Is swine/pork allowed in Christianity? - Leviticus 11:7 -

babyvaio · 20-07-2006 9:42pm #1

Just wondering, I found a verse from the Bible (see below) saying that swine is unclean to people. Does sounds like prohibition.

Is it true that pork is forbidden in Christianity?

Leviticus 11:7 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)

7 and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.

BrianCalgary · 20-07-2006 9:47pm

babyvaio wrote:

Just wondering, I found a verse from the Bible (see below) saying that swine is unclean to people. Does sounds like prohibition.

Is it true that port is forbidden in Christianity?

Leviticus 11:7 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)

7 and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.

No. It was forbidden in Judaism, still is AFAIK. I don't have the verse handy but the NT does speak of food that was unclean is now clean.
Found it.

Romans 14:13-15
Therefore 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. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[a] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If 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.

babyvaio · 20-07-2006 9:55pm

BrianCalgary wrote:

No. It was forbidden in Judaism, still is AFAIK. I don't have the verse handy but the NT does speak of food that was unclean is now clean.
Found it.

Romans 14:13-15
Therefore 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. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[a] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If 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.

But it's part of the Bible? I mean do Christians strictly not follow The Old Testament?

BrianCalgary · 20-07-2006 10:06pm

babyvaio wrote:

But it's part of the Bible? I mean do Christians strictly not follow The Old Testament?

No. The OT is the history of God's people and God's unfolding plan of redemption which predict and foretells the coming Messiah and the coming of God's kingdom.

The NT is the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies in the person of Jesus and Jesus preaches the kingdom of God. The NT finishes by reveling the end of the world and God's ultimate victory over Satan.

babyvaio · 20-07-2006 10:17pm

BrianCalgary wrote:

No. The OT is the history of God's people and God's unfolding plan of redemption which predict and foretells the coming Messiah and the coming of God's kingdom.

The NT is the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies in the person of Jesus and Jesus preaches the kingdom of God. The NT finishes by reveling the end of the world and God's ultimate victory over Satan.

I say OK to this separation - history / fulfillment, but what I really meant is how then a Christian knows what's forbidden and what's not? There must be a code or a law which should be followed/obeyed. And I mean God's Law. A good example for this would be eating pork or any other food.

So how do you know what are you supposed to do as a Christian, in fact - I guess by obeying more & more, you are becoming better & better. However, this law has to be pulled out of something - so is it contained in the Bible (if so, then do you follow OT and NT or only NT and have OT only as a historical document, like you said above?) or somewhere else?

BrianCalgary · 20-07-2006 10:34pm

Jesus stated that the most important commandments are 'love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind' and 'love your neighbour as yourself' on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Other than that anything is a go. The question to ask oneself is 'would God approve of that which i am about to do?', thereby obeying number 1. If the answer is no, don't do it.

There aren't restrictions on foods. One verse that I like is:
1 Corinthians 3
16Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

What I take from this is don't do anything that could bring harm on the body. So don't eat poison, don't get drunk, sex within marriage, no drugs, I think you get my meaning here. And TBH I am one very happy guy who doesn't need the drugs, alcohol and illicet sex for my happiness as living God's way is pretty fulfilling.

babyvaio · 20-07-2006 11:06pm

BrianCalgary wrote:

Jesus stated that the most important commandments are 'love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind' and 'love your neighbour as yourself' on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Other than that anything is a go. The question to ask oneself is 'would God approve of that which i am about to do?', thereby obeying number 1. If the answer is no, don't do it.

There aren't restrictions on foods. One verse that I like is:
1 Corinthians 3
16Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

What I take from this is don't do anything that could bring harm on the body. So don't eat poison, don't get drunk, sex within marriage, no drugs, I think you get my meaning here. And TBH I am one very happy guy who doesn't need the drugs, alcohol and illicet sex for my happiness as living God's way is pretty fulfilling.

Hmmm, now that you've mentioned Commandments, I guess it would make no sense if I asked you - what happened to the 1st Commandment:
1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Don't get me wrong, but somehow I've a feeling that the very 1st one is in pieces nowadays. The Council of Nicaea broke it officially and for good.
But, we shouldn't be going into this direction, we will just enter a vicious circle I suppose. :rolleyes:

God pic BTW:

http://gemini.tntech.edu/~dswart/10commandments.gif

BrianCalgary · 21-07-2006 1:57pm

babyvaio wrote:

Hmmm, now that you've mentioned Commandments, I guess it would make no sense if I asked you - what happened to the 1st Commandment:
1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Don't get me wrong, but somehow I've a feeling that the very 1st one is in pieces nowadays. The Council of Nicaea broke it officially and for good.
But, we shouldn't be going into this direction, we will just enter a vicious circle I suppose. :rolleyes:

God pic BTW:

http://gemini.tntech.edu/~dswart/10commandments.gif

It would apply with respect that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and the only way to the Father. Jesus talks against worshipping idols as well.

babyvaio · 21-07-2006 3:04pm

BrianCalgary wrote:

It would apply with respect that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and the only way to the Father. Jesus talks against worshipping idols as well.

Jesus talks against worshipping him. Jesus talks against attributing something or someone to Almighty. He never claimed he is what some people attached to him nor he said to worship him, obviously - as he was a human only he had no right to say that.

The fact that he was God's Prophet does not give him divinity in any respect.

Wibbs · 21-07-2006 3:59pm

babyvaio wrote:

Jesus talks against worshipping him. Jesus talks against attributing something or someone to Almighty. He never claimed he is what some people attached to him nor he said to worship him, obviously - as he was a human only he had no right to say that.

The fact that he was God's Prophet does not give him divinity in any respect.

In your opinion, not for the vast majority of practising christians. Your opinion that Jesus wasn't crucified(believed by Muslims) would equally not find favour here. Your opinion is informed by your faith which is fair enough. Whatever floats your boat.

I would take equal issue if a christian claimed as fact that Buddha didn't attain enlightenment, especially so on a buddhist forum. Hey I got a ban on the Islam forum for suggesting a purely historic examination and possible reinterpretation of the Quran. I misunderstood the depth of feeling on this matter, I stood on toes and was rightfully called on it as it appears such discussion is out of bounds. As one poster put it the Muslims hold the Quarn in as high regard as the Christians hold the divinty of Jesus. The christian lot seem to relish debate on the historical context and outside sources for their faith, so I made a mistake there. I should have brought it up by PM(which I did with the new mr, in the end, looong discussion

). Fair enough I know that now. If I want to discuss it I'll do so in the sprituality or history fora.

Asking questions is OK, in fact should be encouraged with all religions, but blanket statements like yours in such a context is a bit much I would imagine for the Christian types. How would you feel if I claimed that Mohammed was only a man, not a prophet and you were heretics on the Islam forum? Oh the ban would be quick in coming and rightfully so.

Wibbs · 21-07-2006 4:03pm

And me a heathen agnostic to boot. I dunno kids today....

babyvaio · 21-07-2006 4:09pm

Wibbs wrote:

In your opinion, not for the vast majority of practising christians. Your opinion that Jesus wasn't crucified(believed by Muslims) would equally not find favour here. Your opinion is informed by your faith which is fair enough. Whatever floats your boat.

I would take equal issue if a christian claimed as fact that Buddha didn't attain enlightenment, especially so on a buddhist forum. Hey I got a ban on the Islam forum for suggesting a purely historic examination and possible reinterpretation of the Quran. I misunderstood the depth of feeling on this matter, I stood on toes and was rightfully called on it as it appears such discussion is out of bounds. As one poster put it the Muslims hold the Quarn in as high regard as the Christians hold the divinty of Jesus. The christian lot seem to relish debate on the historical context and outside sources for their faith, so I made a mistake there. I should have brought it up by PM(which I did with the new mr, in the end, looong discussion ). Fair enough I know that now. If I want to discuss it I'll do so in the sprituality or history fora.

Asking questions is OK, in fact should be encouraged with all religions, but blanket statements like yours in such a context is a bit much I would imagine for the Christian types. How would you feel if I claimed that Mohammed was only a man, not a prophet and you were heretics on the Islam forum? Oh the ban would be quick in coming and rightfully so.

It your right to feel whatever you want.
Aber, what I said about Jesus is not in contradiction with the Bible. He has never said in his own words that people should worship him. So are you saying I'm not entitled to quote the Bible?

Wibbs · 21-07-2006 4:37pm

Can't believe me of all people.... Anyway.

It seems after a quick Google that contrary to your view he does claim to be the son of God on many occasions, hence I would imagine worthy of worship;

"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3.18

I and [my] Father are one. John 10.30 In fact in these passages he speaks of little else. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Jhn/Jhn010.html

http://www.jesusisajew.org/JiaJWord/MATT4V2.php Here he says that he's God when talking to satan.

Some blind man/possessed man he cured(can't get the image of the beggar from the life of Brian out of my head).

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" He answered and said, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" And Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you." Then he said, "Lord, I believe!" And he worshipped Him. (Note if you will the worship bit)

(John 9: 35-38)

According to the gospels even demons recognised him as such.

"And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God". matt 12.22

Another possesed bloke
"And he cried out with a loud voice and said, "What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God that You do not torment me". mark 5. 6-7

Presumably if God is to be worshipped then the son(who claims to be one and the same) is to be worshipped(if your a christian anyway). Seems logical.

athena 2000 · 21-07-2006 5:52pm

Wibbs wrote:

Can't believe me of all people.... Anyway.

It seems after a quick Google that contrary to your view he does claim to be the son of God on many occasions, hence I would imagine worthy of worship;
<snip>
Presumably if God is to be worshipped then the son(who claims to be one and the same) is to be worshipped(if your a christian anyway). Seems logical.

Interestingly enough, there are also two occasions where the Spirit of God himself calls Jesus his Son.

1) When Jesus goes to be baptised by John. Matthew 3:13-17.
All of Matthew chapter 3 is pertinent. An additional comment about Jesus by John (the Baptist) is also interesting - John 3:25-36

2) When Jesus took Peter, James and John up a high mountain with him to pray. Matthew 17:1-13 / Luke 9:28-36
A comment by Peter in one of his letters about this event. - 2 Peter 1:16-18

I think there is a case to be made for the divinity of Jesus Christ when God claims him openly and it is heard by a number of people.

babyvaio · 21-07-2006 5:53pm

Wibbs wrote:

Can't believe me of all people.... Anyway.

It seems after a quick Google that contrary to your view he does claim to be the son of God on many occasions, hence I would imagine worthy of worship;

"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3.18

I and [my] Father are one. John 10.30 In fact in these passages he speaks of little else. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Jhn/Jhn010.html

http://www.jesusisajew.org/JiaJWord/MATT4V2.php Here he says that he's God when talking to satan.

Some blind man/possessed man he cured(can't get the image of the beggar from the life of Brian out of my head).

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" He answered and said, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" And Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you." Then he said, "Lord, I believe!" And he worshipped Him. (Note if you will the worship bit)

(John 9: 35-38)

According to the gospels even demons recognised him as such.

"And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God". matt 12.22

Another possesed bloke
"And he cried out with a loud voice and said, "What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God that You do not torment me". mark 5. 6-7

Presumably if God is to be worshipped then the son(who claims to be one and the same) is to be worshipped(if your a christian anyway). Seems logical.

I'm a bit confused with the words according to.
Four Gospels which mention Jesus the most, are all entitled Gospel according to Mark, Luke, etc..

BTW, I think the history is clear here - they were not the apostles, in fact - they have never met Jesus, nor talked to him, nor saw him, etc. so whay they wrote in those four Gospels is questionable.

Now why are the titles according to?

Every author signs the book at least with the name and usually the surname, in these 4 cases, we don't even have their surnames. So these Gospels are not really Mark's Gospel, Luke's Gospel, etc. by somebody else wrote them and history doesn't even know who.

Do you at least give some possibility that there might be some errors in those four Gospels due to the fact that the term Trinity was introduced much later by the Church Council and the word itself does not occur in the whole Bible (and consecutively the arguable divinity of Jesus), and that these contradictions might at least question The Gospel's infallibility? I'm not talking about the whole Bible here, only about the already mentioned 4 Gospels.

If I'm wrong somewhere, please correct me with some evidence.

BrianCalgary · 21-07-2006 6:15pm

Matthew - a tax collector also known as Levi. Written prior to AD70.

Mark - Son of Mary (Acts 2:12) and the cousin of Barnabbas. Accompanied Paul and Barnabas. Written about AD55.

Luke - A companion of Paul written AD59 -63.

John - the 'disciple whom Jesus loved'. Written around AD85.

Iranaeus in AD180:

'Matthew published his own gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.'

Iranaeus, adversus haereses 3.4.4

The writers of the gospels had access to Jesus or to His disciples who traveled with Jesus.

bus77 · 21-07-2006 6:43pm

The first time the trinity is alluded to in the Bible, is when three fellas come and vist Abraham and his wife. Just before Sodom and Gomorrah.

Wibbs · 21-07-2006 7:15pm

babyvaio wrote:

I'm a bit confused with the words according to.
Four Gospels which mention Jesus the most, are all entitled Gospel according to Mark, Luke, etc..

BTW, I think the history is clear here - they were not the apostles, in fact - they have never met Jesus, nor talked to him, nor saw him, etc. so whay they wrote in those four Gospels is questionable.

Now why are the titles according to?

Every author signs the book at least with the name and usually the surname, in these 4 cases, we don't even have their surnames. So these Gospels are not really Mark's Gospel, Luke's Gospel, etc. by somebody else wrote them and history doesn't even know who.

Do you at least give some possibility that there might be some errors in those four Gospels due to the fact that the term Trinity was introduced much later by the Church Council and the word itself does not occur in the whole Bible (and consecutively the arguable divinity of Jesus), and that these contradictions might at least question The Gospel's infallibility? I'm not talking about the whole Bible here, only about the already mentioned 4 Gospels.

If I'm wrong somewhere, please correct me with some evidence.

Right so, you're changing the goalposts now are you not? Up to now you said you wanted direct gospel quotes about the divinity of Jesus from the point of view of christians. OK. Lovely. But now you question the authenticity of same when such answers are forthcoming. You can't have it both ways.

Well BrianCalgary, a Christian chappie more versed in knowledge about such things has given a good chronology there(from what I can google of it anyway).

If you're looking for "evidence", you're on a hiding to nothing. The thing is that all ancient religious texts are suspect in their historical/transmission/chronology values when such questions as yours are raised. An example in the territory you're more familiar with; the earliest biography of Mohammed was written by Ibn Ishaq over 100 yrs after his death. Hadeeth are even later(up to 300yrs later). The earliest Quranic script is found in the dome of the rock built 60yrs after The Prophets death and these vary from the Quran that comes down to us today which would to non believers question The Quran's "infallibility" just as much as the Gospels. Like Mohammed and The Buddha no independant reference of their lives exists either(I think Jesus himself is only referenced once by an outside source in his lifetime or soon after). If historical accuracy, chronology and transmission of source is to be applied to one religious text it should be applied to all equally.

Hey I don't particularly care what you chose to believe or not. It's up to you and I genuinely wish you well in your spiritual quest, but if you ask such questions you must be prepared to face similar questions asked of your own view. Out of respect to the Muslim forum(and the new mr in particular, nice bloke) I didn't continue on the line that may have caused some issue with the Muslim faith. All I would ask is that you apply the same thought to questions which may raise hackles with the faithful of other religions, especially when couched in the terms of prostelyzation(sp?). As I said before, questioning the divinity of Jesus is the same as questioning the unchanging Quran. Not a good plan really.

babyvaio · 21-07-2006 7:29pm

Wibbs wrote:

Right so, you're changing the goalposts now are you not? Up to now you said you wanted direct gospel quotes about the divinity of Jesus from the point of view of christians. OK. Lovely. But now you question the authenticity of same when such answers are forthcoming. You can't have it both ways.

Well BrianCalgary, a Christian chappie more versed in knowledge about such things has given a good chronology there(from what I can google of it anyway).

If you're looking for "evidence", you're on a hiding to nothing. The thing is that all ancient religious texts are suspect in their historical/transmission/chronology values when such questions as yours are raised. An example in the territory you're more familiar with; the earliest biography of Mohammed was written by Ibn Ishaq over 100 yrs after his death. Hadeeth are even later(up to 300yrs later). The earliest Quranic script is found in the dome of the rock built 60yrs after The Prophets death and these vary from the Quran that comes down to us today which would to non believers question The Quran's "infallibility" just as much as the Gospels. Like Mohammed and The Buddha no independant reference of their lives exists either(I think Jesus himself is only referenced once by an outside source in his lifetime or soon after). If historical accuracy, chronology and transmission of source is to be applied to one religious text it should be applied to all equally.

Hey I don't particularly care what you chose to believe or not. It's up to you and I genuinely wish you well in your spiritual quest, but if you ask such questions you must be prepared to face similar questions asked of your own view. Out of respect to the Muslim forum(and the new mr in particular, nice bloke) I didn't continue on the line that may have caused some issue with the Muslim faith. All I would ask is that you apply the same thought to questions which may raise hackles with the faithful of other religions, especially when couched in the terms of prostelyzation(sp?). As I said before, questioning the divinity of Jesus is the same as questioning the unchanging Quran. Not a good plan really.

Whilst mentioning all the texts, you forgot to mention Gospel of Barnabbas. BTW, you did mention him, but not the Gospel.

See, I can't trust in some organisation where its leaders refuse a few books, then maybe change some text (to make it look like the way they like), to distort the truth, etc.

Thanks for your impatience BTW. I - thank God - have finished my spiritual quest and I'm happy with the selected. That wasn't the subject of the this thread anyway.

I think the thread was about the pork/swine, however we departed far away, so I'm gona move away from this thread. And as far as trinity is concerned, we concluded somehow that the word itself in not directly used anywhere in the Bible, which is at least very strange for a book which is suppose to explain in detail God's Religion (The Religion God wants for us) whilst on the other hand Qur'an from the very beginning introduces itself, says Who sent it and why. And there is no doubt in that Book.

But that's another story and is not suppose to be under Christian forum and BTW I didn't mention the Qur'an first here, you did.

athena 2000 · 21-07-2006 7:35pm

babyvaio wrote:

BTW, I think the history is clear here - they were not the apostles, in fact - they have never met Jesus, nor talked to him, nor saw him, etc. so whay they wrote in those four Gospels is questionable.

Now why are the titles according to?

Every author signs the book at least with the name and usually the surname, in these 4 cases, we don't even have their surnames. So these Gospels are not really Mark's Gospel, Luke's Gospel, etc. by somebody else wrote them and history doesn't even know who.

<snip>

If I'm wrong somewhere, please correct me with some evidence.

If you believe you are correct, please provide the sources and evidence from those cited sources for all of your views in the above post.

If you have done any inquiry about the authors of the four gospels on your own, and I suppose you must have read something somewhere that gave you these ideas, then you have already reached your own conclusions as stated above. You are also sufficiently intelligent enough to look up the term, "according to" and understand what it means.

I don't really think you're interested in a discussion. Sorry, that's how I see it at the moment.

BrianCalgary · 21-07-2006 8:09pm

babyvaio wrote:

Whilst mentioning all the texts, you forgot to mention Gospel of Barnabbas. BTW, you did mention him, but not the Gospel..

It is called the Epistle of Barnabbas and was written about AD130. Not even written by Barnabbas. The author is then unknown and had no connection to Jesus.

babyvaio wrote:

I think the thread was about the pork/swine, however we departed far away, so I'm gona move away from this thread. And as far as trinity is concerned, we concluded somehow that the word itself in not directly used anywhere in the Bible, which is at least very strange for a book which is suppose to explain in detail God's Religion (The Religion God wants for us) whilst on the other hand Qur'an from the very beginning introduces itself, says Who sent it and why. And there is no doubt in that Book.

But that's another story and is not suppose to be under Christian forum and BTW I didn't mention the Qur'an first here, you did.

No problems on the OP going awry. It has been an interesting discussion.

On a comparison of the Qu'ran and the Bible. I understand that the OT is shared by both Islam and Christianity? The Bible is very clear on it's purpose as well. It is God's unfolding plan of salvation. Jesus says that HE came to preach the kingdom of God. The fact that the Bible is written by different authors at different times in different conditions and they all agree on the purpose makes it unique.

You question truth. I understand that the Qu'ran states that Jesus wasn't crucified? If the Qu'ran does state this, why would you believe it when: Josephus says that Jesus was crucified, as does, Tacitus. That is all I have at my fingertips at the moment.

Wibbs · 21-07-2006 8:53pm

babyvaio wrote:

Whilst mentioning all the texts, you forgot to mention Gospel of Barnabbas. BTW, you did mention him, but not the Gospel.

I mentioned what now? Anyway the so called Gospel of Barnabbas in this context(not the epistle that Brian referenced AFAIK) is considered by most researchers as a medieval fabrication. Most likely a spanish/moorish one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas The earliest version is late 16th century. Hardly a good reference now, is it? The fact that it agrees entirely with Islamic doctrine is a tad suspicious to boot given it's likely origins. Especially given the more trusted documents(at least in the christian faith) with a longer historical timeline contradict most of it. There are also serious factual errors of geography and history. Surely things that would not have happened if the writer was "on the ground".

See, I can't trust in some organisation where its leaders refuse a few books, then maybe change some text (to make it look like the way they like), to distort the truth, etc.

If you had read my earlier comments you would see a statement like that is the pot calling the kettle black.

Thanks for your impatience BTW

My impatience? Sorry I don't get you.

I - thank God - have finished my spiritual quest and I'm happy with the selected.

Is not the nature of a spritual quest that it never ends? Anyway I genuinely wished you well in it. If you took that as impatience or an attack that may reflect more on you than on me.

I think the thread was about the pork/swine,

On the surface maybe.

however we departed far away,

Yep I noticed that too.

And as far as trinity is concerned, we concluded somehow that the word itself in not directly used anywhere in the Bible, which is at least very strange for a book which is suppose to explain in detail God's Religion (The Religion God wants for us) whilst on the other hand Qur'an from the very beginning introduces itself, says Who sent it and why. And there is no doubt in that Book.

In your opinion. In my opinion there's a whole heap of doubt and contradiction in it(and other religious tomes). BTW the christian/jewish texts also say who sent them and why.

But that's another story and is not suppose to be under Christian forum and BTW I didn't mention the Qur'an first here, you did.

I suspect you were itching to however(sherlock holmes I am not). I also mentioned Buddha. The reason for the Quran being mentioned is simply because that's your primary choice of faith, hence you have knowledge of it. I'm sure if I referenced the Bhagavad Gita it may not have had the same resonance for you. As it was I'm not so sure referencing what you do know helped you at least understand the views of others to any better degree.

Is swine/pork allowed in Christianity? - Leviticus 11:7 -

Comments