Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Current Events
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Politics : Current Events
Message Icon Topic: Killing in Pakistan for drinking tea... Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 10 Next >>
Author Message
Shasta'sAunt
Female  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 29 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1930
Quote Shasta'sAunt Replybullet Posted: 21 August 2009 at 8:01am

17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")"

Yet Jesus, his family, and his direct disciples never broke the Jewish dietary laws. So, Jesus never broke the dietary laws but a gospel written 70 years after his death, after Paul's epistles regarding gentiles and his views of the dietary laws had been written,  has a parable that some have concluded means all food is allowed and the swine eating frenzy begins. Never mind what Jesus actually did...
 
Here is the Matthew version of the same story, different ending:
 
Matthew15:15Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

 16And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

 17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

 18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

 19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

 20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

A bit of a difference between making unclean food lawful and making unclean hands lawful.
 
I wonder why Christians aren't as keen about other passages in Mark. Like the ones where Jesus forbid divorce, but wait, the Pauline Privilege changed that too......
 
 
 
 
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
IP IP Logged
Akhe Abdullah
Male Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 November 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1252
Quote Akhe Abdullah Replybullet Posted: 21 August 2009 at 8:03am
Question: are these verses repeats Matthew 15,1-12and Mark 7,1-7 ?
IP IP Logged
Natassia
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 16 July 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 177
Quote Natassia Replybullet Posted: 21 August 2009 at 10:20am
Originally posted by Akhe Abdullah

Question: are these verses repeats Matthew 15,1-12and Mark 7,1-7 ?
 
Same story recorded by two different people who may or may not have been relying on a shared primary source.
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)
IP IP Logged
Natassia
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 16 July 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 177
Quote Natassia Replybullet Posted: 21 August 2009 at 10:28am
@ Shasta's Aunt
 
You wrote: Yet Jesus, his family, and his direct disciples never broke the Jewish dietary laws. So, Jesus never broke the dietary laws but a gospel written 70 years after his death, after Paul's epistles regarding gentiles and his views of the dietary laws had been written, has a parable that some have concluded means all food is allowed and the swine eating frenzy begins. Never mind what Jesus actually did...

((sigh)) Pigs are no dirtier than chickens. You are more likely to get a disease nowadays from poultry than you would from pork, especially if the pork is cooked thoroughly. Christians have some pretty solid theology to explain the spiritual meanings behind the food laws found in the Torah. I do wonder what the Islamic theology is that explains their dietary restrictions. So far I've heard some unscientific answers such as "pigs are dirty animals and you can get really bad diseases from them" (as if you can't get mad cow disease from beef or salmonella from poultry or mercury poisoning from fish) and some vague responses like, "it's a test." It's not a test for a vegetarian.

Also, you do not know that his family and disciples never broke the Jewish dietary laws. Obviously the Jewish religious leaders felt they did and took exception to it. Jesus came to fulfill the law. He satisfied it completely by adhering to all of the commands, and then he offered his perfect life as a sacrificial Lamb in atonement for our sins. You are picking and plucking at dietary laws when you don't even know why they were in place or why Jesus would have followed them in the first place.

And what Jesus was telling people about 'unclean' and 'clean' was not a parable. He was speaking directly and clearly on the matter. That's why the writer of the gospel of Mark interpretated his meaning to be that all food was declared clean. That's why another writer, the author of the Acts of the Apostles, also concluded such a thing when he recorded Peter's vision. And Paul, the writer of our earliest Christian scriptures, also verified this belief in his epistles. The earliest Christians who wrote the scriptures agreed that Jesus had fulfilled the dietary laws when he ended the separation between Gentiles and Jews and Man's separation from God.

The gospel of Matthew was written by a different author from both Mark and Acts. However, this gospel confirms the teaching that it isn't what you ingest that makes you 'unclean' but rather what comes out of your heart. You are missing the meat of the message (pun intended) in favor of promoting your belief that eating swine does in fact make you unclean. (By the way, according to the Torah, Israelites weren't supposed to eat camels either.)

And where did Paul permit divorce?

I Corinthians 7
 
 10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
 
 12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
 
27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce...
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)
IP IP Logged
peacemaker
Male Islam
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 29 December 2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3058
Quote peacemaker Replybullet Posted: 21 August 2009 at 10:32am
Everyone,
 
Please stick to the topic and comply with the section and the forum guidelines.
 
Peace
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Qur'an 55:13
IP IP Logged
Shasta'sAunt
Female  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 29 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1930
Quote Shasta'sAunt Replybullet Posted: 21 August 2009 at 9:36pm
Natassia, there you go leaving out pertinent verses again.
 
Corinthians 7:15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
 

Pauline privilege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Pauline Privilege (Privilegium Paulinum) is a Christian concept drawn from the apostle Paul's instructions in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

[edit] Origin

In Paul's epistle it states:

To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband ... and that the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say, not the Lord, ... But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. (1 Corinthians 7:10-15, RSV)

The first section, "not I but the Lord", matches Jesus' teaching on divorce, found in the Expounding of the Law, Matthew 19:9, Luke 16:18, and Mark 10:11. The second section, "I say, not the Lord", gives Paul's own teaching on divorce.

Pauline Privilege

Scriptural Authority

St. Paul wrote, 1 Cor 7:12To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.”

 

Conditions

The Catholic Church can dissolve a marriage bond, allowing the Catholic party to re-marry, if:

Both persons were not baptized at the time of their wedding. Marriage originally not sacramental.

One party has been baptized, but the other remains unbaptized. Marriage remains not sacramental.

The unbaptized person departs physically by divorce or desertion, or morally by making married life unbearable for the baptized person. Just cause for the dissolution.

The unbaptized person refuses to be baptized or to live peacefully with the baptized person. Unbaptized person is asked.

Civil divorce has been granted by the state. Church cannot be responsible for the separation.

 Some Observations

The Pauline Privilege applies only when both parties were unbaptized at the time of the marriage. It is not the same as an annulment. The Pauline Privilege dissolves a real but natural marriage. An annulment is a declaration that no valid marriage ever existed.

If one party was baptized and the other unbaptized at the time of the marriage, the marriage is still natural but can be dissolved only by the Pope personally, exercising his authority as the Vicar of Christ and executive agent of divine law. This is called the Petrine Privilege because it is reserved to the Chair of Peter, and very rare.

If both parties were baptized at the time of the marriage it is a sacramental and supernatural marriage, and is indissoluble, even if one party abandons his Christian faith. 1 Cor 7:10 “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband.”

There is Biblical precedent for dissolving a marriage between a faithful person and an unbeliever, when the Jews put away their pagan wives. Ezra 10:1 “While Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, a very great assembly of men, women, and children, gathered to him out of Israel; for the people wept bitterly. And Shecani’ah the son of Jehi’el, of the sons of Elam, addressed Ezra: ’We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. Arise, for it is your task, and we are with you; be strong and do it.’ Then Ezra arose and made the leading priests and Levites and all Israel take oath that they would do as had been said. So they took the oath.”

http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/paulineprivilege.htm

“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
IP IP Logged
Shasta'sAunt
Female  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 29 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1930
Quote Shasta'sAunt Replybullet Posted: 21 August 2009 at 10:09pm

"((sigh)) Pigs are no dirtier than chickens."

What does this have to do with God's command to not eat pork? Is this a feeble attempt at justification?
 
"Also, you do not know that his family and disciples never broke the Jewish dietary laws. Obviously the Jewish religious leaders felt they did and took exception to it. Jesus came to fulfill the law. He satisfied it completely by adhering to all of the commands, and then he offered his perfect life as a sacrificial Lamb in atonement for our sins. You are picking and plucking at dietary laws when you don't even know why they were in place or why Jesus would have followed them in the first place."
 
The Jewish leaders felt Jesus broke the dietary laws? Once again, show me the passages for that.
 
How do we know that Jesus never broke the Mosaic Laws, because according to the Bible he was perfect in the Law, therefore he couldn't have broken ANY of the Mosaic Laws. Period.  You yourself stated basically the same above, I highlighted it in red. Please feel free to dispute this if you like. Of course, you would have to prove that the Bible is incorrect, Jesus was not perfect in the Law, and therefore was not the perfect sacrificial lamb. But it might be fun to watch you argue against yourself.
 
I assume Jesus followed the Laws because God commanded them.
 
Leviticus 11:1And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,

 2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

 3Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.

 4Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

 5And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

 6And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

 7And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

 8Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

 etc......
 
Frankly I'm a little surprised that you are questioning God's commands or suggesting that Jesus would do so to the point of not following them. 
 
How do we know that his followers did not break the dietary laws? Because after Jesus' death his family, disciples, and followers became known as Nazarenes. Even Paul was accused of being a leader of the Nazarenes in Acts, though he rightfully denied it because he had already begun to abolish the Mosaic Laws.
 
However, history has recorded the practices of the Nazarenes and that's how we know.
 
Views and practices of the Nazarenes

Did not call themselves Christians

But these sectarians whom I am now sketching disregarded the name of Jesus, and did not call themselves Jesseans, keep the name of the Jews, or term themselves Christians – but “Nazoraeans,” from the place-name, “Nazareth,” if you please!

Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.1

Believed Jesus is the Messiah

The Nazarenes... accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law.

Jerome, On. Is. 8:14

Were Torah Observant

They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Christ; but since they are still fettered by the Law – circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest – they are not in accord with the Christians.

Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.4

Used both the Old Testament and the New Testament

They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do.

Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.2

Used Hebrew and Aramaic NT source texts

They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.

Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.9.4

And he [Heggesippus the Nazarene] quotes some passages from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and from the Syriac [the Aramaic], and some particulars from the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the oral tradition of the Jews.

Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 4.22

Believed Jesus is the Son of God

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” and “for he shall be called a Nazarene.”

Jerome, Lives of Illustrius Men Ch.3

They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion – except for their belief in Christ, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that God is one, and that his Son is Jesus Christ.

Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.2

 
 
 


Edited by Shasta'sAunt - 21 August 2009 at 10:28pm
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
IP IP Logged
Shasta'sAunt
Female  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 29 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1930
Quote Shasta'sAunt Replybullet Posted: 21 August 2009 at 10:13pm
Originally posted by peacemaker

Everyone,
 
Please stick to the topic and comply with the section and the forum guidelines.
 
Peace
 
Sorry, but I felt compelled to respond to a couple of posts.
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 10 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com