Did the god of the bible kill people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s an idea, Jewish pp. instead of going after Christianity 24/7 on two separate threads, how about you address your own religion, and the thread about Yeshiva University denying establishment of an LGBTQ club?

Here's an idea from the OP: how about you not police the threads or suggest non-sequitur topics - start your own thread for those. There seems to be interesting information being shared. If you can't answer on the merits then you need not reply.

The question was answered on its merits, and so far you’re losing.

It’s interesting to get insights into your personality, though. So, you’re still avoiding the Yeshiva and LGBTQ thread like the proverbial plague?

Please read the posts you are replying to. I am the OP, not the PP, and I am not jewish, nor the person you have been exchanging with.

Hard to be an honest interlocutor if you won't read the posts you are replying to.

So the only issue is the word “you” when it should have been “pp” you’re calling posters dishonest. I guess we have a measure of your personality, too.

This thread has probably run its course. Yes, there’s a lot of violence in the Hebrew Bible/OT. Yes, Jesus established a new covenant with God, with a bonus digression into dietary laws.

This thread seems to have run its course, unless someone wants to bring in a brand new digression. Otherwise it’s just people including OP calling each other names.

OP here again and I didn't call you any name. I said it was hard for me to reply fairly and in context to someone who won't read the posts.

Just read the posts before you reply, and try and be thoughtful about it.

But thanks for admitting that the god of the bible kills many people, most (but not all) in the old testament. I don't think you or I get to declare the thread "run it's course" as that happens by consensus only.

You implied I’m dishonest. It’s hard for you to be an honest interlocutor if you won’t own your own words.

I’m fine with acknowledging violence in the OT and pointing out that Jesus made a new covenant with God based on love and forgiveness of sins. One poster here tried to argue that “new” doesn’t mean “new,” but that didn’t go very far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Christians don’t keep kosher.

Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'

But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.

Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.

? well that's true. But what does it have to do with "Christians don't keep kosher."? That was die to Paul.

sorry, due to

Jesus said that it doesn’t what you eat in Matthew. Paul took it up and ran with it, but Paul didn’t make it up. This is very simple.

You quoted Matthew though, not Jesus. Matthew was written (by whom we don't know for sure, but he likely never met Jesus) in around 70 CE. Paul on the other hand was active much earlier, probably around 50 CE -- so you're probably wrong about this. I think ot's more due to Paul than Matthew/Jesus

You can, of course, think whatever suits your purposes. You’d be an outlier, though. The vast majority of scholars think Matthew (and Luke) draw on Mark, and there’s also a lot of scholarly thought that both Matthew and Luke draw on another source, Quelle or Q source.

I agree with all of that, but I sill don't see how it's responsive to the claim Jesus changed the dietary laws. Paul yes, but what did Matthew, Mark or Luke have to do with it?

You tried to argue that Matthew is based on Paul. This shows that’s wrong and Matthew is based on Mark and Quelle. This is simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s an idea, Jewish pp. instead of going after Christianity 24/7 on two separate threads, how about you address your own religion, and the thread about Yeshiva University denying establishment of an LGBTQ club?

Here's an idea from the OP: how about you not police the threads or suggest non-sequitur topics - start your own thread for those. There seems to be interesting information being shared. If you can't answer on the merits then you need not reply.

The question was answered on its merits, and so far you’re losing.

It’s interesting to get insights into your personality, though. So, you’re still avoiding the Yeshiva and LGBTQ thread like the proverbial plague?

Please read the posts you are replying to. I am the OP, not the PP, and I am not jewish, nor the person you have been exchanging with.

Hard to be an honest interlocutor if you won't read the posts you are replying to.

So the only issue is the word “you” when it should have been “pp” you’re calling posters dishonest. I guess we have a measure of your personality, too.

This thread has probably run its course. Yes, there’s a lot of violence in the Hebrew Bible/OT. Yes, Jesus established a new covenant with God, with a bonus digression into dietary laws.

This thread seems to have run its course, unless someone wants to bring in a brand new digression. Otherwise it’s just people including OP calling each other names.

OP here again and I didn't call you any name. I said it was hard for me to reply fairly and in context to someone who won't read the posts.

Just read the posts before you reply, and try and be thoughtful about it.

But thanks for admitting that the god of the bible kills many people, most (but not all) in the old testament. I don't think you or I get to declare the thread "run it's course" as that happens by consensus only.

You implied I’m dishonest. It’s hard for you to be an honest interlocutor if you won’t own your own words.

I’m fine with acknowledging violence in the OT and pointing out that Jesus made a new covenant with God based on love and forgiveness of sins. One poster here tried to argue that “new” doesn’t mean “new,” but that didn’t go very far.

Here is my first real insult to you: your reading comprehension is very poor.

"{IT IS}Hard {FOR ME} to be an honest interlocutor {WITH YOU} if you won't read the posts you are replying to. ABOUT ME. How the heck would I know what is hard for you or not? It is hard for me if you won't read what I write.

And BTW "honest interlocutor" doesn't just mean "not lie". It means communicate fairly and thoughtfully, which is why that well-known term was used. It was not a fancy way to call you a liar. I wouldn't resort to that, I would just say "liar".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s an idea, Jewish pp. instead of going after Christianity 24/7 on two separate threads, how about you address your own religion, and the thread about Yeshiva University denying establishment of an LGBTQ club?

Here's an idea from the OP: how about you not police the threads or suggest non-sequitur topics - start your own thread for those. There seems to be interesting information being shared. If you can't answer on the merits then you need not reply.

The question was answered on its merits, and so far you’re losing.

It’s interesting to get insights into your personality, though. So, you’re still avoiding the Yeshiva and LGBTQ thread like the proverbial plague?

Please read the posts you are replying to. I am the OP, not the PP, and I am not jewish, nor the person you have been exchanging with.

Hard to be an honest interlocutor if you won't read the posts you are replying to.

So the only issue is the word “you” when it should have been “pp” you’re calling posters dishonest. I guess we have a measure of your personality, too.

This thread has probably run its course. Yes, there’s a lot of violence in the Hebrew Bible/OT. Yes, Jesus established a new covenant with God, with a bonus digression into dietary laws.

This thread seems to have run its course, unless someone wants to bring in a brand new digression. Otherwise it’s just people including OP calling each other names.

OP here again and I didn't call you any name. I said it was hard for me to reply fairly and in context to someone who won't read the posts.

Just read the posts before you reply, and try and be thoughtful about it.

But thanks for admitting that the god of the bible kills many people, most (but not all) in the old testament. I don't think you or I get to declare the thread "run it's course" as that happens by consensus only.

You implied I’m dishonest. It’s hard for you to be an honest interlocutor if you won’t own your own words.

I’m fine with acknowledging violence in the OT and pointing out that Jesus made a new covenant with God based on love and forgiveness of sins. One poster here tried to argue that “new” doesn’t mean “new,” but that didn’t go very far.

Here is my first real insult to you: your reading comprehension is very poor.

"{IT IS}Hard {FOR ME} to be an honest interlocutor {WITH YOU} if you won't read the posts you are replying to. ABOUT ME. How the heck would I know what is hard for you or not? It is hard for me if you won't read what I write.

And BTW "honest interlocutor" doesn't just mean "not lie". It means communicate fairly and thoughtfully, which is why that well-known term was used. It was not a fancy way to call you a liar. I wouldn't resort to that, I would just say "liar".

Nice, the old reading comprehension canard. Maybe learn to write more clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Christians don’t keep kosher.

Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'

But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.

Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.

? well that's true. But what does it have to do with "Christians don't keep kosher."? That was die to Paul.

sorry, due to

Jesus said that it doesn’t what you eat in Matthew. Paul took it up and ran with it, but Paul didn’t make it up. This is very simple.

You quoted Matthew though, not Jesus. Matthew was written (by whom we don't know for sure, but he likely never met Jesus) in around 70 CE. Paul on the other hand was active much earlier, probably around 50 CE -- so you're probably wrong about this. I think ot's more due to Paul than Matthew/Jesus

You can, of course, think whatever suits your purposes. You’d be an outlier, though. The vast majority of scholars think Matthew (and Luke) draw on Mark, and there’s also a lot of scholarly thought that both Matthew and Luke draw on another source, Quelle or Q source.

I agree with all of that, but I sill don't see how it's responsive to the claim Jesus changed the dietary laws. Paul yes, but what did Matthew, Mark or Luke have to do with it?

Obviously the vast majority of Christians don’t follow the kosher laws. The Jews for Jesus do follow the kosher laws. The quoted passage from Matthew has absolutely nothing to do with the kosher laws. Pharisees were criticizing Jesus’ apostles for not washing their hands before eating bread. That is not a kosher law, it’s simply one of the many rules which Jewish leaders dreamed up during the time of the Second Temple which have absolutely no support in the Old Testament. Orthodox Jews still follow this rule. Jesus had no patience with rules which lack Old Testament support. It has nothing to do with the kosher laws. As made clear in The Book of Acts, Peter continued to keep kosher long after Jesus died.

Sure, the context is around hand washing. But “what goes into your mouth doesn’t make you unclean” is a lot broader than hand washing. Do you think a guy who doesn’t care about eating a smidgeon of dirt would worry about eating pork? If Jesus meant just hand washing, he would have said that instead of saying “whatever.”

Your constant attempts to redefine simple words (“new” doesn’t mean “new,” “fulfill” can’t possibly mean “finalize” or “develop to completion,” and “whatever” only means “dirt”), and whole passages, surely serves some mental purpose of yours, but it’s ultimately easy to refute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s an idea, Jewish pp. instead of going after Christianity 24/7 on two separate threads, how about you address your own religion, and the thread about Yeshiva University denying establishment of an LGBTQ club?

Here's an idea from the OP: how about you not police the threads or suggest non-sequitur topics - start your own thread for those. There seems to be interesting information being shared. If you can't answer on the merits then you need not reply.

The question was answered on its merits, and so far you’re losing.

It’s interesting to get insights into your personality, though. So, you’re still avoiding the Yeshiva and LGBTQ thread like the proverbial plague?

Please read the posts you are replying to. I am the OP, not the PP, and I am not jewish, nor the person you have been exchanging with.

Hard to be an honest interlocutor if you won't read the posts you are replying to.

So the only issue is the word “you” when it should have been “pp” you’re calling posters dishonest. I guess we have a measure of your personality, too.

This thread has probably run its course. Yes, there’s a lot of violence in the Hebrew Bible/OT. Yes, Jesus established a new covenant with God, with a bonus digression into dietary laws.

This thread seems to have run its course, unless someone wants to bring in a brand new digression. Otherwise it’s just people including OP calling each other names.

OP here again and I didn't call you any name. I said it was hard for me to reply fairly and in context to someone who won't read the posts.

Just read the posts before you reply, and try and be thoughtful about it.

But thanks for admitting that the god of the bible kills many people, most (but not all) in the old testament. I don't think you or I get to declare the thread "run it's course" as that happens by consensus only.

You implied I’m dishonest. It’s hard for you to be an honest interlocutor if you won’t own your own words.

I’m fine with acknowledging violence in the OT and pointing out that Jesus made a new covenant with God based on love and forgiveness of sins. One poster here tried to argue that “new” doesn’t mean “new,” but that didn’t go very far.

Here is my first real insult to you: your reading comprehension is very poor.

"{IT IS}Hard {FOR ME} to be an honest interlocutor {WITH YOU} if you won't read the posts you are replying to. ABOUT ME. How the heck would I know what is hard for you or not? It is hard for me if you won't read what I write.

And BTW "honest interlocutor" doesn't just mean "not lie". It means communicate fairly and thoughtfully, which is why that well-known term was used. It was not a fancy way to call you a liar. I wouldn't resort to that, I would just say "liar".

Nice, the old reading comprehension canard. Maybe learn to write more clearly.

Fair enough, I will try and make things extremely simple and clear when responding to you. My apologies, I am not used to having to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s an idea, Jewish pp. instead of going after Christianity 24/7 on two separate threads, how about you address your own religion, and the thread about Yeshiva University denying establishment of an LGBTQ club?

Here's an idea from the OP: how about you not police the threads or suggest non-sequitur topics - start your own thread for those. There seems to be interesting information being shared. If you can't answer on the merits then you need not reply.

The question was answered on its merits, and so far you’re losing.

It’s interesting to get insights into your personality, though. So, you’re still avoiding the Yeshiva and LGBTQ thread like the proverbial plague?

Please read the posts you are replying to. I am the OP, not the PP, and I am not jewish, nor the person you have been exchanging with.

Hard to be an honest interlocutor if you won't read the posts you are replying to.

So the only issue is the word “you” when it should have been “pp” you’re calling posters dishonest. I guess we have a measure of your personality, too.

This thread has probably run its course. Yes, there’s a lot of violence in the Hebrew Bible/OT. Yes, Jesus established a new covenant with God, with a bonus digression into dietary laws.

This thread seems to have run its course, unless someone wants to bring in a brand new digression. Otherwise it’s just people including OP calling each other names.

OP here again and I didn't call you any name. I said it was hard for me to reply fairly and in context to someone who won't read the posts.

Just read the posts before you reply, and try and be thoughtful about it.

But thanks for admitting that the god of the bible kills many people, most (but not all) in the old testament. I don't think you or I get to declare the thread "run it's course" as that happens by consensus only.

You implied I’m dishonest. It’s hard for you to be an honest interlocutor if you won’t own your own words.

I’m fine with acknowledging violence in the OT and pointing out that Jesus made a new covenant with God based on love and forgiveness of sins. One poster here tried to argue that “new” doesn’t mean “new,” but that didn’t go very far.

Here is my first real insult to you: your reading comprehension is very poor.

"{IT IS}Hard {FOR ME} to be an honest interlocutor {WITH YOU} if you won't read the posts you are replying to. ABOUT ME. How the heck would I know what is hard for you or not? It is hard for me if you won't read what I write.

And BTW "honest interlocutor" doesn't just mean "not lie". It means communicate fairly and thoughtfully, which is why that well-known term was used. It was not a fancy way to call you a liar. I wouldn't resort to that, I would just say "liar".

Nice, the old reading comprehension canard. Maybe learn to write more clearly.

Fair enough, I will try and make things extremely simple and clear when responding to you. My apologies, I am not used to having to do that.

Yikes, grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s an idea, Jewish pp. instead of going after Christianity 24/7 on two separate threads, how about you address your own religion, and the thread about Yeshiva University denying establishment of an LGBTQ club?

Here's an idea from the OP: how about you not police the threads or suggest non-sequitur topics - start your own thread for those. There seems to be interesting information being shared. If you can't answer on the merits then you need not reply.

The question was answered on its merits, and so far you’re losing.

It’s interesting to get insights into your personality, though. So, you’re still avoiding the Yeshiva and LGBTQ thread like the proverbial plague?

Please read the posts you are replying to. I am the OP, not the PP, and I am not jewish, nor the person you have been exchanging with.

Hard to be an honest interlocutor if you won't read the posts you are replying to.

So the only issue is the word “you” when it should have been “pp” you’re calling posters dishonest. I guess we have a measure of your personality, too.

This thread has probably run its course. Yes, there’s a lot of violence in the Hebrew Bible/OT. Yes, Jesus established a new covenant with God, with a bonus digression into dietary laws.

This thread seems to have run its course, unless someone wants to bring in a brand new digression. Otherwise it’s just people including OP calling each other names.

OP here again and I didn't call you any name. I said it was hard for me to reply fairly and in context to someone who won't read the posts.

Just read the posts before you reply, and try and be thoughtful about it.

But thanks for admitting that the god of the bible kills many people, most (but not all) in the old testament. I don't think you or I get to declare the thread "run it's course" as that happens by consensus only.

You implied I’m dishonest. It’s hard for you to be an honest interlocutor if you won’t own your own words.

I’m fine with acknowledging violence in the OT and pointing out that Jesus made a new covenant with God based on love and forgiveness of sins. One poster here tried to argue that “new” doesn’t mean “new,” but that didn’t go very far.

Here is my first real insult to you: your reading comprehension is very poor.

"{IT IS}Hard {FOR ME} to be an honest interlocutor {WITH YOU} if you won't read the posts you are replying to. ABOUT ME. How the heck would I know what is hard for you or not? It is hard for me if you won't read what I write.

And BTW "honest interlocutor" doesn't just mean "not lie". It means communicate fairly and thoughtfully, which is why that well-known term was used. It was not a fancy way to call you a liar. I wouldn't resort to that, I would just say "liar".

Nice, the old reading comprehension canard. Maybe learn to write more clearly.

Fair enough, I will try and make things extremely simple and clear when responding to you. My apologies, I am not used to having to do that.

Yikes, grow up.

Now I am the one that is confused. I am sorry you do not like it when I agree to do what you ask. How would you have me respond?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Christians don’t keep kosher.

Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'

But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.

Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.

? well that's true. But what does it have to do with "Christians don't keep kosher."? That was die to Paul.

sorry, due to

Jesus said that it doesn’t what you eat in Matthew. Paul took it up and ran with it, but Paul didn’t make it up. This is very simple.

You quoted Matthew though, not Jesus. Matthew was written (by whom we don't know for sure, but he likely never met Jesus) in around 70 CE. Paul on the other hand was active much earlier, probably around 50 CE -- so you're probably wrong about this. I think ot's more due to Paul than Matthew/Jesus

You can, of course, think whatever suits your purposes. You’d be an outlier, though. The vast majority of scholars think Matthew (and Luke) draw on Mark, and there’s also a lot of scholarly thought that both Matthew and Luke draw on another source, Quelle or Q source.

I agree with all of that, but I sill don't see how it's responsive to the claim Jesus changed the dietary laws. Paul yes, but what did Matthew, Mark or Luke have to do with it?

Obviously the vast majority of Christians don’t follow the kosher laws. The Jews for Jesus do follow the kosher laws. The quoted passage from Matthew has absolutely nothing to do with the kosher laws. Pharisees were criticizing Jesus’ apostles for not washing their hands before eating bread. That is not a kosher law, it’s simply one of the many rules which Jewish leaders dreamed up during the time of the Second Temple which have absolutely no support in the Old Testament. Orthodox Jews still follow this rule. Jesus had no patience with rules which lack Old Testament support. It has nothing to do with the kosher laws. As made clear in The Book of Acts, Peter continued to keep kosher long after Jesus died.

Sure, the context is around hand washing. But “what goes into your mouth doesn’t make you unclean” is a lot broader than hand washing. Do you think a guy who doesn’t care about eating a smidgeon of dirt would worry about eating pork? If Jesus meant just hand washing, he would have said that instead of saying “whatever.”

Your constant attempts to redefine simple words (“new” doesn’t mean “new,” “fulfill” can’t possibly mean “finalize” or “develop to completion,” and “whatever” only means “dirt”), and whole passages, surely serves some mental purpose of yours, but it’s ultimately easy to refute.

It’s particularly odd that pp is trying to hold Christians to the letter and law of the OT in every one of these cases where she wants to define words her way only. But over on the Yeshiva discrimination thread, she’s shrugging and saying it’s not her problem because she’s not orthodox.

[Anonymous]

Incoming… a link to that southern church that follows OT dietary laws and has about 10 members including the pastor’s familiy. That’ll show Christendom!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Christians don’t keep kosher.

Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'

But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.

Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.

? well that's true. But what does it have to do with "Christians don't keep kosher."? That was die to Paul.

sorry, due to

Jesus said that it doesn’t what you eat in Matthew. Paul took it up and ran with it, but Paul didn’t make it up. This is very simple.

You quoted Matthew though, not Jesus. Matthew was written (by whom we don't know for sure, but he likely never met Jesus) in around 70 CE. Paul on the other hand was active much earlier, probably around 50 CE -- so you're probably wrong about this. I think ot's more due to Paul than Matthew/Jesus

You can, of course, think whatever suits your purposes. You’d be an outlier, though. The vast majority of scholars think Matthew (and Luke) draw on Mark, and there’s also a lot of scholarly thought that both Matthew and Luke draw on another source, Quelle or Q source.

I agree with all of that, but I sill don't see how it's responsive to the claim Jesus changed the dietary laws. Paul yes, but what did Matthew, Mark or Luke have to do with it?

Obviously the vast majority of Christians don’t follow the kosher laws. The Jews for Jesus do follow the kosher laws. The quoted passage from Matthew has absolutely nothing to do with the kosher laws. Pharisees were criticizing Jesus’ apostles for not washing their hands before eating bread. That is not a kosher law, it’s simply one of the many rules which Jewish leaders dreamed up during the time of the Second Temple which have absolutely no support in the Old Testament. Orthodox Jews still follow this rule. Jesus had no patience with rules which lack Old Testament support. It has nothing to do with the kosher laws. As made clear in The Book of Acts, Peter continued to keep kosher long after Jesus died.

Sure, the context is around hand washing. But “what goes into your mouth doesn’t make you unclean” is a lot broader than hand washing. Do you think a guy who doesn’t care about eating a smidgeon of dirt would worry about eating pork? If Jesus meant just hand washing, he would have said that instead of saying “whatever.”

Your constant attempts to redefine simple words (“new” doesn’t mean “new,” “fulfill” can’t possibly mean “finalize” or “develop to completion,” and “whatever” only means “dirt”), and whole passages, surely serves some mental purpose of yours, but it’s ultimately easy to refute.

Your last paragraph is obviously aimed at some other pp. But anyway, the passage from Matthew is dealing with hand washing and bread, which is always kosher. Jesus was not even addressing the kosher laws. If he had been addressing the kosher laws, why didn’t his disciples get the message? Peter was the head of the church, but always considered the kosher laws to remain in force. In Acts 10:9-15 Peter has a dream that seems to order him to eat un kosher meat. Peter cries out that never in his life has he violated the kosher laws but he keeps on having the dream. Peter is perplexed because he knows that God could not possibly mean for him to violate the kosher laws. Then he realizes that what God is telling him to do is to violate the Second Temple prohibition against associating with non Jews, another ridiculous Second Temple rule which has little if any Biblical support but still practiced by some Orthodox communities who teach that it’s a sin to drink with non Jews, and meaning for Peter to preach to non Jews. He never violated the kosher laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Christians don’t keep kosher.

Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'

But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.

Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.

? well that's true. But what does it have to do with "Christians don't keep kosher."? That was die to Paul.

sorry, due to

Jesus said that it doesn’t what you eat in Matthew. Paul took it up and ran with it, but Paul didn’t make it up. This is very simple.

You quoted Matthew though, not Jesus. Matthew was written (by whom we don't know for sure, but he likely never met Jesus) in around 70 CE. Paul on the other hand was active much earlier, probably around 50 CE -- so you're probably wrong about this. I think ot's more due to Paul than Matthew/Jesus

You can, of course, think whatever suits your purposes. You’d be an outlier, though. The vast majority of scholars think Matthew (and Luke) draw on Mark, and there’s also a lot of scholarly thought that both Matthew and Luke draw on another source, Quelle or Q source.

I agree with all of that, but I sill don't see how it's responsive to the claim Jesus changed the dietary laws. Paul yes, but what did Matthew, Mark or Luke have to do with it?

Obviously the vast majority of Christians don’t follow the kosher laws. The Jews for Jesus do follow the kosher laws. The quoted passage from Matthew has absolutely nothing to do with the kosher laws. Pharisees were criticizing Jesus’ apostles for not washing their hands before eating bread. That is not a kosher law, it’s simply one of the many rules which Jewish leaders dreamed up during the time of the Second Temple which have absolutely no support in the Old Testament. Orthodox Jews still follow this rule. Jesus had no patience with rules which lack Old Testament support. It has nothing to do with the kosher laws. As made clear in The Book of Acts, Peter continued to keep kosher long after Jesus died.

Sure, the context is around hand washing. But “what goes into your mouth doesn’t make you unclean” is a lot broader than hand washing. Do you think a guy who doesn’t care about eating a smidgeon of dirt would worry about eating pork? If Jesus meant just hand washing, he would have said that instead of saying “whatever.”

Your constant attempts to redefine simple words (“new” doesn’t mean “new,” “fulfill” can’t possibly mean “finalize” or “develop to completion,” and “whatever” only means “dirt”), and whole passages, surely serves some mental purpose of yours, but it’s ultimately easy to refute.

Your last paragraph is obviously aimed at some other pp. But anyway, the passage from Matthew is dealing with hand washing and bread, which is always kosher. Jesus was not even addressing the kosher laws. If he had been addressing the kosher laws, why didn’t his disciples get the message? Peter was the head of the church, but always considered the kosher laws to remain in force. In Acts 10:9-15 Peter has a dream that seems to order him to eat un kosher meat. Peter cries out that never in his life has he violated the kosher laws but he keeps on having the dream. Peter is perplexed because he knows that God could not possibly mean for him to violate the kosher laws. Then he realizes that what God is telling him to do is to violate the Second Temple prohibition against associating with non Jews, another ridiculous Second Temple rule which has little if any Biblical support but still practiced by some Orthodox communities who teach that it’s a sin to drink with non Jews, and meaning for Peter to preach to non Jews. He never violated the kosher laws.

Paul, Peter, and others read “whatever” differently. It happens, as you are proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Christians don’t keep kosher.

Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'

But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.

Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.

? well that's true. But what does it have to do with "Christians don't keep kosher."? That was die to Paul.

sorry, due to

Jesus said that it doesn’t what you eat in Matthew. Paul took it up and ran with it, but Paul didn’t make it up. This is very simple.

You quoted Matthew though, not Jesus. Matthew was written (by whom we don't know for sure, but he likely never met Jesus) in around 70 CE. Paul on the other hand was active much earlier, probably around 50 CE -- so you're probably wrong about this. I think ot's more due to Paul than Matthew/Jesus

You can, of course, think whatever suits your purposes. You’d be an outlier, though. The vast majority of scholars think Matthew (and Luke) draw on Mark, and there’s also a lot of scholarly thought that both Matthew and Luke draw on another source, Quelle or Q source.

I agree with all of that, but I sill don't see how it's responsive to the claim Jesus changed the dietary laws. Paul yes, but what did Matthew, Mark or Luke have to do with it?

Obviously the vast majority of Christians don’t follow the kosher laws. The Jews for Jesus do follow the kosher laws. The quoted passage from Matthew has absolutely nothing to do with the kosher laws. Pharisees were criticizing Jesus’ apostles for not washing their hands before eating bread. That is not a kosher law, it’s simply one of the many rules which Jewish leaders dreamed up during the time of the Second Temple which have absolutely no support in the Old Testament. Orthodox Jews still follow this rule. Jesus had no patience with rules which lack Old Testament support. It has nothing to do with the kosher laws. As made clear in The Book of Acts, Peter continued to keep kosher long after Jesus died.

Sure, the context is around hand washing. But “what goes into your mouth doesn’t make you unclean” is a lot broader than hand washing. Do you think a guy who doesn’t care about eating a smidgeon of dirt would worry about eating pork? If Jesus meant just hand washing, he would have said that instead of saying “whatever.”

Your constant attempts to redefine simple words (“new” doesn’t mean “new,” “fulfill” can’t possibly mean “finalize” or “develop to completion,” and “whatever” only means “dirt”), and whole passages, surely serves some mental purpose of yours, but it’s ultimately easy to refute.

Your last paragraph is obviously aimed at some other pp. But anyway, the passage from Matthew is dealing with hand washing and bread, which is always kosher. Jesus was not even addressing the kosher laws. If he had been addressing the kosher laws, why didn’t his disciples get the message? Peter was the head of the church, but always considered the kosher laws to remain in force. In Acts 10:9-15 Peter has a dream that seems to order him to eat un kosher meat. Peter cries out that never in his life has he violated the kosher laws but he keeps on having the dream. Peter is perplexed because he knows that God could not possibly mean for him to violate the kosher laws. Then he realizes that what God is telling him to do is to violate the Second Temple prohibition against associating with non Jews, another ridiculous Second Temple rule which has little if any Biblical support but still practiced by some Orthodox communities who teach that it’s a sin to drink with non Jews, and meaning for Peter to preach to non Jews. He never violated the kosher laws.

Paul, Peter, and others read “whatever” differently. It happens, as you are proof.

Not really. Peter and James, the heads of the Church, believed that all Christians had to follow the kosher laws, as they did. Paul claimed that the kosher laws only applied to Jewish Christians, not to gentile Christians. Paul, however, as a Jewish Christian, never violated the kosher laws himself. Obviously he realized that if he agreed with Peter and James, gentiles would not become Christians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Christians don’t keep kosher.

Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'

But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.

Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.

? well that's true. But what does it have to do with "Christians don't keep kosher."? That was die to Paul.

sorry, due to

Jesus said that it doesn’t what you eat in Matthew. Paul took it up and ran with it, but Paul didn’t make it up. This is very simple.

You quoted Matthew though, not Jesus. Matthew was written (by whom we don't know for sure, but he likely never met Jesus) in around 70 CE. Paul on the other hand was active much earlier, probably around 50 CE -- so you're probably wrong about this. I think ot's more due to Paul than Matthew/Jesus

You can, of course, think whatever suits your purposes. You’d be an outlier, though. The vast majority of scholars think Matthew (and Luke) draw on Mark, and there’s also a lot of scholarly thought that both Matthew and Luke draw on another source, Quelle or Q source.

I agree with all of that, but I sill don't see how it's responsive to the claim Jesus changed the dietary laws. Paul yes, but what did Matthew, Mark or Luke have to do with it?

Obviously the vast majority of Christians don’t follow the kosher laws. The Jews for Jesus do follow the kosher laws. The quoted passage from Matthew has absolutely nothing to do with the kosher laws. Pharisees were criticizing Jesus’ apostles for not washing their hands before eating bread. That is not a kosher law, it’s simply one of the many rules which Jewish leaders dreamed up during the time of the Second Temple which have absolutely no support in the Old Testament. Orthodox Jews still follow this rule. Jesus had no patience with rules which lack Old Testament support. It has nothing to do with the kosher laws. As made clear in The Book of Acts, Peter continued to keep kosher long after Jesus died.

Sure, the context is around hand washing. But “what goes into your mouth doesn’t make you unclean” is a lot broader than hand washing. Do you think a guy who doesn’t care about eating a smidgeon of dirt would worry about eating pork? If Jesus meant just hand washing, he would have said that instead of saying “whatever.”

Your constant attempts to redefine simple words (“new” doesn’t mean “new,” “fulfill” can’t possibly mean “finalize” or “develop to completion,” and “whatever” only means “dirt”), and whole passages, surely serves some mental purpose of yours, but it’s ultimately easy to refute.

Your last paragraph is obviously aimed at some other pp. But anyway, the passage from Matthew is dealing with hand washing and bread, which is always kosher. Jesus was not even addressing the kosher laws. If he had been addressing the kosher laws, why didn’t his disciples get the message? Peter was the head of the church, but always considered the kosher laws to remain in force. In Acts 10:9-15 Peter has a dream that seems to order him to eat un kosher meat. Peter cries out that never in his life has he violated the kosher laws but he keeps on having the dream. Peter is perplexed because he knows that God could not possibly mean for him to violate the kosher laws. Then he realizes that what God is telling him to do is to violate the Second Temple prohibition against associating with non Jews, another ridiculous Second Temple rule which has little if any Biblical support but still practiced by some Orthodox communities who teach that it’s a sin to drink with non Jews, and meaning for Peter to preach to non Jews. He never violated the kosher laws.

Paul, Peter, and others read “whatever” differently. It happens, as you are proof.

Not really. Peter and James, the heads of the Church, believed that all Christians had to follow the kosher laws, as they did. Paul claimed that the kosher laws only applied to Jewish Christians, not to gentile Christians. Paul, however, as a Jewish Christian, never violated the kosher laws himself. Obviously he realized that if he agreed with Peter and James, gentiles would not become Christians.

“Whatever” still means “whatever.” Last I checked, Peter and James headed the early church, but many things have changed since then. Honestly, the kosher laws are hard to understand in a modern age.

[Anonymous]

How did a thread on Jewish massacres of Canaanites (sanctioned by their God), and God’s vengeance on his people, get derailed onto Christian dietary laws?

Some of you are expert at derailing and deflecting. That’s nothing to be proud of.