Anonymous wrote:If God makes people kill each other, does he make people save each other and be kind to one another, too?
If you believe in God, then you accept him as being all powerful and capable of/responsible for everything that happens here on Earth. Sometimes it's hard to explain some of the stuff he does, but mere humans are not meant to understand.
So if people can't understand god, then people should stop saying that they do when it suits them. Agree?
dp: no, we don’t all agree on what other people should do concerning God and their religion. Get a real hobby, instead of pretending anon posters here can control other people.
So, you want to say you understand when it suits you, but when you can't understand horrific things attributed to your god you want to shrug and say "Well, we mere humans can't understand that. But don't be gay or eat bacon."
That is logically inconsistent well beyond the point of hypocrisy.
If you don’t believe in God, why do you care how I live or worship?
I don't care how you live or worship. Have at it and enjoy. I hope you have a great life.
You've chosen to enter a discussion forum and we are in a discussion about religion. I care about your logic and reason in this discussion. You are free to not respond to my questions in the discussion if you choose not to answer them, for reasons you need not reveal. I am free to respond or not as I choose, for reasons I need not reveal. But I am happy to, since you asked.
To repeat: this is a discussion forum, set up for the purpose of discussion. All I care about is how you participate here.
What an extremely dishonest post.
What is dishonest about it?
You can’t say other people are wrong because they think differently than you, and you don’t agree with their logic or reason. What makes you the standard of logic and reason in this forum or anywhere? Are you the same poster that is upset because the projected current population and religion trends according to Pew don’t agree with their desires for the world? Do you not realize you are not the gold standard for logic, reason, etc, out of every person in the entire world?
DOn't mind "dishonest" poster. They are just sounding off.
+1. They have also had a weird obsession with Pew for the past few years. Best to ignore a poster who uses sneaky rhetoric, or no rhetoric at all—she’s just here to pick fights with anonymous internet enemies that apparently live in her head.
I am the PP who’s post was called dishonest, and I am waiting for an explanation on that. I don’t know what you are referring to WRT Pew, have nothing to do with that.
I do agree with you it is best not to respond to questions where you don’t have a logically sound answer.
Now, please respond with that was specifically dishonest int he post you replied to.
I don’t take orders from posters who don’t argue in good faith.
I agree with pp: have fun thinking you’re the only smart, logical person around.
So you call a poster dishonest and can't back that up?
You are a wonderful person.
Can't back that up.
Lol. Did you ever wonder if it would be nice to get everybody on this forum together for a BBQ? Nope, me neither.
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.
Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?
well, for example, we have the USDA here in the US, and trichinosis really isn't a big problem anymore.
Trichinosis was never the point. The kosher laws aren’t about health. Rabbits aren’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Lobster isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Having a meal with both milk and meat isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health.
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.
Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?
Rules that don’t make sense
Honey is only kosher if the beekeeper has paid a fee to register his honey as kosher
Technology has improved to create a more humane way to slaughter animals
I do not see anything indicating that finding a more kind way to kill an animal would be against the principles of the religion
On these points I completely agree with you. The paying to register of foods in general originally made sense but now the Orthodox accept payment for items even if they could not have been un kosher. The system has become corrupt. I also agree that there are now more humane ways to kill animals. The problem isn’t the kosher laws, it’s the corrupt way the Orthodox follow them.
Anonymous wrote:If God makes people kill each other, does he make people save each other and be kind to one another, too?
If you believe in God, then you accept him as being all powerful and capable of/responsible for everything that happens here on Earth. Sometimes it's hard to explain some of the stuff he does, but mere humans are not meant to understand.
So if people can't understand god, then people should stop saying that they do when it suits them. Agree?
dp: no, we don’t all agree on what other people should do concerning God and their religion. Get a real hobby, instead of pretending anon posters here can control other people.
So, you want to say you understand when it suits you, but when you can't understand horrific things attributed to your god you want to shrug and say "Well, we mere humans can't understand that. But don't be gay or eat bacon."
That is logically inconsistent well beyond the point of hypocrisy.
If you don’t believe in God, why do you care how I live or worship?
I don't care how you live or worship. Have at it and enjoy. I hope you have a great life.
You've chosen to enter a discussion forum and we are in a discussion about religion. I care about your logic and reason in this discussion. You are free to not respond to my questions in the discussion if you choose not to answer them, for reasons you need not reveal. I am free to respond or not as I choose, for reasons I need not reveal. But I am happy to, since you asked.
To repeat: this is a discussion forum, set up for the purpose of discussion. All I care about is how you participate here.
What an extremely dishonest post.
What is dishonest about it?
You can’t say other people are wrong because they think differently than you, and you don’t agree with their logic or reason. What makes you the standard of logic and reason in this forum or anywhere? Are you the same poster that is upset because the projected current population and religion trends according to Pew don’t agree with their desires for the world? Do you not realize you are not the gold standard for logic, reason, etc, out of every person in the entire world?
DOn't mind "dishonest" poster. They are just sounding off.
+1. They have also had a weird obsession with Pew for the past few years. Best to ignore a poster who uses sneaky rhetoric, or no rhetoric at all—she’s just here to pick fights with anonymous internet enemies that apparently live in her head.
I am the PP who’s post was called dishonest, and I am waiting for an explanation on that. I don’t know what you are referring to WRT Pew, have nothing to do with that.
I do agree with you it is best not to respond to questions where you don’t have a logically sound answer.
Now, please respond with that was specifically dishonest int he post you replied to.
I don’t take orders from posters who don’t argue in good faith.
I agree with pp: have fun thinking you’re the only smart, logical person around.
So you call a poster dishonest and can't back that up?
You are a wonderful person.
Can't back that up.
You can't back anything you say. You call a post dishonest and then can't say why it is, despite numerous requests.
I don't need to comment any more than that. It speaks for itself.
Anonymous wrote:If God makes people kill each other, does he make people save each other and be kind to one another, too?
If you believe in God, then you accept him as being all powerful and capable of/responsible for everything that happens here on Earth. Sometimes it's hard to explain some of the stuff he does, but mere humans are not meant to understand.
So if people can't understand god, then people should stop saying that they do when it suits them. Agree?
dp: no, we don’t all agree on what other people should do concerning God and their religion. Get a real hobby, instead of pretending anon posters here can control other people.
So, you want to say you understand when it suits you, but when you can't understand horrific things attributed to your god you want to shrug and say "Well, we mere humans can't understand that. But don't be gay or eat bacon."
That is logically inconsistent well beyond the point of hypocrisy.
If you don’t believe in God, why do you care how I live or worship?
I don't care how you live or worship. Have at it and enjoy. I hope you have a great life.
You've chosen to enter a discussion forum and we are in a discussion about religion. I care about your logic and reason in this discussion. You are free to not respond to my questions in the discussion if you choose not to answer them, for reasons you need not reveal. I am free to respond or not as I choose, for reasons I need not reveal. But I am happy to, since you asked.
To repeat: this is a discussion forum, set up for the purpose of discussion. All I care about is how you participate here.
What an extremely dishonest post.
What is dishonest about it?
You can’t say other people are wrong because they think differently than you, and you don’t agree with their logic or reason. What makes you the standard of logic and reason in this forum or anywhere? Are you the same poster that is upset because the projected current population and religion trends according to Pew don’t agree with their desires for the world? Do you not realize you are not the gold standard for logic, reason, etc, out of every person in the entire world?
DOn't mind "dishonest" poster. They are just sounding off.
+1. They have also had a weird obsession with Pew for the past few years. Best to ignore a poster who uses sneaky rhetoric, or no rhetoric at all—she’s just here to pick fights with anonymous internet enemies that apparently live in her head.
I am the PP who’s post was called dishonest, and I am waiting for an explanation on that. I don’t know what you are referring to WRT Pew, have nothing to do with that.
I do agree with you it is best not to respond to questions where you don’t have a logically sound answer.
Now, please respond with that was specifically dishonest int he post you replied to.
I don’t take orders from posters who don’t argue in good faith.
I agree with pp: have fun thinking you’re the only smart, logical person around.
So you call a poster dishonest and can't back that up?
You are a wonderful person.
Can't back that up.
You can't back anything you say. You call a post dishonest and then can't say why it is, despite numerous requests.
I don't need to comment any more than that. It speaks for itself.
Except with links from reputable sources, nothing said here can be "backed up" because it's an anonymous message board.
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.
Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?
well, for example, we have the USDA here in the US, and trichinosis really isn't a big problem anymore.
Trichinosis was never the point. The kosher laws aren’t about health. Rabbits aren’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Lobster isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Having a meal with both milk and meat isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health.
Anonymous wrote:If God makes people kill each other, does he make people save each other and be kind to one another, too?
If you believe in God, then you accept him as being all powerful and capable of/responsible for everything that happens here on Earth. Sometimes it's hard to explain some of the stuff he does, but mere humans are not meant to understand.
So if people can't understand god, then people should stop saying that they do when it suits them. Agree?
dp: no, we don’t all agree on what other people should do concerning God and their religion. Get a real hobby, instead of pretending anon posters here can control other people.
So, you want to say you understand when it suits you, but when you can't understand horrific things attributed to your god you want to shrug and say "Well, we mere humans can't understand that. But don't be gay or eat bacon."
That is logically inconsistent well beyond the point of hypocrisy.
If you don’t believe in God, why do you care how I live or worship?
I don't care how you live or worship. Have at it and enjoy. I hope you have a great life.
You've chosen to enter a discussion forum and we are in a discussion about religion. I care about your logic and reason in this discussion. You are free to not respond to my questions in the discussion if you choose not to answer them, for reasons you need not reveal. I am free to respond or not as I choose, for reasons I need not reveal. But I am happy to, since you asked.
To repeat: this is a discussion forum, set up for the purpose of discussion. All I care about is how you participate here.
What an extremely dishonest post.
What is dishonest about it?
You can’t say other people are wrong because they think differently than you, and you don’t agree with their logic or reason. What makes you the standard of logic and reason in this forum or anywhere? Are you the same poster that is upset because the projected current population and religion trends according to Pew don’t agree with their desires for the world? Do you not realize you are not the gold standard for logic, reason, etc, out of every person in the entire world?
DOn't mind "dishonest" poster. They are just sounding off.
+1. They have also had a weird obsession with Pew for the past few years. Best to ignore a poster who uses sneaky rhetoric, or no rhetoric at all—she’s just here to pick fights with anonymous internet enemies that apparently live in her head.
I am the PP who’s post was called dishonest, and I am waiting for an explanation on that. I don’t know what you are referring to WRT Pew, have nothing to do with that.
I do agree with you it is best not to respond to questions where you don’t have a logically sound answer.
Now, please respond with that was specifically dishonest int he post you replied to.
I don’t take orders from posters who don’t argue in good faith.
I agree with pp: have fun thinking you’re the only smart, logical person around.
So you call a poster dishonest and can't back that up?
You are a wonderful person.
Can't back that up.
You can't back anything you say. You call a post dishonest and then can't say why it is, despite numerous requests.
I don't need to comment any more than that. It speaks for itself.
Except with links from reputable sources, nothing said here can be "backed up" because it's an anonymous message board.
This is a silly comment. I am not asking for citations, but an explanation of what in the post of what they felt was dishonest.
(Hint: it was because nothing was dishonest, and that post didn’t have anything that could even qualify as dishonest, it was a blind ad hominem by a poster who had no substantive response, apparently)
Anonymous wrote:If God makes people kill each other, does he make people save each other and be kind to one another, too?
If you believe in God, then you accept him as being all powerful and capable of/responsible for everything that happens here on Earth. Sometimes it's hard to explain some of the stuff he does, but mere humans are not meant to understand.
So if people can't understand god, then people should stop saying that they do when it suits them. Agree?
dp: no, we don’t all agree on what other people should do concerning God and their religion. Get a real hobby, instead of pretending anon posters here can control other people.
So, you want to say you understand when it suits you, but when you can't understand horrific things attributed to your god you want to shrug and say "Well, we mere humans can't understand that. But don't be gay or eat bacon."
That is logically inconsistent well beyond the point of hypocrisy.
If you don’t believe in God, why do you care how I live or worship?
I don't care how you live or worship. Have at it and enjoy. I hope you have a great life.
You've chosen to enter a discussion forum and we are in a discussion about religion. I care about your logic and reason in this discussion. You are free to not respond to my questions in the discussion if you choose not to answer them, for reasons you need not reveal. I am free to respond or not as I choose, for reasons I need not reveal. But I am happy to, since you asked.
To repeat: this is a discussion forum, set up for the purpose of discussion. All I care about is how you participate here.
What an extremely dishonest post.
What is dishonest about it?
You can’t say other people are wrong because they think differently than you, and you don’t agree with their logic or reason. What makes you the standard of logic and reason in this forum or anywhere? Are you the same poster that is upset because the projected current population and religion trends according to Pew don’t agree with their desires for the world? Do you not realize you are not the gold standard for logic, reason, etc, out of every person in the entire world?
DOn't mind "dishonest" poster. They are just sounding off.
+1. They have also had a weird obsession with Pew for the past few years. Best to ignore a poster who uses sneaky rhetoric, or no rhetoric at all—she’s just here to pick fights with anonymous internet enemies that apparently live in her head.
I am the PP who’s post was called dishonest, and I am waiting for an explanation on that. I don’t know what you are referring to WRT Pew, have nothing to do with that.
I do agree with you it is best not to respond to questions where you don’t have a logically sound answer.
Now, please respond with that was specifically dishonest int he post you replied to.
I don’t take orders from posters who don’t argue in good faith.
I agree with pp: have fun thinking you’re the only smart, logical person around.
So you call a poster dishonest and can't back that up?
You are a wonderful person.
Can't back that up.
You can't back anything you say. You call a post dishonest and then can't say why it is, despite numerous requests.
I don't need to comment any more than that. It speaks for itself.
Except with links from reputable sources, nothing said here can be "backed up" because it's an anonymous message board.
This is a silly comment. I am not asking for citations, but an explanation of what in the post of what they felt was dishonest.
(Hint: it was because nothing was dishonest, and that post didn’t have anything that could even qualify as dishonest, it was a blind ad hominem by a poster who had no substantive response, apparently)
If you say it's silly it must be silly. Lots of silly people hang out here. Cute people too, and people who deal in blind adhominems and all sorts of stuff.
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.
Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?
well, for example, we have the USDA here in the US, and trichinosis really isn't a big problem anymore.
Trichinosis was never the point. The kosher laws aren’t about health. Rabbits aren’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Lobster isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Having a meal with both milk and meat isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health.
What is the point, then?
Utilitarianism is not the basis for all decisions.
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.
Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?
well, for example, we have the USDA here in the US, and trichinosis really isn't a big problem anymore.
Trichinosis was never the point. The kosher laws aren’t about health. Rabbits aren’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Lobster isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Having a meal with both milk and meat isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health.
What is the point, then?
Ask God. The kosher laws are the kosher laws because we believe God told us what we can and cannot eat. The kosher laws tell us to remove all blood from meat. Nothing to do with health. We obey God’s commands. We don’t ask why He gave the commands.
Anonymous wrote:If God makes people kill each other, does he make people save each other and be kind to one another, too?
If you believe in God, then you accept him as being all powerful and capable of/responsible for everything that happens here on Earth. Sometimes it's hard to explain some of the stuff he does, but mere humans are not meant to understand.
So if people can't understand god, then people should stop saying that they do when it suits them. Agree?
dp: no, we don’t all agree on what other people should do concerning God and their religion. Get a real hobby, instead of pretending anon posters here can control other people.
So, you want to say you understand when it suits you, but when you can't understand horrific things attributed to your god you want to shrug and say "Well, we mere humans can't understand that. But don't be gay or eat bacon."
That is logically inconsistent well beyond the point of hypocrisy.
If you don’t believe in God, why do you care how I live or worship?
I don't care how you live or worship. Have at it and enjoy. I hope you have a great life.
You've chosen to enter a discussion forum and we are in a discussion about religion. I care about your logic and reason in this discussion. You are free to not respond to my questions in the discussion if you choose not to answer them, for reasons you need not reveal. I am free to respond or not as I choose, for reasons I need not reveal. But I am happy to, since you asked.
To repeat: this is a discussion forum, set up for the purpose of discussion. All I care about is how you participate here.
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.
Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?
well, for example, we have the USDA here in the US, and trichinosis really isn't a big problem anymore.
Trichinosis was never the point. The kosher laws aren’t about health. Rabbits aren’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Lobster isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Having a meal with both milk and meat isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health.
What is the point, then?
Ask God. The kosher laws are the kosher laws because we believe God told us what we can and cannot eat. The kosher laws tell us to remove all blood from meat. Nothing to do with health. We obey God’s commands. We don’t ask why He gave the commands.
Fine, but you don't think these commands were just random do you? Or do you?
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.
Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?
well, for example, we have the USDA here in the US, and trichinosis really isn't a big problem anymore.
Trichinosis was never the point. The kosher laws aren’t about health. Rabbits aren’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Lobster isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Having a meal with both milk and meat isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health.
What is the point, then?
Ask God. The kosher laws are the kosher laws because we believe God told us what we can and cannot eat. The kosher laws tell us to remove all blood from meat. Nothing to do with health. We obey God’s commands. We don’t ask why He gave the commands.
Fine, but you don't think these commands were just random do you? Or do you?
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.
Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?
well, for example, we have the USDA here in the US, and trichinosis really isn't a big problem anymore.
Trichinosis was never the point. The kosher laws aren’t about health. Rabbits aren’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Lobster isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Having a meal with both milk and meat isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health.
What is the point, then?
Ask God. The kosher laws are the kosher laws because we believe God told us what we can and cannot eat. The kosher laws tell us to remove all blood from meat. Nothing to do with health. We obey God’s commands. We don’t ask why He gave the commands.
Fine, but you don't think these commands were just random do you? Or do you?
Darned if I know. We obey God’s commands because they’re God’s commands. We don’t ask God why He gave the commands.
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.
Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?
well, for example, we have the USDA here in the US, and trichinosis really isn't a big problem anymore.
Trichinosis was never the point. The kosher laws aren’t about health. Rabbits aren’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Lobster isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Having a meal with both milk and meat isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health.
What is the point, then?
Ask God. The kosher laws are the kosher laws because we believe God told us what we can and cannot eat. The kosher laws tell us to remove all blood from meat. Nothing to do with health. We obey God’s commands. We don’t ask why He gave the commands.
Fine, but you don't think these commands were just random do you? Or do you?
Darned if I know. We obey God’s commands because they’re God’s commands. We don’t ask God why He gave the commands.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}