> Muslim Response Jesus and consumption of pork

[Assad]

Mr Boxer,

I am sorry that you are unable to grasp the truth either deliberately or in your ignorance. You call the Word of God i.e. Quran as compilation of Arabs but chose to believe the history books supposedly written by Mark, Matthew , Luke & John to fit their political and social agendas.

The question is not why ''muslims eat camel or goat'' therefore I would not answer your irrelevant question. Rather than talking about Islam or Quran or Muslims consumption of the camels you should answer the question-set.

Eating pork was allowed so pagan converted Christians in the early church did not have to give up certain food in order to get more converts to their religion. They also abandoned circumsion in the early church becuase it would not attract more pagans to come to the christian religion. You can read all about it in Acts of the Apostles in New Testament.

Swine meat, according to Bible is unclean, as proved by the Bible itself in above posts.

Regards

[TheBoxer]

Mr. sunnikid,

I'm not interested in what Deedat had to say. He has been successfully refuted time and again. A good place to find refutations of Deedat's polemic would be the official Answering-Islam website.


The RSV was NOT 300 years after Jesus death. The first RSV Bible was published in the 20th century.

The six books you likely are referring to would be the deuterocanical books. These are also known as the Apocrypha. The deuterocanical books were not accepted by the Jews when they canonized the Tanakh in the 2nd century AD. Some early Church leaders accepted them as scripture, as the Catholic Church does now; however the Apocrypha was never considered a part of the Hebrew Bible by the Jews. The scriptures were in the Greek Septuagint which is why some early Christians chose to include them when they compiled the books for the Christian canon. They are NOT, and never were, a part of the New Testament.

Versions are simply translations of the available texts. It doesn't necessarily mean that one version is looking at a different set of texts than another version. Yusuf Ali's translation, for example, is one version of the Quran whereas Pickthal's is another. Translations must be continually revised to keep up with societies' evolving languages or else the original meanings of the scriptures will be lost.

The KJV Bible was based solely on the Latin Vulgate. As older manuscripts were discovered in Hebrew and Greek, better versions of the Bible were produced. The more manuscripts that were discovered the more accurate a rendering of the original text was accomplished.

The NIV Bible, for example, refers to the best and oldest manuscripts available.
If the Yemen government would allow Quranic scholars to study the Sana'a manuscripts and compare them with the other old Quranic texts, I'm sure we could have a more accurate rendering of the Quran. Please do not insult my intelligence with the claim that the Quran we have today is exactly what Muhammad recited to his Companions 1400 years ago. There is far too much evidence to the contrary.

But that is not a determining factor when deciding if a document is inspired by God. Scribal errors and missing words should not be enough to deter from the original message. So what matters is not the scribal errors but rather it is the message that is communicated despite them. That's why I can't understand why Muslims cling to the outrageous claim that the Quran we have now has been preserved PERFECTLY from the revelations recited by Muhammad. Such a claim is not necessary to defend something as a scripture from God, and it is a claim that is impossible to prove.

~TheBoxer

[TheBoxer]

Mr. Acid,

Number one, I am a female.

Number two, YOU call the Quran the Word of God because Muhammad called it the Word of God, and you believe Muhammad was telling the truth because....? Is it perhaps because the Quran says that he was the best of humanity? Or is it perhaps because Muslims claim the Quran has "scientific miracles"? (Even demons can produce miracles, by the way.) If you don't see the problematic circular logic in all that, there's no help for you.

Number three, you have no proof that the men named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who penned the gospels had any sort of political or social agenda. In fact, history proves otherwise considering the things that they preached led to most of them being persecuted terribly by both the Jews and the Romans. They did not gain social standing or political power, nor did they gain personal wealth.

In order to justify calling the gospels corrupt, you rely upon an unverifiable theory that the writers had some kind of hidden agenda. You cannot prove a conspiracy without some kind of rational reason for the conspiracy in the first place. Why in God's name would a bunch of men go around preaching something that would definitely lead them to torture and execution at the hands of the Jews and Romans for no monetary or political gain?

Number four, the Torah has NEVER forbidden Gentiles from eating pork. The New Testament has never forbidden Gentiles from eating pork. Jesus never forbid anyone from eating pork. Instead, he taught that what you eat doesn't make you 'unclean' at all. If eating pig no longer made a person 'unclean' then what would be the point of refraining from eating it?

I've read the Acts of the Apostles. It still does not validate your convoluted theory. What it shows is that the early Christians were still developing their doctrines based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't leave them with a thick book of regulations. He left them the gospel and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is what led Peter to teach that all foods are clean based on the message of the gospel. The Holy Spirit is what led Paul to teach that all foods are clean based on the message of the gospel.

~TheBoxer

[Sensationnz]

I'm not interested in what Deedat had to say. He has been successfully refuted time and again. A good place to find refutations of Deedat's polemic would be the official Answering-Islam website.

The only thing they refuted of his was , that he made fun of jesus Character according to the bible , and he was paralized just because of that. That is so pathetic point. lol ANSWERing -islam is jokes.

As i said i wont reply to you because no matter how much i post you wont give about it. Your just here to keep on going ..... If you want to hear my answer watch the video.

wsallam

[TheBoxer]

sunnikid,

The Answering-Islam website provides responses to Ahmed Deedat's claims about the crucifixion, the resurrection, the sign of Jonah, the Bible as God's word, Muhammad in the Bible, Christ in Islam, and even his Combat Kit.

[Assad]

Ms. TheBoxer,

Number one, thanks for informing that you are a female.

Number two, I call Quran the word of God because it is the word of God because Prophet Muhammad pbuh told it and also Quran says that He was a Prophet just like Jesus and and Moses (peace be upon them all) and it does contain some scientific miracles as sign from God. And yes, even demons can do magical miracles and therefore we only believe in Quran since it is from God.

Number three, I have every proof to substantiate that the 4 mentioned people had political motives and corrupted the religious texts to suit their agendas. But since it is not a subject of our discussion I wont go in the details. Our topis is strictly Jesus and consumption of pork.

Number four, the verses are clear forbidding the consumption of swine meat. It does not say ''only for jews'' or only for gentiles. If you think that bible allows consumption of swine meat for gentiles than bring a prove from the Bible rather than typing your beliefs.

Number five, "And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass'' -Deuteronomy 14:8

God in bible tells that pig is unclean due to the reasons it mentions in the Deut. 14:8 found on OT which is a part of Bible (which christians are supposed to follow, but which is another topic). Its crystal clear that Bible prohibits the consumption of pork.


The Bible makes it clear that consumption of swine meat is prohibited.

[Assad]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

sunnikid,

The Answering-Islam website provides responses to Ahmed Deedat's claims about the crucifixion, the resurrection, the sign of Jonah, the Bible as God's word, Muhammad in the Bible, Christ in Islam, and even his Combat Kit.

And the rebuttal to it is found on answering-christianity. We are not interested what answering islam says but rather in what you have got to say about it.

[TheBoxer]

Mr. Acid,

You wrote:

Number two, I call Quran the word of God because it is the word of God because Prophet Muhammad pbuh told it and also Quran says that He was a Prophet just like Jesus and and Moses (peace be upon them all) and it does contain some scientific miracles as sign from God. And yes, even demons can do magical miracles and therefore we only believe in Quran since it is from God.

Thank you for confirming that your reasoning is indeed circular.

You believe that the Quran is the word of God because Muhammad said it is the word of God and Muhammad said that he is a prophet like Moses and Jesus, and therefore it must be the word of God. As a sign from God, there are some scientific "miracles" in the Quran, and since even demons can do miracles, you only believe in the Quran since it is from God based on your circular reasoning previously listed.
　
According to your logic I can claim: The Kitáb-i-Aqdas is the word of God because Bahá'u'lláh said it is the word of God and Bahá'u'lláh said that he is a prophet like Moses and Jesus, therefore it must be the word of God. As a sign from God, there are some scientific "miracles" in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, and since even demons can do miracles, I only belive in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas since it is from God based on my circular reasoning previously listed.

Now, refute that.
　

Number three, I have every proof to substantiate that the 4 mentioned people had political motives and corrupted the religious texts to suit their agendas. But since it is not a subject of our discussion I wont go in the details. Our topis is strictly Jesus and consumption of pork.

Copy-pasted, inaccurate, unreferenced, debunked information from Zeitgeist or The Christ Conspiracy doesn't count.

Number four, the verses are clear forbidding the consumption of swine meat. It does not say ''only for jews'' or only for gentiles. If you think that bible allows consumption of swine meat for gentiles than bring a prove from the Bible rather than typing your beliefs.
　
God in bible tells that pig is unclean due to the reasons it mentions in the Deut. 14:8 found on OT which is a part of Bible (which christians are supposed to follow, but which is another topic). Its crystal clear that Bible prohibits the consumption of pork.

I will prove to you that the rule was for the Israelites, and not the Gentiles. And I will prove to you that the rules were not given BECAUSE pigs were unclean, but rather the rules were to stipulate which animals were clean. Pigs, horses, rabbits, & camels all fell into the same category as 'unclean' just like dogs, cats, and badgers BECAUSE God did not declare them to be 'clean'.

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud." (Leviticus 11:1-3

Notice what He did not say. He did not say to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the people of the world:..." He did not say, "Because certain animals are unclean, you may not eat them."
　
No, what He said was that, Of ALL the animals, only these ones are for you to eat. Everything else is considered "unclean."

Number five, "And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass'' -Deuteronomy 14:8

Keep things in context:

You are the children of the LORD your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, for you are a people holy to the LORD your God.Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession. [The Israelites are his chosen people, as this has been established throughout the Torah.] Do not eat any detestable thing. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep. You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses. (Deuteronomy 14:1-8)

The camel, the rabbit, and the coney chew the cud but do not have split hooves. Therefore, they were not 'clean' animals. The pig has a split hoof but does not chew the cud. Therefore, it was not a 'clean' animal.
　
Those 'clean' and 'unclean' rules had never applied to Gentiles since they were considered to be 'unclean' people in the first place. Besides, Jesus fulfilled the Law and declared that nothing that is eaten will make someone 'unclean'.

The Bible makes it clear that consumption of swine meat is prohibited.

According to your logic, I can easily make the statement: the Quran makes it clear that killing of pagans is commanded. But then you'll cry, "CONTEXT!"

Context is important. At least I keep things in context when referring to things both Biblical and Islamic. You, however, have proven yourself to be intellectually dishonest.

~TheBoxer

[Assad]

*All text in the quote is in reply The Boxer posts unless otherwise stated.

According to your logic I can claim: The Kitáb-i-Aqdas is the word of God because Bahá'u'lláh said it is the word of God and Bahá'u'lláh said that he is a prophet like Moses and Jesus, therefore it must be the word of God. As a sign from God, there are some scientific "miracles" in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, and since even demons can do miracles, I only belive in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas since it is from God based on my circular reasoning previously listed.

It is only you saying that the logic is circular and it is an utterly abusrd and babbling argument. Just like If I say that you believe in Jesus because He is Son of God because Bible calls him son of God and because Bible and Paul say that he was Son of God and died for your Sins etc and etc. So stop playing with this newly learnt word ''circular logic''

If you do believe whatever you said about Bahaullah is correct than your knowledge is poor and hence you are not a fit person to speak to. Again I will not reply to this since I told you earlier I wont go on to irrelevant discussion , trying to prove you that Islam is correct.

Now, refute that.

Why ? That is not the topic of our discussion.

Copy-pasted, inaccurate, unreferenced, debunked information from Zeitgeist or The Christ Conspiracy doesn't count.

Whatever I said is none from what you mentioned and you are totally wrong. It is because you are in habit of making baseless assumptions. All what I say is according to my own knowledge and research plus anything which is referenced. I dont have to reference each and every word of you. Even you dont do that. You hardly even bring quotes from Bible to substantiate your point

And I will prove to you that the rules were not given BECAUSE pigs were unclean, but rather the rules were to stipulate which animals were clean.

Please do prove! Bible clearly says that pig is unclean but YOU are trying to PROVE that it is not unclean BUT rather tules were meant to be something else. It seems that you know something better than what God of Bible know.

Notice what He did not say. He did not say to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the people of the world:..." He did not say, "Because certain animals are unclean, you may not eat them."

Yes, he did not say either ''jews''. If Jesus is Christianity is for WORLD to follow than it is obvious that the commandments found in Bible are also for the entire world. Either way you have confirmed that the prohibited of pork exists in Bible.

Those 'clean' and 'unclean' rules had never applied to Gentiles since they were considered to be 'unclean' people in the first place. Besides, Jesus fulfilled the Law and declared that nothing that is eaten will make someone 'unclean'.

Well, where does it comes from ? source? Rerference ? copy/pasted , inaccurate.

In the contexted verses you quoted, it is clear that God does mention rules regarding consumption of some animals but categorically mentions pig as unclean.

Context is important. At least I keep things in context when referring to things both Biblical and Islamic. You, however, have proven yourself to be intellectually dishonest.

If the definition of keeping things in context for you is to discuss irrelevant topics than sorry I am being intellectually dishonest.

May Allah guide you to truth.

[Bassam Zawadi]

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!

Being early is not the only criterion that historians use.

- First of all, just because something is early that does not mean that it is early and reliable. You can have early falsehood. It is not enough to just say that it is early.

- How can we trust people whom we don’t even know? Much of modern scholarship today states that the traditional view regarding the authorship of many of the New Testament books is uncertain.

John Barton [Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford] states:

The author of John's gospel is, as we have noted already, unlikely to have been an immediate disciple of Jesus, if only because so much of the material in the synoptic gospels is missing from John. The likelihood is therefore that all the historical books of the New Testament are not eyewitness accounts of the events described. They are all written by people some time after the events, a fact that must affect one's assessment of the books concerned. The authorship of the letters is also disputed. Several are written in the name of the apostle Paul. However, it seems clear that not all the letters attributed to Paul are by Paul himself. Significant differences of style, language and at times important ideas make this extremely likely. ... The authorship of other letters in the New Testament is also disputed. The letter to the Hebrews (traditionally ascribed to Paul) is anonymous. ... The letters ascribed to Peter may also be pseudonymous. ... All in all, large parts of the New Testament are not written by people directly connected with Jesus or the very earliest period of the Christian Church. (This could apply even to Paul: Paul was 'converted' after the death of Jesus). Rather, many New Testament books stem from second- or third-generation Christians, writing a little time after the foundational events of the Christian church and reflecting on them. Some of the authors would clearly like to be seen as earlier authoritative figures in that they write in the name of such figures. But the fact remains that large parts of the New Testament were written by Christians after the initial period (John Barton, "The Biblical World" (Routledge 2002) pp. 30-31).

Bart Ehrman, summing up the stance of critical scholars, writes:

Proto-orthodox Christians of the second century, some decades after most of the New Testament books had been written, claimed that their favorite Gospels had been penned by two of Jesus' disciples - Matthew, the tax collector, and John, the beloved disciple - and by two friends of the apostles - Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the travelling companion of Paul. Scholars today, however, find it difficult to accept this tradition for several reasons. ... none of these Gospels makes any such claim about itself. All four authors chose to keep their identities anonymous (Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2000, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, p. 52).

Lee Martin McDonald and Stanley Porter accept traditional Lucan authorship but not wholeheartedly. They write (p. 295):

"We are inclined to accept Lucan authorship, but not without some reservation” (Lee Martin McDonald, Stanley E. Porter, Early Christianity And Its Sacred Literature, 2000, Hendrickson Publishers).

For a more critical assessment, see Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, who dismiss the traditional authorship claims about the gospels in their The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, 1998, SCM Press Ltd.

And just incase you accuse me of citing liberal scholarship, see this article where only conservative scholars are cited:

Who Authored The New Testament?

- How can you confidently infer a conclusion based on evidence, which is lacking? According to Paul’s letters we see that there were those that opposed him on theology and on whom Jesus was…

Galatians 1:6

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel

A different Gospel? That sounds like there were those preaching a different theological view regarding Jesus. What was that view?

Galatians 3:1-3

1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

Why is Paul strongly emphasizing the idea that Jesus was crucified here? Isn’t it possible that there were those who were preaching otherwise? Also, look at how the Galatians were trying to leave the spirit and go back to the Law. Doesn’t this show that there were those preaching that you should go back to the Law and not follow Paul’s preaching of grace? How can we ever know if we don’t have the opposition party’s writings?


2 Corinthians 11:4-5

4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles."

2 Corinthians 11: 22-24

What anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. 22Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.

It sounds like Paul is strongly opposing those who were portrayed as apostles in theological matters regarding Jesus.

Jude 1:4

I say this because some godless people have wormed their way in among you, saying that God's forgiveness allows us to live immoral lives. The fate of such people was determined long ago, for they have turned against our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.


Who are these godless people? I agree with them and I want to know more about them.

Also, Luke in the introduction to his Gospel mentions that many narratives were written. Where are these many narratives?

Bart D. Ehrman provides the following points as summary of his introductory chapter on the New Testament and early Christian writings:

"1. Early Christianity was extremely diverse. It was not the unified monolith that modern people sometimes assume.

"2. This diversity was manifest in a wide range of writings, only some of which have come down to us in the New Testament.

"3. The New Testament canon was formed by proto-orthodox Christians who wanted to show that their views were grounded in the writings of Jesus' own apostles.

"4. Whether these writings actually represent the views of Jesus' own apostles, however, was in some instances debated for decades, even centuries." (Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 13)

Where are the writings of these opposition parties? How do I know that Paul is the one who is right and that they are wrong? How can I even trust if Paul correctly portrayed their beliefs in his writings and is not simply attacking straw man?

One many ask why we don’t have any of these first century documents, some possible reasons could be…

Point 1: Maybe all historical records have been destroyed

Imperial Rome beginning with Theodosius’ reign (379-395) outlawed any religion but that of the “bishops of Rome” (Codex Theod. XVI, I, 2).

Source: http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/Free/ch12.pdf

Point 2: The paper they wrote on easily vanished

Papyrus, a very fragile and perishable material." [The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, under the heading 'Text, NT']

I contend that Christians cannot objectively and confidently state that there was a consensus amongst everyone in the first century regarding the facts stated in the New Testament.

Let me illustrate this with an analogy.

Let’s say you are a homicide detective. There are three witnesses that are crucial for you to interview in order to help you solve the crime. Unfortunately, you are only able to interview one out of the three witnesses because the other two witnesses happened to die before you were able to speak to them. You learn from this one witness that you were able to interview that the murderer was black. You also learn from this one witness that the other two witnesses believed that the murderer was white and that they disagreed with him on other points, but did not mention those points in detail. However, this one witness insists that he is the one that is correct and that those other two witnesses are false.

Now as a detective who is supposed to have a reasonable sceptical attitude, wouldn’t you honestly tell yourself here that there is much evidence that is missing in order for you to reach a complete 100% accurate conclusion? Don’t you think that it is crucial for the detective to have interviewed those other two witnesses, got their perspective of the matter and then reached his conclusion? I think you would. I don’t think that you can say with confidence that murderer was definitely black just simply because the evidence that is available to you points to that direction.

I see the same scenario here. We are lacking evidence. We are lacking first century documents from anti-Paulinists. Just because it so happens to be that the available evidence we have supports Christianity, that is not evidence that Christianity is true.