Pork prohibited in the Bible

[FatimaAsSideqah]

Greetings.

The Christian is likely to be convinced by his religious scriptures. The Bible prohibits the consumption of pork, in the book of Leviticus

"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you".

"Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch, they are unclean to you." [Leviticus 11:7-8]

Pork is also prohibited in the Bible in the book of Deuteronomy

"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]

A similar prohibition is repeated in the Bible in the book of Isaiah chapter 65 verse 2-5.

Why Christians do eat pork despite its forbidden in the Bible?

[FatimaAsSideqah]

*bump*

[barney]

I think the stock answer is they think those commandments only apply to the Jews.
although why they would only apply to them and be fine for others is unknown.
Basically they eat pork cos its tasty and cheap.

[FatimaAsSideqah]

Very interesting, barney. I will be wait for others' views.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[barney]

It's a bit like the reason why Christians dont chop the hands off women who intervene in fights with them and their husbands by grabbing their unmentionables, (Leviticus).

It might be a law ordained by God, but its a silly law. Christianity takes all the stuff from the laws of 1700 BC that fitted into sensibilities of society in 88AD and scrapped the rest as not relevent. If you look at Mormonism, then that modifies things again to fit with 1800's american society. theyre still Christians, apparently, but their religion moves with the times.

[Whatsthepoint]

There's also this:

And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Matt 15:16-20

[*Hana*]

There's also this:

And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Matt 15:16-20

Actually, that has nothing to do with eating/not eating pork. This is another parable. He is trying to say your thoughts and actions that go against the laws of God are more important than eating with dirty hands. Basically, it is not the dirt that may come off your hands and into your mouth that defiles a person to prevent them from worshiping God, but what comes out of your mouth and mind, in form of words and actions, is what defiles you. This was said in frustration of the Pharisees placing more emphasis on the traditions of their forefathers than the laws of God.

Most Christians believe that the law forbidding the eating of pork was dissolved as were the other laws when Jesus "died" on the cross. However, it was not Jesus that changed the law, it was Paul. Nowhere does Jesus, in the Bible, say He came to abolish the laws of the Prophets before Him and is quite insistent and clear about that. So much so, He didn't even use a parable, He just said it straight up.

Matt 5:17-25: 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Christians will also use Peter's vision described in Acts as referring to Pork, but in actuality, it was not. Peter later realized in Acts 10:28 that God was talking about the Gentiles. Jews commonly called Gentiles unclean and God told Peter not make unclean what He made clean. He NEVER said the Gentiles were unclean, and this is exactly what He was referring to.

However, there are some sects of Christians that will not eat pork because they believe it is forbidden and that law had never been lifted, as Jesus, pbuh, said it wouldn't be.

Hana

[YusufNoor]

There's also this:

And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Matt 15:16-20

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance:

Whatsthepoint & Barney,

many many people cite those verses to claim that ANY food is OK, YET, in Acts 10 we read:

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

17While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon's house was and stopped at the gate. 18They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.

now, Acts, begins AFTER the gospels end and Christians claim that Jesus made Peter the "head of the church"; this being the case, how could Peter STILL be following Jewish Law on kosher food? easy, the laws on Kosher food were NEVER changes in the early church!

The Torah contains laws declaring PEOPLE unclean at various times and this was a coming change in the Jewish deen.

according to Acts, Peter is told 3 TIMES to eat various food and HE REFUSED EACH TIME! sound precedent setting to me as this is the final time the food issue is raised in the "New Testament."

edit: about an hour after i edited my post and added: "as this is the final time the food issue is raised in the "New Testament."

Posted by Azy
Acts 15
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:
29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

The teachings of Jesus are meant to supercede Mosaic law, and the above are the only hard rules about prohibition

don't you hate it when that happens!

but at any rate IT IS NOT Peter, "The Rock upon which I will build my church" saying this, it is one of the James' upon a request from Paul!





:w:

[Dr.Trax]

Alaikym Salam

Nice thread.....

I think most of the christians don't read the Bible(also with understanding) at all, or even touch it!
And also because is very cheap...so if one person starts to eat it, all people around joins him without even thinking...
Some christians are saying that it not even tasty!

Wasalam!

[Azy]

Acts 15
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:
29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

The teachings of Jesus are meant to supercede Mosaic law, and the above are the only hard rules about prohibition.

[*Hana*]

Acts 15
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:
29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

The teachings of Jesus are meant to supercede Mosaic law, and the above are the only hard rules about prohibition.

Jesus didn't say this, so it is not the teaching of Jesus....you are confusing the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Paul.

Jesus said: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. Where did Jesus change His mind and then say He came to change Mosaic Law??

Who is lying? Jesus or Paul??

Hana

[aadil77]

Greetings.

The Christian is likely to be convinced by his religious scriptures. The Bible prohibits the consumption of pork, in the book of Leviticus

"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you".

"Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch, they are unclean to you." [Leviticus 11:7-8]

Pork is also prohibited in the Bible in the book of Deuteronomy

"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]

A similar prohibition is repeated in the Bible in the book of Isaiah chapter 65 verse 2-5.

Why Christians do eat pork despite its forbidden in the Bible?

seriously? :Dchristians ask me why we don't eat pork, lol

[aadil77]

Acts 15
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:
29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

The teachings of Jesus are meant to supercede Mosaic law, and the above are the only hard rules about prohibition.

seems to me people are just bending the rules to suit themselves

[barney]

seems to me people are just bending the rules to suit themselves

What???? Impossible! That has NEVER, Never happened!

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^LoL. Ya right :S I suppose thats sarcasm?

[don532]

To try to understand Islam better, I read the Koran. If you want to understand Christianity better, you might consider reading the whole Bible, including the New Testament. Jesus fulfilled the old law. We don't follow the dietary laws given to the Jews. Christians don't make animal sacrifices for their sins, either. One of the passages relating to diet is from Romans 14:

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

Also, the dietary laws were given to the Jews. The Gentiles were never required to follow the dietary laws.

[aadil77]

lso, the dietary laws were given to the Jews. The Gentiles were never required to follow the dietary laws.

What do you mean by these laws were only given to jews?
If it is says clearly in the bible that something is forbidden,
then why would it apply to only a certain people. Shouldn't it apply to everyone?

To be honest the passage you've quoted underneath just sounds to me
like its been added in to the new testament, you can't get more contradicting than that, anyway thats my opinion

[AvarAllahNoor]

Prawns, lobster, crab, squid, octopus, oysters, scallops are prohibited in the Old Testament?

[FatimaAsSideqah]

God also instructed Moses and his brother Aaron about clean and unclean Foods (Leviticus 11).

Now, let’s look at Leviticus 11 and see what it says. In Leviticus 11:3, it says “Of all 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.”

In other words, God said if the animial has a completely divided hoof and it chews its cud, then you can eat it. But, if it has a completely divided hoof but does not chew its cud, you can’t eat it. Also, if it chews its cud, but does not have a completely divided hoof, you can’t eat it. So by Leviticus 11, you can’t eat Camels, Rabbits or Pigs. Pigs were also not even to be touched, alive or dead. You were also not to eat some sea creatures that don’t have fins and scales. Birds were not to be eaten because they were detestable, as were insects. The animals were clean and unclean, because God said they were: that is the only reason we know. We could guess some other reasons, but we have no reason to guess at God’s reasons, since He is God and we are not, and it’s right to do what He wishes, since He is God.

The Dietary Laws of Leviticus 11, continued through the reign of King David, and through to his son King Solomon and his temple, right through to the captivity in Babylon. The Dietary Laws lasted up until the days of Jesus

What happened that allowed Christians to eat these unclean foods, especially Pig? Was it man who changed?

[don532]

What do you mean by these laws were only given to jews?
If it is says clearly in the bible that something is forbidden,
then why would it apply to only a certain people. Shouldn't it apply to everyone?

To be honest the passage you've quoted underneath just sounds to me
like its been added in to the new testament, you can't get more contradicting than that, anyway thats my opinion

Who was the Old Testament written to? - the Jews, God's chosen people. God never said: Now go tell the Gentiles to practice the same dietary laws and make animal sacrifices for their sins.

You might try reading the New Testament. You'll see that passage is a part of a larger chapter.

[don532]

God also instructed Moses and his brother Aaron about clean and unclean Foods (Leviticus 11).

Now, let’s look at Leviticus 11 and see what it says. In Leviticus 11:3, it says “Of all 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.”

In other words, God said if the animial has a completely divided hoof and it chews its cud, then you can eat it. But, if it has a completely divided hoof but does not chew its cud, you can’t eat it. Also, if it chews its cud, but does not have a completely divided hoof, you can’t eat it. So by Leviticus 11, you can’t eat Camels, Rabbits or Pigs. Pigs were also not even to be touched, alive or dead. You were also not to eat some sea creatures that don’t have fins and scales. Birds were not to be eaten because they were detestable, as were insects. The animals were clean and unclean, because God said they were: that is the only reason we know. We could guess some other reasons, but we have no reason to guess at God’s reasons, since He is God and we are not, and it’s right to do what He wishes, since He is God.

The Dietary Laws of Leviticus 11, continued through the reign of King David, and through to his son King Solomon and his temple, right through to the captivity in Babylon. The Dietary Laws lasted up until the days of Jesus

What happened that allowed Christians to eat these unclean foods, especially Pig? Was it man who changed?

Read the next to the last paragraph of your response. The dietary laws lasted up until the days of Jesus. That's what happened. Jesus. The old law was fulfilled by his death, burial and resurrection.

[FatimaAsSideqah]

Why does that the dietary laws was passed to the Jews?

[snakelegs]

Matt 5:17-25: 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

where does jesus change his mind from the above quote, which seems pretty clear to me?

[aadil77]

alright even if the laws changed or were changed, aren't they supposed to change for the better?

Still doesn't make any sense to me why Jesus would say stay away from it as its unclean, then change to saying that its only unclean for the person who thinks its unclean

Also why would Jews have their own certain 'dietry laws'? They didn't have any special dietry requirements as far as I know

[Keltoi]

You first have to understand what Mosaic Law is, and also the difference between the ritual law and the civil law. Dietary laws are found in the civil law. These laws were intended for Jews, both for obvious health reasons and to set the Jewish people apart. When Christianity came to the Gentiles, it was Paul who suggested it wasn't necessary for Gentiles to follow all Jewish law, especially not the dietary laws or the laws of circumcision. Christ never suggests that eating of unclean animals has been "purified", for lack of a better word, but Paul didn't believe it was necessary for Gentiles to follow these laws in order to achieve salvation. So most Christians do not follow these dietary laws. In any event, the breaking of dietary law wasn't seen as a major unforgivable sin by any stretch of the imagination.

[snakelegs]

why do they follow paul's words over jesus'?

[FatimaAsSideqah]

^ thats what I was going to ask! loq. :X

[Azy]

Jesus didn't say this, so it is not the teaching of Jesus....you are confusing the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Paul.

Jesus said: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. Where did Jesus change His mind and then say He came to change Mosaic Law??

Who is lying? Jesus or Paul??

I'll just pop in the passage from the sermon on the mount for reference:

Matthew 5
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
21 You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.'
22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.
23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison.
26Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.
27 You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
---

What he was saying is that the scribes and Pharisees were exaggerating every tenet of law until it became a burden on the people and ritualistic behaviour became more important than the underlying principles.
This is more obviously stated in Matthew 23:

23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
---

Jesus did not come to stop people from acting in the spirit of the Mosaic law, he was more concerned with the underlying principles of how man should treat man rather than the minute details of each law (as the priests were doing).

21 You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.'
22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment;

He is saying, you're missing the point, you should look beyond the letter of the law, you should always aim to behave with benevolence regardless of the specific situation, not be bogged down by a checklist of dos and don'ts.
He is not abolishing the law, but rather the dogmatic, ritualistic way of applying the law that was getting in the way of it's genuine application.

18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

The early Jews made sacrifices to god in order to repent for their transgressions against the law. When Jesus said he would fulfil the law it meant he would sacrifice himself and that would release all mankind from sin and from the literal Mosaic law.

[Keltoi]

why do they follow paul's words over jesus'?

I don't think it was a matter of taking anyone's "word" over Christ, it was a matter of salvation...which is what Christianity is about. Paul understood that Jewish dietary law would seem pointless and alien to Gentiles, not to mention the practice of circumcision. It was a question of whether following dietary law or not was a matter of salvation...which Paul believed wasn't. Accepting Christ as the Messiah and Savior was much more important for future salvation than banning consumption of sea food and swine. It was the Pauline method to introduce Christianity into Gentile and Jewish societies by adapting to their particular cultural norms. Making Christianity more universal than Judaism, in other words. Obviously it was very successful. While Paul and the other traditional Jewish Christian leaders might have frowned on the practice, they didn't see it as being more important than the acceptance of Christ as Savior. It went both ways too, since Gentile leaders sent to Jewish communities were circumcized in order to obey cultural norms. Timothy being an example.

[don532]

where does jesus change his mind from the above quote, which seems pretty clear to me?

20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Good question.

Who's righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law? Nobody. No human is perfect. They were the most righteous, but to earn your way into the kingdom of heaven one's righteousness has to surpass even theirs. Only Jesus could do that. That's why we need Him as our redemption.

[snakelegs]

I don't think it was a matter of taking anyone's "word" over Christ, it was a matter of salvation...which is what Christianity is about. Paul understood that Jewish dietary law would seem pointless and alien to Gentiles, not to mention the practice of circumcision. It was a question of whether following dietary law or not was a matter of salvation...which Paul believed wasn't. Accepting Christ as the Messiah and Savior was much more important for future salvation than banning consumption of sea food and swine. It was the Pauline method to introduce Christianity into Gentile and Jewish societies by adapting to their particular cultural norms. Making Christianity more universal than Judaism, in other words. Obviously it was very successful. While Paul and the other traditional Jewish Christian leaders might have frowned on the practice, they didn't see it as being more important than the acceptance of Christ as Savior. It went both ways too, since Gentile leaders sent to Jewish communities were circumcized in order to obey cultural norms. Timothy being an example.

so you are saying that paul decided (against jesus) that the laws could be thrown out in order to make the religion easier/more appealing?

[snakelegs]

Good question.

Who's righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law? Nobody. No human is perfect. They were the most righteous, but to earn your way into the kingdom of heaven one's righteousness has to surpass even theirs. Only Jesus could do that. That's why we need Him as our redemption.

in the context (from Azy's post), he doesn't seem to me to be saying this at all, but that he is going further than the pharisees in saying that not only the actions matter, but what is in your heart is judged equally seriously.

[aadil77]

Where is God's intervention in this? isn't God supposed to be revealing to Jesus whats allowed and whats not? rather than an judgment of paul

[FatimaAsSideqah]

Its does surprised to me because it was rather to follow Paul than Jesus!

It doesn't make sense to me. Jesus is the Messenger of God and the Christians are supposed to follow Jesus, not to follow Paul.

[MustafaMc]

To try to understand Islam better, I read the Koran. If you want to understand Christianity better, you might consider reading the whole Bible, including the New Testament. Jesus fulfilled the old law. We don't follow the dietary laws given to the Jews. Christians don't make animal sacrifices for their sins, either. One of the passages relating to diet is from Romans 14:



Also, the dietary laws were given to the Jews. The Gentiles were never required to follow the dietary laws.

Greetings, Don532, I haven't heard from you in some time.

I notice that you again quoted from a letter written by Paul. Notice that Paul also did away with circumcision in opposition to Jesus' disciples. If one reads the book of Galatians with an open mind, he would see the fierce struggle between Paul and Jesus' disciples over adherence to the Judaic law.

[MustafaMc]

I don't think it was a matter of taking anyone's "word" over Christ, it was a matter of salvation...which is what Christianity is about. Paul understood that Jewish dietary law would seem pointless and alien to Gentiles, not to mention the practice of circumcision. It was a question of whether following dietary law or not was a matter of salvation...which Paul believed wasn't. Accepting Christ as the Messiah and Savior was much more important for future salvation than banning consumption of sea food and swine. It was the Pauline method to introduce Christianity into Gentile and Jewish societies by adapting to their particular cultural norms. Making Christianity more universal than Judaism, in other words. Obviously it was very successful. While Paul and the other traditional Jewish Christian leaders might have frowned on the practice, they didn't see it as being more important than the acceptance of Christ as Savior. It went both ways too, since Gentile leaders sent to Jewish communities were circumcized in order to obey cultural norms. Timothy being an example.

Yes, not only did Paul de-emphasize following of the Judaic Law, he also de-emphasized what Jesus actually taught and how he lived his life as an example to follow. The focus in Paul's message is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus as an act of Divine Grace that precluded any works as the means to attain salvation.

[don532]

in the context (from Azy's post), he doesn't seem to me to be saying this at all, but that he is going further than the pharisees in saying that not only the actions matter, but what is in your heart is judged equally seriously.

not only the actions matter, but what is in your heart is judged

I would say it like this. Not only the actions matter, but actions and what is in your heart is judged. Again, who is perfect in actions and in the heart?

[don532]

Greetings, Don532, I haven't heard from you in some time.

I notice that you again quoted from a letter written by Paul. Notice that Paul also did away with circumcision in opposition to Jesus' disciples. If one reads the book of Galatians with an open mind, he would see the fierce struggle between Paul and Jesus' disciples over adherence to the Judaic law.

I also quoted from the sermon on the mount.

[snakelegs]

I would say it like this. Not only the actions matter, but actions and what is in your heart is judged. Again, who is perfect in actions and in the heart?

yes, but you had said:

Who's righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law? Nobody. No human is perfect. They were the most righteous, but to earn your way into the kingdom of heaven one's righteousness has to surpass even theirs. Only Jesus could do that. That's why we need Him as our redemption.

and i don't see this from his words at all, but rather that he is surpassing the pharisees is saying that what is in your heart is just as important as what you do. i see nothing about earning your way to the kingdom of heaven through the sacrifice, or his death being your redemption.

[don532]

and i don't see this from his words at all, but rather that he is surpassing the pharisees is saying that what is in your heart is just as important as what you do. i see nothing about earning your way to the kingdom of heaven through the sacrifice, or his death being your redemption.

Matthew 5
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

What do you believe Jesus' fulfillment of the law to be?

[barney]

What do you believe Jesus' fulfillment of the law to be?

My take was that Jesus beleived he was indeed fullfilling the prophecys of the old testement. He was the King of the jews the annointed one (messiah).
He perhaps got that from his supporters telling him that and perhaps ended up being fully convinced himself.
The messaih was supposed to bring in the armageddon, jesus described what would happen in some detail, and told everyone that before they died, they would see the apocolypse.

When it diddnt happen and he was just killed off, it was up to his followers to make a choice. Lose everything they had beleived in for 4 years or creatively rewrite the whole shebang.
It's hard to drop something they knew was "true", so even though Jesus told them it was all over "It is Finished" as he died, they thought different and wanted to carry it on as far as it would streach.
Its streached quite far so far.Excellent work on their parts.

[snakelegs]

What do you believe Jesus' fulfillment of the law to be?

i don't know. obey them? really, i have no idea.

[Azy]

Its does surprised to me because it was rather to follow Paul than Jesus!

It doesn't make sense to me. Jesus is the Messenger of God and the Christians are supposed to follow Jesus, not to follow Paul.

Paul is said to have received the Holy Spirit on the road to Damascus and was essentially strengthened by God and was the most important figure outside the original disciples. If the New Testament is to be believed then to reject Paul would be to reject all other prophets of god.

[snakelegs]

is paul considered a prophet?

[FatimaAsSideqah]

Paul is said to have received the Holy Spirit on the road to Damascus and was essentially strengthened by God and was the most important figure outside the original disciples. If the New Testament is to be believed then to reject Paul would be to reject all other prophets of god.

Could you give me the source for that?

[don532]

Greetings, Don532, I haven't heard from you in some time.

Greetings! Please excuse my lack of manners. I have not posted in some time, but I do stop in occasionally to read. I had some time on my hands, and saw the question about the eating of pork come up and thought I would share the Christian belief. I seem to hear that question on a regular basis in person, and on the internet often.

[don532]

is paul considered a prophet?

I always heard him called the apostle Paul.

[don532]

Could you give me the source for that?

I believe Azy is referring to Acts chapter 9.

[FatimaAsSideqah]

I believe Azy is referring to Acts chapter 9.

When did that happened to Paul's conversion?

[don532]

When did that happened to Paul's conversion?

I believe it was sometime after Jesus' crucifixion. Did I answer your question on the Christian belief regarding pork?

[FatimaAsSideqah]

I believe it was sometime after Jesus' crucifixion. Did I answer your question on the Christian belief regarding pork?

Thanks for your time to answer my questions. Included my question about the pork.

Peace be with you.

[don532]

Thanks for your time to answer my questions. Included my question about the pork.

Peace be with you.

And with you.

[barney]

^^LoL. Ya right :S I suppose thats sarcasm?

Correctamundo!

[Keltoi]

so you are saying that paul decided (against jesus) that the laws could be thrown out in order to make the religion easier/more appealing?

Paul didn't decide anything "against" Christ, it was a matter of choosing which is more important, the life, death, and Resurrection of Christ as Savior and Redeemer, or focus on dietary laws almost to the point of exclusion of all else. If you think Paul's mission was based on his own ego you would be mistaken. I believe he knew very well he would see a bad end before it was done.

In any event, the breaking of dietary law is pretty far down the totem pole of sin. I'm sure Paul, using a line of thought I agree with, felt that the need to spread the Gospel of Christ and His promise of salvation was a bit more important than stopping the Romans from eating bacon.

[snakelegs]

i don't know enough to even have an opinion about paul's mission. still, my impression remains that christians follow paul more than jesus' teachings, which from what little i've read, don't seem to be in stark contradiction to jewish teachings of the time. (could well be that i haven't read enough)
i agree, dietary laws would be pretty low ranking on a sin list and i don't think they were ever ranked high as major sins, even in jewish law.
now i think i will close my mouth on the subject as i haven't read the NT and don't really know what i'm talking about for sure.
enjoy your pork! :)

[kirk]

The central teaching of Christianity is: Peace and Love.

It is not: Peace and Love and don’t eat pork.

It is not: Peace and Love and face north to pray.

It is not: Peace and Love and don’t drink Coke

Christianity is about Peace and Love. It is not about a series of strict rules.

If the act goes against Peace and Love then the act is against Christianity.

-

[YusufNoor]

Who was the Old Testament written to? - the Jews, God's chosen people. God never said: Now go tell the Gentiles to practice the same dietary laws and make animal sacrifices for their sins.

You might try reading the New Testament. You'll see that passage is a part of a larger chapter.

actually, in the time after Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam[Alayhe Salaam] ascended into heaven, those following "the Way" were considered a sect of Judaism as they used to go to Synagogue on Saturday and worship with other Jews. as such they would read from The Torah and Tanakh, they DID NOT HAVE a "New Testament" to read from! Yes, it's understood that Paul changed EVERYTHING, but there are NO writings in existence that pre-date Paul so from an outside perspective your "New Testament" is for a Pauline Religion and NOT one based upon the teachings of Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam[Alayhe Salaam]; therefore we cannot know if this:

God never said: Now go tell the Gentiles to practice the same dietary laws and make animal sacrifices for their sins.

is true unless we accept Paul as the primary prophet of "Christianity"; unless Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam[Alayhe Salaam] is quoted somewhere saying "this is the Rock Paul, and upon this Rock I will build my church!" it's doesn't sound logical for Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam[Alayhe Salaam] to claim that Peter will be the head of the church only to have Paul change EVERYTHING, Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam[Alayhe Salaam] could have simply said that Peter is in charge until Paul gets here, but he didn't...

[don532]

actually, in the time after Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam[Alayhe Salaam] ascended into heaven, those following "the Way" were considered a sect of Judaism as they used to go to Synagogue on Saturday and worship with other Jews. as such they would read from The Torah and Tanakh, they DID NOT HAVE a "New Testament" to read from! Yes, it's understood that Paul changed EVERYTHING, but there are NO writings in existence that pre-date Paul so from an outside perspective your "New Testament" is for a Pauline Religion and NOT one based upon the teachings of Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam[Alayhe Salaam]; therefore we cannot know if this:



is true unless we accept Paul as the primary prophet of "Christianity"; unless Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam[Alayhe Salaam] is quoted somewhere saying "this is the Rock Paul, and upon this Rock I will build my church!" it's doesn't sound logical for Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam[Alayhe Salaam] to claim that Peter will be the head of the church only to have Paul change EVERYTHING, Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam[Alayhe Salaam] could have simply said that Peter is in charge until Paul gets here, but he didn't...

I would be a little surprised if you hadn't heard it before, but the Christian belief is that the above is a misinterpretation of the conversation Jesus had with Peter. Jesus wasn't talking about making Peter head of the church.

From Matthew 16:

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

You are Christ, the Son of the Living God. That is the rock Jesus said he would build his church on. Not Peter personally, or his leadership.

After Christ's death, the apostles and the disciples went about building the church because they were commanded to.

from Matthew 28:

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Sure some may have gone to synagogue. But these churches Paul wrote his letters to had to exist before Paul wrote his letters. We have also never found any writings that any of the other apostles called Paul out on false teachings.

Look, the lady had a question about why Christians eat pork. I answered the question. I know as a muslim you think Christianity is a creation of Paul and the real gospel of Jesus is lost, Jesus was only a prophet, someone else was on the cross, etc. I'm sure you have plenty of verses from the Koran to back up your belief. I'm also sure the subject of Paul has been debated here many times before. I'm not interested in repeating it.

[Azy]

is paul considered a prophet?

Yeah like don said he's always called an apostle. I wasn't saying that he necessarily was a prophet, but since he was instructed by Christ to carry God's message and was fortified by God in order to do so it wouldn't make a lot of sense to dismiss him unless you were going to dismiss everyone else who has been claimed to act under the will of God.

[snakelegs]

Yeah like don said he's always called an apostle. I wasn't saying that he necessarily was a prophet, but since he was instructed by Christ to carry God's message and was fortified by God in order to do so it wouldn't make a lot of sense to dismiss him unless you were going to dismiss everyone else who has been claimed to act under the will of God.

true.... for a christian.

[MustafaMc]

is paul considered a prophet?

Rare is the Christian who would call Paul a Prophet of God, yet consider the following two statements:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
prophet 1: one who utters divinely inspired revelations

Galatians 1:11-12 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through revelation of Jesus Christ.

So, yes, Paul is a Prophet for the Christian in the same sense that Muhammad (saaws) is the Prophet through which Islam was revealed to the Arabs. Paul was the primary agent through which the doctrine he outlined in I Corinthians 15:3-4 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" was established as the central dogma of Christianity. In these verses Paul defines the "gospel" that he received through direct revelation noted in Galatians.

[YusufNoor]

I would be a little surprised if you hadn't heard it before, but the Christian belief is that the above is a misinterpretation of the conversation Jesus had with Peter. Jesus wasn't talking about making Peter head of the church.

From Matthew 16:

You are Christ, the Son of the Living God. That is the rock Jesus said he would build his church on. Not Peter personally, or his leadership.

looking at Chapter 16, it appears that the whole "rock" discussion is a play on Peter's name, thus giving indication that it IS talking to about him. it is Christians who claim that the verse DOES refer to Peter, although it MAY be a Catholic thing however, see below

18And I tell you, you are [e]Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra--a [f]huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the [g]infernal region) shall [h]not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].

19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth [i]must be what is already bound in heaven; and whatever you loose (declare lawful) on earth [j]must be what is already loosed in heaven.(B)

the follow up verse to Matt 16:18 DOES seem to declare that a)Peter is given the keys to heaven and b) gives him the authority to declare what is proper and unlawful!


After Christ's death, the apostles and the disciples went about building the church because they were commanded to.

from Matthew 28:

Sure some may have gone to synagogue. But these churches Paul wrote his letters to had to exist before Paul wrote his letters. We have also never found any writings that any of the other apostles called Paul out on false teachings.

Look, the lady had a question about why Christians eat pork. I answered the question. I know as a Muslim you think Christianity is a creation of Paul and the real gospel of Jesus is lost, Jesus was only a prophet, someone else was on the cross, etc. I'm sure you have plenty of verses from the Koran to back up your belief. I'm also sure the subject of Paul has been debated here many times before. I'm not interested in repeating it.

actually, you really DON'T KNOW what my views are or what is the genesis for my beliefs, but i wasn't picking on you or sending you a PM to be answered ONLY by you. i simply quote whatever i am thinking about and leave it for WHOEVER wants to respond or not.

just for the record though, i'm nearly 50 and have only been a Muslim[Alhumdulillah] for 2 years, so that's 4 decades of trying to decipher "Christianity" and failing to do so, for if i had, i might be one. Alhumdulillah, i was protected from that even though i was raised as a Catholic.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

going back to the issue of pork for a moment, after looking at Acts Chapter 15, i'm not so sure that it implies what you [or others, sorry] say it does!

let's look at it:

"Now here is my opinion. We should not make it hard for the non-Jews who are turning to God. 20 Here is what we should write to them. They must not eat food polluted by being offered to statues of gods. They must not commit sexual sins. They must not eat the meat of animals that have been choked to death. And they must not drink blood. 21 These laws of Moses have been preached in every city from the earliest times. They are read out loud in the synagogues every Sabbath day."

we see 3 points made about food, a) They must not eat food polluted by being offered to statues of gods. b)They must not eat the meat of animals that have been choked to death and c)they must not drink blood. well, where do THOSE laws come from? the last 2 sentences tell us: These laws of Moses have been preached in every city from the earliest times. They are read out loud in the synagogues every Sabbath day!

again, what laws? THE LAWS OF MOSES! the ones containing the laws on Kosher food, that have been: READ ALOUD IN THE SYNAGOGUES EVERY SABBATH DAY!

so the message is: Keep Kosher and stay away from sexual immorality!

regarding whether or not eraly "Christians" consider Paul a prophet or not, lets continue on in Acts chapter 15:

30 The men were sent down to Antioch. There they gathered the church together. They gave the letter to them. 31 The people read it. They were glad for its message of hope. 32 Judas and Silas were prophets. They said many things to give strength and hope to the believers

AFTER deciding the Kosher question, two followers of [Christ?] are referred to as what? AS PROPHETS! so the author of Luke and Acts DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS THE FINAL PROPHET! just a point to ponder...

:w:

[kirk]

What other animals are Muslims forbidden to eat?

-

[Azy]

Rare is the Christian who would call Paul a Prophet of God, yet consider the following two statements

Odd that the Qur'an lists 20-odd prophets of the OT & NT but Paul isn't one of them.

we see 3 points made about food, a) They must not eat food polluted by being offered to statues of gods. b)They must not eat the meat of animals that have been choked to death and c)they must not drink blood. well, where do THOSE laws come from? the last 2 sentences tell us: These laws of Moses have been preached in every city from the earliest times. They are read out loud in the synagogues every Sabbath day!

I believe this is more a political issue rather than a divine law issue, a bit like how Muhammad pbuh could have banned slavery but just encouraged people to treat them better because it would have impeded the acceptance of Islam amongst those who had become accustomed to it.

Most of Christ's followers would have been Jewish converts who were used to following all the hundreds of rules they had including the food ones.
"We should not make it hard for the non-Jews who are turning to God."
They didn't want disagreements about food around the table, like you would have if someone sat next to you with a bacon sandwich.
They knew that most people would be aware of these rules above, because the rules were preached by the Jews throughout the whole land. The non-Jews would not have practiced these rules but they would have been familiar with them.

They're not rules about what God says you can and can't eat, but a compromise to keep the early members of the congregation from getting upset at each other.

[barney]

Pork is massively water intensive.
Why encourage your desert locked people to farm something like that?

Plus, if your scribe 2400 year ago, just looking at pigs grunting and wallowing around, they look like theyre unclean.
Simply ban them.

[YusufNoor]

Odd that the Qur'an lists 20-odd prophets of the OT & NT but Paul isn't one of them.
.

Peace,


Perhaps you missed my post:

regarding whether or not eraly "Christians" consider Paul a prophet or not, lets continue on in Acts chapter 15:


Quote:
30 The men were sent down to Antioch. There they gathered the church together. They gave the letter to them. 31 The people read it. They were glad for its message of hope. 32 Judas and Silas were prophets. They said many things to give strength and hope to the believers

AFTER deciding the Kosher question, two followers of [Christ?] are referred to as what? AS PROPHETS! so the author of Luke and Acts DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS THE FINAL PROPHET! just a point to ponder...

so we should ditch the writings of Paul and try to find those of Judas & Silas?

:D


:w:

[glo]

I think there is some confusion here as to who is referred to as a prophet.

The Bible (OT and NT) refers to many people as prophets - and not all of those were the great prophets from God, which we refer to when we talk about Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah etc.

Here are some references from the OT of other people, called 'prophets'

Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women followed her, with tambourines and dancing. (Exodus 15)

Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Acbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophetess Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. (2 Kings 22)

And here the NT:

There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. (Luke 2)

During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. (Acts 11)

Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers. (Acts 15)

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. (1 Corinthians)

If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. (1 Corinthians)

In that sense there are still prophets in our time. Some Christians refer to themselves or others a prophets - meaning those who understand the word of God and share it with others.

I don't think the term 'prophet' in that sense can be equated to the Islamic meaning of 'prophet'.

I hope that makes sense.

peace :)

[Azy]

Perhaps you missed my post:
so we should ditch the writings of Paul and try to find those of Judas & Silas?

No that wasn't my point, the reference to Paul was meant for MustafaMc.

As for the final prophet thing, going by what most people's definition seems to be, all the apostles were prophets, so there are a dozen people at least after Jesus. Why the preoccupation with that?

and, yeah what glo said

[snakelegs]

Odd that the Qur'an lists 20-odd prophets of the OT & NT but Paul isn't one of them.

why would he be?
i believe that the answer is in the quote mustafamc gave:

Paul was the primary agent through which the doctrine he outlined in I Corinthians 15:3-4 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" was established as the central dogma of Christianity. In these verses Paul defines the "gospel" that he received through direct revelation noted in Galatians.

i don't think that this is in accordance with jesus' teachings. and it is not what islam teaches either.

[Keltoi]

why would he be?
i believe that the answer is in the quote mustafamc gave:



i don't think that this is in accordance with jesus' teachings. and it is not what islam teaches either.

I'm curious, what about that verse isn't in accordance with the teachings of Christ? That verse outlined above was the fundamental doctrine of the Christian church from the beginning.

[snakelegs]

I'm curious, what about that verse isn't in accordance with the teachings of Christ? That verse outlined above was the fundamental doctrine of the Christian church from the beginning.

it's quite possible that i'm wrong as i never read the NT. i was speaking of the teachings of jesus, not church doctrine.
did jesus say he was going to die for your sins?

[YusufNoor]

I think there is some confusion here as to who is referred to as a prophet.

The Bible (OT and NT) refers to many people as prophets - and not all of those were the great prophets from God, which we refer to when we talk about Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah etc.

Here are some references from the OT of other people, called 'prophets'



And here the NT:






In that sense there are still prophets in our time. Some Christians refer to themselves or others a prophets - meaning those who understand the word of God and share it with others.

I don't think the term 'prophet' in that sense can be equated to the Islamic meaning of 'prophet'.

I hope that makes sense.

umm, nope! :enough!:


peace :)

Peace Glo,

i hope you are well.

Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Rare is the Christian who would call Paul a Prophet of God,

well it looks like that is all about to change now, innit???:exhausted

"We should not make it hard for the non-Jews who are turning to God."
They didn't want disagreements about food around the table, like you would have if someone sat next to you with a bacon sandwich.

but when it comes to food, 3 parts of kosher law were mentioned and the fact that they were preached by Moses. i doubt you would find any bacon sandwiches near the synagogue either. BUT, who says keeping kosher would be hard? THE VAST MAJORITY of the ORIGINAL FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST, were Jews, any converts could be assisted by them in staying Kosher!

WHY IS THAT HARD?? i mean, if you won't give up a BLT for Paradise...

As for the final prophet thing, going by what most people's definition seems to be, all the apostles were prophets, so there are a dozen people at least after Jesus. Why the preoccupation with that?

Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Rare is the Christian who would call Paul a Prophet of God

:D

[MustafaMc]

Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Rare is the Christian who would call Paul a Prophet of God, yet consider the following two statements

Odd that the Qur'an lists 20-odd prophets of the OT & NT but Paul isn't one of them.

Azy, I understand from your post that you think I believe Paul is a "Prophet of God". No, far from it! My belief about Paul is reflected in Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.

Earlier I defined what a prophet is and showed how, in my opinion, Paul fit the criteria as the de facto Prophet of Christianity in the same sense as Prophet Muhammad (saaws) is the Prophet of Islam. However, from my perspective, Christians don't believe that a single prophet was sent with a single unified message that was directly revealed from God to establish the religion that we know today as Christianity. My reading of the Bible, particularly Galatians, tells me that Paul claimed to have received a Divine revelation and that he was the primary instigator of doing away with the Judaic Law (not eating pork, circumcision, etc) and establishing the doctrine of God becoming man, living a perfect, sinless life and dying on the cross as a redeeming sacrifice as the only means by which man's original and personal sins can be forgiven. ...but that is just my opinion regarding Paul.

[MustafaMc]

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

going back to the issue of pork for a moment, after looking at Acts Chapter 15, i'm not so sure that it implies what you [or others, sorry] say it does!
...

we see 3 points made about food, a) They must not eat food polluted by being offered to statues of gods. b)They must not eat the meat of animals that have been choked to death and c)they must not drink blood. well, where do THOSE laws come from? the last 2 sentences tell us: These laws of Moses have been preached in every city from the earliest times. They are read out loud in the synagogues every Sabbath day!

again, what laws? THE LAWS OF MOSES! the ones containing the laws on Kosher food, that have been: READ ALOUD IN THE SYNAGOGUES EVERY SABBATH DAY!

so the message is: Keep Kosher and stay away from sexual immorality!

In the OT we read what the Mosaic Law forbids including swine Leviticus 11:7-8 And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you. Of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch; they are unclean unto you. and Deuteronomy 14:8 And the swine, because he parteth the hoof but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you: of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch.

A rebellious people is defined in Isaiah Is 65:2-4 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, that walk in a way that is not good, after their own thoughts; a people that provoke me to my face continually, sacrificing in gardens, and burning incense upon bricks; that sit among the graves, and lodge in the secret places; that eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;

[Keltoi]

it's quite possible that i'm wrong as i never read the NT. i was speaking of the teachings of jesus, not church doctrine.
did jesus say he was going to die for your sins?

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:14-15).

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (NASB) John 1:29

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust . . . (NASB) 1 Peter 3:18

And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. (NASB) 1 John 3:5

(Matthew 20:25-28) But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. {26} "Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. {27} "And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave; {28} "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

(John 6:50-63) "This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. {51} "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."

So yes, Christ did teach that He came to take the sin of the world upon Himself.

[snakelegs]

i stand corrected. i'm really surprised though - it seems so.....well, so un-jewish!
i learned 3 new things about christianity today here on islamicboard! :D
thanks.

[Azy]

but when it comes to food, 3 parts of kosher law were mentioned and the fact that they were preached by Moses. i doubt you would find any bacon sandwiches near the synagogue either. BUT, who says keeping kosher would be hard? THE VAST MAJORITY of the ORIGINAL FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST, were Jews, any converts could be assisted by them in staying Kosher!

WHY IS THAT HARD?? i mean, if you won't give up a BLT for Paradise...

Ok first things first.
You're arguing that Paul is a false prophet, but that we should obey what he says about the law?

On the specifics of your act 15 quote about the laws, the amount of stick people get for misquoting the Qur'an is enormous, but it's fine for you to do it to the Bible :D

Acts 15:
1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."
2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad.
4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.
7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.
8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?
11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

[YusufNoor]

Ok first things first.
You're arguing that Paul is a false prophet, but that we should obey what he says about the law?

actually, it was MustafaMC who said that. my view on Paul is more centered on Acts 8:3:

3But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.

to wit, Paul just changed his tactics, but continued his mission to destroy the church and that he succeeded.


On the specifics of your act 15 quote about the laws, the amount of stick people get for misquoting the Qur'an is enormous, but it's fine for you to do it to the Bible :D

what part did i misquote? i cut and pasted, iirc. just show me and i'll address it, In Sha'a Allah!

btw, and are you implying that "Christians" NEVER misquote the Qur'an??


Acts 15:
1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."
2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad.
4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.
7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.
8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?
11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

addressing that latter part specifically, we aren't talking about saved vrs works, that would be another thread. what i did was follow James' quote to the end, like this:

13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, hearken unto me.

14Simon hath declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out from them a people for His name.

15And to this agree the words of the Prophets, as it is written:

16`After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down. And I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up,

17that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom My name is called, saith the Lord who doeth all these things.'

18Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world.

19Therefore my judgment is that we trouble not those from among the Gentiles who are turned to God,

20but that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21For Moses from olden times hath in every city those who preach him, he being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day."

now follow with me here, i'll type real slow...

we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.


21For Moses from olden times hath in every city those who preach him, he being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day

the original message of Jesus was spread via the Jews in the diaspora and from that diaspora to the gentiles. now in acts we read:

Acts 6
The Choosing of the Seven
1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."

let's review: according to Acts 6:1 there was a daily distribution of food amongst the Christians, comprende? James, speaking in Acts 15:20 says that they must pollutions of idols, ... and from things strangled, and from blood which are part of [Acts 15:21 the laws of:] Moses from olden times hath in every city those who preach him, he being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day. so the "great difficulty" in obtaining the KOSHER food was to ACCEPT WHAT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO YOU!!!!

:omg:

is this clear?

:D

:w:

[Azy]

What can I say?

Read verses 5-11 again. Read them really, really carefully.

Regarding the later verses...
The 4 rules that were sent to the gentiles are discussed here.

THE VAST MAJORITY of the ORIGINAL FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST, were Jews, any converts could be assisted by them in staying Kosher!

Peter says that the Gentiles do not need to eat Kosher food, they had been accepted by God as they were and would continue to be.

Read the sermon on the mount again, the message that Jesus is trying to get across in the whole Bible is that following rituals does not make you a good person, thinking and acting like a good person do.

[barney]

Paul, since he wasnt a Diciple , and diddnt get the magic power after Jesus died, only gets his authority from his vision.

Jesus said that he hadnt come to change one iota of Gods law.

I just wanna say this. If God had all these laws for his chosen ppl, (yeah, im lazy i cant be bothered to type "people" today, hmm...hang on...never mind), then surely what he would choose for his best, we should try to emulate.
Unless of course it seems silly pointless unessecery dogma steeped in sacrifice and pagan nonsense.

[Keltoi]

Paul, since he wasnt a Diciple , and diddnt get the magic power after Jesus died, only gets his authority from his vision.

Jesus said that he hadnt come to change one iota of Gods law.

I just wanna say this. If God had all these laws for his chosen ppl, (yeah, im lazy i cant be bothered to type "people" today, hmm...hang on...never mind), then surely what he would choose for his best, we should try to emulate.
Unless of course it seems silly pointless unessecery dogma steeped in sacrifice and pagan nonsense.

Christ said He didn't come to change the Law, but to fulfill it. Which is why one of his last statements on the Cross was "It is finished"...or another translation would be "It is accomplished".

In any event, Christ's emphasis wasn't on Kosher food, but on the content of character and action...as a previous poster mentioned.

[Azy]

Jesus said that he hadnt come to change one iota of Gods law.

I just wanna say this. If God had all these laws for his chosen ppl, (yeah, im lazy i cant be bothered to type "people" today, hmm...hang on...never mind), then surely what he would choose for his best, we should try to emulate.
Unless of course it seems silly pointless unessecery dogma steeped in sacrifice and pagan nonsense.

He didn't change God's laws, he changed Moses' laws.

[aadil77]

What other animals are Muslims forbidden to eat?

-

out of the main meats only pork+o(

[MustafaMc]

He didn't change God's laws, he changed Moses' laws.

So what Moses brought down from the Mount (Sinai?) wasn't revelaed by God, but rather it was his own personal ideas? I always thought that it was a Divine revelation.

[Azy]

So what Moses brought down from the Mount (Sinai?) wasn't revelaed by God, but rather it was his own personal ideas? I always thought that it was a Divine revelation.

The 10 commandments that were "written with the finger of God" on the stone tablets are referred to as God's law, the others are Moses' laws.
This distinction is made a few times in the OT.

[barney]

But moses wouldnt bring out any law that God wasnt in full agreement with.
God whacked a guy just for trying to stop the arc of the coveneant from toppeling over. He would pretty much smite the Jews left right and centre for transgressions gr8 and small.

Moses having either seen or directed all of that isnt going to say "You must stroke the cat with your elbow of the right arm, but cursed is the woman who strokes the kitten with the left ankle" Unless god wanted this for his people, and indeed all people.

[Azy]

But moses wouldnt bring out any law that God wasnt in full agreement with.
God whacked a guy just for trying to stop the arc of the coveneant from toppeling over. He would pretty much smite the Jews left right and centre for transgressions gr8 and small.

Moses having either seen or directed all of that isnt going to say "You must stroke the cat with your elbow of the right arm, but cursed is the woman who strokes the kitten with the left ankle" Unless god wanted this for his people, and indeed all people.

God was in full agreement as they were dictated by him to Moses.

This issue is covered in Galatians 3:

15 Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.
16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.
17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator.
20 A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.
22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.
24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

[MustafaMc]

God was in full agreement as they were dictated by him to Moses.

How could God NOT be in full agreement with the Law He dictated to Moses?

24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Yes, the book of Galatians speaks volumes to me. First with how Paul got his "revelation" and how he did away with observance of the Judaic Law. What words of Jesus are in agreement with this passage?

[barney]

First with how Paul got his "revelation" and how he did away with observance of the Judaic Law. What words of Jesus are in agreement with this passage?

Paul's actions certainly were not in accordance with the more popular of Jesus teachings, its not a great leap to say he was a lone wolf kinda character. Divinely guided? If so then he seemed to drift a bit from the guidence!

[chacha_jalebi]

cough cough, please do note a eye is being kept on this thread, keep it civil kiddos:D

[FatimaAsSideqah]

cough cough, please do note a eye is being kept on this thread, keep it civil kiddos:D

As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu

Jazaak'Allah Khair.

[Azy]

How could God NOT be in full agreement with the Law He dictated to Moses?

I was just confirming my agreement with barney.

Yes, the book of Galatians speaks volumes to me. First with how Paul got his "revelation" and how he did away with observance of the Judaic Law. What words of Jesus are in agreement with this passage?

Both those events are in Acts, not Galatians.

You're right in that Jesus never explicitly said the words, but a lot of the language used is poetic. I'm not excusing it or condoning it because I neither follow it or believe in it's absolute accuracy, I'm not a christian and never have been/will be, I just find religion and interesting topic.
Anyway, it just seems obvious from the words and actions of Jesus, like the sermon on the mount that we've discussed and Jesus meeting with the sinful Samaritan woman at the well and taking a drink from her (which would have been a big no-no to Jews).

[MustafaMc]

Both those events are in Acts, not Galatians.

What I was referring to is Galatians 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. and Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

What events in Acts are you talking about?

[Azy]

What I was referring to is Galatians 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. and Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

What events in Acts are you talking about?

Just look a couple of pages back. The story of Paul's revelation is in Acts, as is the early church council's explicit declaration voiced by Peter that the followers are not under the law. Galatians is about Paul's letter to the Galatians explaining what had happened.

[E'jaazi]

Just look a couple of pages back. The story of Paul's revelation is in Acts, as is the early church council's explicit declaration voiced by Peter that the followers are not under the law. Galatians is about Paul's letter to the Galatians explaining what had happened.

Christians who do not follow the law are following the teachings of Paul. But according to Jesus, the law is in effect until the end of time. In the book of Revelations, John speaks of many things happening just before the end of time. When these things have happened, he speaks about the old heaven and the old earth passing away, and there being a new heaven and a new earth. Has this happened yet? NO! So now, read what Jesus had to say about the law and when it would no longer be in effect:


Matthew 5:17-20 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20)For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


Jesus clearly states "til heaven and earth pass." So if you call yourself Christian, which means follower of Christ, you are suppose to follow the law. Paul teachings go against the teachings of Jesus. The above verse is very clear.

[YusufNoor]

I was just confirming my agreement with barney.Both those events are in Acts, not Galatians.

You're right in that Jesus never explicitly said the words, but a lot of the language used is poetic. I'm not excusing it or condoning it because I neither follow it or believe in it's absolute accuracy, I'm not a christian and never have been/will be, I just find religion and interesting topic.

OK, THAT surprised me! care to reveal your religious beliefs?

Anyway, it just seems obvious from the words and actions of Jesus, like the sermon on the mount that we've discussed and Jesus meeting with the sinful Samaritan woman at the well and taking a drink from her (which would have been a big no-no to Jews).

Peters' dream in Acts shows him to be still following Kosher food laws, this SHOULD eliminate any question of whether or not Jesus did away with those particular laws.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

speaking of Galations, i was watching the Frontline show From Jesus To Christ: The first Christians, and the Professors there raise some interesting poinst.

first and foremost of these is this:

NARRATOR: With so little evidence to go by, archeologists must sift the clues and scholars decode the stories told by the first followers of Jesus.

Prof. MICHAEL WHITE, University of Texas, Austin: The problem for any historian in trying to reconstruct the life of Jesus is simply that we don't have sources that come from the actual time of Jesus himself. HOLLAND L. HENDRIX, President, Union Theological Seminary: The historian's task in understanding Jesus and the Jesus movement and early Christianity is a lot like the archaeologist's task in excavating a tell. You peel back layer after layer after layer of interpretation, and what you always find is a plurality of Jesuses
so no contemperaneous evidence and a plurality of Jesus!

regarding Gentiles being interested in Judaism:

Prof. PAULA FREDRIKSEN, Boston University: Why do gentiles join the movement? There is this tremendous religious prestige, thanks to the antiquity of the Jewish Bible. By entering into the church, these Christians enter into that history as well. That's tremendously prestigious and important
one of points as well is that the early Christians were interested in Judaism adn the Jewish Bible! it's one of the attractions, NOT a stumbling block! all 613 mitzvahs? maybe not, but still...

NARRATOR: Like most Jewish communities, the early followers of Jesus assembled for worship in each other's homes.

Prof. WAYNE MEEKS, Yale University: Among the things that make the Christians different are a couple of rituals, which they developed early on, before the very earliest sources that we have about them. One of these is an initiation ceremony, which they call "baptism," which is simply a Greek word that means dunking. A second major ritual which they developed is a meal, a common meal which they have together, which is designed as a memorial of the Last Supper which Jesus had with his disciples.

ahem, THEY ATE TOGETHER!

regarding how Jewish one must become:

Prof. MICHAEL WHITE: Now the situation seems to be that initially, when people were attracted to the Jesus movement, they first became Jews.

NARRATOR: Becoming a Jew was no easy matter. It meant conforming to strict Jewish laws.

READER: [Leviticus 11:46-47] "This is the law to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten."

Prof. MICHAEL WHITE: There are several issues involved here. One is the notion of the dietary laws, the eating restrictions that would have obtained for eating certain kinds of food if one was an observant Jew, also with whom one could eat.

looking back at the words of Jesus, the whole clean and unclean seems to me to point to the issue of people and not food...

but Paul appears to see things differently:

Prof. SHAYE J.D. COHEN, Brown University: We now have, Paul says, a new map of the world. The old distinctions between Jews and gentiles are now obliterated. They have now been supplanted by a new and truer and more wonderful and more beautiful map, in which we have a new Israel that will embrace both Jews and gentiles, all those who now accept the new covenant and the new faith.

READER: [Galatians 3:28] "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

so were back to Galations, what is going on here?

Prof. MICHAEL WHITE: And that would spark one of the most important controversies of the first generation: Do you have to become a Jew in order to be a follower of Jesus as the messiah?

we may have found our issue!

READER: [Galatians 2:1-2] "I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas and I laid before the acknowledged leaders the gospel that I proclaim among the gentiles.
BUT! notice Paul is coming to Jerusalem to inform the leaders of the Church about the Gospel that he is proclaiming!? so, it's a different gospel? NOT being an acknowledged leader, he must be acting on his own...

Prof. MICHAEL WHITE: Paul says explicitly that he went down to Jerusalem to meet with the leaders of the church there. He calls them the "pillars."

notice Paul is not one of the Pillars...

now, some sort of agreement SEEMS to, be reached but:
Prof. ALLEN CALLAHAN: A classic showdown in the history of earliest Christianity, and Paul tells the story this way. He says that in Antioch he encountered Peter, who was having a meal with non-Israelite Jesus people. Peter thought this was all right until the contingent from Jerusalem came.

Prof. PAULA FREDRIKSEN: And they tap Peter on the shoulder and Peter stops attending these banquets. And then we get a great passage of "Espuit de l'espalier." It's probably what Paul wishes he had thought to say to Peter at the time, but in the letter it's presented as what he says to Peter. And he's yelling at Peter for not being true to the Gospel and not being true to Christ and not being true to this vision of things. And what he's really yelling at Peter about is food.

so what's the result?

Prof. ALLEN CALLAHAN: And the way Paul tells it is he says, "Well, you know, I confronted Peter publicly. I told him he was a hypocrite. I told him off to his face. I told him off in front of everybody." End of story.

Well, the story really doesn't have an end. You know, we'd like Paul to tell us that after he told Peter off, he sort of skulked back to Jerusalem with his tail between his legs and then Paul gave James and his party the what for and then he threw them out or something like that. Nothing like that. Paul's completely silent.

Now, this suggests to us that Paul indeed had a showdown in Antioch. He did face off with Peter. He didn't win. He didn't carry the day, at least not that day. So this suggests to us that James's party was influential and influential outside its Jerusalem jurisdiction, and that perhaps James and his posse were there because they felt that their authority should be exercised outside of the jurisdiction of Jerusalem.

Prof. MICHAEL WHITE: The blow-up in Antioch over eating with gentiles probably is the turning point in Paul's career. Paul left and went to western Turkey or Asia Minor and Greece. For the next 10 years, from 50 to roughly 60, Paul will concentrate all of his efforts in this region of the Aegean basin.

source:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...c/script1.html

so Paul loses and Paul then spends the next 10 years out of the reach of the leaders of the church! no agreement anymore! YET, Christianity continued to expand, this should lead one to conclude that Gentiles were no longer unclean as they continued to join the church, but unclean food was out! of course, i believe that it was never in...

:w:

[YusufNoor]

Just look a couple of pages back. The story of Paul's revelation is in Acts, as is the early church council's explicit declaration voiced by Peter that the followers are not under the law. Galatians is about Paul's letter to the Galatians explaining what had happened.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance:

let's look at Paul's Revelation:

Acts 9
Saul's Conversion
1Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest 2and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

and again in Acts 26:


Passage Acts 26 :

12"On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,[a] 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'

15"Then I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?'

" 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 16'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

So Paul is given the mission to:

I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God

so, Paul will be sent to the Gentiles, THAT is the revelation. now, HOW will he know what to do?

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

go into the city and "you will be told what you must do!"

so it looks like Paul should follow the orders that he is given!

:w:

[Keltoi]

What about this line in the Qu'ran, which I admit I don't consider an authority on the life of Christ, but...

(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me, and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you...
Surat-u Ali Imran (3):50

[Azy]

OK, THAT surprised me! care to reveal your religious beliefs?

I don't have any religious beliefs.

Peters' dream in Acts shows him to be still following Kosher food laws, this SHOULD eliminate any question of whether or not Jesus did away with those particular laws.

Peter's vision is an analogy.

It's more about God making the hearts of the Gentiles clean and that Peter should accept them, notice it is part of a story in which Cornelius comes to meet Peter and he invites him into his house (which would be unusual for a Jew and a Gentile at the time due to them being considered unclean). It makes sense in the context of the whole chapter.

Like you said, the unclean/clean issue was more to do with people and that those who were once considered unclean should be accepted. This does relate to the food issue in that those who were not Jews were not expected to follow the Jewish laws (which were only intended for the 'chosen' people in the Old Testament, not people of any other nation).

I know muslims have a huge beef with Paul and his corruption of the teachings, but it is in Acts 15:5-11 where the Jews are told that God accepts the Gentiles without them following Jewish law.
It is Peter who told them and Luke who wrote this part of the Bible, so how can you say it is Paul trying to persuade people not to follow the jewish laws?

[kirk]

The members of each religion take guidance from their imams, bishops, rabbis or what ever.

To us Atheists the logic of the various rulings often makes no sense at all!

The Christians have ruled that there is no ban on eating pork. If you feel it makes no sense then join the club!

K

[YusufNoor]

I don't have any religious beliefs.
Peter's vision is an analogy.

It's more about God making the hearts of the Gentiles clean and that Peter should accept them, notice it is part of a story in which Cornelius comes to meet Peter and he invites him into his house (which would be unusual for a Jew and a Gentile at the time due to them being considered unclean). It makes sense in the context of the whole chapter.

Like you said, the unclean/clean issue was more to do with people and that those who were once considered unclean should be accepted. This does relate to the food issue in that those who were not Jews were not expected to follow the Jewish laws (which were only intended for the 'chosen' people in the Old Testament, not people of any other nation).

I know muslims have a huge beef with Paul and his corruption of the teachings, but it is in Acts 15:5-11 where the Jews are told that God accepts the Gentiles without them following Jewish law.
It is Peter who told them and Luke who wrote this part of the Bible, so how can you say it is Paul trying to persuade people not to follow the jewish laws?

see, hear we'd tell you that there is no indication prior to the late 2nd century who the author is and the PRIMARY ISSUE at hand seems to be circumcision! there's no "yoke" affiliated with keeping kosher, over a BILLION people keep a "halal diet" and is not difficult.

actually my belief in THIS matter predates my Islam. most of my views came from Herbert W Armstrong's writings, hence the "heretic" nic under my name as the Christians on this board don't consider him a Christian.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

i reckon we look for little gems of the truth in the NT! :D

:w:

[Azy]

see, hear we'd tell you that there is no indication prior to the late 2nd century who the author is and the PRIMARY ISSUE at hand seems to be circumcision! there's no "yoke" affiliated with keeping kosher, over a BILLION people keep a "halal diet" and is not difficult.

The issue is with all the Mosaic law, circumcision was mentioned specifically because it is something that must be done to them rather than a rule they must follow.

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

You might not see keeping kosher as a difficulty, but there are 613 rules in the Mosaic law as I'm sure you're aware.

Keeping a halal diet might not be difficult, especially if you live in a place where there is no haram food. Where I live there are more muslim owned food shops than non-muslim, and still I see muslims eating haram food. I don't know any muslims that haven't broken the rules at some point, and most that I know do on a regular basis.
It's all very well saying a billion people follow this rule, but when there is no alternative and no temptation for most of these is it really something praise-worthy?
Same issue with the Gentiles, they would have had a whole heap of new rules to follow that the Jews had been observing for a thousand years and could easily follow as they were surrounded by other Jews, but even then a lot of them were just churning through rituals for the sake of keeping up appearances, the underlying motives were not being considered. That's why Jesus had a big problem with the Pharisees and scribes, they were acting all holy and pious and showing how good they were, but their reasons were not genuine, they were just being arrogant about how much better they were at following rules than other people.

[MustafaMc]

READER: [Galatians 2:1-2] "I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas and I laid before the acknowledged leaders the gospel that I proclaim among the gentiles.
BUT! notice Paul is coming to Jerusalem to inform the leaders of the Church about the Gospel that he is proclaiming!? so, it's a different gospel? NOT being an acknowledged leader, he must be acting on his own...

Prof. MICHAEL WHITE: Paul says explicitly that he went down to Jerusalem to meet with the leaders of the church there. He calls them the "pillars."

notice Paul is not one of the Pillars...

Very nice link and information from a non-Muslim analysis.

Yet, what did Paul think of those pillars of reputation and what was his relationship to them?

Galatians 2:4 ... in order to bring us into bondage (observance of law - circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc) 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel (that he personally brought to them) would remain with you. 6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiallity) -well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. (sounds like words of contempt and opposition to me).

Who were these pillars he was in conflict with? 9 ... James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars ...

[MustafaMc]

Keeping a halal diet might not be difficult, especially if you live in a place where there is no haram food. Where I live there are more muslim owned food shops than non-muslim, and still I see muslims eating haram food. I don't know any muslims that haven't broken the rules at some point, and most that I know do on a regular basis.

What do you define as haram, or forbidden? How many Muslims have you seen to eat bacon, sausage, pork chops, chitterlings or pickled pig feet? What about food sacrificed to idols?

In Islam there is relatively little that is forbidden (haram) as detailed in the Qur'an.
Qur'an 6:145 O Muhammad tell them: I did not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, except the meat of an already dead animal, or running blood or the flesh of swine (pork) - for these are unclean - or flesh of an animal which has become profane because of slaughtering in the names other than Allah. Even so, if anyone is forced in a helpless situation, intending neither disobedience nor transgression, you will find your Rabb Forgiving, Merciful.

Qur'an 5:3 You are forbidden to eat the meat of any animal that dies by itself (dead body), blood, the flesh of swine (pork) and that on which any name other than Allah has been invoked; also that which is strangled to death, killed by a violent blow, killed by a headlong fall and of those beaten or gored to death; and that which has been partly eaten by a wild animal unless you are able to slaughter it before its death; also that which is sacrificed on altars or is divided by raffling of arrows.

There is some disagreement in the interpretation of this ayat, but People of the Book is often understood to be Jews and Christians. Some interpret it to mean that food of Christians, except for pork, is permissible (halal).
Qur'an 5:5 Today all good clean things have been made lawful for you; and the food of the People of the Book is also made lawful for you and your food is made lawful for them....

To avoid the questionable, my wife and I shop for zabiha meat (slaughter properly with name of Allah spoken) from a Muslim market in a major city 130 miles away and we eat vegetable, seafood or fish from restaurants.

It's all very well saying a billion people follow this rule, but when there is no alternative and no temptation for most of these is it really something praise-worthy?

Why does one have to be surrounded by temptation in order for following rules to be praise-worthy? We Muslims strive for the pleasure of Allah, not the praise of men.

[MustafaMc]

What about this line in the Qu'ran, which I admit I don't consider an authority on the life of Christ, but...

(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me, and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you...
Surat-u Ali Imran (3):50

We don't know the details of what Jesus (as) allowed from what was previously forbidden, but it is highly doubtful that Jesus allowed the consumption of pork. Perhaps, man had erroneously added to the law to make it unnecessarily burdensome.

One of the things that Jesus addressed was activity on the Sabbath as he healed and allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath.

[Keltoi]

We don't know the details of what Jesus (as) allowed from what was previously forbidden, but it is highly doubtful that Jesus allowed the consumption of pork. Perhaps, man had erroneously added to the law to make it unnecessarily burdensome.

One of the things that Jesus addressed was activity on the Sabbath as he healed and allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath.

As far as we know, Christ didn't address the issue of dietary law at all, except for the verse in which He states that nothing eaten can make one unclean. That could mean we should take it for granted, or it could mean He didn't feel He needed or wanted to emphasize it. From the standpoint of the Jewish people, there was no call for Gentiles to abide by the same set of laws given them through Moses. These laws were specific to the people of Israel.

In any event, this debate went on for quite awhile within the early church, many of whom still considered themselves to be "Jewish" in the religious sense, not to mention those who were Jewish in both the religious and ethnic sense. I doubt we are going to cover any ground here that they themselves didn't consider.

[YusufNoor]

The issue is with all the Mosaic law, circumcision was mentioned specifically because it is something that must be done to them rather than a rule they must follow.

and something that could be considered difficult!

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

You might not see keeping kosher as a difficulty, but there are 613 rules in the Mosaic law as I'm sure you're aware.

yes, but one must figure out which of those mitzvahs are of the "spiritual" type and therefore should still be followed

Keeping a halal diet might not be difficult, especially if you live in a place where there is no haram food.

i live in the US so there is more haram food than not

Where I live there are more muslim owned food shops than non-muslim,

and In Sha'a Allah, i will too one day!


and still I see muslims eating haram food. I don't know any muslims that haven't broken the rules at some point, and most that I know do on a regular basis.
It's all very well saying a billion people follow this rule, but when there is no alternative and no temptation for most of these is it really something praise-worthy?

i'm one of the millions that live in temptation with little alternative, yey just a little discipline is all it takes...


Same issue with the Gentiles, they would have had a whole heap of new rules to follow that the Jews had been observing for a thousand years and could easily follow as they were surrounded by other Jews, but even then a lot of them were just churning through rituals for the sake of keeping up appearances, the underlying motives were not being considered.

yet, there MUST be some laws, eh?

That's why Jesus had a big problem with the Pharisees and scribes, they were acting all holy and pious and showing how good they were, but their reasons were not genuine, they were just being arrogant about how much better they were at following rules than other people.

actually, it goes down to the divsion between the Hillel and Shimei schools of Jewish though, Jesus' words reflect the Hillel school while the Shimei is more interested in following the rules...

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

the problem is that IF you believe the NT to be accurate, then you should follow it and use it as guidance and as a proof.

here's a little article by Herbert W. Armsrtong regarding food stuffs:

http://www.lynxconnect.com/~dawson/a...nimalflesh.htm

one regarding Holy Days:

http://www.lynxconnect.com/~dawson/a...A/HOLYDAYS.HTM

one about Christmas:

http://www.lynxconnect.com/~dawson/a.../BA/PTXMAS.HTM

two about Easter:

http://www.lynxconnect.com/~dawson/a.../BA/PTEAST.HTM

http://www.lynxconnect.com/~dawson/a.../BA/RESNOS.HTM

and one about the 10 Commandments:

http://www.lynxconnect.com/~dawson/a...ng/BA/T10C.HTM

i think that you must belive that the NT is the TOTAL TRUTH so that you follow it ALL, or that you realize that it's a new Gospel, probably authored by Paul and that a new Rebelation was needed to get us back on the Straight Path!

hence, Islam!

:w:

[Azy]

What do you define as haram, or forbidden? How many Muslims have you seen to eat bacon, sausage, pork chops, chitterlings or pickled pig feet? What about food sacrificed to idols?

I'm not just talking about food.
Drinking, smoking, drugs, sex outside marriage, illegitimate earnings & gambling along with eating food which is almost certainly not halal (I don't know if McDonalds and the like perform the correct blessing :?).

Why does one have to be surrounded by temptation in order for following rules to be praise-worthy? We Muslims strive for the pleasure of Allah, not the praise of men.

I said praise-worthy as I couldn't think of a better word at the time, it's not really what I meant.

Saying 'a BILLION' people keep to a halal diet as if it's meant to be an impressive figure has the opposite effect, since the more people there are following it, the easier it is for each individual. It's practically impossible to eat haram in many countries.

YusufNoor, yes some laws - God's laws, the ten commandments cover the basics.

This thing is going to go on forever and the outcome doesn't affect me in the slightest, so I'm going to make this my last post in this particular thread.
Keltoi covered it more succinctly than I could in his post.

Jesus was right though, people just bicker over the details of the laws and lose focus on the real humanitarian issues that need attention.