rape-marriage during armed conflicts).
When inviting individuals and their descendants into eternal covenant relationships with God, God never required that the matriarchs and patriarchs revert to an Eve-Adam, monogamous pairing.” [5]

Notice Professor Wil brings up Numbers 31:18 and at the same time she writes:- “God has left it to humanity to decide who are appropriate intimate partners and under what circumstances.” She was referring to the pre-pubescent girls, in other words, she is saying God left it to humanity to decide whether it is ok to cohabit with a pre-pubescent girls or not. Yahweh did not forbid it. Actually as you have read so far, he sanctioned it in Numbers 31:18 for men to marry pre-pubescent girls.

Another Professor by the name Miguel A. De La Torre, mentions that Numbers 31:18 found Biblical justification of raping female slaves and that it was considered ordained by God, by Christian slave owners of the past, he writes:
“The Bible was masterfully used by those in power to justify the owning of black bodies. This was an easy feat; nowhere in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament is slavery categorically condemned. The supporters of slavery in the antebellum south were the ones who had the biblical chapters and verses to quote to justify their way of life. The abolitionists were hard pressed to find any biblical passage that outright condemned the institution of slavery. EVEN THE RAPE OF FEMALE SLAVES FOUND BIBLICAL JUSTIFICATION AND WAS CONSIDERED TO BE ORDAINED BY GOD. SPECIFICALLY, NUMBERS 31:18 INSTRUCTS CONQUERORS AS FOLLOWS: ‘YOU SHALL KEEP ALIVE ALL YOUNG FEMALES WHO HAVE NOT HAD SEX WITH A MALE FOR YOURSELVES.’ [6]

The Popular Commentary by Paul E. Kretzmann
“v. 18. But all the women children that have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves, as slaves or handmaids, FOR MARRIAGE WITH SUCH WAS NOT FORBIDDEN. The great God is terrible in His judgments, a fact which should teach us to fear His wrath and not act contrary to His commandments.” [7]

Even the Bible commentator Paul E. Kretzmann, makes it clear, commenting on Numbers 31:18, that marriage with the pre-pubescent females ‘was not forbidden’.

Dr Judith E. McKinlay also mentions that the Bible ‘seems’ at times to turn a blind eye and allow ‘free romance’ commenting on Numbers 31:18. In other words what she is saying is that Yahweh was not against grown man cohabiting with female children:
“Where the texts have a concern for the circumcised status, this clearly does not apply to women! And where there is a concern for lineage the importance of patrilineal descent meant a lesser concern regarding the potential mothers. So, in the war against Midian, Moses says to the people in Num 31.18 that of the captured Midian women, ‘all the young women who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves’. AT TIMES IT SEEMS AS IF THE BIBLE WANTS TO TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE MATTER ALTOGETHER AND ALLOW FREE ROMANCE A FREE HAND.” [8]

Further evidence, the following law from the Bible commands that when females are captured in war, that soldiers can take (by force) home ,if the man likes her:

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
10 “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 Take her to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.

According to the above passage, when victory is given to YHWH’s soldiers and they take captives and if the soldiers see a nice looking (beautiful) female, the soldier can ‘TAKE’ her to his own home. The soldier has to shave her head and cut her fingernails, and also she has to stay in his house for one month, after which the man can force her to be his wife. Then the husband can go into her by raping her, as the last words are clearly laid out: “Since you forced her to have intercourse with you”.

We have read that the waiting period for a captive female, this command is to any female whether she is virgin, non-virgin, prepubescent, the waiting period is one month only. After which the man can marry the female child and cohabit with her. There is no mention of YHWH saying anything that there has to be longer waiting periods for girls who are pre-pubescent. The command does not exist. So we can see from the vast amount evidence presented already that YHWH did indeed sanction pre-pubescent marriages.

For more information on this passage (Deuteronomy 21:10-14), read the following article I have written recently:

http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/12/does-deuteronomy-2110-14-condemn-rape-or-does-it-sanction-rape-forced-marriage/

Missionary objection against Numbers 31:18

One of the fictitious arguments raised against Numbers 31:18 by Evangelists is that they say ‘it does not sanction Child marriage’, they cite this passage:

Ezekiel 16 New International Version (NIV)
Jerusalem as an Adulterous Wife
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, confront Jerusalem with her detestable practices3 and say, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says to Jerusalem: Your ancestry and birth were in the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. 4 On the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths. 5 No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised.
6 “‘Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, “Live!” 7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew and developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed and your hair had grown, yet you were stark naked.
8 “‘Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your naked body. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine.

According to the above passage cited by missionaries, they say that God ‘forbids pre-pubescent marriages’.

Questions for missionaries:

1. Nowhere in the above verse does it say ‘that you are forbidden from marrying pre-pubescent females’, where does it say that you are forbidden from marrying pre-pubescent girls, where is the verse that abrogates Numbers 31:18 explicitly?
2. How does Ezekiel 16:1-8 A PARABLE (not a command) override (abrogate) the laws of the Torah, when in two places: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and Numbers 31: 18 explicitly state that you can take, marry female captives by force?
3. How is Ezekiel in anyway relevant to Moses and his soldiers, when Ezekiel was born nearly 700 years after Moses? Ezekiel did not even exist when Moses and his soldiers were raping, marrying pre-pubescent females.

More Scholarly evidences on pre-pubescent marriages

The following quotations I am going to present are all from my other article, click on the link for more info:
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/14/bible-child-marriage-in-ancient-israelite-times-paedophilia/

Jacob Neusner is an American academic scholar of Judaism. In the Book: ‘The Comparative Hermeneutics of Rabbinic Judaism: Seder Tohorot. Tohorot through Uqsin.’ The Jewish oral Torah“i.e. Mishnah says:
M. 5:4 A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And they are laible on her account because of the law [Prohibiting intercourse with] a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her [when she is menstruating] to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer. [If] she was married to a priest, she eats heave offering. [If] one of those who are unfit [for marriage] has intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into priesthood. [If] one of all those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility.”

A Commentary on the above verse, in the Book: ‘A history of the Mishnaic Law of Purities. 15. Niddah, by Jacob Neusner, it says:
M. 5:4-5 bring us to the next stage in the matter of the legal status of children, female and male. The girl three years and one day old is deemed capable of sexual relations, which accounts for A, B, and C. D. Presumably should not be apply to M. 5:3-a; if the girl is unclean as a menstruant but is incapable of sexual relations, one who has (or attempts) relations with her is not made unclean as is one who has had sexual relations with a menstruant. E simply goes over familiar ground; since the girl can be acquired as a wife, she also may eat heave-offering. F. Follows, and G. Repeats what is already obvious. But H limits the matter. The girl is not held responsible in a matter of forbidden sexual relations. I is a minor gloss. If the girl is less than three years and one day old, we do not regard the sexual relationship as of legal consequence. The theory is that the tokens of Virginity are restored before that time but not afterword.

Pay close attention to the above statements, how Scholar Jacob Neusner says that a female of three year old ‘could be deemed capable of sexual relations.’ And in the first quotation he says that the Mishnah approves that a man could have sexual relations with a betrothed girl when she is only just three years old.

Professor of Sociology Mary De Young writes:
“The possession of Children by their parents was also given religious sanction in the teachings of both the Talmud and the Bible. Rush (1880) states that the Talmud teaches that a girl of ‘three years and one day’ could be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse.”

Even Professor Geza Vermes who is a well known and highly respected scholar comments that Pre-pubescent marriages were allowed:
“…the Greek parthenos could also mean that the girl was young and/or unmarried. In fact, in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament parthenos was used to render three distinct Hebrew words, ‘Virgin’, ‘girl’ and ‘young woman’. Already Rabbis in the Tannaitic era (first to second century ad) subscribed to further nuances, and there is no reason to think that all these were invented by them. Even the word betulah, which normally means virgo intact, when used by them could carry the laternal sense of bodily immaturity with the consequential inability to conceive. In Rabbinic terminology this type of virginity in a woman ceased with the physical onset of puberty. The Mishnah, the oldest of the rabbinic codes, defines a virgin as a female who ‘has never seen blood even though she is married’ (mNiddah 1:4). The Tosefta, another early Jewish code of law, claims in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (late first century ad) that such a woman would continue to count as a virgin even after she had conceived and borne children without prior menstruation (tNiddah 1:6)! To understand these statements, we must remember that in the InterTestamental and early rabbinic age, pre-puberty marriage was generally permitted. In fact rabbis seriously debated whether bloodstains found after the wedding night in nuptial bed of a minor, i.e. a ‘virgin in respect of menstruation’, marked her first period or the consummation of the marriage.”

Reverend Kathryn J. Riss who is a Christian also makes mention that in first century parents married off their daughters who were pre-pubescent to much older men. What is interesting is she does not mention once that Rabbis or anyone higher up in authority speaking against such marriages:
“The longest New Testament passage on marriage is found, not in Ephesians, but in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. In stark contrast to the legal positions and social expectations of the first century, here the rights and responsibilities of man and woman are upheld as equal. Although marriages were arranged by parents, who often espoused their pre-pubescent daughters to much OLDER MEN….”

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 8 edited by three great Scholars: G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry says:
“One might counter that the expression mohar habbetulot (Ex. 22:16[17]) refers rather to the pretium virginitatis. In this case, the mohar would be compensation to the girl for the loss of her virginity. This explanation, however, is unacceptable, since it proceeds on the assumption that the term betula means ‘virgin.’ This may doubtlessly be the case in many passages, but in joel 1:8, betula thus refers to a married woman who had been ‘possessed’ by her husband (ba’al); betula thus refers to a marriageable girl who was physically able to cope with a man, ‘taking her into his possession.’ Here the term betula says nothing about her virginity. Ex.22:16 (17) (kesep yisqol kemohar hab betulot) can thus be translated ‘he shall weigh out as much silver as is required for marriageable girls.’ In this context we should point out that ancient Hebrew custom did not associate marriageability with puberty. In contrast to the marriageable girl (betula), the…. Alma refers to a girl in puberty capable of conception. Girls could in fact already be given marriage long before actual physical maturity, perhaps even as young as five years old (cf. Lev. 27:5), and it did happen that marriages were already consummated with prepubescent girls.”

Notice how all these Jewish and Christian experts agree that pre-pubescent marriages were approved of in ancient Israel and as the in the Mishnah it encouraged men to sleep with 3 year old girls. We must remember that the Bible in it encourages/approves of pre-pubescent marriages.

We can conclude by that the Bible encourages pre-pubescent marriages with females. I even cited Deuteronomy 21:10-14 as proof that Yahweh encouraged his men to marry female captives by force, whether the girls were pre-pubescent or not, it didn’t matter. I also cited Scholarly references that agreed that, Numbers 31:18 is about marriage with pre-pubescent girls, the scholars agreed that the passage is referred to sexually. What I mean is, when the words in Numbers 31:18 are used as ‘keep alive for YOURSELVES’, this meant that soldiers can keep alive the female pre-pubescent for their own pleasure. Furthermore I went over one objection raised by Evangelist, it was of no value whatsoever, the passage cited nowhere condemned pre-pubescent marriages. Why I say it was of ‘no value’, because Ezekiel was born 700 years after Moses. Last but not least I cited many scholarly quotes that agreed that pre-pubescent marriages was sanctioned and was practiced among Jews and Christians. We know historically among Jews and Christians in Ancient times that, pre-pubescent marriages was a norm. Question to the hatemonger’s who spout lies on Islam: Why is there not one verse in the Old Testament or the four Gospels that explicitly condemns Numbers 31:18? Why did Jesus not speak against pre-pubescent marriages?

References:
[1] An English and Hebrew lexicon composed after Johnson’s directory, containing fifteen thousand English words, rendered into Biblical, or rabbinical Hebrew, or into Chaldee. To which is annexed a list of English and Hebrew words the expressions and meanings of which appear to be the same in both languages (1832). By Professor Selig Newman page 61
[2] A complete Hebrew-English pocket-dictionary to the Old Testament (1905]) By Karl Feyerabend page 118
[3] A Compendious Hebrew Lexicon, Adapted to the English Language, and Composed upon A New and Commodious Plan [Second Edition (1811)] by Samuel Pike page 59
[4] The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties By Shaye J. D. Cohen [chapter 8] page 255 – 256
[5] Christian Holiness and Human Sexuality: A Study Guide for Episcopalians [Chapter 2 Scripture: Sexuality and Sexual Orientation] Professor WIL GAFNEY
[6] A Lily Among the Thorns: Imagining a New Christian Sexuality [Copy Right 2007] By Miguel A. De La Torre page 45
[7] The Popular Commentary by Paul E. Kretzmann http://www.studylight.org/com/kpc/view.cgi?bk=3&ch=31http://www.kretzmannproject.org/PENT/NUM/NUM_31.htm
[8] Reframing Her: Biblical Women in Postcolonial Focus [Copy Right 2004] By Judith E. McKinlay page 27

Bible child marriage, numbers 31:18

Bible: Child Marriage in Ancient Israelite times – Paedophilia?

The article Below was Originally Posted from this website – Link:
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/14/bible-child-marriage-in-ancient-israelite-times-paedophilia/

In Biblical times, people were married at a very young age. Girls were usually betrothed before they reached puberty – majority of the time the marriage would have consummated when the girl reached puberty and that was usually between the ages of 8, 9 or older,(Note: when a girl reached puberty prior to the 20th century, she was considered to be an adult in most cultures/societies). In this article I will mostly quote Scholarly sources to prove that marriage in ancient Israelite times took place at a very young age, sometimes the girls who were married off were pre-pubescent. There was no law against a pre-pubescent girl being married off. Actually as you will read further, you would come to realise that the Mishnah gave approval for a Man to have intercourse to a betrothed girl, anytime after the age of three years old.

 

Isaac’s wife was Rebecca, mother of Jacob and Esua. According the calculations made by Rabbi Solomon Itzhaki (A.K.A. Rashi a well-known respected Jewish Scholar), Rebecca was three years old when she married Isaac.


1. Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 25:20 says:

forty years old: For when Abraham came from Mount Moriah, he was informed that Rebecca had been born. Isaac was then thirty-seven years old, for at that time Sarah died, and from the time that Isaac was born until the “Binding” [of Isaac], when Sarah died, were thirty-seven years, for she was ninety years old when Isaac was born, and one hundred and twenty-seven when she died, as it is stated (above 23:1): “The life of Sarah was [a hundred and twenty-seven years.”] This makes Isaac thirty-seven years old, and at that time, Rebecca was born. He waited for her until she would be fit for marital relations-three years-and then married her.— [From Gen. Rabbah 57:1
[Retrieved it from this website: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8220/showrashi/true]


2.
 Also Johann Buxtorf cites Rashi that Rebecca was three years old when she married Isaac. Do focus carefully on the words:
Rabbi Solomon in his comment on Genesis, says that Rebecca, when she was married to Isaac, was but three Years of Age. His words run thus, ‘When Abraham was come from Mount Moria, he received the joyful News of Rebecca. Isaac was at that Time Thirty seven years old; and then did Sarah die. The time, from birth of Isaac to the death of Sarah, was Thirty seven Years, And Sarah was Ninety Years old when Isaac was born; and One Hundred and Twenty Seven Years old when she died: As it is said in Gen 23:1 . Sarah was one hundred and twenty-seven years old. Behold, the Age of Isaac was Thirty Seven Years, at the Time of the Birth of Rebecca. And when he had waited for her three Years, till she was fit for marriage, he took her to wife.”
According to this Account, Rebecca was a very notable Girl at three years of age. But that a girl of three Years old is fit for marriage, is maintained very plainly in the Jewish writings; particularly, in Emek Hamelech, in the following passage, ‘our blessed sags, of blessed memory, say, that a female is not fit for marriage, ‘till she is arrived at the Age of three years and one day.’ The Talmud supports these Sages here, in the part entitled Avoda Sara. And the Sanhedrin says, A daughter, who is of the age of three years and one day, is, by being bedded with a Man, lawfully married.” [1]

Before going any further, one of the objections raised by some Jews and most Christians is that they say: “how can a three year old fetch water out of a well?” They further say: – “a girl of that age could not do that she must be a lot older than three.” These statements do not disapprove anything. The way they make it seem, as if it is impossible for a girl to pull 1, 2 letters of water. Any three old girl could pull 1, 2 letters of water out of a well, is not rocket science.
I have a challenge for you people, if it is impossible for a three-year old to pull out 1, 2 litters of water – bring me some solid proof (evidence) that a 3-year-old girl could not do that.


3.
 In addition to what we have already brought forth on Isaac’s marriage to Rebecca, The Zohar 1:136b Pritzker Edition. Volume two
which is Translated/Commentary by Daniel Chanan Matt also makes mention that Isaac married Rebecca when she was three years old:
51. “She was three years old when he embraced her the youngest legal age a female can be-married. See M Niddah 5:4; Seder Olam Rabbah 1; Soferim, add. 1:4 Rashi on Genesis 25:20 Tosafot, Yevamot 61b, s.v. ve-khen; sekhe; Tov, Genesis 24:14.
Rebekah’s three years correspond to the three colors of the rainbow.
52. He engendered at sixty, generating fittingly… see Genesis 25:26. When Isaac fathered Jacob he was sixty years old, symbolizing the full sextet of sefirot from hesed through Yesod, thereby ensuring that Jacob would be complete. [2]

As you have read it is quite clear/fact that Rebecca married Isaac when she was three years old. Furthermore we have more evidence from Judaic Holy Book ‘Mishnah’, it gives more weight to the above references that girls as young as three years old were allowed to be betrothed by intercourse at the age of three. Although in Ancient Hebrew marriages girls were recommend to be married at the age of 12, there are laws in the Mishnah that give approval that once betrothed you can have sexual intercourse anytime after the age of three years old.


4. Jacob Neusner is an American academic scholar of Judaism
. In the Book: ‘The Comparative Hermeneutics of Rabbinic Judaism: Seder Tohorot. Tohorot through Uqsin.’ The Jewish oral Torah i.e. Mishnah says:
M. 5:4 A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And they are laible on her account because of the law [Prohibiting intercourse with] a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her [when she is menstruating] to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer. [If] she was married to a priest, she eats heave offering. [If] one of those who are unfit [for marriage] has intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into priesthood. [If] one of all those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility. [3]

 

There you have it a girl of three can be betrothed by intercourse according to Jewish law. We won’t stop here, there is more evidence.


5. A Commentary on the above verse, in the Book: ‘A history of the Mishnaic Law of Purities. 15. Niddah. Edited by Jacob Neusner, it says:

M. 5:4-5 bring us to the next stage in the matter of the legal status of children, female and male. The girl three years and one day old is deemed capable of sexual relations, which accounts for A, B, and C. D. Presumably should not be apply to M. 5:3-a; if the girl is unclean as a menstruant but is incapable of sexual relations, one who has (or attempts) relations with her is not made unclean as is one who has had sexual relations with a menstruant. E simply goes over familiar ground; since the girl can be acquired as a wife, she also may eat heave-offering. F. Follows, and G. Repeats what is already obvious. But H limits the matter. The girl is not held responsible in a matter of forbidden sexual relations. I is a minor gloss. If the girl is less than three years and one day old, we do not regard the sexual relationship as of legal consequence. The theory is that the tokens of Virginity are restored before that time but not afterword. [4]


6. The Anglican Priest Herbert Danby
 in the Book: ‘The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory notes.’ It says that a girl of three years old and one day could be betrothed by the brother’s husband and he can have intercourse with her:
A girl three years old and one day may be betrothed by intercourse; her deceased childless husband’s brother can acquire her by intercourse; and by connexion with her a man can be culpable by virtue of the Law of a married woman; and him that has connexion with her [while she is a menstruant] she renders unclean so that he conveys uncleanness to what is beneath him in like degree as [he that has a flux conveys uncleanness] to what lies above him’ if she married to a priest she may eat of Heave-offering; if one that is ineligible has connexion with her he renders her ineligible for marriage with a priest; if any of the forbidden degrees prescribed in the Law had connexion with her they are put to death on her account, but she is not culpable. If she is younger than this, it is as one that puts a finger in the eye.” [5]


7. Edward Hendrie
 also echoes the same statements made previously:
“Orthodox Judaism has a very permissive attitude towards sexual deviance. For example:
Sanhedrin 55b: It is permitted to have sexual intercourse with a girl three years and one day old. See also Yebamoth 57b, 60b; Abodah Zarah 37a.
Kethoboth 11b: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than three years old it is as if one puts the finger into the eye, tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” [6]


8. Professor Joshua A. Fogel
 in his book: ‘Reading Tractate Avodah Zarah of the Babylonian Talmud.’ He says the: ‘tumah of a zav’ is when it happens that is when a boy is ready to cohabit. The Hebrew word ‘zav’ means: “In Torah terminology, the Hebrew word zav (lit. “flow”) is a state of ritual impurity arising from abnormal seminal discharge from the male sexual organ” (see Wikipedia.com). Here is what is said:
“The orevious daf ended with R. Yehudah ha-Nasi accepting the view of R. Chiyya that an idolater conveys the tumah of a zav from the nine years and one day (not just one day). When asked about this age, he replies that this is the age at which he is able to cohabit and thus convey the tumah of a zav. If nine seems on the young side, it’s three for girls. In other tractates of the Talmud, these ages, especially for a girl, become extremely relevant, such as in determining what constitutes rape or marriage by cohabitation; I mentioned in here only because how shockingly young it seems to my (and probably most) 21st century eyes. It is Ravina who argues for age of three for girls, rather than from birth which was put forth by Rav Nachman bar Yitzchack on the previous daf. Ravina contribution is to match age cohabitation with age of zav (or niddah) tumah capacity.” [7]


9. Robin Grille says:

“Among the ancient Hebrews, betrothal by sexual intercourse was permitted with girls aged three years and day, and marriages for girls was actually recommended at 12 years of age. The Biblical woman and child were property, not persons. For the right to marry a pre-pubescent girl, one simply had to pay an agreed sum to her father. In India, child marriage was condemned by law until 1929, although around 80 per cent of the population was still practicing it.” [8]


10. Mary De Young says:

“The possession of Children by their parents was also given religious sanction in the teachings of both the Talmud and the Bible. Rush (1880) states that the Talmud teaches that a girl of ‘three years and one day’ could be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse.” [9]


11. Professor Geza Vermes
 who is well known and highly respected scholar comments that Pre-pubescent girls were allowed to be married:
“…the Greek parthenos could also mean that the girl was young and/or unmarried. In fact, in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament parthenos was used to render three distinct Hebrew words, ‘Virgin’, ‘girl’ and ‘young woman’. Already Rabbis in the Tannaitic era (first to second century ad) subscribed to further nuances, and there is no reason to think that all these were invented by them. Even the word betulah, which normally means virgo intact, when used by them could carry the laternal sense of bodily immaturity with the consequential inability to conceive. In Rabbinic terminology this type of virginity in a woman ceased with the physical onset of puberty. The Mishnah, the oldest of the rabbinic codes, defines a virgin as a female who ‘has never seen blood even though she is married’ (mNiddah 1:4). The Tosefta, another early Jewish code of law, claims in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (late first century ad) that such a woman would continue to count as a virgin even after she had conceived and borne children without prior menstruation (tNiddah 1:6)! To understand these statements, we must remember that in the InterTestamental and early rabbinic age, pre-puberty marriage was generally permitted. In fact rabbis seriously debated whether bloodstains found after the wedding night in nuptial bed of a minor, i.e. a ‘virgin in respect of menstruation’, marked her first period or the consummation of the marriage.” [10]


12. Reverend Kathryn J. Riss
 also makes mention that in first century parents married off their daughters who were pre-pubescent to much older men. What is interesting is she does not mention once that Rabbis or anyone higher up in authority speaking against such marriages:
“The longest New Testament passage on marriage is found, not in Ephesians, but in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. In stark contrast to the legal positions and social expectations of the first century, here the rights and responsibilities of man and woman are upheld as equal. Although marriages were arranged by parents, who often espoused their pre-pubescent daughters to much OLDER MEN….” [11]


13. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 8 edited by three great Scholars: G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry says:

“One might counter that the expression mohar habbetulot (Ex. 22:16[17]) refers rather to the pretium virginitatis. In this case, the mohar would be compensation to the girl for the loss of her virginity. This explanation, however, is unacceptable, since it proceeds on the assumption that the term betula means ‘virgin.’ This may doubtlessly be the case in many passages, but in joel 1:8, betula thus refers to a married woman who had been ‘possessed’ by her husband (ba’al); betula thus refers to a marriageable girl who was physically able to cope with a man, ‘taking her into his possession.’ Here the term betula says nothing about her virginity. Ex.22:16 (17) (kesep yisqol kemohar hab betulot) can thus be translated ‘he shall weigh out as much silver as is required for marriageable girls.’ In this context we should point out that ancient Hebrew custom did not associate marriageability with puberty. In contrast to the marriageable girl (betula), the…. Alma refers to a girl in puberty capable of conception. Girls could in fact already be given marriage long before actual physical maturity, perhaps even as young as five years old (cf. Lev. 27:5), and it did happen that marriages were already consummated with prepubescent girls. [12]


14. Zeʼev Wîlhelm Falq:

“A more common practice was the marrying off of minor daughters by their fathers. For instance King Agrippa(s) (41-44 C.E.), left three daughters: ‘of these, one, Berenice, who was sixteen years old, was married to Herod, her father’s BROTHER, and two were unmarried, namely Mariamne and Drusilla, aged respectively ten and six years. They had been promised by their fathers in marriage, Marriamne to Julius Archelaus, son of Helkias, and Drusilla to Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus, King of Commagene’ (Josephus, XIX Antiquites, 9. 1. 354). In such cases, marriage and consummation would be postponed until the BRIDE REACHED PUBERTY: it was held proper to marry off a minor daughter with her consent and not against her will. However, these rules were not only applicable to a minor daughter given in marriage by her father, since his right to do so is expressly mentioned in the Torah (Exodus XXI 7; Deuteronomy XXII 16).” [13]


15. T. J. Wray:

“In the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, marriage is considered the natural state for men and women, and although there are certainly instances where Jewish men (and rarely, Jewish women) are not married, this is the exception rather than norm. Most women marry quite young, usually soon after the onset of menstruation, which of course, heralds fertility. Men typically marry later (in their twenties, or even thirties) and this most men are older than their wives.” [14]


16. Harry L. Tabony:

“BC. The good book of Genesis says that after a few generations Abraham’s progeny had grown to sizeable numbers. That is understandable, considering the practice of multiple wives and marriage just after puberty for girls. Abraham’s many sons could father thousands of children, considering ample girls available from the natives of Canaan.” [15]


17. Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, Volume 1 By Professor Mark Avrum Ehrlich says:

“Girls were often married to their uncles on their father’s side, or to their cousins, in order to secure the family’s capital and in the hope that their kin would take good care of them. Minor girls were betrothed by their fathers (by Kidushin, a legally binding commitment) even before they came of age, and usually began living with their husbands-occasionally much older than them- at the age of puberty.” [16]


18.
 Respected Rabbi Isaac Klein in his book: ‘A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice’, says that Child marriages were common and that ‘age was not the factor’ when someone had to get married. So in other words no matter what the age of the girl, once the parents gave the go ahead, the girl had to choose the husband, she had no choice in the matter:
Child marriages were very common in ancient days. Since marriages were arranged by parents and the consent of parties was not necessary,AGE WAS NOT THE FACTOR in coming to an agreement. The physical factor related only to the consummation of the marriage. Hence, there was usually a waiting period between the agreement and the consummation. It is logical to assume that when a boy and a girl reached the age of puberty, and the sex urge demanded satisfaction, ancient society deemed marriage to be the answer. In time, other elements became factor in marriage: climate, social conditions, economic conditions, and even political conditions.” [17]


19. Scholar of the Old Testament Gordon Wenham says:

“In reality social custom and pressures greatly curtailed the sexual freedom of men in the Bible times. First, marriages were customarily arranged by parents, as soon as children passed puberty. This meant that there were few unattached girls: most females of marriageable age were either married or betrothed….” [18]


20. David M. Carr Professor of Old Testament says:

“…ancient Israelite women did have to deal with a constant stream of pregnancies, from when they reached puberty in their teens until they died in their twenties or thirties.” [19]


21. Dr. Richard H. Lowery:

“A typical adult Israelite male had a life expectancy of forty years. Infant mortality rates were high, perhaps as high as 50 percent. So women typically had two pregnancies for every one child who reached age five. Since the economic survival of the household depended on the production of able-bodied children, women married immediately after puberty and were pregnant or nursing for a relatively large portion of their life.” [20]


22. Saba Soomekh:

“In the early twentieth-century, Iranian Jewish women married at a very young age, either when they reached puberty or by their fifteenth year or sixteenth birthday. Similarly, Jewish women living in Ottoman Libya were married once a girl reached puberty and under Italian rule, ‘women married when they reached their fifteenth or sixteenth birthday, but at times, the brides were much younger.” [21]


23. Steven M. Lowenstein Professor of Jewish History says:

“The next great life cycle event in Jewish life after the bar Mirzvah is marriage. In most traditional societies (Jewish and Non-Jewish), marriages were arranged between families, with only the most perfunctory consultation with the couple to-be, and often involved complex financial arrangements such as dowries and trousseaus. In the middle ages the age at marriage seems to have been around puberty throughout the Jewish world….” [22]


24. Ruth Lamdan:

“The numerous references to child marriage in the 16th- century Responsa literature and other sources, shows that child marriage was so common, it was virtually the norm. In this context, it is important to remember that in halakha, the term ‘minor’ refers to a girl under twelve years and a day. A girl aged twelve and a half was already considered an adult in all respects.” [23]

25. Philip J. King:
“A few anecdotal incidents, and a wealth of later documentation, suggests that women married young, while still in their teens, sometimes early teens, in fact; men waited until well into their twenties or even early thirties before marrying.” [24]


26. Ken Blady:

“Persian Jews married off their children very early: boys at ten or twelve, and girls at the very tender age of six or seven. Some girls were mothers by age twelve or thirteen. Polygamy was practiced only by men who could afford more than one wife. It was common for a prepubescent girl to marry a man who was old enough to be her grandfather.” [25]


27. Professor Harvey E. Goldberg:

“Habbani Jewish ‘women’ were almost always prepubescent at their first marriage. Their first husbands were often in their late teens. Normally, there was neither bride price nor dowry, but a groom was expected to provide wedding jewelry and seven goats for the wedding festivities. The jewelry became a woman’s property. Occasionally, the bridegroom was far older than the bride.” [26]


28. Jonathan B. Krasner
 says that betrothal took place at the age of eight or nine, now keep in mind earlier we provided evidences that once a girl was betrothed the husband can engage with her sexually:
“Betrothal, or engagement, generally occurred at the age eight or nine. Jewish girls typically married at age eleven or twelve and boys at about thirteen or fourteen. (In Germany and France, Christian girls typically married at twelve or thirteen, and boys were usually in their late teens or twenties.)….
(Marriage in Ashkenazic).” [27]


Conclusion:
 I believe who ever will read this will agree that Judaism in past practiced and allowed pre-pubescent marriages. Also Isaac’s marriage to Rebecca; all the evidence presented is in agreement that Isaac married Rebecca when she was three years old. Whatever some Christian/Jews (modern) may say about Rebecca being older because she fetched water out of a well, they have no proof that a girl of three cannot fetch 1 – 2 litters of water out of a well. As I said earlier, bring the evidence that a girl can’t do it. I also gave many references that the Mishnah gave approval for girls to be betrothed by intercourse at the age of three.


References:


[1] Johann Buxtorf, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, John Peter Stehelin

Rabinical literature: or, The traditions of the Jews, contained in their Talmud and other mystical writings. Likewise the opinions of that people concerning Messiah, and the time and manner of his appearing; with an appendix comprizing Buxtorf’s account of the religious customs and ceremonies of that nation; also, A preliminary enquiry into the origin, progress, authority, and usefulness of these traditions; wherein the sense of the strange allegories in the Talmud and Jewish authors is explained. [ Publisher: London J. Robinson, 1748] Volume 1 page 33 – 34
[2] The Zohar: Pritzker Edition. Volume two, (2003) page 264 [The Zohar 1:136b] Translation and Commentary by Daniel Chanan Matt
[3] The Comparative Hermeneutics of Rabbinic Judaism: Seder Tohorot. Tohorot through Uqsin By Jacob Neusner Volume 6 [Copyright 2000] page 152
[4]A history of the Mishnaic Law of Purities. 15. Niddah . Commentary edited by Jacob Neusner page 83
[5] The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory notes Herbert Danby page 750
[6] Solving the Mystery of Babylon the Great By Edward Hendrie
[7] Reading Tractate Avodah Zarah of the Babylonian Talmud By Professor Joshua A. Fogel page 84
[8]Parenting for a Peaceful World By Robin Grille
[9]Mary De Young The sexual victimization of children page 103
[10] The Changing Faces of Jesus By Geza Vermes
[11] Journey’s End: Removing Biblical Barriers Between Women and Their Destiny By Reverend Kathryn J. Riss, THM page 164
[12] Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 8 edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Josef Fabry [1997] page 144 – 145
[13] Introduction to Jewish law of the second Commonwealth. 2 (1978) By Zeʼev Wîlhelm Falq part 2 page 278
[14] What the Bible Really Tells Us: The Essential Guide to Biblical Literacy By T. J. Wray page 146 chapter 7
[15] Christianity’s Source: It All Came from Ancient Egypt By Harry L. Tabony
[16] Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, Volume 1 By Mark Avrum Ehrlich page 258
[17] A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice By Isaac Klein page 396
[18] Story as Torah: Reading the Old Testament Ethically By Gordon Wenham page 84
[19] The Erotic Word: Sexuality, Spirituality, and the Bible By David M. Carr Professor of Old Testament Union Theological Seminary In New York page 43
[20]Sabbath and Jubilee (Understanding Biblical Themes) By Richard H. Lowery page 8
[21] Saba Soomekh Between Religion and Culture: Three Generations of Iranian Jewish Women from the Shahs to Los Angeles Page 65
[22] The Jewish Cultural Tapestry : International Jewish Folk Traditions By Steven M. Lowenstein, Professor of Jewish History, University of Judaism page 108
[23] A Separate People: Jewish Women in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt in the sixteenth Century By Rûth Lamdān page 47
[24] Life in Biblical Israel By Philip J. King, Lawrence E. Stage page 37
[25] Jewish Communities in Exotic Places By Ken Blady Page 69
[26] Sephardi and Middle Eastern Jewries: History and Culture in the Modern Era edited by Harvey E. Goldberg page 267
[27] The History of the Jewish People: A Story of Tradition And Change By Jonathan B. Krasner, Jonathan D. Sarnapage volume 1 page 83

Bible: 12 year old Mary married 90 Year old Joseph [Paedophilia]


Originally Posted from the Link below:
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/30/marriage-of-mary-to-joseph-the-carpenter-more/

I recently wrote a few articles on the history of marriage i.e., when girls were married off. This article examines how old Joseph the Carpenter was when he married Mary mother of Jesus. Joseph the carpenter married Mary when she was 12 years old and Joseph was 80 to 90 years old. They lived with each other from that day on. Now Christians say: -“she stayed virgin for the rest of her life,” meaning they were never intimate. But I don’t believe that, because the whole point of marriage is reproduce and show love to each other. All early Christian sources say Mary was 12 years old when she married Joseph the carpenter. One of the main reasons why I wrote this article is because of the hypocrisy of Christian missionaries and their double standards. They slander the Prophet Muhammed’s (pbuh) marriage with Aisha even though by their standards she was considered to be an adult. But they never question Joseph’s marriage with Mary. The majority of the earliest sources that are available today from the Church fathers all agreed that Joseph was between 80 to 90 years old at-least, when he was married to 12 year old Mary. Another issue they will never try to question is: Why did the Holy Spirit impregnate such a young girl? Couldn’t the Holy Spirit find an older woman?

It is only right to write this article and give Christian missionaries a taste of their own medicine.

1. What is the definition of Apocrypha?

If you ask any Christian what the word ‘Apocrypha’ means they would say something along the lines “it means it is not authentic or spurious.” Meaning in other words it is fake; it is not original. This is a recent meaning. Originally ‘Apocrypha’ meant “secret or hidden”, this was the ancient meaning.

James Vanderkan says:
“Apocrypha is a plural word (singular: apocryphan) that originally denoted hidden or secret writings, to be read only by initiates into a given Christian group.” [1]

Zlatko Plese:
“The term apocryphan signifies “that which is hidden” or “concealed”- some intimate secret shared only by the chosen few.” [2]

Catherine M. Murphy:
apocryphan- secret or hidden book, such as the Apocryphan of James (a.k.a. secret Book of James). [3]

Sylvia Francke:
“We owe the term apocryphal, since apocryphan in its original connotation means ‘a secret book’.” [4]

Diana Webb says:
“…the word apocrypha as it is a word that is greatly misunderstood. It comes from Greek and is formed from the combination of apo (away) and krytein (hide or conceal). Thus, it signifies that which is ‘hidden away’ or ‘concealed’. Apocryphan is the singular form and apocrypha the plural. These words are used to describe the nature of a certain body of ancient religious writings. The word apocrypha, like many other words has undergone a major change in meaning throughout the centuries. With regard to these ancient books, the word apocrypha ORIGINALLY MEANT A TEXT TOO SACRED AND SECRET TO BE IN EVERYONES HANDS. It needed to be hidden away and reserved for the spirituality mature. It was a term of dignity and respect. To those who revered the apocryphal books, they were ‘hidden’ because they contained teachings that were too sacred to be revealed except to the initiated.” [5]

What is interesting is Protestant Christians are quick to reject Apocrypha books. But when we ask Christians: “Why do you accept the book of Hebrews?” they have no answer. All scholars agree unanimously that they do not know who wrote the book, yet Christians still accept the book as scripture. As I have established that Apocrypha originally meant ‘hidden’ or ‘secret’, now we move to the next section.
Mary was 12 years old when betrothed to Joseph

Catholic Encyclopaedia says:
“When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, “the Lord’s brother”). A year after his wife’s death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place.” [6]

One thing needs to be remembered, although they say that she was 12 years old when she was betrothed to 90 year old Joseph, most Christians of TODAY reject that story because Joseph would be labelled a paedophile. As we will investigate shortly, you will see that most early Church fathers believed Mary was very young girl when she married Joseph, Joseph who was at least 80 to 90 years old at the time.
‘History of Joseph the Carpenter’ also confirms that Mary was 12 years old when betrothed to Joseph. Chapter 3 and 4 says:

3. Now when righteous Joseph became a widower, my mother Mary, blessed, holy, and pure, was already twelve years old. For her parents offered her in the temple when she was three years of age, and she remained in the temple of the Lord nine years. Then when the priests saw that the virgin, holy and God-fearing, was growing up, they spoke to each other, saying: Let us search out a man, righteous and pious, to whom Mary may be entrusted until the time of her marriage; lest, if she remain in the temple, it happen to her as is wont to happen to women, and lest on that account we sin, and God be angry with us.

4. Therefore they immediately sent out, and assembled twelve old men of the tribe of Judah. And they wrote down the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. And the lot fell upon the pious old man, righteous Joseph. Then the priests answered, and said to my blessed mother: Go with Joseph, and be with him till the time of your marriage. Righteous Joseph therefore received my mother, and led her away to his own house. And Mary found James the Less in his father’s house, broken-hearted and sad on account of the loss of his mother, and she brought him up. Hence Mary was called the mother of James. Luke 24:10 Thereafter Joseph left her at home, and went away to the shop where he wrought at his trade of a carpenter. And after the holy virgin had spent two years in his house her age was exactly fourteen years, including the time at which he received her. [7]
Infancy Gospel of James also says she was 12 years old when betrothed to Joseph See the link here
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html
2. Marriage in Ancient Jewish times

One must remember in Ancient Israelite times once a girl was betrothed, sexual intimacy was allowed, there was no law against that, nor does the Bible say against it. So for Mary to be betrothed it did not mean that Joseph and Mary could not get intimate together. Here is an article I have written already on Ancient Jewish Marriages:

http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/14/bible-child-marriage-in-ancient-israelite-times-paedophilia/
3. Experts agree that Joseph was a very, very old man

De Robigne Mortimer Bennett says:
“The following ‘Facts about virgin Mary’ are taken from one of the Apocryphal gospels- the ‘History of Joseph the Carpenter,’ a book that was popular and believed to be genuine in the so-called Evangelical of the Church. It is reproduced here from the ‘Revelations of Antichrist:’ Joseph was a widower with four sons and two daughters, all married but James and Judas. Joseph was a Priest as well as a Carpenter, but lived mostly by the latter trade. Mary had been brought up in the temple till she was twelve years old, when the priests sought to intrust her to the care of some pious old man who wanted a wife. So they assembled twelve old men, who raffled for Mary. The ex-priest and carpenter won and was betrothed to her at once, the marriage to be postponed until she reached a suitable age. But he took her to his house and kept her two years, when she became a mother by the Holy Ghost.

When Joseph discovered the condition Mary was in he became sorely troubled, and could not eat or drink for a whole day. He thought of hushing up the scandal by putting her away secretly. (It is not said whether he suspected his son James, who was most tenderly attached to his prospective step-mother. When she first came she found him broken-hearted at the recent loss of his own mother, but the advent of a lovely maiden, who, though some years his junior, assumed the relations of a mother to him, soon assuaged his grief; and she, caring for him as a loving step-mother knows how, became known as ‘the mother of James,’ even before she became a wife to his father. The absence of Joseph, who had to be away at work at his trade, to say nothing of his age, which was then ninety-two, no doubt tended to strengthen the ties between the son and the female guardian.) Joseph was not long left to remain in trouble about the condition of Mary. In the Midst of his distress he fell asleep at noonday, and had a dream, in which Gabriel appeared to him and explained the mystery of the Immaculate Conception. That was enough; happiness was restored. The angelic friend had tied up the storm. The far-off magi made haste to welcome the new-born king of the Jews. But the wicked Herod was wroth with them for not telling where the infant was, so he might go and worship him also. Jesus grew up and worked with his reputed father Joseph at the Carpenter trade, and lived in sweet accord with his two half-brothers, until the death of their father Joseph, who lived to the ripe age of 111 years. These statements should undoubtedly be taken with many grains of allowance.” [8]

De Robigne Mortimer Bennett says that the book ‘History of Joseph the Carpenter,’ was believed and genuine by Early Evangelical Church. Not just that but he also mentions that when Joseph married Mary she was 12 years old and he was 90 years old. On top of that at the end of his statement on ‘History of Joseph the Carpenter,’ he says: — “These statements should undoubtedly be taken with many grains of allowance.” He himself agrees that the statements where it mentions that Joseph bring 90 year old and Mary 12 is true and should be accepted. This is not the only place where it mentions Mary being 12 years old when married off.

Bernard L. Fontana also mentions that Mary was 12 years old and Joseph 90 years old when married:
“Thanks to the apocrypha writings, which inspired many artists over the ages, the popular belief became widespread that Joseph had first married when he was forty years old and fathered six children by his wife before she died when he was eighty-nine years old. The youngest of his child was said to be James the Less, ‘Christ’s brother.’ This tradition holds that Joseph was ninety years old when he went to Jerusalem to join other candidates seeking the hand of the twelve- to fourteen year old Mary in Marriage.” [9]
4. Early Church Fathers Believed Joseph was 80 to 90 years old when he married 12 year old Mary

Yes right the very advanced age of Joseph marrying Mary was true and accepted by most early Church Fathers.

Reverend Jeremiah Jones writes about 2 to 3 pages long that Infancy Protevangelion of James was accepted by Early Church Fathers as truthful account of Mary and Joseph’s marriage. If one reads the Infancy Gospel of James (Protevangelion of James), in Chapter 8 it says that Mary was married to Joseph when she was 12 years old.
“…..His eldest son was James, surnamed Oblias—that he begat him when he was about forty years old: after him he had another son named Jose, then Simeon and Judas, and then his two daughters Mary and Salome: after his wife’s death he continued many years a widower, and about fourscore years old married Mary. Besides Epiphanius, several other of the Greek fathers have given into this same opinion, viz. Hilary, Chrysostome, Cyrill, Euthyymius, Theophylact, Cecumenius, and generally, as bishop Peaterson says: ‘all Latin fathers till Ambrose, and the Greeks afterward; from which it is very evident that the account of Joseph’s age and family, which is in the Gospel of the Birth Mary, and the Protevangelion of James, met with very general credit among ancient Christians.” [10]

Charles Burlingame Waite was a United States lawyer, jurist also cites Epiphanies that Joseph was 80 years old when he married Mary:
“Joseph was very old when he married Mary, and had been many years a widower; that he was the brother of Clophas, the son of James, surnamed Panther; that he had his first wife of the tribe of Judah, and by her six children, to wit, four sons and two daughters. His eldest son was James, surnamed Oblias, (this probably taken from Eusebius, Ecc, Hist. 2. 23), that he begat him when he was about forty years old; after him he had another son named Jose, then Simeon and Judas, and then his two daughters Mary and Salome: after his wife’s death, he continued many years a widower, and about fourscore years old, married Mary.”- Epiph. Haeres. 78, see. 8. [11]

As you have read most Church Early fathers believed Mary was married of when she was 12 years old and Joseph the carpenter was a very old man. Here is the list of fathers who believed that Joseph was fourscore years old when he married 12 year old Mary:

1. Epiphanius (Born 310Ad – Died 403Ad)
2. Hilary (Hilarius) of Poitiers (Born 300 – Died 368Ad)
3. John Chrysostom (Born between 344 and 349 – Died 407Ad)
4. Cyril of Alexandria (Born 376Ad – Died 444Ad)
5. Saint Euthymius the Great (Born 377 – Died 20 January 473)
6. Theophylact of Ohrid (also known as Theophylact of Bulgaria) (Born 1055 – 1107)
7. Cecumenius
8. Eusebius (Born 263 – Died 339 Ad)
5. Did Mary stay a Virgin whole her life?

Christians might say that she stayed virgin whole her life and it is insignificant if Joseph was an old man or not. But that is not correct, if we read Gospel of Matthew Chapter 1 verse 25 it clearly says that Joseph had sexual intimacy with Mary after Jesus was born.

New Living Translation Matthew 1:25
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.

There you have it, the word of God has spoken the truth for once. The verse says that they were not intimate until Jesus was born. That is a very powerful verse, plus all the statements from the Early Church fathers who believed that Joseph was 80 – 90 years old and Mary being 12 is true historically. Before Missionaries accuse me of twisting their scripture on Matthew 1:25, let’s see what Christians experts have to say on the verse:

Commentaries on the New Testament Matthew by Charles H. Talbert says:
“Did Mary have sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus’s birth? Among the earliest witnesses, Tertulian (Mar. 4.19) and Irenaeus (Haer. 3.16, 21, 22) say yes.” [12]

Tony Coffey says:
“……Matthew stated that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary ‘until she gave birth to a son.’ This tells us that after Jesus birth, Joseph and Mary had a normal sexual relationship like any other couple.
The point needs to be made that there was nothing unholy about Mary and Joseph having sex. How could there be? Marriage was designed by God, with sex as one of its blessings. It must be remembered that Joseph and Mary were engaged to be married. Like any engaged couple, they may have discussed, among other matters, having children. Such a discussion would not have been unholy. Sex within the bounds of marriage has the endorsement of God. The notion of marriage without sex is the opposite of what scriptures teach: ‘Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral’ (Hebrews 13:4).
The Apostle Paul was very outspoken about the place of sex in marriage and the mutual obligation of both husband and wife to fulfil the sexual desires of their partner……” [13]

Ben Witherington III is an American New Testament scholar. Professor Witherinton also comments on Matthew 1:25, he says:
“Matthew 1:25 has caused no end of theological debate over the centuries. Joseph is said to ‘take’ his wife, ‘but he was not knowing her until she gave birth to a son.’ This seems to reinforce what was said in Matthew 1:18 and implies that Joseph abstained from sexual intercourse with Mary until Jesus was born. The verb here ‘he was not knowing’ (eginosken) is in the imperfect and stresses a specific period of time after which he was ‘knowing’ her in the biblical sense of sexual intercourse. As Matthew 17:9 and its similar construction show, a negative statement followed by ‘until which time’ always implies that the negated action will take place after the allotted time (indicated by the participle) is up. The end of the time is indicated by the aorist verb ‘gave birth’ (eteken). Therefore, it is most likely that this verse rules out the idea of Mary’s perpetual Virginity being part of Matthew’s theology.” [14]

Phil Moore:
“Some Christian traditions see Mary as a ‘perpetual virgin’ who never had sex with Joseph. I find this impossible to reconcile with the straightforward teaching of Matthew 1:25; 12:46; 13:55.” [15]

The NIV Application Commentary by Matthew J. Wilkins also agrees that the verse in Matthew 1:25 is talking about sexual intercourse taking place after Jesus birth:
“…(1:25). The delicate way of Matthew phrases this expression (lit., ‘he was not knowing her’) was a common way of referring to abstaining from sexual intercourse in both Hebrew and Greek. Sexual abstinence maintained Joseph and Mary’s ritual purification the pregnancy as well as ensured that Jesus was virgin-born. But this is not a hint of continued celibacy after Jesus birth. The word ‘until’ most naturally means that Mary and Joseph had normal marital sexual relations after Jesus birth, from which other children were born (see 12:46, 13:55).” [16]
6. Holy Spirit Impregnated Mary when she was 12 – 14 years old – Paedophilia?

One would seem shocked by the title of this section. But this is true, if one reads certain passages in the Bible, one would realise straight away that sexuality was involved in Mary’s pregnancy. Let’s have a read of the verses:

John 3:16 King James Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Let me now show what the word ‘beget’, begotten’ means:

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1911) says:
beget v.t. (-tt-, -got, -gotten). Procreate (usu. Of father, sometimes of father and mother, cf bear);….. [17]

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Eleventh Edition says:
…begotten: (1) : OFFSPRING (2) : the entire progeny of a male animal b: lineage…. [18]

Chambers’s twentieth century dictionary of the English language (1903):
Beget, be-get, v.t. to produce or cause : to generate : to produce as an effect, to cause :– pr.p beget’ting ; pa.t. begat’, begot : pa.p begot , begot’ten. –n. Beget’ter, one who begets: a father : the agent that occasions or originates anything…. [19]

What are we supposed to me make of statements like that in the Bible, that the God begets a Son? This is exactly the same as human by human or animal by animal relationship. We as Muslims object to the word ‘begotten’ because begetting is an animal act, belonging to the lower animal functions of sex. How can Christians attribute such a lowly capacity to God? The words are crystal clear; anybody reading the above mentioned verse would straight away believe/think that Yahweh had sexual intimacy with Mary and this is the case.
The language of the next verse clearly shows sexual intimacy. Read the verse for yourselves:

King James 2000 Bible Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall COME UPON YOU, and the power of the Highest shall OVERSHADOW YOU: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God.

In Luke 1:35 when the words ‘COME UPON YOU’ is used this sounds exactly like husband come upon his wife.
There are Christians that believe that Yahweh had sexual intimacy with Mary not just that but also Mary became a WIFE of God. Here is one of the commentaries on Luke by a Christian (Mormon), it says:

God, the Father of our spirits, became the father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. Hence, the Father saith concerning him ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ We are informed in the first chapter of Luke, that Mary was chosen by the Father as a choice virgin, through whom he begat Jesus. The angel said unto the Virgin Mary, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore, also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.’ After the power of the Highest had overshadowed Mary, and she had by that means conceived, she related the circumstance to her cousin Elizabeth in the following words: ‘He that is Mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name.’ It seems from this relation that the Holy Ghost accompanied ‘the highest’ when he overshadowed the Virgin Mary and begat Jesus; and from this circumstance some have supposed that the body of Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost without the instrumentality of the immediate presence of the Father. There is no doubt that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary to sanctify her, and make her holy, and prepare her to endure the glorious presence of ‘the Highest,’ that when ‘He’ should overshadow her she might conceive, being filled with the Holy Ghost; hence the angel said, as recorded in Matthew, ‘That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost;’ that is, the Holy Ghost gave her strength to abide the presence of the father without being consumed; but it was the personage of the father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called ‘the Only begotten of the Father;’ that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters whom He begat before the foundation of this world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones; whereas, both the spirit and body of Jesus were begotten by the Father- the spirit having been begotten in heaven many ages before the tabernacle was begotten upon the earth.

The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a father. Therefore, the father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the LAWFUL WIFE OF GOD THE FATHER : we use the term LAWFUL wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the saviour unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph ; for such a heinious crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and PLEASURE He had a lawful right to overshadow the virgin Mary in the capacity of a HUSBAND, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. In as much as god was the First HUSBAND to HER, it may be that he only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity. [20]

David Jay Jordan a Christian comments on the word “OVERSHADOW” from Luke 1:35, he says:
And if you didn’t know it the word ‘overshadowed’ is just another delicate discreet way of saying a man got on top of a woman, casting his shadow over her, and entered her with his penis and ‘made love’ to her. This is just the good old-fashioned missionary way of producing babies. The woman gets ‘overshadowed’…or as King Solomon via the Holy Spirit said… His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me. (Song of Solomon 2: 6) Because her lover is over top of her…. and he is overshadowing her …..’and his banner over me was love’ (2: 4).

Do clouds penetrate into the womb ?…. Does gas produce babies ? The answer obviously NO. The Lord created sperm to break thru the egg of a woman to combine with the cell of a woman to reproduce into a new body for a new soul. That’s the Lord’s biology, that’s His embryology. That’s the Lord’s sexuality.
Mathew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is CONCEIVED IN her is of the Holy Ghost.

And the conception happened INSIDE Mary’s womb.

Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was CONCEIVED IN THE WOMB.

If you want to read more on this, click on the link below. I didn’t add some other points he brought up, I think it is distasteful:
http://www.davidjayjordan.com/OvershadowingofVirginMary.html

From everything presented above, it is clear that sexuality was involved in Mary’s pregnancy.
Brown Ogwuma says something on this as well:
“It seems that, like the adult human male, the Holy Spirit who fathered Jesus is also more sexually attracted to younger females than older ones. And for 90 years old Joseph having other children with Mary, who was so young as to be his grand-daughter, he must have been a busy old man, who apparently was endowed with sexual prowess.” [21]

We can all agree with the evidence presented that Mary’s pregnancy involved sexual intimacy with the Holy Spirit. This was not me, but your own Christians sources who are admitting such blasphemous thing that God had sexual intimacy with Mary for Jesus to be born.
7. Age of Consent in European & American History

Early marriages in American States and European countries prior the 20th century, here is an article I have written:
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/09/age-of-consent-in-european-american-history/
8. Questions for the Hate-Mongering Christians

1. Why was Mary pregnant at such young age by the Holy Spirit?
2. Why did Jesus not speak against (or abolish) them Child marriages?
3. How come Paul says nothing against such marriages?
4. Why did Yahweh not say anything against Mary’s marriage with Joseph?
5. Why did Yahweh bless the marriage of Joseph who was 80 – 90 years old at least with 12 year old Mary?
Conclusion: I believe everything presented in this article supports the fact that Mary married Joseph the carpenter when she was 12 years old and Joseph at least 80 – 90 years old. I went over and defined the word ‘Apocrypha’ as you have read already it originally denoted ‘Hidden or secret’. Finally, I gave a reference from the Gospel of Matthew that said after Jesus birth Joseph and Mary had normal sexual life. Lastly the references quoted from some of the early Church fathers that Mary married Joseph when she was 12 years old, some of them believed even though Mary was married to Joseph, she stayed a Virgin whole her life. Although they have already admitted that Joseph was a very, very old man when married to 12 year old Mary, it does not mean nothing if they believed she stayed a Virgin. Reason is because Gospel of Matthew already made it clear that there was sexual intimacy between Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born. So whatever the opinion from some of the early fathers, Matthew 1:25 crushes/debunks their fictitious arguments on Mary staying a Virgin whole her life.

Disclaimer: Whatever is given in this article is just showing of the mirror to the Liars/deceivers and other missionary haters of Islam, otherwise neither I nor any Muslim can ever think of anything close to it. Christian brethren and sisters do understand that this article is in no way attacking the Christian faith. The article was mainly written in response to the double standards of Christian missionaries. No Muslim can be a Muslim if he/she has any such imagination about Mary, the purest and greatest woman of all.

References:

[1] The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls By James VanderKam, Peter Flint chapter 8
[2] Poetics of the Gnostic Universe: Narrative And Cosmology in the Apocryphon of John By Zlatko Plese page 7
[3] John the Baptist: Prophet of Purity for a New Age By Catherine M. Murphy page 161
[4] The Tree of Life and the Holy Grail: Ancient and Modern Spiritual Paths and the mystery of rennes-le-Chatean By Sylvia Francke page 6
[5] Forgotten Women of God By Diana Webb page xiv
[6] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm
[7] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0805.htm
[8]The Semitic gods and the Bible. Being over three hundred pages from “The gods and religions of ancient and modern times.” Written while unjustly imprisoned (1912) By D. M. Bennet (De Robigne Mortimer Bennett) Page 605
[9]Bernard L. Fontana A Gift of Angels: The Art of Mission San Xavier Del Bac page 258
[10] A new and full method of settling the canonical authority of the New Testament. To which is subjoined A Vindication of the Former Part of St. Matthew’s Gospel from Mr. Whiston’s Charge of Dislocations By Reverend Jeremiah Jones
[11] History of the Christian religion to the year two hundred. By Charles B. Waite. Published 1881 page 131
[12] Commentaries on the New Testament Matthew edited by Charles H. Talbert page 34
[13] Answers to Questions Catholics Are Asking By Tony Coffey page 209 – 210
[14] The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New Testament Volume 1 By Ben Witherington III page 653
[15] Straight to the Heart of Matthew: 60 Bite-Sized Insights By Phil Moore page 24 Footnote 9
[16] The NIV Application Commentary: Matthew Michael J. Wilkins page 82
[17] The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1911) page 74
[18] Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Eleventh Edition page 525
[19] Chambers’s twentieth century dictionary of the English language . . . (1903) page 85
[20] The Seer edited by Orson Pratt (1853) page 158
[21] Playing God: Intuitive Reflections and Discourse on Life By Brown Ogwuma page 98