If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Darn spellcheck. “almost entirely”.

So if (1) there’s Biblical support for gentiles not keeping kosher, and (2) the vast majority of Christians today are gentiles (celts, Africans, francs or so many other non-Semitic peoples), then (3) you must agree there’s biblical support for Christians not needing to keep kosher.

Have you undermined your own argument, and we’re done here? You can keep trying to pretend Matthew 15 doesn’t say what it actually says about “it doesn’t matter what goes in your mouth” and you can keep arguing that Peter’s metaphor isn’t founded on god saying there are no unclean animals. But you do agree there’s biblical support for the idea that gentiles, like the vast majority of Christians today, don’t need to keep kosher, and we seem to be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

See 10:28 just for starters. There are pages of this ridiculous derailment. I’m only here because it’s more interesting and intellectually challenging than the usual “religion sucks and atheists are perfect.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

[Anonymous]

And I CERTAINLY don’t believe we should abhor homosexuality. Let’s abhor Leviticus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

9:16 said this: “ The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.”

Are you a different poster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

9:16 said this: “ The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.”

Are you a different poster?

No, I’m that poster. I have never understood the position of the Reform Jews on Leviticus. They claim it’s God’s Law and the whole congregation stands when the Ark containing it is opened. But they don’t follow the law. I don’t get it. It makes no sense to me. As an atheist, I don’t follow it because I don’t believe it is law of any God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

9:16 said this: “ The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.”

Are you a different poster?

No, I’m that poster. I have never understood the position of the Reform Jews on Leviticus. They claim it’s God’s Law and the whole congregation stands when the Ark containing it is opened. But they don’t follow the law. I don’t get it. It makes no sense to me. As an atheist, I don’t follow it because I don’t believe it is law of any God.

How are you claiming that “nobody said Christians should keep kosher” when you’ve spent the last 3-4 pages posing unconvincing arguments about exactly that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

9:16 said this: “ The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.”

Are you a different poster?

No, I’m that poster. I have never understood the position of the Reform Jews on Leviticus. They claim it’s God’s Law and the whole congregation stands when the Ark containing it is opened. But they don’t follow the law. I don’t get it. It makes no sense to me. As an atheist, I don’t follow it because I don’t believe it is law of any God.

How are you claiming that “nobody said Christians should keep kosher” when you’ve spent the last 3-4 pages posing unconvincing arguments about exactly that?

I never said Christians should keep kosher. I said Jesus never told Jews that they should stop keeping kosher.

[Anonymous]

I did say that Christians cherry pick Leviticus. I said it because it’s true. They don’t bathe after nocturnal emissions but they use it to justify hatred of homosexuals. For this I do condemn Christians. Christians should get rid of Leviticus altogether.

[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:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

9:16 said this: “ The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.”

Are you a different poster?

No, I’m that poster. I have never understood the position of the Reform Jews on Leviticus. They claim it’s God’s Law and the whole congregation stands when the Ark containing it is opened. But they don’t follow the law. I don’t get it. It makes no sense to me. As an atheist, I don’t follow it because I don’t believe it is law of any God.

How are you claiming that “nobody said Christians should keep kosher” when you’ve spent the last 3-4 pages posing unconvincing arguments about exactly that?

I never said Christians should keep kosher. I said Jesus never told Jews that they should stop keeping kosher.

10:28 said this: “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Which, obviously, would apply to Christians as well as Jews.

Is that you too?

[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:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

9:16 said this: “ The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.”

Are you a different poster?

No, I’m that poster. I have never understood the position of the Reform Jews on Leviticus. They claim it’s God’s Law and the whole congregation stands when the Ark containing it is opened. But they don’t follow the law. I don’t get it. It makes no sense to me. As an atheist, I don’t follow it because I don’t believe it is law of any God.

How are you claiming that “nobody said Christians should keep kosher” when you’ve spent the last 3-4 pages posing unconvincing arguments about exactly that?

I never said Christians should keep kosher. I said Jesus never told Jews that they should stop keeping kosher.

10:28 said this: “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Which, obviously, would apply to Christians as well as Jews.

Is that you too?

And at 12:07 you said this: “And no, Jesus never changed the kosher laws.”

So what are we to think? You twist the new testament in preposterous ways and lie about your own posts.

Maybe do a better job of representing atheists? I thought I was dealing with an Orthodox Jew who was at least engaging in good faith, even if their biases led them to some weird conclusions. Come to find I’m dealing with someone can’t even be honest about their own posts.