Islam and porc

[hamba2han]

How do you know for a fact that he didn’t? The Bible says nothing about that. I’ve already shown you the quote that states that he declared all foods clean. This has been quoted many times before and I’m not going to waste my time typing it again.

Matthew 5
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.

Christians cannot have it both ways.

Either Jesus (pbuh) was true to his words and NEVER ate the flesh of swine according to the divine dietary laws that he religiously followed… OR… he did not really care about these dietary laws and he did subsequently consume food which is forbidden.

I believe that Jesus (pbuh) was a man who truly lived by what he actually taught… and the fact that there is no record whatsoever of Jesus himself disobeying the dietary laws of the Jews is really further confirmation of this.

Never forget – Actions speak a lot louder than words.

 

[Booklover]

Six years and 1 day after the attacks on September 11, 2001…many do not forget and many more are realizing the truth of your words.

Bulls eye!

Vickie

 

[George_Waters]

Matthew 5
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.

Christians cannot have it both ways.

Either Jesus (pbuh) was true to his words and NEVER ate the flesh of swine according to the divine dietary laws that he religiously followed… OR… he did not really care about these dietary laws and he did subsequently consume food which is forbidden.

I believe that Jesus (pbuh) was a man who truly lived by what he actually taught… and the fact that there is no record whatsoever of Jesus himself disobeying the dietary laws of the Jews is really further confirmation of this.

Never forget – Actions speak a lot louder than words.

So, once again… why to Muslim’s ignore certain Jewish dietary laws while claiming some morale victory over pork? Your link did not answer this at all and you keep ignoring this question. Wait!!! Is it because Mohammed like to cut and paste too???

 

[Booklover]

Matthew 5
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.

Why do you think he mentioned that they had to be more righteous than the Pharisees? Because they were so filled with externals and manmade rituals being passed off as God’s laws! He even called them hypocrites! He told them to wash the inside of the cup so the outside would be clean. Do you understand what that means? You can take fifty baths and still be unclean if your heart is filled with evil.

Christians cannot have it both ways.

Either Jesus (pbuh) was true to his words and NEVER ate the flesh of swine according to the divine dietary laws that he religiously followed… OR… he did not really care about these dietary laws and he did subsequently consume food which is forbidden.

I believe that Jesus (pbuh) was a man who truly lived by what he actually taught… and the fact that there is no record whatsoever of Jesus himself disobeying the dietary laws of the Jews is really further confirmation of this.

Never forget – Actions speak a lot louder than words.

We know what was revealed to us. Jesus declared all foods clean. Period. Eating or not eating pork is not important. What is important is the new commandment Jesus gave us to love one another. He did not say “Love your fellow Christians and hate everyone else” as Islam does in separating the unbelievers from Muslims.

And yes, actions speak louder than words! I’m sure the Muslim who stabbed Theo VanGogh wouldn’t dream of eating pork, neither would those who beheaded Nick Berg and those who are threatening doing the same to Britney Spears! They would rather die than eat pork and yet kill as easily as drinking a glass of water.

Vickie

 

[nonsumd]

hamba-hambahan,

I love to eat pork.

I consider it one of God’s many gifts to humankind.

As someone has already pointed out, Jesus said that what defiles a person is not what enters his mouth but what comes our of his mouth (hateful speech, for instance).

Jesus did say that He came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. What He meant is seen from other passages where he demands more than an obedience to the literal commandment (e.g. we are not simply to refrain from murdering but also from anger, we are not simply to refrain from adultery but also from lust, etc.).

How could one go beyond the literal meaning of a dietary law?
By directing us towards following the Spirit of the Law rather than merely the letter. By replacing the dietary law with a law that promotes purity of the spirit – as the Apostles later recognized was appropriate to do.

How can simply abstaining from taking foods considered impure into one’s body make one’s soul pure?

 

[Valke2]

yes sorry i didn’t mean to imply that it’s only pork but rather that they do not follow most of the Mosaic Law restrictions and i wanted to know the theological reasons behind these things.

Most of the restirctions in Judaism are not found in the Torah but in the Talmud. There is nothing in Torah, for example, that says we can’t mix meat and diary. Rahter there is the single line saying we can’t boil the kid in its mother’s milk. IT seems reasonable that Muslims would reach diffrent conclusions on how to follow the laws that are expressly set forth in the book of Moses.
We have the Talmud that explains how the few dietary rules set forth in the written Torah are to be followed. They must have their own method of determining how they are to best follow such rules.

 

[Valke2]

Nevertheless, he stated what I posted. Even if he had said: “eating pork is okay” you would not believe it, because it contradicts what you believe.

Tell me, in what way does not eating pork make one a better person?

Vickie

you would have to ask Hashem. Since he expressly prohibited it. Dietary restrictions most likely are ways in which one is reminded that there are limits to the power of man and that every act, even eating, is a gift from God. Since we eat throughout the day, dietary restirctions cannot help but remind us that we are creatures of God.

 

[Nepenthe]

Actually, as I have understood it from my studies, shallow though that may have been, eating pork (or sacrificing it) was considered unclean by many ancient Middle-eastern cultures, very significantly including Mid-Classical Imperial Egypt. This would have strongly influenced the Mosaic Jews, and all the smaller cultures and offshoots and developments thereafter, including the peoples that became early Islam.

In contrast, China (at least as ancient and venerable a formative culture) found the pig to be the very best animal to domesticate and breed for slaughter.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

Jesus’ Second Coming 1835-1908, in the metaphoric form of PromisedMessiah , Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has explained the theological reason behind Islam/Quran/Muhammad’s prohibition of eating of pork, in his book ”The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam”:
alislam.org/books/philosophy/index.html

Why is the Flesh of Swine Prohibited

One matter to be kept in mind in this context is that in the very name of this animal God has indicated the reason for the prohibition of its flesh. The Arabic word for swine is Khinzeer which is a compound of Khanz and Ara, which means: I see it very foul. Thus the very name that God Almighty gave to this animal at the beginning points to its uncleanness. It is a curious coincidence that in Hindi this animal is called Suar, which is a compound of Su and Ara. This also means: I see it very foul. It should not be a matter of surprise that the Arabic word Su should have found its way into Hindi.

We have established in our book Minanur Rahman, that Arabic is the mother of all languages and that many Arabic words are to be found in all languages. Thus Su is an Arabic word and its equivalent in Hindi is bad. This animal is also called bad in Hindi. There is no doubt that at the time when Arabic was the universal language this animal was known in this country by an Arabic name which was synonymous with Khinzeer, and so it has continued to this day.

It is possible that in Sanskrit this word might have undergone some transformation, but the true word is Khinzeer which proclaims its own meaning. It is not necessary to enter into a detailed exposition of the foulness of this animal. Everyone knows that it eats filth and is utterly shameless. Thus the reason for the prohibition of its flesh is obvious, as by the law of nature its flesh would have a foul effect on the body and the soul of one who eats it.

As we have already demonstrated food affects a person’s soul and there can be no doubt that the flesh of such a foul animal would also be foul. Even in pre-Islamic times, Greek physicians had opined that the flesh of this animal particularly damages the faculty of modesty and fosters shamelessness. The eating of carrion is also prohibited in Islamic law for the same reason; that is to say, it affects the moral qualities adversely and is also harmful to physical health.

The blood of an animal that is strangled or is beaten to death remains inside the body of the dead animal and they are all carrion. It is obvious that the blood of such an animal is soon corrupted and corrupts the whole flesh. It is established by recent research that the germs in such blood spread a poisonous corruption in the flesh of the dead animal.

Unquote

For an in-depth study on the issue please study the whole chapter ‘The physical, moral, and spiritual states of man’. An interesting read.

Thanks

 

[Abraxsis]

Matthew 5
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.

No, I’m afraid it does not answer my question.

That refers to the 10 commandments. It doesnt refer to dietary restrictions. You took that passage and twisted it out of context. Right after that Jesus adds one more commandment to love thy neighbor. Your interpretation is simply wrong.

All animals are food. If they werent God wouldnt have put them here.

The question about Islam isnt to belittle it or attack it, its a legit question even I have. Why do they have the restrictions that they do. No one can give a straight answer. I understand some Muslims may not know and thats okay.

 

[inJESUS]

If any Muslims are claiming the reason Jews have stricter dietary laws is because they corrupted them, they are plain wrong. There’s nothing in the Qur’an or Prophetic sayings that would support such a conclusion.

regardless of Quran or hadith, logic does not support such a conclusion. Corruption mantra cannot be used whenever a teaching opposes Muhammad’s be it from Jesus or Moses.

But to answer, it’s because not all laws are given for the same reasons. The Children of Israel were given very strict dietary laws because they were the people chosen for God’s Kingdom so long as they kept to their covenant, they were the *unique *

 

[inJESUS]

Hama2han, i think you understand by now what “fulfill” means. When Jesus fulfills, He surely is fulfilling somthing valid. In other words, He is saying , the Law is valid and i am FULFILLING it. Jesus did not say i came to apply the Law, as He Himself said He is the Lord of the Law, but to fulfill it. He did not come to eat Kosher and observe the sabbath even if He did. He came to fulfill it and gather Jews and gentiles and declared all food kosher. So do not mix the sentence you keep quoting with what is to happen AFTER Jesus’ fulfillment. We are no Jews. We follow the Law as fulfilled by Jesus, not Moses.

 

[Valke2]

That refers to the 10 commandments. It doesnt refer to dietary restrictions. You took that passage and twisted it out of context. Right after that Jesus adds one more commandment to love thy neighbor. Your interpretation is simply wrong.

All animals are food. If they werent God wouldnt have put them here.

The question about Islam isnt to belittle it or attack it, its a legit question even I have. Why do they have the restrictions that they do. No one can give a straight answer. I understand some Muslims may not know and thats okay.

I don’t see how you can say that passage did not refer to the entire Torah. and the commandment to love one’s neighbor was not new. Matthew’s Jesus is the one closest to and most friendly to Jews. It seems to me that when Jesus says he has come to fullfill the Torah, a Jew of his time would interpet that to mean he has come to teach the Torah and give his own “torah” (instruction) as to how one is best able to do so, within the structure of the Torah and Mosaic Law.

The commandment to Love one’s neighbor is a good example of this. It does not contradict Torah but rather uses what Torah requires of us and then tells us how to best accomplish that. This was a common and required method of instruction that the Sages used at that time.

 

[Valke2]

If I’m hearing Jesus say “I have come to fullfill them” I am hearing him say, as a first century Jew, that the Torah is valid. I wouldn’t find anyhting in that sentence contradictory or insulting to Torah. ANd I’d stick around to hear what else he had to say.

 

[Abraxsis]

Let me show you.

matthew Chapter 5 begins the Sermon on the Mount and then goes into the Beatitudes.

The verse in question is Matthew (5:17-20)

Matthew (5:21) “…You shall not kill;and whoever kills shall be liable to judgement”

Matthew (5:27) “…you shall not commit adultery…”

Matthew (5:33) “…do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.”

The immediate verses talk about the 10 commandments and not Jewish laws in the Torah other than the commandments. The Chapter concludes with Matthew (5-44) “…but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.”

You see that passage was interpreted incorrectly. I just wanted to correct it thats all.

 

[hamba2han]

Since Christians say that Jesus (pbuh) himself was the fulfillment of the law, this question still remains unanswered:

Why did he religiously abstain from consuming the flesh of swine all of his life?

BTW, the Qur’an does offer an escape clause (sort of?) to Christians who are trying to come up with a viable answer to the question of why Jesus changed some Jewish laws.

These are the words of Jesus (pbuh) when he spoke to the children of Israel as recorded in the Qur’an:

003.050
"’(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; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.’"

There is a slight catch here however because once you accept that these are indeed the words of Jesus, then you also need to accept that this next verse of the Qur’an as also being his words to the children of Israel:

003.051
**"‘It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.’" **

 

[nonsumd]

Since Christians say that Jesus (pbuh) himself was the fulfillment of the law, this question still remains unanswered:

Why did he religiously abstain from consuming the flesh of swine all of his life?

BTW, the Qur’an does offer an escape clause (sort of?) to Christians who are trying to come up with a viable answer to the question of why Jesus changed some Jewish laws.

These are the words of Jesus (pbuh) when he spoke to the children of Israel as recorded in the Qur’an:

003.050
"’(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; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.’"

There is a slight catch here however because once you accept that these are indeed the words of Jesus, then you also need to accept that this next verse of the Qur’an as also being his words to the children of Israel:

003.051
"‘It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.’"

hamba-hambahan,

If Allah is merely the Arabic word for “God,” then we Christians*** do ***worship Allah/God – we just believe that the way taught to us by Christ through His Apostolic Church is the straighest way to Allah/God.

When Jesus asked for baptism from John and John in humility hesitated, Jesus told him to go ahead and do it “so that all righteousness might be fulfilled.” Did Jesus “need” the baptism? No, but he did it as an example to his future followers and as a sign of his righteousness in front of the Jews.

I would argue that His keeping the Jewish dietary laws was also in order to display His righteousness to the Jews in terms that the Jews of the day would recognize.

Of course, He does flout other aspects of the Jewish Law (such as the regulations pertaining to the sabbath) and commits the ultimate blasphemy in Jewish eyes of equating Himself with God.

On the basis of Jesus’ own teaching and example in other regards, the Apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, came to believe it would be right to be flexible with respect to the dietary taboos.

 

[Valke2]

Let me show you.

matthew Chapter 5 begins the Sermon on the Mount and then goes into the Beatitudes.

The verse in question is Matthew (5:17-20)

Matthew (5:21) “…You shall not kill;and whoever kills shall be liable to judgement”

Matthew (5:27) “…you shall not commit adultery…”

Matthew (5:33) “…do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.”

The immediate verses talk about the 10 commandments and not Jewish laws in the Torah other than the commandments. The Chapter concludes with Matthew (5-44) “…but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.”

You see that passage was interpreted incorrectly. I just wanted to correct it thats all.

I"m not sure I understand this post. How can the opening of Chapter 5 not be referring to Mosaic law? It seems quite clear that it is. As for the beatudes that follow, they could warrant a seperate discussion, but at least the first three are completely in line with Torah. As for loving your enemies…, if this were meant ona personal, rather than national level, it could be seen as being in compliance with what the Torah commands. Otherwise, it would be in contradiction to Torah. If it is in contradiction to TOrah, then it is in contradiction to the assurances Jesus gives in the beginning of Matthew Chap. 5

 

[inJESUS]

Valke, to Jesus, the Law is summarized by this : Love God, love others. Anything you do that hurts others, in the name of the Law, renders the Law null. So if, by observing the sabbath, you reject to help someone in need, you are not observing the Law but making it a burden on humanity. The Law was made for man, not man for the Law. Of course Jesus did not say the law is not valid, He said we render it invalid by our misunderstanding and following letters instead of the Spirit of the Law.

 

[Abraxsis]

I"m not sure I understand this post. How can the opening of Chapter 5 not be referring to Mosaic law? It seems quite clear that it is. As for the beatudes that follow, they could warrant a seperate discussion, but at least the first three are completely in line with Torah. As for loving your enemies…, if this were meant ona personal, rather than national level, it could be seen as being in compliance with what the Torah commands. Otherwise, it would be in contradiction to Torah. If it is in contradiction to TOrah, then it is in contradiction to the assurances Jesus gives in the beginning of Matthew Chap. 5

Because it doesnt refer at all to the Torah. The Torah is the first 5 books of the bible. The only reference to it is the 10 commandments. It says nothing about genesis, the exodus, Moses, or any other jewish law and tradition. It only references the commandments.