The is an interesting read, although it should be noted that the shifts in topic can be rather glaring at times. Leviticus 14 seems primarily concerned with and the response of the community to a leper, and Leviticus 16 concerns the “holy place” (presumably there the was kept), and also discusses sin offerings. And wedged between these two wildly divergent topics is Leviticus 15, which concerns male and female “discharges”.

The first half of Leviticus 15 concerns seminal discharge by a man, and concludes its treatise on the attendant ritual uncleanliness that accompanies a discharge of with the following observation:

[18] If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening.

I don’t think it needs to be said that when one is reading the , especially the , one should be mindful of the common euphemisms for . In the , the term “know” is the typical euphemism for sexual intercourse; “lies with” is also used quite often, especially in the articulation of the law of .

Possible Objection #1: We could just take “lies with” at its plain meaning, and assume that it does not refer to any actual act of sexual congress.

Response to Objection #1: True enough. But were we to concede that point, we would likewise have to concede that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do not refer to any homosexual sex act. And I think most faithful Christians would disagree with just such a conclusion.

Anti-Marian Christians tend to believe that even if Mary did have sexual intercourse, this would not would not have prevented her from e.g. being called “blessed” of all nations. This is technically true, but where some anti-Marians have gone wrong is with the assumption that, under Jewish law, “ in is not sinful”, that “ would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with , her husband.”

Let us come back to Leviticus 15:18, then. The verse would seem to suggest that, according to Jewish law, any sexual act between a man and a woman that results in an emission of semen renders both man and woman unclean until the evening. It’s a minor defilement, admittedly, but it is still a ritual defilement.

Jumping ahead to Leviticus 20:10, we note that adulterers — male and female — are to be put to death. Given the absence of mention of any death penalty in Leviticus 15, it is probably safe to assume — since pre-marital and extra-marital sex carry death penalties under Levitical Law (c.f. Levititus 20, almost the entire chapter) — that Leviticus 15:18 refers to normal sexual relations between husband and wife (or between a man and a slave woman, as per Leviticus 19:20-22, but that is another matter).

Let us be clear, then: if a husband and wife have sex, and if there is a discharge of semen as a result of that sexual act, then this results in a minor ritual defilement for both man and woman: both are unclean until the evening (presumably, this means the next evening). So when the concerned anti-Marian Christian objects that proper marital sexual relations do not bring defilement upon the couple, he or she is actually incorrect, and perhaps a bit ignorant of Levitical Law.

I will grant, of course, that Christians do not need to follow all the ordinances of the Law of Moses (although most Christians tend to think that at least a few select ordinances thereof are still binding), because has fulfilled the law. But let us not forget that both Mary and Joseph were , not Christians, and would have lived according to the law. Had they had any sexual relations, they would certainly have observed the tenets of the law pertaining to seminal discharge…and in doing so, they would have been following the extant covenant between and mankind at the time.

Now, it would be tempting to jump ahead at this point and begin looking at, for example, the . However, before we do that, we need to look at the for a moment, and at what I am sure is, for many Christians, a little-known aspect of Jewish religious devotion: vows of sexual abstinence taken by women, married and unmarried.

But don’t take my word for it, O Reader. Rehmat says so, so it must be true!

US$5 million film depict ic view of , son of Virgin - A great prophet of , speaking parables and moving through soft light and angelic chants among a group of zealot and conspiring (Pharisees). The narrative are borrowed from the Gospel of St. Barnabas, which was not cannonized as part of Christian Bible, The New Testament (NT). However, NT, do contain five books of Jewish Bible, The Old Testament (OT).

Got that? The (the first five books of the — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy — which also comprise the Jewish ) are a part of the .

The stupid makes me laugh sometimes.

At least Shaukat, the blogger at RehmatPedia, is at least admitting that the is based on false, erroneous texts (like the Barnabas “gospel”)! Still, does anyone else get creeped out at the fact that such a hateful Islamist bigot as Shaukat has nevertheless managed to secure employment at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Facility?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Update: Apocalypse: Shaukat responds!

Talmudic hacker, Ken, has questioned my statement that five books of Jewish Bible (OT) are part of Christian Bible.

The Old Testament (OT) has 39 books and the New Testament (NT) has 27. (There are 66 books in the entire Bible). Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are the five books of OT, which were incorporated into NT – to show that Christianity is another extension of Judaism. However, the great majority of present-day Jewish population of world (13.5 million) don’t follow the OT – but Talmud, which was written by Rabbis over one century after the Crucification – and contains Jewish hatred toward Jesus’ his mother and rest of Christians:

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus’ mother was a whore: “She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters.” Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b it is stated that in the “uncensored” text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, “Mary the hairdresser,” had sex with many men.

It’s hard to believe the guy who blogs at RehmatPedia is the same age as my wife, isn’t it? Based on the information he gives here concerning his date of birth, he should be on the order of 24 years old…nearly 25. Reading him, one would think he’s about ten years younger.

And he works in a nuclear power plant.

Anyhow, I love how in his attempt to clarify his blatant error, he has only reinforced it. Perhaps he has never actually opened to see the order of books in it, but were he to do so he would observe that the five books of the Torah — the Pentateuche — are the first five books of what Christians call the .

The books of the New Testament begin with the four Gospels, proceed through various epistles and letters, and end with the apocalyptic texts of Peter, John, Jude, and Revelation.

Notice how he contradicts himself? He begins by asserting that there are 39 books in the Old Testament (there are actually 47, but nevermind that just right now), but then in the following sentence claims that the Pentateuche are “the five books” (in English, the use of “the” in that context is meant to suggest exclusivity) of the Old Testament.

So which is it, Shaukat? Thirty-nine? Forty-seven? Five?

Even more confusingly, he then goes on to assert that the sole five books of the New Testament, according to him, were then “incorporated into the [New Testament]“. So after narrowing the Old Testament down to five books, Shaukat then tells us that those five books were included in the New Testament canon.

So why even mention the Old Testament? Apparently, it’s empty!

Of course, Shaukat’s anti-Jewish sentiments are well known (how confusing, in light of his recent apparent conversion to said religion!), and bear no commenting on. But isn’t it lamentable, O Reader, how incorrect this young man in Ontario is about something which is so easily verifiable? And he works at a nuclear power plant?

My advice: if you live in Pickering, move. Based on what we learned from , it would be best to put at least 100 km between yourself and the plant.