> Muslim Response Jesus and consumption of pork

[Assad]

Jesus and consumption of pork - By Idris awfiq on IslamOnline.net

Question

As the swine flu outbreak continues spreading, some people blame Christianity for this, my question is did prophet Jesus command the people to eat pig meat? Where does the idea of eating pork come from?


Answer:

Salam, Jody.

Thank you for your very interesting question. It is interesting because I don't think there are even many Christians who would be able to answer it.

Before answering it, let us first of all reject out of hand the very suggestion that Christianity is in any way responsible for the outbreak of swine flu. Such an idea is ridiculous. According to World Health Organization, there is no evidence that swine flu is transmissible to people through eating pork or any other products obtained from pigs. If pork is properly cooked, it will not transmit the virus.

The fact that Christians eat pork does not make them responsible for a medical illness. If that were the case, what about people with no faith or adherents of any of the religions of Africa or South-East Asia who also eat pork? Are they responsible, too?

Your question about Jesus, though, is important. You are asking, just where exactly did the command come from that allowed the eating of pork, when Judaism clearly did not allow it?

In the first place, we need to recognize that, according to the Christian Gospels, there were pigs in Palestine at the time of Jesus (peace be upon him). In one of the Gospel accounts of Jesus healing a young man possessed with devils, Jesus commands the devils to leave the man and to go, instead, into a head of pigs.

In the story, the pigs then rush off a nearby cliff and are killed. In Saint Luke's story of the Prodigal Son, too, Jesus talks about a young man who goes off with his share of the inheritance and wastes it on wine, women and song, until he is so penniless that he has to take a job looking after pigs.

So clearly there were pigs around. What were they doing in Palestine, when Jews do not eat pork? Who were they for? In fact, both the Romans and the Greeks used to eat pork as a delicacy, so we must assume that the pigs were bred either for export or to feed the Romans who were occupying Palestine at the time.

In one of the first books of the Old Testament the Jews are told very clearly which animals they may eat and which animals they may not eat. We read:

"… and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you." (Leviticus 11:7-8)

To this day, Jews do not eat pork.

From what we read in the Gospels, Jesus says nothing at all about eating or not eating pork, so where do his Christian followers get the idea from that it is permissible to eat pork?

As a prophet of Islam, Jesus would not have eaten pork, but it is highly unlikely, according even to the Gospel accounts themselves, that he would have done so as a Jew.

Why the change, then? Why do Christians eat pork, if they believe that their religion grew out of the Jewish one, which forbids it?

Jesus, in fact, is quoted as saying in Saint Matthew's Gospel,

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them."

In such a case, then, we can only presume that he left untouched the instruction about pork.

The answer, in fact, lies not with Jesus, but with the Church which grew up after him and claimed to speak in his name.

After Jesus died, according to a book called Acts of the Apostles written by St Luke, a dispute arose among his followers about those who converted to Christianity. In the earliest days, the followers of Jesus were known as "followers of the Way." They did not consider themselves as anything other than Jews, but they followed the teachings of the Jewish rabbi, Jesus. It was only later in Antioch that they first came to be called "Christians."

Some people said that if someone wanted to be a follower of Jesus, he clearly had to become a Jew first.

"But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic Law.' The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter." (Acts 15:5)

A meeting was held in Jerusalem to discuss this. It was much more important than a debate about circumcision, since its results would determine the future of those who followed Jesus. There were basically two arguments.

The first was put forward by the Apostle James, heavily influenced by Peter. He upheld the traditional view about circumcision and observation of the Jewish Law. In other words, as Jews the followers of Jesus had to follow the Jewish laws.

Paul of Tarsus, on the other hand, said that there was no longer any need for those new to Christianity to observe the Mosaic Law and become Jews, since Christianity was something different to Judaism.

A compromise was reached. Those who were born as Jews but who had become followers of Jesus would continue to observe the laws of the Jews. Those who were converts did not have to. The prevailing idea was expressed by Peter,

"The truth I have come to realize is that God does not have favorites. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34).

Laws particular to the Jews would no longer need to apply.

So, you see, it was not Jesus who changed the rule about eating pork. He was quite clear that the Law said you must not do so. As in so many other cases, it was his followers, who became known as the Church, who made this new rule.

If Christians did not have to become Jews, then Christians were no longer bound by the rules of circumcision or of dietary requirements. They could eat as much pork as they wanted.

These leaders would ultimately declare, three hundred years later, that Jesus was God.

I hope this answers your question. Please keep in touch.

Salam.

[Al Habeshi]

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem

as-Salaamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullah.

I posted an e-mail with some questions regarding the above to the Brother, on the site of his they do say it takes a while, though I have waited for a period of time thinking I will see what the brother replies I have not heard from them. I hope the Brother is ok, insha'Allah.

Some Details on Jesus and Pork Article‏
From: Eesa Abdullah (....@hotmail.co.uk)
Sent: 27 May 2009 11:44:02
To: admin@idristawfiq.com
Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

As-Salaamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh,

From 'Eesa 'Abdullah to my Brother and Elder Idris Tawfiq.

I hope you are well - insha'Allah. I was reading recently an article posted on IslamOnline.net wherein you answered a question about Jesus and Pork. It can be found here (Reading Islam)

Two questions arose from the article which I wanted to put forth to you due to my lack of knowledge on the matter.

1. "From what we read in the Gospels, Jesus says nothing at all about eating or not eating pork, so where do his Christian followers get the idea from that it is permissible to eat pork?"

I was wondering about the statement found in Mark 7:1-22. Where he is reported to have said that nothing which enters the body makes on unclean, and in saying such, according to the Gospel, he decleared all foods clean. (Though I do understand that there is apperent confusion as later you have disciples still talking about the issue.)

2. "As a prophet of Islam, Jesus would not have eaten pork, but it is highly unlikely, according even to the Gospel accounts themselves, that he would have done so as a Jew."

I did not get this, I thought that different prophets, may Allah send blessings and peace upon them, had different laws, which may mean that Jesus was allowed to eat pork?

Just need some clarification on the two points as sometimes it comes up in Da'wah.

Your Brother,

'Eesa 'Abdullah

Br.al-Habeshi

[TheBoxer]

Question

As the swine flu outbreak continues spreading, some people blame Christianity for this, my question is did prophet Jesus command the people to eat pig meat? Where does the idea of eating pork come from?


Answer:

Salam, Jody.

Thank you for your very interesting question. It is interesting because I don't think there are even many Christians who would be able to answer it.

Well, here's one who is going to try.
　
Humans began hunting pigs and raising them domestically for the very purpose of eating them. This has been going on since prehistoric times.
　
According to the Biblical record, God did not forbid swine flesh until He made a covenant with the tribes of Israel and forbade them specifically from consuming it along with various other types of meat. According to the Torah, swineflesh was considered no more and no less 'unclean' than the other types of forbidden animals, such as horses for example.
　
Adam was never forbidden from eating any specific kinds of animals, and neither were Noah and Abraham. We have no record of another group of people forbidden by their God from eating swineflesh until Muhammad and the birth of Islam in the 7th century AD.
　
Now, it bugs me quite a bit when I see people attempting to apply an Islamic interpretation to the Bible. The Bible is not an Islamic book. It is a Jewish and Christian one. The Old Testament was written by Jews, the New Testament by the followers of Jesus Christ.
　
Who better would understand the teachings of Jesus Christ than the very first people to believe in him and continue the ministry he gave them? These people included the twelve disciples and the people who assisted in their ministry as well as the apostle Paul who spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. Their writings are compiled in the New Testament. In fact, Paul's epistles are the EARLIEST Christian writings we have.
　
The gospels teach us about the ministry of Jesus. From them we learn what Jesus' purpose was and is for mankind as well as how people should behave towards one another. In the epistles we learn what the first Christians believed about the Gospel as well as how those beliefs were put into practice.
　
When you approach the New Testament with pre-conceived notions, then the message you get from it will be distorted.
　
Common pre-conceived notions include:

1. Jesus is definitely not the Son of God.
2. Jesus was definitely not crucified.
3. Jesus was only a messenger to the Jews.
4. Jesus did not want people to worship him.
5. Jesus could not forgive sins or save people from their sins.
　
To criticize the New Testament HONESTLY, one must first approach it with no pre-conceived notions. This goes the same for the Islamic scriptures as well.
　
So, if we set aside those previously listed notions and approach the Christian scriptures, we can get an HONEST view of what it is Christians believe and why.
　
1. Jesus is the Son of God. (Matthew 26:63-64)
2. Jesus was crucified. (Mark 15:24-25)
3. Jesus ministered to Jews and Gentiles (Matthew 8:5-13), and instructed his disciples to minister to all the nations. (Matthew 28:19-20)
4. Jesus accepted worship (Matthew 28:9-10) and blessed the man who recognized him as the Son of God. (Matthew 16:16-17)
5. Jesus did forgive sins (Luke 5:20-25), and his purpose was to save people from their sins. (Matthew 1:21 & John 3:14-16)
　
At that point, when one reads the passages of Jesus claiming to FULFILL the Law and the Prophets, things make more sense.
　
He saves people from their sins because He fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. Jesus followed the Law perfectly and fulfilled the Messianic prophecies. (Romans 3:21-26) If the Law states that Israelites were not to eat the flesh of pigs, then Jesus, an Israelite, did not eat the flesh of pigs.
　
Eating pig flesh is not a sin. Eating pig flesh made an Israelite ceremonially unclean. It did not make someone spiritually unclean. (Mark 7:14-19) All Israelite ceremonial rituals were brought to an end when Jesus Christ was crucified. This was symbolized by the tearing of the Temple curtain. God makes all animals clean for all people (Acts 10:15, Romans 14:20), and it is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that an 'unclean' person is made clean. (Hebrews 9:11-15)

This is why Christians eat pork.

~TheBoxer

[Assad]

According to the Biblical record, God did not forbid swine flesh until He made a covenant with the tribes of Israel and forbade them specifically from consuming it along with various other types of meat. According to the Torah, swineflesh was considered no more and no less 'unclean' than the other types of forbidden animals, such as horses for example.

Where is the evidence for all this from the Bible ? The verses I quote are clear.

Adam was never forbidden from eating any specific kinds of animals, and neither were Noah and Abraham. We have no record of another group of people forbidden by their God from eating swineflesh until Muhammad and the birth of Islam in the 7th century AD.

Obviously we dont have any record from the lifetime of Adam or Noah and I am amazed why would you even think that they would exist. That is why God revealed to us through His Final Messenger , Muhammad (PBUH) the stories of past prophets including Jesus till Noah, since we dont have any authentic historical records for them.

Now, it bugs me quite a bit when I see people attempting to apply an Islamic interpretation to the Bible. The Bible is not an Islamic book. It is a Jewish and Christian one. The Old Testament was written by Jews, the New Testament by the followers of Jesus Christ.

We are only applying the actual interpretation of the Bible and supported it with quotes and verses from the Bible on the other hand you only are talking about your OWN interpretation without any evidence from the Bible. You have mentioned some other verses talking about Jesus Sin and all that which is absolutely irrelevant.

Bible says ''no'' to swine meat , If otherwise than prove.


"… and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you." (Leviticus 11:7-8)

[Assad]

As for you quoting the verses Mark 7: 14-19 , here are some comments from the Christian preacher I spoke earlier:

That particular verse is showing you that the wickedness in ones heart comes out of their mouth and that is what really matters. Eating pork is not a sin that will send you to Hell; the reason we are commanded not to eat pork is because it will make you sick! Pigs are scavengers; they have no sweat glands; they were put here by God to clean the earth.....think about it, do you want to eat something like that./ I mean, I adore pigs as pets, but I don't/would never eat them.

God strictly forbids swine meat in Old Testment which Christians are supposed to follow:

Matthew 5:17-18.....*
~~ "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

Here is a further note:

The separation of clean and unclean animals was made long before there was a 'jew'. Matt 15:11 is simply saying that unclean ness is not confined to foods, and if you speak unclean things it also indicates you are unclean. (Recall that YAHUSHUA was talking to Pharisees, who thought they were special BECAUSE they obeyed the rules about unclean foods)

[Assad]

Bible did allow Christians to eat pork in the New Testament (NT)?! Matthew 15:11 says it all!

Christians misinterpret the Bible and misquote the verses out of context simply to justify their foolish theories. Let us analyse what Matthew has to offer in defence of eating pork:

“What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, this is what makes him ‘unclean’.”(Matt.15:11).

Based on the above verse, Christians argue that the NT allows them to eat and enjoy pork because what goes into anybodys mouth (preferably pork) does not make him unclean but what comes out of their mouth (filthy words) does.



If you read the scriptures, Matthew 15:1 all the way to Matthew 15:20 you will clearly understand that these verses do not specifically speak about eating pork. Let us analyse Matthew 15:1-20;

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, "What you would have gained from me is given to God," he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" (Matthew 15:1-9, ESV)

And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person." Then the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" He answered, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit." But Peter said to him, "Explain the parable to us." And he said, "Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." (Matthew 15:10-20, ESV)


Firstly, Nobody in the above verse spoke about pork or eating pork.
Secondly, it is very clear that Jesus was telling a parable (a short moral story) for which Peter wanted further description..


Thirdly, by saying "What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean...." Jesus meant that the teaching of Moses that were spoon fed (into the mouth) to his disciples did not make them unclean rather they were enlightened by the words of God.
Jesus felt bad because the Pharisees & Scribes did not follow the God's commandments and he says "....So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites!..."




Later Jesus calls his people and says unto them, "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person."


These words in its right context clearly means that Knowledge (from God through Moses to his people) had made his people NOT unclean but their hypocritical response to issue (as Jesus had said in the above verse ".....If anyone tells his father or his mother, "What you would have gained from me is given to God," he need not honor his father.'..." ) is of shame and filthy.


This is why Jesus says "....but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person....". He clearly meant Godly knowledge that is preached (by Moses) had made (the mind and soul of) his disciples clean but since they tampered scriptures and altered it to suite their routine they proved themselves unclean.





Source: Pork prohibited in Quran & Bible

[TheBoxer]

**** Acid,

The Bible verses describe what the qualifications are for something to be considered 'clean.' Of the four-legged animals, it required cloven hooves and chewing of the cud. You will find no evidence in the Bible of pigs being "more" unclean than other unclean animals. There is no "slightly unclean", "average unclean", "very unclean." It was simply CLEAN or UNCLEAN. And horseflesh was unclean, the same as swineflesh.
　
The only reason we know about Adam and Noah is because of the record known as the Torah! In the Torah we read about both Adam and Noah. According to the Torah, they were both permitted by God to kill animals and eat them. God did not restrict them to only certain kinds of animals. The same goes for Abraham.
　
I don't think you understand, it is not that there is something wrong with pigs that they are considered 'unclean.' God simply chose a very specific type of livestock to make 'clean' out of all the animals, just as he chose a very specific group of people to make 'clean' out of all the people of the world.

Obviously we dont have any record from the lifetime of Adam or Noah and I am amazed why would you even think that they would exist. That is why God revealed to us through His Final Messenger , Muhammad (PBUH) the stories of past prophets including Jesus till Noah, since we dont have any authentic historical records for them.

This argument is fallacious on so many levels.
　
1. You are assuming that we were supposed to have some kind of record of Adam and Noah aside from the Torah.
2. You are assuming that Muhammad is God's Final Messenger.
3. You are assuming that the records we do have from Noah to Jesus are not authentic and historical.
4. You are assuming that if indeed #2 is correct, then the reason for #2 is because we needed #1 and #3 restored.
　

We are only applying the actual interpretation of the Bible and supported it with quotes and verses from the Bible on the other hand you only are talking about your OWN interpretation without any evidence from the Bible. You have mentioned some other verses talking about Jesus Sin and all that which is absolutely irrelevant.

Bible says ''no'' to swine meat , If otherwise than prove.

More fallacies. I was anticipating a more challenging response than this.

Care to explain what the "actual" interpretation of the Bible is versus the Judeo-Christian interpretation?

1. You assume that the Muslim interpretation (which you deceivingly label as the "actual" one) is correct.
2. You assume that you are applying the verses from the Bible correctly.
3. You assume that the interpretation I have presented here is "my own", and you ignored all the Bible verses I did present. I'm sorry if I did not provide the actual quotes. You need only go to the Biblegateway website and look them up.
4. Jesus and sin are very relevant, considering you are implying that it is a sin for Christians to eat pork since Jesus did not eat pork.

Not only do you have the wrong interpretation of the purpose of Jesus Christ and his relationship with Christians, but you also have the wrong interpretation of the Jewish and Christian scriptures and Christian theology itself.

~~Continuing on to your second post:

Just because a Christian pastor said something it doesn't mean that what they said is the truth. Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy, and just because someone is a pastor it doesn't mean they have true authority anyway. Fred Phelps is a pastor, and most of the American population deems him to be a lunatic because the things he says and does are insane and just plain immoral. Anyway, continuing on...

God strictly forbids swine meat in Old Testment which Christians are supposed to follow:

What a misleading statement. You have oversimplified something to the point that now it is a lie.

God forbade the Israelites from eating meat from four-legged animals that did not have cloven hooves AND chewed the cud. Pork qualifies as forbidden meat, that is true, but so do horses, rabbits, and camels. Nowhere in the Bible are Christians instructed to "follow the Old Testament."
　
I already explained to you what was meant by Jesus' fulfillment of the Law. This is not my interpretation of it. This is THE Christian interpretation of it.

From Romans:　

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down)"or 'Who will descend into the deep?' " (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

From I Timothy:

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

A Christian is not saved because they do what is right. Instead, a Christian does what is right BECAUSE they are saved.
　
The Law cannot be used to establish your own righteousness, number one. Number two, the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled by Jesus Christ, and since that covenant was strictly between God and the Israelites it is ludicrous that a Christian, let alone a Gentile one, should be held to that covenant.

The Israelite penal code was part of the Mosaic covenant, but the Mosaic covenant also revealed something else...God's righteousness. It is through the Law that we know what is a sin. It is the Law that tells us adultery is a sin. It is the Law that tells us stealing is a sin.

Jesus fulfilled the external 'clean' and 'unclean' rituals--the rules symbolic of the Israelites' special status as God's pure and holy nation. He brought such rules to an end. He taught what true cleanliness is...that it is a status of the spirit, not the physical body. In the Old Testament, 'unclean' was not synonymous with sinful or evil or wrong or immoral. Jesus did not end that which defines what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' since it is God Himself and His righteousness which defines such things.
　
Eating pork is not wrong. Eating pork is not evil. Pigs are not evil. Swineflesh was simply not considered to be 'clean' for the Israelites and therefore they were not supposed to eat it.
　
A woman's menstruation made her 'unclean.' Did that mean that menstruation is evil? Did that mean a menstruating woman was sinful? Did that mean that someone who touched her bloody garments and was made 'unclean' by them was suddenly sinful?
　
Your obsession with swineflesh is giving you tunnel vision. You fail to see the entirety of the Law and its different layers and purposes.
　
~TheBoxer

[Assad]

My assumptions are 100% factual since they are from God but since you dont believe in facts from God its okay.

Bible does not relate ENTIRE HISTORY of Noah or Abraham. It just mention that they used to eat animals but bible has not gone to describe the Divine legislation of those time. Since you know that in Moses pbuh time certain things were allowed and than not in Christianity or vice versa... according to the condition and need of time. So its absurd to say that God allowed swine flesh to Abraham and Noah when you know nothing about that time.

The above verses from Bible clearly mention that swine is uncean. Dont try to categorise significant unclean or whatever absurdity you are saying. Swine is unclean.

[TheBoxer]

Mr. Acid,

Your logic is backwards. Literally.

You start out with a compilation of sayings from an Arab who lived in the 7th century AD. You then choose to believe that he was telling the truth when he said he was the mouthpiece of Allah. At that point, everything that came out of his mouth you regard as God-given truth.

Therefore, when you refer to books written many centuries prior to this particular compilation of sayings, anything contradictory is discarded as a corruption when LOGICALLY, any historian will tell you that it is best to trust the writings that are closest to the dates of their subject matter.

If I were to write a book about my mother, and then someone else wrote a book about her 400 years later; whose book is going to be considered the most accurate? In fact, it would be likely that the later writer depended upon the stories in my book in order to write his!

~TheBoxer

P.S. The Bible also says that camels and horses and rabbits are unclean. Tell me, why can Muslims now eat those?

[Sensationnz]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

Mr. Acid,

Your logic is backwards. Literally.

You start out with a compilation of sayings from an Arab who lived in the 7th century AD. You then choose to believe that he was telling the truth when he said he was the mouthpiece of Allah. At that point, everything that came out of his mouth you regard as God-given truth.

Therefore, when you refer to books written many centuries prior to this particular compilation of sayings, anything contradictory is discarded as a corruption when LOGICALLY, any historian will tell you that it is best to trust the writings that are closest to the dates of their subject matter.

If I were to write a book about my mother, and then someone else wrote a book about her 400 years later; whose book is going to be considered the most accurate? In fact, it would be likely that the later writer depended upon the stories in my book in order to write his!

~TheBoxer

P.S. The Bible also says that camels and horses and rabbits are unclean. Tell me, why can Muslims now eat those?

:

I am suppose to be quite, and let akhi Acid finish the mission.

But do you know the RSV was about 300 years after jesus (pbuh) and i think that would be the best source christian can use. Yet it contained the 6 books that were thrown out oof the bible in KJV , I wonder why they were known as "fabrication" , even though the books were written first closest to jesus.

care free to watch this i will not post anymore here.

YouTube- Ahmed Deedat Answers: "Corruption in Bible or Quran?"

YouTube- Ahmed Deedat Answers: "Corruption in Bible or Quran?"

wsallam