Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Dietary Laws

[LittleSoldier]

This question is really about whether or not Christians should place so much faith in “visions”.

The Bible continually warns that one can “err in vision” (Isaiah 28:7) and it says that there are “false visions” (Ezekiel 21:29; 22:28; Jeremiah 14:14; Ezekiel 12:24). A false vision is a “futile vision” (Ezekiel 13:7). That is it is “a vision without substance”

In fact, the Bible says that some visions are not only false, but are actually “deceptive” (Lamentations 2:14). That means that some visions are meant to deceive.

With all due respect, what I see here is an extreme lack of logic.

First, that isn’t the question at all.

Second, you are trying to use the bible to discredit the bible!

Either the bible is the Word of God or it is not the Word of God. It isn’t the Word of God in one passage and not the Word of God in another passage. Is this how you look at the Qur’an - picking out lines and passages and saying some are the Word of God and some aren’t?

The bible is the Word of God. All of it. That is a core concept of Christianity.

If there were a passage after the description of the vision that stated something like: “This wasn’t really a vision and shouldn’t be taken that way. This is an example of a “deceptive” vision.” then you would have a point. But there is no such passage.

We *know *for a fact that Peter had the vision, and as there is no indication *anywhere *that this vision is deceptive, it is to be taken as a communication from God. It’s one of the clearest parts of the Bible to me.

And it clearly shows that we are allowed to eat any animal: beef, pork, fowl, shellfish, even camels, hares, and lizards. You may not like the fact that Christians eat pork. I don’t really care for it, myself. But I’m not going to tell Christians that eating pork isn’t OK. It’s perfectly acceptable.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Basic rule

Judaism: Only foods (or categories of foods) that are explicitly permitted can be eaten. Such foods are called kosher; foods that are not kosher are called traif.

Islam: Any food that is not explicitly forbidden (haram) is permitted (halal).

Meat

J: Only cloven-hoofed animals that chew their cud can be eaten. Thus, cows, sheep, and goats are OK among domesticated animals, plus the deer family. Pigs (cloven hoofs but don’t chew their cud) are forbidden. By-products made from prohibited animals are also prohibited.

I: Only pigs are explicitly prohibited in the Quran, and related by-products (such as lard, gelatin, etc.). Animals with claws and fangs (predators and carrion eaters) are prohibited implicitly but not explicitly. Some foods are considered disgusting even though not expressly prohibited (makruh). This can vary by region for animals such as donkeys, pelicans, weasels, foxes, ravens, and crocodiles, for instance.

Slaughter

J: Animal must be slaughtered appropriately, which includes the throat being slit in a quick and merciful manner. Any other form of death renders the animal non-kosher. After slaughter, the carcass is examined for defects and disease, the presence of which makes the meat non-kosher. Drinking of blood is prohibited, and this means that all the blood must be drained from the body, and the meat washed and soaked in salt to remove the blood. Certain parts of the animal may not be eaten, including certain fats and the sciatic nerve, both of which are found in the hindquarters; consequently, many Jews do not eat the hindquarters. NOTE: Observant Jews living away from a kosher butcher have to import their meat. Meat slaughtered by a non-kosher butcher is never acceptable (except in cases of starvation or medical necessity).

I: The animal must be slaughtered appropriately, which includes the throat being slit in a quick and merciful manner. Drinking of blood is prohibited, and this means that all the blood must be drained from the body. Game animals are OK, but the meat of any animal killed by a blow, falling from a height, or gored with horns is prohibited. NOTE: Muslims living in an area that does not have an official Muslim slaughterer can eat kosher meat that has met the rules of Jewish slaughter. If there is no kosher meat available, Muslims may eat meat from Christian butchers, excluding pigs.

Birds

J: The rules are complex because the Torah lists specific prohibited species, and the rabbis draw conclusions about broader prohibited characteristics. Basically, the common domesticated birds are OK, such as chicken, turkeys, ducks, geese, and pigeons. Birds of prey are prohibited. Only eggs from kosher birds are permitted.

I: Although not specifically forbidden by the Quran, birds of prey and carrion-eaters are considered to be prohibited.

Fish and seafood

J: Fish must have scales and fins. For example, catfish (fins but no scales) are not permitted. Lobsters, crabs and shrimp are prohibited, having neither fins nor scales. There is no particular slaughter method necessary for fish.

I: All seafood is permitted, and there is no particular slaughter method required. Some Muslims, noting certain sayings of the Prophet that crawling sea creatures (shrimp, crabs, lobsters, etc.) are disgusting, refrain from eating these. Similarly, catfish, while not explicitly prohibited, is not preferred.

Rodents and reptiles

J: Prohibited, since they don’t have cloven hoofs or chew their cuds. Also prohibited as creatures that “creep” and “crawl.” Prohibited by implication, but not directly. Insects Generally prohibited as creatures that “creep and crawl.” A few species of locusts are permitted, but we can no longer identify them with certainty (the ancient Hebrew terms are no longer clear).

I: Prohibited (except for certain locusts).

Alcohol

J: No prohibition, although some authorities require certification of the alcohol to ensure that there was no contact with non-kosher elements.

I: Anything that interferes with the clear functioning of the mind is prohibited. This includes alcohol and intoxicating drugs. Alcohol is prohibited either as a beverage or in food preparation; thus pure vanilla and other extracts pose a problem, as do mouthwashes with alcohol.

Vegetables and fruits

J: There are no prohibitions; any fruit or vegetable is permitted. However, some authorities exclude certain vegetables — like broccoli — to prevent the possibility that small insects or insect parts might have lodged in the tiny crevices.

I: There are no prohibitions; any fruit or vegetable is permitted.

Other

J: Any food that has been consecrated to an idol is prohibited. Eating meat and dairy products in the same meal is not permitted. The rules here become very complex, including separate dishes and silverware to be used for “meat” meals and for “dairy” meals. Traditional Jews check the ingredients on foods (thanks to modern labeling!) to ensure there is no mixture of dairy and meat products. The rules on cheeses are very complex, since cheese is curdled in rennet (a meat by-product, but not itself a food).

I: Any food that has been consecrated to another deity is prohibited. (Kosher food is OK, since it is killed in the name of Allah’s earlier Revelation.) Islam has no rules on mixtures of types of foods.

Food (or its absence) is usually an important part of any celebration. Although Christianity does not have specific dietary prohibitions, the rite of communion involves bread and wine, and Catholics tend to refrain from eating meat during Lent. Traditions such as Christmas puddings or Easter eggs also tie foods into religious celebration. And families, in all religions, tend to have traditional meals on holidays.

Thanks! This is a great post! It’ll be very helpful in this thread.

 

[hamba2han]

This passage is about being drunk. Totally out of context.
It also says that these same people (being drunk) can err in judgement. Are we to distrust all judgement, even our own?

Here is the deal → I will readily acknowledge and accept that Isaiah 28:7 is only referring to a drunken person who see visions… but only on the condition that Christians will also readily acknowledge and accept that Matthew 15:11 i.e. "What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ " is ONLY referring to those who eat with unwashed hands, NOT as a blanket permission for Christians to eat just about any food that they desire regardless of any religious prohibitions.

Of course there are. There are “false visions” and true visions. Just as there are false prophets and true prophets.

The existance of false prophets doesn’t mean that we can’t believe true prophets, but it does mean that we need to exercise judgement. I judge that Peter was not a false prophet.

I too judge that Peter was not a false prophet… but I would hasten to add that I also judge Peter to be not a true prophet.

In other words, I judge that Peter was not any kind of prophet at all, whether true or false.

Does that mean that we are to distrust all visions? Is that what you’re saying? In that case, why in the world are you a Muslim?

Muslims as well as Christians should NEVER believe in visions which are totally against the teachings of Jesus (pbuh).

Matthew 5:17-20
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.

 

[blazerdave]

Totally agree. And again…anyone who thinks that Christ was talking only about ceremony doesn’t understand the deeper meaning of Christ’s words. Anyone who doubts Peter’s vision doesn’t understand that it was about the Gospel. And this isn’t just Dave claiming this…any priest, theologian, or slightly-educated layperson would say the same thing. So to demand that we impose ridiculous restrictions and conditions on the text is beyond belief. We will do no such thing, for it is not for man to restrict the word of God based on another’s mistaken personal opinions.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Here is the deal → I will readily acknowledge and accept that Isaiah 28:7 is only referring to a drunken person who see visions… but only on the condition that Christians will also readily acknowledge and accept that Matthew 15:11 i.e. "What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ " is ONLY referring to those who eat with unwashed hands, NOT as a blanket permission for Christians to eat just about any food that they desire regardless of any religious prohibitions.

Hamba, this isn’t some sort of game where we can make compromises in an attempt to change your mind. There is no “give and take” here. We aren’t discussing a treaty! The bible is the Word of God. Who are you to decide how Christians should interpret the bible?Who are *you *to try to make deals? I am trying to be charitable here, honestly, but your comments in the part of your post I quoted above are really inappropriate and arrogant (not to mention absolutely bizarre).

I too judge that Peter was not a false prophet… but I would hasten to add that I also judge Peter to be not a true prophet.

In other words, I judge that Peter was not any kind of prophet at all, whether true or false.

Peter was (and is) an Apostle. He is also the rock on which the Catholic Church is founded. Jesus Himself is the one who founded His Church on the rock of Peter. Peter’s words in the bible are the Word of God. His experiences as described in the bible have a divine source.

Muslims as well as Christians should NEVER believe in visions which are totally against the teachings of Jesus (pbuh).

You know, I am beginning to think that the “pbuh” that is sometimes put after the name of Jesus is an acronym for empty words. I say this because I see absolutely no respect for Jesus coming from you. You don’t take the time to try to understand His role. You don’t study the bible. You don’t take passages in context. You seem to be very lackadaisical about Christianity. It doesn’t help your cause one bit.

Matthew 5:17-20
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.

Hamba, do you believe the Qur’an is the Word of God? Please try to understand that Christians believe the bible is the Word of God. We don’t monkey around with it. It’s too precious and it’s not our place to do so. You obviously don’t understand the bible and you obviously don’t understand the role of Jesus in our salvation.

And you don’t treat Jesus or his followers with respect.

 

[elwill]

we didn’t try to selevtively use your book , we allready have our book and we believe in all of it

what about you , are you believe in whole your book or selectively either

when you says that bible says so , then we point about to contradictory point in the same bible , it dosn’t mean that we selectively use bible . you are the one who consider it your holy book , you are the one who selctevely using it

 

[LittleSoldier]

we didn’t try to selevtivity use your book , we allready have our book and we believe in all of it

what about you , are you believe in whole your book or selectivity either

when you says that bible says so , then we point about to contradictory point in the same bible , it dosn’t mean that we selectively use bible . you are the one who consider it your holy book , you are the one who selctevely using it

Are you and Hamba the same person? The remark was directed at Hamba, not you. But you use the word “we” - that’s an indication to me that you two are either the same person or are presenting some sort of united front in this thread.

Of course Christians believe in the entire bible. Didn’t I already say that? By “point about to contradictory point in the same bible” you are right. That, in itself, does not mean you selectively use the bible.

You selectively use the bible because you can’t seem to take its words in context. I’m seeing a real problem with that. You obviously don’t understand it - it’s a difficult work for anyone to understand. But those that either pretend to understand or who scan anti-Christian websites for pat answers to Christian questions and points, or those who scan the bible itself and then post “contradictions” out of context, are selectively using the bible.

Christians (at least the ones who are educated in this subject) try their best to use scripture in context.

That is the difference.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Here is the deal → I will readily acknowledge and accept that Isaiah 28:7 is only referring to a drunken person who see visions… but only on the condition that Christians will also readily acknowledge and accept that Matthew 15:11 i.e. "What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ " is ONLY referring to those who eat with unwashed hands, NOT as a blanket permission for Christians to eat just about any food that they desire regardless of any religious prohibitions.

I too judge that Peter was not a false prophet… but I would hasten to add that I also judge Peter to be not a true prophet.

In other words, I judge that Peter was not any kind of prophet at all, whether true or false.

Muslims as well as Christians should NEVER believe in visions which are totally against the teachings of Jesus (pbuh).

Matthew 5:17-20
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.

Hamba, please answer me seriously. Is the post I quoted above an attempt to have this thread closed?

If so, I want you to know I don’t appreciate a poster coming into a thread where I am the OP and attempting to shut it down.

 

[hamba2han]

Hamba, please answer me seriously. Is the post I quoted above an attempt to have this thread closed?

If so, I want you to know I don’t appreciate a poster coming into a thread where I am the OP and attempting to shut it down.

Sometimes, I do wish that I had the power to close threads that I disagree with… but alas, I do not think that I possess the power or influence to do this.

On the other hand, I suppose that it is not entirely impossible that I could be mistaken about this.

Nah… I don’t think it is possible… is it?

 

[LittleSoldier]

planten wrote: You should remember that you become what you eat. If you eat chicken you become a chicken. If you eat vegetables, you become a cow. If you eat meat, you become a tiger or wolf or eagle.

How in the world could eating a hamburger turn someone into a wolf or an eagle? How could eating vegetables turn someone into a cow? That post shows a lot of confusion.

Planten wrote:So I see that by eating swine, you are becoming a swine. That is the natural consequence. By eating the flesh of swine (which was allowed to you by Paul. He took christianity to greece. He wanted to please the Greeks and permitted eating of swine because they loved it too much.)you have disgraced Jesus.

Well eating pork might make you turn in to a pig…If you lived in crazy world.
I think religions, that like to have a go at us for eating all sorts of food are just jealous. That Jesus makes us so strong that we can;t be corrupted by a food. Not our fault other prophet’s teachings are so false or weak, that their follows aren’t strong enough to eat everything, that the good lord put on this earth.

Your point about Jesus making us so strong that we can’t be corrupted by a food is well-taken. Thank you. That is an excellent thought.

Not to mention the fact that humans were given dominion over the animals:

“Then God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all wild animals and all creatures that crawl on the ground.’ ” [Genesis 1:26, New American Bible]

Of course that passage alone doesn’t mean we can eat meat, and there were laws which restricted the diets of Jews (and for good reason), but it still shows that God gave us dominion over the animals.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Sometimes, I do wish that I had the power to close threads that I disagree with… but alas, I do not think that I possess the power or influence to do this.

On the other hand, I suppose that it is not entirely impossible that I could be mistaken about this.

Nah… I don’t think it is possible… is it?

It’s possible, although you would run the risk of simply being banned while the thread was kept open.

Thank you for your answer. I take the threads I start very seriously.

 

[planten]

How in the world could eating a hamburger turn someone into a wolf or an eagle? How could eating vegetables turn someone into a cow? That post shows a lot of confusion.

L S, There is no confusion. You observe the meat eating animals (tigers, lions, cheeta, Eagle, wolf) They are ferocious.

Then observe the vegetable (plants only) eating animals (goats, sheep, cows) are mild, gentle. There is no doubt that the nature of the food affects the nature of the consumers. So consuming the flesh of a dirty shameless animal would make the consumers shameless.

Your point about Jesus making us so strong that we can’t be corrupted by a food is well-taken. Thank you. That is an excellent thought

.
I couldnot understand it. I have no problem with Jesus and his associates. The problem is with the present day christians.

Not to mention the fact that humans were given dominion over the animals:

“Then God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all wild animals and all creatures that crawl on the ground.’ ” [Genesis 1:26, New American Bible]

Of course that passage alone doesn’t mean we can eat meat, and there were laws which restricted the diets of Jews (and for good reason), but it still shows that God gave us dominion over the animals.

That is all irrelevant. God gave some commands to His people (The Jews). That was for their physical and spiritual benefit. They were strictly forbidden to consume the flesh of swine.

Now the christians eulogising the flesh of swine as if it was the best thing in the world puts a big question on the beliefs of the christians who hail from Jesus who hailed from the Jews. The chiristians are misusing the words of Jesus out of context to commit a serious sin in this regard. I see that they are disregarding the aims and words of Jesus. They can do what they like. They may have to explain things to the Jews and the Muslims and the rest of the world. That is all. which they are not able to do.

We need not make laws for ourselves when our Maker made them for us. I feel that it was necessary to have explicit permission in the words of Jesus to consume the flesh of swine. There were many other things in which it was necessary to have explicit words from Jesus himself to go against his earlier commands.

To me hamba is doing very well and so is elwill. Please listen to them. They are guiding you to the goodness in your own scripture.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Here is the deal → I will readily acknowledge and accept that Isaiah 28:7 is only referring to a drunken person who see visions… but only on the condition that Christians will also readily acknowledge and accept that Matthew 15:11 i.e. "What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ " is ONLY referring to those who eat with unwashed hands, NOT as a blanket permission for Christians to eat just about any food that they desire regardless of any religious prohibitions.

Nope, sorry.
The Isaiah quote that you took out of context was obviously logically referring to a specific type of person in a specific situation.

In the case of Matthew 15:11, Jesus was using the occasion of eating with unwashed hands as a “teachable moment” to make a GENERAL statement. His words were unambiguously generalizing the teaching, something distinctively different than the Isaiah quote which you misused. Notice how Jesus first "called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand:” in the previous verse.

In fact, in the parallel story given to us by St. Mark (and thus which has St. Peter as its source), St. Mark goes on to drive home the point (in INSPIRED SCRIPTURE) when he says: “Thus he declared all foods clean.” [Mark 7:19]

So, lest anyone take the stand that you are taking, it is disallowed specifically by Mark’s gospel.

I too judge that Peter was not a false prophet… but I would hasten to add that I also judge Peter to be not a true prophet.

In other words, I judge that Peter was not any kind of prophet at all, whether true or false.

That goes against definition. Peter claimed a vision was sent to him by God. If it was, Peter was a prophet by definition. If it was not, then by definition he was a false prophet.

You can’t re-define the word “prophet” as you choose.

St. Peter was a true prophet of God.

Muslims as well as Christians should NEVER believe in visions which are totally against the teachings of Jesus (pbuh).

Christians do not.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I agree.

Thank you, Hamba.

 

[Reuben_J]

That’s true, the addiction does impair you.

Did you know that drug addiction is actually condemned in the Bible?

The Bible addresses the use of drugs in the book of Galatians:

‘‘Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.’’ (Galatians 5:19-21)

So, where are the drugs mentioned in this verse? Actually, the word translated “sorcery” is the Greek word pharmakeia, from which we get the English word “pharmacy.” The primary meaning is “the use or the administering of drugs” (usually associated with sorcery or idolatry).

The Bible also has a lot to say on people who get drunk…

So it says, drink ( a little of it) but do not be a drunkard.

If you must be drunk, let it be with the Holy Spirit. … (obviously not the acoholic spirit )

 

[Reuben_J]

we didn’t try to selevtively use your book , we allready have our book and we believe in all of it

what about you , are you believe in whole your book or selectively either

when you says that bible says so , then we point about to contradictory point in the same bible , it dosn’t mean that we selectively use bible . you are the one who consider it your holy book , you are the one who selctevely using it

There is no contradiction there as been clearly pointed out. But if you twist the Bible’s message beyond recognition then that is being selective.

 

[Reuben_J]

Totally agree. And again…anyone who thinks that Christ was talking only about ceremony doesn’t understand the deeper meaning of Christ’s words. Anyone who doubts Peter’s vision doesn’t understand that it was about the Gospel. And this isn’t just Dave claiming this…any priest, theologian, or slightly-educated layperson would say the same thing. So to demand that we impose ridiculous restrictions and conditions on the text is beyond belief. We will do no such thing, for it is not for man to restrict the word of God based on another’s mistaken personal opinions.

It depends on which Muslims you are talking to. There are some Muslims who are quite learned and may engage in a reasonable and profitable discussion who can understand very well the message of the Bible. Understand does not mean they agree. And we honor this type of Muslims.

Then you have people like Ahmad Deedat with his silly argument. In fact he did a disservice to his religion because his argument is so clearly outrageously wrong that Christians simply just do not believe what he said. It is no wonder that many reasonable Muslims would try to distance themselves away from him.

Unfortunately we have Ahmad Deedat’s disciples here in CAF and to argue with them is just like banging your head against the bricks. Nobody takes them seriously though but knowledgeable Christians still should try to explain the correct understanding of the Bible and rebut them, if anything other than for the sake of other posters and onlookers.

 

[latin_rite]

L S, There is no confusion. You observe the meat eating animals (tigers, lions, cheeta, Eagle, wolf) They are ferocious.

Then observe the vegetable (plants only) eating animals (goats, sheep, cows) are mild, gentle. There is no doubt that the nature of the food affects the nature of the consumers. So consuming the flesh of a dirty shameless animal would make the consumers shameless.

.Ok. So tigers, lions, cheetas, eagles and wolves are ferocious, because they eat mild and gentle animals, like sheep, goats, cows. But according to your logic. Shouldn;t tigers,lions, etc. Be mild mannered, after eating all those mild mannered animals? And what is shameless about a pig that is not shameless about a lion etc? I love watching animal documentaries. And not once did i see a lion draw the curtains while he had sex with a female lion.

 

[planten]

Nope, sorry.
The Isaiah quote that you took out of context was obviously logically referring to a specific type of person in a specific situation.

In the case of Matthew 15:11, Jesus was using the occasion of eating with unwashed hands as a “teachable moment” to make a GENERAL statement. His words were unambiguously generalizing the teaching, something distinctively different than the Isaiah quote which you misused. Notice how Jesus first "called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand:” in the previous verse.

In fact, in the parallel story given to us by St. Mark (and thus which has St. Peter as its source), St. Mark goes on to drive home the point (in** INSPIRED SCRIPTURE**) when he says: “Thus he declared all foods clean.” [Mark 7:19]

So, lest anyone take the stand that you are taking, it is disallowed specifically by Mark’s gospel.

That is impossible. How can all foods be clean, by one strokeof pen?? Whoever it was, he/she had no right to go against Judaism to which he belonged. He could not dare say such words amongst the Jews. he could not say anything against what Jesus had been teaching / practicing.

We do not believe any inspiration. But revelation (Wahi) is well above inspiration. WE could admit the revelation only. But that is also subject to approval by the main book. If it goes against your main book (bibleNT) it will not be acceptable.

That goes against definition. Peter claimed a vision was sent to him by God. If it was, Peter was a prophet by definition. If it was not, then by definition he was a false prophet.

Any one can have visions. But to be a prophet, one has to have many hundred or thousand vision. Visions are possible. Even a non-prophet can have vision or revelation (Wahi), like did the mother of Moses and mother of Jesus. But they cannot be prophets or prophetesses due to a one or two revelations . Even the disciples of Jesus were given revelation (Wahi). That is written in the Quran.
**
But to be a prophet, one has to have many words of revelation, not just a few. There was no prophet or messenger between Jesus and Muhammad**. (hadith) There were just some guided persons who walked in the footsteps of Jesus. Not those who went astray and walked (taught) their own things against the teachings (practice) of Jesus.

We Muslims had many saints of high calibre. They received Wahi too, that is well after Muhammad. But none of them was a prophet because the quantity and the quality of their Wahi was not much. One example is the Syed Abdul Qadir Geelani.

You can’t re-define the word “prophet” as you choose.

St. Peter was a true prophet of God.

We need not define the word prophet the way we like. That is true. But we should have some idea of the word prophet by now because there have been many prophets in the world who were sent to many nations. Specially those who were sent to the children of Abraham are well know to most of us.

I know that the christians have their own standard of judging the prophets and they deny the prophethood of some Israeli prophets. They have no right to do that. I can prove their mistake.

For example, christians do not agree that Noah or Sulaiman or David were prophets. I ask them, if they were not prophets then what are the works and words of David and Sulaiman doing in the bible?? What is the work of Noah doing in bible??

I have tried to define one aspect of the prophets above. That helps us to know that there was no prophet soon after Jesus…

Prophet is a one who receives words from God in great number and those words come true. What is the use of the words “All food is clean?” Can it be from God?? How can it come true??

 

[seraphime2008]

That is impossible. How can all foods be clean, by one strokeof pen?? Whoever it was, he/she had no right to go against Judaism to which he belonged. He could not dare say such words amongst the Jews. he could not say anything against what Jesus had been teaching / practicing.

So please read again the context and the words by words Jesus said to his followers, taken from the gospel of Mark (amplified version):

18And He said to them, Then are you also unintelligent and dull and without understanding? Do you not discern and see that whatever goes into a man from
the outside cannot make him unhallowed or unclean,
19Since it does not reach and enter his heart but [only his] digestive tract, and
so passes on [into the place designed to receive waste]? Thus He was making
and declaring all foods [ceremonially]clean [that is, abolishing the ceremonial
distinctions of the Levitical Law].
20And He said, What comes out of a man is what makes a man unclean and
renders [him] unhallowed.21For from within, [that is] out of the
hearts of men, come base and wicked thoughts, sexual immorality, stealing,
murder, adultery,22Coveting (a greedy desire to have
more wealth), dangerous and destructive wickedness, deceit;
unrestrained (indecent) conduct; an evil eye (envy), slander (evil speaking,
malicious misrepresentation, abusiveness), pride ( the sin of an
uplifted heart against God and man),foolishness (folly, lack of sense,
recklessness, thoughtlessness).23All these evil [purposes and desires]
come from within, and they make the man unclean and render him
unhallowed

And you don’t believe this??? What is it that you think goes against what Jesus taught in these verses? What r u talking about that Mark has no right? The Jewish Apostles, first Christians who comprised of Jewish and Gentiles didn’t say anything against this teaching, and now you suddenly have all the rights to say your objection? Ha…ha…Sorry, but you’re officially considered having no rights whatsoever!

We do not believe any inspiration. But revelation (Wahi) is well above inspiration. WE could admit the revelation only. But that is also subject to approval by the main book. If it goes against your main book (bibleNT) it will not be acceptable.

Any one can have visions. But to be a prophet,** one has to have many hundred or thousand vision.] Visions are possible. Even a non-prophet can have vision or revelation (Wahi), like did the mother of Moses and mother of Jesus. But they cannot be prophets or prophetesses due to a one or two revelations . Even the disciples of Jesus were given revelation (Wahi). That is written in the Quran.
**
But to be a prophet, one has to have many words of revelation, not just a few. There was no prophet or messenger between Jesus and Muhammad. (hadith) There were just some guided persons who walked in the footsteps of Jesus. Not those who went astray and walked (taught) their own things against the teachings (practice) of Jesus.

Who are you know making definition of what to be accepted as prophet? Laughable!
Any body can claim to have million visions but most important they should perform the authoritative power given by God by performing SIGNS…remember!
Revelation that goes with proven authoritative power like what Jesus and all his disciples had. Peter and all the other disicples had proven to have the power of God by performing miracles, healing the sicks, escaping themselves from jail and dangerous thing, speaking in tounges and in other languages and many other more witnessed by people. And all their teachings if seen in context are never against the bible…!!! They were full of HOLY SPIRIT!

How is revelation can be proven without the ability to prove the power given by God? If the ability to use swords is what you think justified to prove the power given by God, I doubt it!! Mao and Hitler did perform the same power!

We Muslims had many saints of high calibre. They received Wahi too, that is well after Muhammad. But none of them was a prophet because the quantity and the quality of their Wahi was not much. One example is the Syed Abdul Qadir Geelani.

I bet they didn’t perform the SIGNS witnessed by people.

We need not define the word prophet the way we like. That is true. But we should have some idea of the word prophet by now because there have been many prophets in the world who were sent to many nations. Specially those who were sent to the children of Abraham are well know to most of us.

I know that the christians have their own standard of judging the prophets and they deny the prophethood of some Israeli prophets. They have no right to do that. I can prove their mistake.

For example, christians do not agree that Noah or Sulaiman or David were prophets. I ask them, if they were not prophets then what are the works and words of David and Sulaiman doing in the bible?? What is the work of Noah doing in bible??

We do believe that David was a prophet, to some extent Solomon was prophet too, by definition that they had communicated with God and revealed the messages to people recorded in the Psalms and Solomon’s song and Proverbs. But we deny that they didn’t perform sin as what your Islamic teaching. They were human being who were fallible.