> Muslim Response Jesus and consumption of pork

[Bassam Zawadi]

(Even demons can produce miracles, by the way.)

Is The Quran The Word of Satan? According To The Biblical Jesus, THAT'S ABSURD!

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.

First of all, we aren't sure who authored the Gospels. That comes from many respected conservative evangelicals.

Secondly, the historical evidence for the martyrdom of the apostles is not good at all. The best case could only be made out for Paul and Peter, but there are still problems because of 1 Clement as a source and the criticisms that scholars have put forth regarding that book.

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?

No one said that the authors necessarily deliberately lied for bad intentions. New Testament scholarship today acknowledges that the Gospel author knowingly altered the Gospels in order to put forth a message for theological motives. These authors could have also been sincerely wrong in deriving their information from bad sources.

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?

You need to keep up with the scholarly work surrounding these topics and see how historical Jesus scholars argue that Jesus never permitted these forbidden foods according to the law.

I recommend a simple reading first, go here The Authentic Gospel of Jesus: Evidence That Demands Christians Rethink Their Faith and read the first subsection.

[TheBoxer]

Acid,

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''

You're the one who described your logic. I simply repeated your words. It's not my fault your logic is circular. And if you examine your logic more closely, you'll see that what you really need to have faith in is not God, but Muhammad. Your beliefs all come down to him.
　
And I do not believe in Jesus because of the Bible. I believe in Jesus because the Holy Spirit of God led me to Jesus Christ. The Bible was one convoluted mess of words to me until I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. Thanks to God, He gave me clarity and discernment and understanding.
　

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.

You're kidding me right? Please say you are joking. The Torah says "TO THE ISRAELITES"! The Jews are descendents of the tribe of Judah, and the tribe of Judah is a tribe of ISRAELITES.
　
Jesus is NOT Christianity. Jesus is the Messiah. Christianity is the religion that revolves around the Gospel. Like I've said before in either this post or another one, when you read the Torah, you have to discern between what is the Moral Law and what is the penal code. The Moral Law is an eternal constant because it is God's definition of righteousness. The penal code applied to only the people who were under the law--the Israelites.
　
I'm going to give you an example from the Quran, okay?

As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power. (Quran 5:38)

The Moral Law: Stealing is a sin.

The Penal Code: The punishment for thievery is amputation of a hand or hands.
　
But what if the thief doesn't have hands? The Moral Law remains constant, but obviously the penal code is not applied. Penal codes have limits and are meant to be adjustable. Muslims call it "jurisprudence."
　

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

Where does what come from? To be clean required that God first made them 'clean.' And He did this when He chose the Israelites to be His holy nation and treasured possession out of all the nations of the world. (Exodus 19:3-6) Then to stay 'clean' one had to adhere to all the rules about 'cleanliness' and not sin, which was an impossibility. In fact, God made them clean on a particular day known as "the day of atonement" (Leviticus 16). Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17) which he did (John 19:30, Mark 15:38), and he declared that what is eaten does not make one unclean (Matthew 15:11).

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.

He categorically mentions the coney and camel as well. So what? He was simply giving examples of animals commonly raised, hunted, and/or eaten during that time in order to explain that to be considered 'clean' four-legged animals required BOTH qualities not either quality.
　
And Acid, the topic of why Christians do not eat pork involves a lot of theology and scripture. That means we might veer a bit off-topic. But ultimately, we still end up where we started: Why Christians may eat pork.

~TheBoxer

[TheBoxer]

Bassam Zawadi,

Of course being early is not the only criterion. Corroboration is also important. The New Testament has a compilation of writings from at least 7 different men all attesting to Jesus Christ's existence. These men were all Christians who practiced a religion that put their lives in danger. The fact of the matter remains that the number of Christians increased exponentially in the 1st century AD, and within 50 years of Jesus' crucifixion, the accounts of his life and ministry were written down by devoted followers. Since Christian doctrine was pretty well established by the end of the 4th century AD, then it is illogical to rely on a book from the 7th century AD to give us a more accurate account of the life and ministry of Jesus. The writings in the New Testament are the most trustworthy we have about Jesus, even from a secular standpoint.

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

Probably something Gnostic. Some of the Gnostic writings date to the early 2nd century, so it is likely the Gnostic ideas began before that. It's most likely Paul was preaching against the influence of Hellenism.

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

He was strongly opposing those who were preaching that the crucifixion was not enough for salvation but that people also have to follow the Jewish customs. I think you can read about this in Galatians and Acts. I'll see if I can find the passages for you.

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.

These are people who say, "I may sin because God has already forgiven me for it." Such a thought process is like crucifying Jesus all over again. Paul was very much against this.

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

After two thousand years, they probably rotted away. Or people discarded some for better ones. There were probably a lot of writings of simply Jesus' many sayings floating around. It is likely this is how the author of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas got his information.
　　

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?

Paul didn't write the gospels. See if Paul contradicts them. But I will tell you something, it wasn't until I understood the Gospel that I was finally able to understand Paul. And you don't need Paul's epistles in order to know that Christians may eat pork.

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.

Sure. No need to provide an example.
　
By the way, I own a copy of Ehrman's Lost Scriptures and Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels.

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.

Actually, the writings of Luke are not "pro-Paul." In fact, at times he seems to contradict Paul's version of events. But when we have writings from three separate authors declaring that eating certain foods do not make a person 'unclean', then I think it is pretty safe to say that there is ample proof that Christians may eat pork, whether they are Jewish or Gentile.

The Jesus of the New Testament is the Jesus of mainstream Christianity. This was the case centuries before Muhammad. If there really was a different historical Jesus, Christians don't know about him or believe in him, and so this discussion about pork and everything else is futile if your whole argument is going to be based on the theory that there was a different Jesus. Since we do not have proof of a different Jesus, then the Jesus of the New Testament stands as the historical basis of Christianity, and the Jesus of the New Testament declared all foods clean.

~TheBoxer

[TheBoxer]

Bassam Zawadi

Is The Quran The Word of Satan? According To The Biblical Jesus, THAT'S ABSURD!

I'd like to write a refutation of that article. I think I just might.

First of all, we aren't sure who authored the Gospels. That comes from many respected conservative evangelicals.

It doesn't really matter since you still cannot prove that whoever wrote them had political, social, and/or financial motivations. The fact of the matter remains that these beliefs put people in danger of persecution and execution and provided no retaliatory motivation (like the permission to fight back and keep the booty), and yet the number of Christian converts multiplied rapidly.

Secondly, the historical evidence for the martyrdom of the apostles is not good at all. The best case could only be made out for Paul and Peter, but there are still problems because of 1 Clement as a source and the criticisms that scholars have put forth regarding that book.

Whether or not particular apostles were martyred does not negate the historical fact that many Christians were persecuted and martyred during the first 300 years for their faith.

No one said that the authors necessarily deliberately lied for bad intentions. New Testament scholarship today acknowledges that the Gospel author knowingly altered the Gospels in order to put forth a message for theological motives. These authors could have also been sincerely wrong in deriving their information from bad sources.

Okay, now we're really getting far-fetched. So, some well-intentioned 1st century men gathered together a bunch of made-up stories about a man named Jesus and decided to write four versions of his ministry. Clever guys that they were, they corroborated just enough to prove their reliability but changed enough details so as not to seem "copy-pasted." And the hundreds of 1st century Christians who had access to eye-witnesses of the real Jesus allowed such nonsense to perpetuate and gave it validation by laying down their lives for it in martyrdom.

Yes, that's a very likely scenario.

The more complicated a theory, the more evidence is required to prove it true.

You need to keep up with the scholarly work surrounding these topics and see how historical Jesus scholars argue that Jesus never permitted these forbidden foods according to the law.

Oh, and I'm sure those scholars believe Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets and really meant what he said when he declared that it isn't what you eat that makes you unclean but what you say and do.
　
You cannot use the Bible to prove that Gentiles are forbidden from eating swine. You cannot use the Bible to prove that Christians, especially Gentiles, are forbidden from eating swine.
　
What I have noticed Muslims doing is cherry-picking verses and stripping them of their historical and scriptural context. They assert: "The Bible says swineflesh is unclean and forbidden, therefore Christians shouldn't eat it."
　
The truth of the matter is that the Bible only says that Israelites must only eat clean meat. It defines clean, four-legged meat as the flesh belonging to animals with cloven hooves AND that chew the cud. That's it. Pigs are not clean. Horses are not clean. Camels are not clean. Rabbits are not clean. Dogs are not clean. Badgers are not clean. Cats are not clean. Elephants are not clean. (But I think giraffe is clean since they've got a split hoof and they chew the cud.) See where I'm going with this?

I recommend a simple reading first, go here The Authentic Gospel of Jesus: Evidence That Demands Christians Rethink Their Faith and read the first subsection.

Except that my faith is not dependent on the Scriptures. It never was. It was God who led me to Jesus Christ, and it wasn't until after I accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior that I fully understood the Gospel. My faith and my personal testimony of God's work in my life validate the Truth of the Scriptures as is the case for many other Christians.

~TheBoxer

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

Bassam Zawadi,

Of course being early is not the only criterion. Corroboration is also important. The New Testament has a compilation of writings from at least 7 different men all attesting to Jesus Christ's existence. These men were all Christians who practiced a religion that put their lives in danger. The fact of the matter remains that the number of Christians increased exponentially in the 1st century AD, and within 50 years of Jesus' crucifixion, the accounts of his life and ministry were written down by devoted followers. Since Christian doctrine was pretty well established by the end of the 4th century AD, then it is illogical to rely on a book from the 7th century AD to give us a more accurate account of the life and ministry of Jesus. The writings in the New Testament are the most trustworthy we have about Jesus, even from a secular standpoint.

anyone who has a shred of conviction of faith in a being known as God and whose fitrah (natural instinctive code) has not been corrupted would have more trust in a man who came a million years later whose speech is the direct intervention of God's speech and inspiration to him more so than the criminals who conspired against the Disciples of Jesus alaihi salam and the inadequacy of a group of people who took a couple of centuries to eventually codified a theology that managed to convince the Roman emperor through deception by cutting a deal with him that if he sided with the pagan athnasians, they would incorporate all the roman pagan festivities into christianity (thats how we get ash day, santa for christmas, easter, etc).

SO time IS a criterion in terms of human efforts especially for something as moments as doctrine. It seems rather absurd and more importantly, disconcerting, that Jesus would teach his disciples doctrine yet, the people who claimed to follow the way of christ took almost 4 centuries to establish what they viewed was the creed of Jesus, ironically the one whom they worshiped.

However, Time IS NOT a criterion when Divine intervention is brought into the mix. Muhammad much more accurately and vividly described the epic essentials of the story of Adam, Noah, Abraham, than anything recorded in that horrible history book called the bible. My 11 year old can right a better history book.

Probably something Gnostic. Some of the Gnostic writings date to the early 2nd century, so it is likely the Gnostic ideas began before that. It's most likely Paul was preaching against the influence of Hellenism.

Paul was originally the enemy of Jesus new religion. what better way of destroying his religion than to come in within the ranks and spoil the new religion with new ideas. it was your Paul who disputed with the original disciples of Jesus alaihi salam. What better way to destroy a religion except from within.

He was strongly opposing those who were preaching that the crucifixion was not enough for salvation but that people also have to follow the Jewish customs. I think you can read about this in Galatians and Acts. I'll see if I can find the passages for you.

exactly, This is called murjism. Murjism, even though this is an Islamic thing, first laid its seeds in the teachings of Paul. Paul is the one who stripped the obligation of the believer from the performance of abding by the law i.e. action

In the creedal doctrine of the prophets (anbiyya) faith has three INTEGRAL components. In other words a component that is deficient entails a deficiency in faith, and a component that has been nullified entails that faith itself has been nullifed

In the creed of the prophets, faith is
1. attestation of belief with conviction in the heart
2. speech of the tongue
3. actions of the limbs

when true faith exist in the heart, it ultimately gets transferred and finds its way to be able to be manifested upon the tongue. When absolute faith of that heart and tongue becomes valid, it will ultimately find its way by way of necessity, to be ultimately manifested upon the actions of the limbs.

So when it is advocated that human implementation of the law of God is REQUIRED, that means implicitly that the reason for the implementation of this is for those who have attained faith in their hearts.

What Paul essentially did was that he nullified the very basis of the final fulfillment of faith by rendering this final fulfillment as unecessary, and thus he has nullified the law, and when that happened, he nullified the faith altogether. This, in Islam, was espoused by a group who espoused as similar concept, known as the Murji'a. They had variations of their creed, some more extreme than others, but basically they stated that ultimately actions (abiding by the law) is not integral to faith and therefore is not a requirement of faith. In other words, it is enough to say you believe and thats it, full stop.

This ideology is the base root for what became known later on down in the centuries as liberal ideology. Liberalism, linguistically to liberate oneself, is technically used to "liberate oneself from the constraints of other things (mainly religion)". This is exactly what Paul did, he liberated people from having to abide by the law deceiving them to believe that speech alone or what you actualize in the heart was enough for true faith

that is why when you say that you have a "higher moral code" the only thing you do is you make yourself look imbecilic in the face of espousing the idea that one does not have to abide by law.

However, with all of these explanation that I am givin to you, I surely doubt that you would be able to understand none of this reason that I am showing you. So the best example is something you can relate to

what is the love of a child to their mother. Children are a perfect example of a believer towards their lord.

The Muslim intellectual Ibnul-Qayyim stated
"The believer is like a bird with two wings. One wing is hope, and one wing is fear"

What he is saying in this momentous phrase is that a person of belief operates their entire life regarding their dedication to God upon two psychological formats. One is hope, and one is fear. If one overly relies on fear to the exclusion of hope, he becomes extreme in his views and it becomes shown through his worship and thus he begins to transgress the boundaries of God and ultimately becomes harsh on others for not doing what he is doing. AND, when a worshiper overly relies on hope to the exclusion of fear, he becomes lackadaisical, he becomes engulfed in mediocrity, he lays back and becomes EXPECTANT on the mercy of Allah. This disease ultimately leads them to view that when someone does what they are suppose to do, then they are being "extreme".

And this is why Allah made the Muslim nation the BALANCED nation. We are balanced in EVERYTHING. every single issue in humanity, you will find the muslims holding the most reasonably balanced position between the extremes of various groups who are either too hard or too overly lenient.

So I anyone of reason will find that if a child is properly brought up, this child has the exact same two attributes that the Muslim is endowed with by default of his religion, likewise the child is instilled with them with regards to their parents. They love their parents, and their love causes them to
1.fear them if they disobey them and
2. have hope in them that their parents are merciful and forbearing towards them

So when a child is commanded to do something by the parent, and the child disobeys, we often understand that during that exact situation of disobedience, their love for that parent is weak. Depending on what the situation is, i the command is a necessitated issue of vital impoirtance and the child wilfully rejects to abide, we can say that the childs love to the parents is virtually nullified.

The same is the case with the Lord of the universe except the love in this context is understood as faith.

If you claim you have faith, and you disregard what Allah has ordered you to do or what He has ordered you to abstain from, we can reasonably understand from this that there is no actual faith in the heart of such a person

This is how your passive ideology of the lack of being obligated in terms of obedience to the ordinances of Allah has to be looked at.

I guess the most essential question for you to ask after all that has transpired is
"how are you and your fellow Christians exempt from the application of a law that your Lord did not view himself to be absolved from fulfilling?"

that is the million dollar question

[TheBoxer]

al-boriqee,

anyone who has a shred of conviction of faith in a being known as God and whose fitrah (natural instinctive code) has not been corrupted would have more trust in a man who came a million years later whose speech is the direct intervention of God's speech and inspiration to him more so than the criminals who conspired against the Disciples of Jesus alaihi salam and the inadequacy of a group of people who took a couple of centuries to eventually codified a theology that managed to convince the Roman emperor through deception by cutting a deal with him that if he sided with the pagan athnasians, they would incorporate all the roman pagan festivities into christianity (thats how we get ash day, santa for christmas, easter, etc).

You don't need a codified theology to understand the Gospel. The Gospel is an oral message that Christians are to preach to the world. The Bible just backs it up. You don't even need the Bible to be a Christian. What do you think about that?

And good number of Christians do not celebrate Ash Day (I think you are referring to Lent), or Santa, or the Easter Bunny. I am one of those. But you forget that many things simply become customs and traditions and are really not associated with any religion whatsoever. Such is the case with Christmas and Easter--many atheists observe the holidays by putting up Christmas trees and painting eggs.

By the way, Constantine was an Arian.

SO time IS a criterion in terms of human efforts especially for something as moments as doctrine. It seems rather absurd and more importantly, disconcerting, that Jesus would teach his disciples doctrine yet, the people who claimed to follow the way of christ took almost 4 centuries to establish what they viewed was the creed of Jesus, ironically the one whom they worshiped.

Jesus wasn't teaching doctrine. He gave commandments and taught moral lessons and fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. He didn't come to make a religion. He came to save people from their sins. The religion is a "secondary effect"--people who have salvation through Christ desiring to live righteous lives for him. Established doctrine is simply established truths to help people from being lured by false gospels and such.
　

However, Time IS NOT a criterion when Divine intervention is brought into the mix. Muhammad much more accurately and vividly described the epic essentials of the story of Adam, Noah, Abraham, than anything recorded in that horrible history book called the bible. My 11 year old can right a better history book.

Can you prove Muhammad did not simply make up embellishments to the Jewish stories? How can you say that Muhammad was more accurate? What proof do you have to make such a claim? And what do you mean by a "better" history book? You mean one whose stories have happier endings or something?
　

Paul was originally the enemy of Jesus new religion. what better way of destroying his religion than to come in within the ranks and spoil the new religion with new ideas. it was your Paul who disputed with the original disciples of Jesus alaihi salam. What better way to destroy a religion except from within.

Oh, now that's nuts. As a religious Jew, he persecuted Christians. To leave Judaism and suffer intense persecution as well as to make himself ritually unclean by associating with Gentiles (eating from their dishes, etc.), Paul doesn't sound like a devoted, religious Jewish spy to me.
　

exactly, This is called murjism. Murjism, even though this is an Islamic thing, first laid its seeds in the teachings of Paul. Paul is the one who stripped the obligation of the believer from the performance of abding by the law i.e. action

Except that you've got your facts wrong. Paul commanded Christians to be law-abiders and abstain from sin. You cannot prove that eating pork is a sin since eating pork did not come with a punishment.

And Paul did not write the gospels of Matthew and Mark or the Acts of the Apostles, all of which declare that eating foods cannot make you 'unclean.'
　

In the creedal doctrine of the prophets (anbiyya) faith has three INTEGRAL components. In other words a component that is deficient entails a deficiency in faith, and a component that has been nullified entails that faith itself has been nullifed

In the creed of the prophets, faith is
1. attestation of belief with conviction in the heart
2. speech of the tongue
3. actions of the limbs

when true faith exist in the heart, it ultimately gets transferred and finds its way to be able to be manifested upon the tongue. When absolute faith of that heart and tongue becomes valid, it will ultimately find its way by way of necessity, to be ultimately manifested upon the actions of the limbs.

So when it is advocated that human implementation of the law of God is REQUIRED, that means implicitly that the reason for the implementation of this is for those who have attained faith in their hearts.

The truly righteous do not need the law since the law's only purpose is to prove guilt. Jesus said, "Obey my commandments." If one obey's his commandments, they will automatically obey all of God's commandments.
　

What Paul essentially did was that he nullified the very basis of the final fulfillment of faith by rendering this final fulfillment as unecessary, and thus he has nullified the law, and when that happened, he nullified the faith altogether. This, in Islam, was espoused by a group who espoused as similar concept, known as the Murji'a. They had variations of their creed, some more extreme than others, but basically they stated that ultimately actions (abiding by the law) is not integral to faith and therefore is not a requirement of faith. In other words, it is enough to say you believe and thats it, full stop.

You obviously haven't read Paul's epistles.
　

This ideology is the base root for what became known later on down in the centuries as liberal ideology. Liberalism, linguistically to liberate oneself, is technically used to "liberate oneself from the constraints of other things (mainly religion)". This is exactly what Paul did, he liberated people from having to abide by the law deceiving them to believe that speech alone or what you actualize in the heart was enough for true faith

I am not a liberal. In fact, I'm a die-hard conservative. And Paul didn't liberate anyone from abiding by the law considering he commanded Christians to be law-abiders and abstain from sin.
　

that is why when you say that you have a "higher moral code" the only thing you do is you make yourself look imbecilic in the face of espousing the idea that one does not have to abide by law.

You don't get it do you? Since I have a higher moral standard, the law becomes unnecessary. If I love my neighbor, I would never murder him. Therefore I do not need a law to tell me "Do not murder."
　

However, with all of these explanation that I am givin to you, I surely doubt that you would be able to understand none of this reason that I am showing you. So the best example is something you can relate to

what is the love of a child to their mother. Children are a perfect example of a believer towards their lord.

The Muslim intellectual Ibnul-Qayyim stated
"The believer is like a bird with two wings. One wing is hope, and one wing is fear"

What he is saying in this momentous phrase is that a person of belief operates their entire life regarding their dedication to God upon two psychological formats. One is hope, and one is fear. If one overly relies on fear to the exclusion of hope, he becomes extreme in his views and it becomes shown through his worship and thus he begins to transgress the boundaries of God and ultimately becomes harsh on others for not doing what he is doing. AND, when a worshiper overly relies on hope to the exclusion of fear, he becomes lackadaisical, he becomes engulfed in mediocrity, he lays back and becomes EXPECTANT on the mercy of Allah. This disease ultimately leads them to view that when someone does what they are suppose to do, then they are being "extreme"....
　
....So I anyone of reason will find that if a child is properly brought up, this child has the exact same two attributes that the Muslim is endowed with by default of his religion, likewise the child is instilled with them with regards to their parents. They love their parents, and their love causes them to
1.fear them if they disobey them and
2. have hope in them that their parents are merciful and forbearing towards them

So when a child is commanded to do something by the parent, and the child disobeys, we often understand that during that exact situation of disobedience, their love for that parent is weak. Depending on what the situation is, i the command is a necessitated issue of vital impoirtance and the child wilfully rejects to abide, we can say that the childs love to the parents is virtually nullified.

The same is the case with the Lord of the universe except the love in this context is understood as faith.

If you claim you have faith, and you disregard what Allah has ordered you to do or what He has ordered you to abstain from, we can reasonably understand from this that there is no actual faith in the heart of such a person

This is how your passive ideology of the lack of being obligated in terms of obedience to the ordinances of Allah has to be looked at.

The love of a child to their mother has nothing to do with hope and fear. It has to do with love, respect, and trust. A baby trusts in its mother completely. A baby has faith that mother will feed him when he is hungry and clothe him when he is cold and clean him when he is soiled.

Absolute faith in God means I trust in Him completely for salvation and guidance. Absolute faith in God means that I obey Him in all things, and if I fail that I repent and correct the wrong that I have done. Absolute faith means that I KNOW God will save me.

So do not lecture to me about my faith.
　

And this is why Allah made the Muslim nation the BALANCED nation. We are balanced in EVERYTHING. every single issue in humanity, you will find the muslims holding the most reasonably balanced position between the extremes of various groups who are either too hard or too overly lenient.

That's unfortunate. See, Christianity is an extreme faith because God is extreme. God is extreme righteousness, extreme goodness. Holiness and purity are extreme things. One cannot try to find a balance between good and evil, right and wrong. There is no balance. Take a glass of water, for example. It is good, clean Zam-zam water, in fact. And then someone comes up and drops a single drop of urine into it. Just one.
　
It's no longer good and clean, is it?
　

I guess the most essential question for you to ask after all that has transpired is
"how are you and your fellow Christians exempt from the application of a law that your Lord did not view himself to be absolved from fulfilling?"

that is the million dollar question

We are not "exempt" from the application of the law since the application of the law was never designed for us anyway. It's not about exemption.
　
Obedience of the law, yes. Application of it, no. What God commands of us is to show justice. As long as our laws are just, then we are being obedient to God in that respect.
　
I cannot understand why Muslims insist on bringing up Jesus' fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets as an example for why Christians should follow the Law.
　
For one thing, Jesus defined for us what the Law is numerous times in the gospels. For another, if you in fact believe Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, then you acknowledge that he gave himself up in order to save people from their sins. He fulfilled the Law so that we might have eternal life. And finally, Christians should obey the Law because Jesus commanded us to...not because Jesus fulfilled the Law.

~TheBoxer

[Bassam Zawadi]

The New Testament has a compilation of writings from at least 7 different men all attesting to Jesus Christ's existence.

I never denied the existence of Jesus, plus it is not proven that these sources conducted independent research and were simply repeating what Christians were saying. Read this Abuse and misuse of Evidence by a Greenhorn:1. The Earliest Non-Christian References to Jesus (peace be upon him)

It doesn't really matter since you still cannot prove that whoever wrote them had political, social, and/or financial motivations.

I never said that they had political, social or financial motivations. I argue as many scholars do that they had theological motivations. For instance, see the revealing admission by conservative evangelical scholar FF Bruce bruce � Search Results � Exploring Life, The Universe and Everything

Whether or not particular apostles were martyred does not negate the historical fact that many Christians were persecuted and martyred during the first 300 years for their faith.

There is no evidence that 'many' Christians were martyred in the first 100 years. As for the 200 years that followed, how does that make a diffference?

And the hundreds of 1st century Christians who had access to eye-witnesses of the real Jesus allowed such nonsense to perpetuate and gave it validation by laying down their lives for it in martyrdom.

Who said that all of those witnesses had the physical power to stop Paul, especially since the majority of his ministry was over 800 km away from Jerusalem?

[Assad]

Reply to The Boxer

You're the one who described your logic. I simply repeated your words. It's not my fault your logic is circular. And if you examine your logic more closely, you'll see that what you really need to have faith in is not God, but Muhammad. Your beliefs all come down to him.

I never said my logic is circular but you are constantly babbling about it so its your fault.
Yes I believe in Prophet Muhammad PBUH because he was the Messenger of God just like Jesus and Moses and other Prophet (peace be upon them all).

And I do not believe in Jesus because of the Bible. I believe in Jesus because the Holy Spirit of God led me to Jesus Christ. The Bible was one convoluted mess of words to me until I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. Thanks to God, He gave me clarity and discernment and understanding.

God guided me to Islam and All Praise to Him that today I am following His Religion. Your beliefs only comes from Holy Spirit which is actually a Satan according to my religion and my religion is from God. Now you said that your believe doesnt come from Bible or you dont believe in Jesus because of Bible. So now how would you define what is Holy Spirit ? You cant go to Bible since your beliefs dont come from it.

You're kidding me right? Please say you are joking. The Torah says "TO THE ISRAELITES"! The Jews are descendents of the tribe of Judah, and the tribe of Judah is a tribe of ISRAELITES.

I am not kidding , keep reading.

Jesus is NOT Christianity. Jesus is the Messiah. Christianity is the religion that revolves around the Gospel. Like I've said before in either this post or another one, when you read the Torah, you have to discern between what is the Moral Law and what is the penal code. The Moral Law is an eternal constant because it is God's definition of righteousness. The penal code applied to only the people who were under the law--the Israelites.

Jesus is indeed the Messiah who came to upheld the commandments of Torah. The law concerning prohibited of consumption of pig is clear and is eternal since the otherwise is not stated either by Jesus or Moses.

I'm going to give you an example from the Quran, okay?

There is no need to give example from Quran since we are effectively discsussing pork prohibition in the Bible and not in the Quran. Anyway your example doesnt make any sense and is as usualy again irrelevant.

Where does what come from? To be clean required that God first made them 'clean.' And He did this when He chose the Israelites to be His holy nation and treasured possession out of all the nations of the world. (Exodus 19:3-6) Then to stay 'clean' one had to adhere to all the rules about 'cleanliness' and not sin, which was an impossibility. In fact, God made them clean on a particular day known as "the day of atonement" (Leviticus 16). Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17) which he did (John 19:30, Mark 15:38), and he declared that what is eaten does not make one unclean (Matthew 15:11).

haha... I never asked all this. i am not takling about personal hygiene or cleanliness of faith but rather that pig is unclean. Read the entire para above which you quoted me and notice that it doesnt even talk about pork! Stop revolving please.

He categorically mentions the coney and camel as well. So what? He was simply giving examples of animals commonly raised, hunted, and/or eaten during that time in order to explain that to be considered 'clean' four-legged animals required BOTH qualities not either quality.

Did He say that he is giving examples ? God of bible mentions that pig is unclean but you are saying that is giving examples?

And Acid, the topic of why Christians do not eat pork involves a lot of theology and scripture. That means we might veer a bit off-topic. But ultimately, we still end up where we started: Why Christians may eat pork.

Sure but what Christians do is that they start talking about a topic about Christianity and end up talking about authenticity of Quran and legislation of Hadiths, somewhat what you were trying to do in between of your posts while trying to prove that Muhammad was not a Prophet. Muhammad PBUH was indeed a Prophet and Messenger of Allaah.

May Allah open you to the truth.

[TheBoxer]

Bassam Zawadi,

I argue as many scholars do that they had theological motivations.

Except that defies all logic on lying. Humans will not deliberately lie for the sole purpose of establishing a false theology if that lie places them in extreme danger and poverty. I suppose someone with paranoid schizophrenia might, but I seriously doubt all the authors of the New Testament books were schizophrenics.
　
Christians were persecuted and martyred in the 1st century AD for their faith in Christ. Whether it was 10 men or 100, it doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that the earliest Christians were willing to suffer for their faith in Jesus Christ. Stephen was the very first to do so. Paul was continually beaten and thrown into prison for his faith. It is illogical to assume that human beings would put themselves through such torture to defend a lie that brings them no financial, political, or social advantage. And there is extra-biblical evidence that Christians were persecuted under Nero in terrible ways.

Who said that all of those witnesses had the physical power to stop Paul, especially since the majority of his ministry was over 800 km away from Jerusalem?

Oh, I wasn't talking about Paul. I was talking about the authors of the gospels. I thought that was what we were discussing. I was never talking about Paul's epistles. I was talking about the men who wrote the gospels. They weren't 800 km away from Jerusalem.

~TheBoxer

[TheBoxer]

Acid,
　
I am tired of repeating myself. As I have thoroughly proven, the pig is no more 'unclean' than the horse, camel, coney, or elephant. Just because the pig was mentioned by name, it does not mean that it is more 'unclean.' The camel was mentioned by name as well. What I think you are doing is taking a distorted, tunnel-vision view of the verse in question. You are trying to prove that because God said in the same sentence that pig flesh is unclean and therefore you should not touch their dead bodies or eat their flesh that pigs are somehow worse than the other 'unclean' animals. The fact is, according to the Torah Israelites weren't to touch the dead bodies of horses or eat their flesh either. To do so would make them ceremonially unclean and required following certain rituals and observing a certain time period to be considered 'clean' again.
　
Your logic on WHY you believe Muhammad was a Messenger of God is circular:

Muhammad says he is a prophet.
Muhammad recites the Quran.
The Quran says he is a prophet.
Therefore, Muhammad is a prophet.
　

God guided me to Islam and All Praise to Him that today I am following His Religion. Your beliefs only comes from Holy Spirit which is actually a Satan according to my religion and my religion is from God. Now you said that your believe doesnt come from Bible or you dont believe in Jesus because of Bible. So now how would you define what is Holy Spirit ? You cant go to Bible since your beliefs dont come from it.

I'm laughing as I read this.
Continuing on with your logic....

Since Muhammad was a prophet (because he said he was a prophet), that means Islam is the religion of God.
Since you have been guided to Islam, it must mean God guided you.
Since I have been guided to Christ, it must mean Satan guided me.
　
What happened to me was between myself and God. No books, no religions, no preachers. Just me and God. If God is truly a just and holy Creator, when I cry out to Him then He will answer and not lead me astray. My belief that God is the one who guided me is based on the belief that God is righteous, merciful, loving, and just. If He then reveals Himself to me through the words in a book, I can believe in those words to be true. The fact that what happened to me is what Jesus described would happen to me only further proves the truthfulness of Jesus' words. The Bible is a SUPPLEMENT to my beliefs, it is not the foundation. The foundation is Jesus Christ.
　

Jesus is indeed the Messiah who came to upheld the commandments of Torah. The law concerning prohibited of consumption of pig is clear and is eternal since the otherwise is not stated either by Jesus or Moses.

Then why do Muslims eat camels and rabbits?
　
And he came to FULFILL the Law and the Prophets. Tell me, Mr. Acid. How did Jesus do that?
　

haha... I never asked all this. i am not takling about personal hygiene or cleanliness of faith but rather that pig is unclean. Read the entire para above which you quoted me and notice that it doesnt even talk about pork! Stop revolving please....
...Did He say that he is giving examples ? God of bible mentions that pig is unclean but you are saying that is giving examples?

I swear, it's like talking to a wall. The Torah states that pig is unclean for the Israelites because it does not chew the cud. Period. Done. The Torah states that camel is unclean for the Israelites because it does not have split hooves. Period. Done. It doesn't state that pigs or camels are unclean animals for Gentiles.
　
You cannot prove that Gentiles had to abstain from pork. PERIOD. DONE. Consider this to be my last post to you about this.

~TheBoxer