Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms?

Checkmate, I found where your baseless assertions about Jesus came from. You quoted your own webpage, which is the spirit of the antichrist but Jesus Himself said that many would persecute Him. Not too many people persecute mohammed because he is just a mere man and is no threat to the demonic principalities that rule the minds and hearts of men. (There...my rant is done!) That being said, you have a right to your opinion. Just let us know the source that you glean it off of. I would advise against dissing God, however.I also would advise checking up on your Islamic guru, Shahid bin Waheed. This guy has little if any credentials...even with Muslims!
Some refutations This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-25-2005 10:30 PM

you kidding? we're currently waging war on the muslim fundamentalist world.

---

אָרַח

google is an awesome resource.this talking about you, by any chance?http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ29.HTM

quote:

---

I found one citation from Luther along these lines . . . My best guess is that it is a sarcastic, put-on type of comment from Table-Talk or similar sort of writing and rhetoric.

---

quote:

---

Source: St. Catherine's Review (a Catholic periodical)
(http://aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/new.html)
"The 'New' Martin Luther" (May-June 1996 issue):

​

In "Table Talks" Luther got drunk one night and told some of his fawning sycophants that Jesus must have been an adulterer because even He could not resist temptations of the flesh. He went on to claim that Jesus had an affair with Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha of Bethany, and the Samaritan woman at the well.

---

quote:

---

A person who is determined to put Martin Luther in the worst possible light (as Peter Wiener evidently is) can use a quotation recorded in Table Talk. In the Spring of 1532, Luther said:

​

Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, "Nobody knows what he's doing with her". Again, with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8 , whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died.

​

(Luther's Works, American Edition, Volume 54, p 154)

​

The editor's footnote on the same page reads:

​

What Luther meant might have been made clearer if John Schlaginhaufen had indicated the context of the Reformer's remarks. The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536, . . . in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer.

​

Clearly, the man who staked his life for time and eternity on Jesus Christ and magnified him in his preaching. teaching, and writing is not to be taken literally when he says, "Christ was an adulterer...".

​

(Page not found – WELS)

---

see, context IS important. basically, you're using a rhetorical argument in a hypothetic story designed to prove a point the demonstrate, out of context, how martin luther felt about christ.hey, i'm not even gonna have to say anything. it's all in that link: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ29.HTMThis message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-26-2005 12:32 AM

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

My personal opinion about Jesus:

---

Tread lightly, please.Your opinion post didn't serve to further the topic of this discussion.If you wish to get into that type of discussion, please start your own thread, don't pull this one off topic.Thanks and welcome to EvC. This message has been edited by purpledawn, 04-26-2005 06:15 AM

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Incorrect. We are waging war on a small group of muslim fundamentalist extremists.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

well, three groups. and governments that support them. and iraq.but my comment was mostly meant to be ironic: i'm certain members of these groups think that we are waging a war on islam even if we have lots of islamic people here who we treat just fine.

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

Checkmate, I found where your baseless assertions about Jesus came from. You quoted your own webpage, which is the spirit of the antichrist
but Jesus Himself said that many would persecute Him. Not too many people persecute mohammed because he is just a mere man and is no threat to the demonic principalities that rule the minds and hearts of men. (There...my rant is done!) That being said, you have a right to your opinion. Just let us know the source that you glean it off of. I would advise against dissing God, however.

​

I also would advise checking up on your Islamic guru, Shahid bin Waheed. This guy has little if any credentials...even with Muslims!
Some refutations

---

Wow I am impressed, Sherlock Holomes, nay, it is a news to me that I have a web page You are making nonsense just like Jesus in the NT. Had I known that you have the knolwedge of unknown and unseen, I would have taken you as god. But we both know that you are just a human, making non-sensical claims.JuniorI will ignore your post with non-sensical assertions. Go and get some real knowledge before locking the "horns" with me. The article I quoted has absolute referecnes from your "idol" AKA Martin Luther who wrote that Jesus was an adulterer. Now Christians have failed to refute Martin Luther for last 1000 years. Wasn't this guy also founded your false cult of "Protestantism?" So please take this issue to your people, Muslims or I have nothing to do with it.Oh, by the way, your scholarship in limited to using website "answering-Islam" as your sole source? Those guys are on the run ( and can only publich disinformation) and here is the proof.Proof # 1.Proof # 2.They (website "answering-islam") are running like Jesus use to run from Phirasses who used to debunk him left and right, this is one main reason Jesus avoided Jerusalem.

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

quote:

---

Incorrect. We are waging war on a small group of muslim fundamentalist extremists.

---

Why don't you let Muslims be the judge of that?Don't forget!"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."Samuel P. Huntington

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

quote:

---

google is an awesome resource.
this talking about you, by any chance?

​

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ29.HTM

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found one citation from Luther along these lines . . . My best guess is that it is a sarcastic, put-on type of comment from Table-Talk or similar sort of writing and rhetoric.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: St. Catherine's Review (a Catholic periodical)
(http://aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/new.html)
"The 'New' Martin Luther" (May-June 1996 issue):
In "Table Talks" Luther got drunk one night and told some of his fawning sycophants that Jesus must have been an adulterer because even He could not resist temptations of the flesh. He went on to claim that Jesus had an affair with Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha of Bethany, and the Samaritan woman at the well.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A person who is determined to put Martin Luther in the worst possible light (as Peter Wiener evidently is) can use a quotation recorded in Table Talk. In the Spring of 1532, Luther said:
Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, "Nobody knows what he's doing with her". Again, with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8 , whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died.

​

(Luther's Works, American Edition, Volume 54, p 154)

​

The editor's footnote on the same page reads:

​

What Luther meant might have been made clearer if John Schlaginhaufen had indicated the context of the Reformer's remarks. The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536, . . . in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer.

​

Clearly, the man who staked his life for time and eternity on Jesus Christ and magnified him in his preaching. teaching, and writing is not to be taken literally when he says, "Christ was an adulterer...".

​

(Page not found – WELS)

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

see, context IS important. basically, you're using a rhetorical argument in a hypothetic story designed to prove a point the demonstrate, out of context, how martin luther felt about christ.

​

hey, i'm not even gonna have to say anything. it's all in that link: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ29.HTM

---

Hi thereThanks for your response, but we cannot accept these sources or what they say as statements of truth or facts for many reasons,1. Martin Luther was not some punk, he was somebody who made sense then, which enabled him to make people march behind him.2. Had ML been that irresponsible to get drunk and shoot his mouth off? Then Catholics and Vatican would have annihilated ML.3. The Christian spin doctors , especially Catholics are trying to do the damage control in the links.4. The ironey of their non-sense is that they are speaking for ML and telling the readers as added bonus that what ML meant? It is a joke to begin with.

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

So, it your total refutation using a fundamentalist islamic site promoting islam? Where is the scholarship? I already noted that they seem to have invented comments that don't exist in the original text on a reference to the DDS.Why should I believe liars? That particular web site uses lies.

had martin luther really indeed thought and preached that jesus was gay, it would then follow that more people might think so. no, you missed the important part: it was a rhetorical argument. he was telling something like a parable. your post (and the page it's copied from) read like nothing but pure spin itself. a good sign of spinning is that context is removed, and you have no context.now, this is horrendously off-topic, and more than a but looney. we're talking about they wrote about jesus in the law, the prophets, and the psalms. i listed those books back on page one. if it's not one of those books, it's not up for discussion.and martin luther is not in those book.

---

אָרַח

As I already pointed out somewhere here, not only the highly competent Christian translators of the Hebrew scriptures into many languages over the centuries, but the highly competent JEWISH translators of the Greek Septuagint, a couple hundred or more years before Christ, translated the Hebrew "Almah" to mean "virgin" (Greek "Parthenos") in TWO places, one in Isaiah 7:14 and the other somewhere I think in the Song of Songs -- or maybe I got that wrong and it's Genesis 24:43, which is where my KJV has it as "virgin."There are three or four other uses of the word "Almah" in the Hebrew scriptures and they were all translated "young woman" or the equivalent. Also there are a couple dozen uses of the word "virgin" in the English translation, and all but these two mentioned above are from the Hebrew "Betulah." Only those two are from the Hebrew "Almah."The fact that in TWO places the highly competent JEWISH translators decided "Almah" meant specifically "virgin" is tremendous evidence for its accuracy.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-27-2005 08:21 PM

ALL that entire passage refers to the Messiah. NONE of it refers to Ahaz. As I said, this is not a case of a double fulfillment. Ahaz is being given the prophecy of the Messiah, period. What you don't seem to get is that it is often the very out-of-context oddness of passages like this that indicate their nature as prophecy. Often it is only after they are fulfilled that they are fully understood, though at the time they may not be at all, or only partially. But as such passages accumulated over the centuries before Christ, the Jews did recognize them as messianic prophecies and spent much time formulating a portrait of the Messiah from them. They aren't to be understood separately OR for different centuries. They all pertain to the Messiah yet to come.

You are , of course, quite incorrect. Why don't you include Isaiah 8:1-18 in your reading of it?? You do realise that the scheme of numbering the verses is a medival Christian invention, and is not how the author cut things up.Let's see

quote:

---

8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

---

In other words, to 'fullfill' Isaiah 7:14, it told the exact steps Isaiah took to get the sign fullfilled.If that is not enough, lets look at Isaiah 8:18

quote:

---

8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

---

In other words, Isaiah is specifically saying that He and his children are the signs given to Israel.

Talk to the translators of the Septuagint who made "almah" mean "virgin" there and in Genesis 24.