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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

When have I lied about my own posts?

When you claimed you never said Jesus abolished dietary rules, but then copped to your post at 10:38 when you said “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” And before you start, you didn’t qualify that with “for Jews” or whatever argument you’re trying to make now. You just said, “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

When have I lied about my own posts?

When you claimed you never said Jesus abolished dietary rules, but then copped to your post at 10:38 when you said “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” And before you start, you didn’t qualify that with “for Jews” or whatever argument you’re trying to make now. You just said, “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Full stop.

I never claimed that Jesus abolished the dietary rules. My whole argument is that he never abolished the dietary rules. You’re confusing me with another poster. You’re post makes no sense. First you say I claimed that I never said Jesus abolished the dietary rules. Which is true. Then you say that I say “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Correct. I said the exact same thing twice. Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules. The dietary rules apply to all Israelites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

When have I lied about my own posts?

When you claimed you never said Jesus abolished dietary rules, but then copped to your post at 10:38 when you said “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” And before you start, you didn’t qualify that with “for Jews” or whatever argument you’re trying to make now. You just said, “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Full stop.

I never claimed that Jesus abolished the dietary rules. My whole argument is that he never abolished the dietary rules. You’re confusing me with another poster. You’re post makes no sense. First you say I claimed that I never said Jesus abolished the dietary rules. Which is true. Then you say that I say “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Correct. I said the exact same thing twice. Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules. The dietary rules apply to all Israelites.

“Your,” not “you’re.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

When have I lied about my own posts?

When did I lie about my own posts. Jesus was talking about the elders criticizing his followers for eating bread with unwashed hands. Bread cannot be un kosher. Jesus never changed the Kosher laws. https://joshuaensley.org/2018/03/19/mark-7-did-jesus-change-the-biblical-dietary-laws/

OK wow, you’re relying on the fringe of the fringe. Joshua Ensley is a pronominian Christian. His Facebook page has 431 likes. A Facebook page for pronomian Christians has 84 members.

As for Ensley’s arguments, they seem tendentious—at best. For example, Ensley claims Mark was only writing for a gentile audience, based on the fact that Mark includes details on Jewish law. But that in no way means Mark is *only* speaking to gentiles. Basic logic says Mark is talking to an audience of both Jews and Gentiles, and Mark provides helpful details on Jewish law for the gentile part of his audience. It’s like either of us posting on DCUM about the beltway, and including details on MD for readers in DC and VA, even though lots of the DCUM audience live in MD and already know these details. Next.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

[Anonymous]

All this discussion of obscure scriptural interpretations because an ex-Jew wants to force Christians to take Leviticus’ prohibition on homosexuality literally.

DCUM, you never fail to disappoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hate the sin, love the sinner.

I hate this saying especially when it is applied to people who are gay - how horrific. By hating the sin of your child's sexuality you will disapproving of their lifestyle and who they choose to love all their lives. Religious people really disgust me sometimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this discussion of obscure scriptural interpretations because an ex-Jew wants to force Christians to take Leviticus’ prohibition on homosexuality literally.

DCUM, you never fail to disappoint.

You’re saying I want Christians to take Leviticus’s prohibition on homosexuality literally? Where did you get that stupid idea? People should love whomever they want. Leviticus 18:22 is HORRIBLE. Leviticus 18:22 is abhorrent and should be relegated to the trash bin of history. I condemn Christians for cherry picking Leviticus. They don’t wash themselves after nocturnal emissions as commanded by Leviticus chapter 15, but they justify hating homosexuals by virtue of Leviticus 18:22. How does that make any sense?

I say Christians should stop discriminating against homosexuals and trash Leviticus entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

When have I lied about my own posts?

When did I lie about my own posts. Jesus was talking about the elders criticizing his followers for eating bread with unwashed hands. Bread cannot be un kosher. Jesus never changed the Kosher laws. https://joshuaensley.org/2018/03/19/mark-7-did-jesus-change-the-biblical-dietary-laws/

OK wow, you’re relying on the fringe of the fringe. Joshua Ensley is a pronominian Christian. His Facebook page has 431 likes. A Facebook page for pronomian Christians has 84 members.

As for Ensley’s arguments, they seem tendentious—at best. For example, Ensley claims Mark was only writing for a gentile audience, based on the fact that Mark includes details on Jewish law. But that in no way means Mark is *only* speaking to gentiles. Basic logic says Mark is talking to an audience of both Jews and Gentiles, and Mark provides helpful details on Jewish law for the gentile part of his audience. It’s like either of us posting on DCUM about the beltway, and including details on MD for readers in DC and VA, even though lots of the DCUM audience live in MD and already know these details. Next.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

Matthew 5:17 is hardly fringe. Jesus did not come to abolish the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

When have I lied about my own posts?

When did I lie about my own posts. Jesus was talking about the elders criticizing his followers for eating bread with unwashed hands. Bread cannot be un kosher. Jesus never changed the Kosher laws. https://joshuaensley.org/2018/03/19/mark-7-did-jesus-change-the-biblical-dietary-laws/

OK wow, you’re relying on the fringe of the fringe. Joshua Ensley is a pronominian Christian. His Facebook page has 431 likes. A Facebook page for pronomian Christians has 84 members.

As for Ensley’s arguments, they seem tendentious—at best. For example, Ensley claims Mark was only writing for a gentile audience, based on the fact that Mark includes details on Jewish law. But that in no way means Mark is *only* speaking to gentiles. Basic logic says Mark is talking to an audience of both Jews and Gentiles, and Mark provides helpful details on Jewish law for the gentile part of his audience. It’s like either of us posting on DCUM about the beltway, and including details on MD for readers in DC and VA, even though lots of the DCUM audience live in MD and already know these details. Next.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

Matthew 5:17 is hardly fringe. Jesus did not come to abolish the law.

What the what? Ensley doesn’t look at Matthew 5:17 at all. It’s just you misdirecting words like “fringe.” It’s almost like you lost the last 5 pages of arguments so now you’re trying to float square one arguments again with a different scripture passage. Weird, but understandable, that you didn’t go with Matthew 22:37-40 instead, because that would have undermined your argument.

Anyway, in Matthew 5:17 Jesus says he’s come to “fulfill” the law, by which means change it. And that he did. For example, Jesus said and did things that were shocking to Leviticus-followers, like telling his followers to drink his (symbolic) blood, which is totally not kosher. You can’t claim that was consistent with Leviticus. Also, you and Joshua can’t substantiate your claim about the dietary laws being only for gentiles and only about washing your hands, so we’re left with “nothing” being unclean and followers being able to eat “whatever” they put in their mouths. And Jesus abolished eye-for-eye justice; your point about the Pharisees getting there first is irrelevant to the point that Jesus didn’t want people following that part of Leviticus either. He made divorce illegal instead of the Levitical rules around divorce. He said love your enemy, not just the Levitical rule about living your neighbor. And so on and so on.

So, Jesus was definitely not encouraging his followers to adhere to Leviticus letter by letter. There’s no way you can argue the statements above didn’t contradict Leviticus.

Baffled as to why you, as a Jew who’s now an atheist, care so much about whether Christians are bound by Levitical rules on diet and homosexuality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate the sin, love the sinner.

I hate this saying especially when it is applied to people who are gay - how horrific. By hating the sin of your child's sexuality you will disapproving of their lifestyle and who they choose to love all their lives. Religious people really disgust me sometimes.

The same sin applies to premarital sex and adultery. The point is, everyone sins, and everyone forgives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hate the sin, love the sinner.

It’s not a sin though. Love is not a sin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

When have I lied about my own posts?

When did I lie about my own posts. Jesus was talking about the elders criticizing his followers for eating bread with unwashed hands. Bread cannot be un kosher. Jesus never changed the Kosher laws. https://joshuaensley.org/2018/03/19/mark-7-did-jesus-change-the-biblical-dietary-laws/

OK wow, you’re relying on the fringe of the fringe. Joshua Ensley is a pronominian Christian. His Facebook page has 431 likes. A Facebook page for pronomian Christians has 84 members.

As for Ensley’s arguments, they seem tendentious—at best. For example, Ensley claims Mark was only writing for a gentile audience, based on the fact that Mark includes details on Jewish law. But that in no way means Mark is *only* speaking to gentiles. Basic logic says Mark is talking to an audience of both Jews and Gentiles, and Mark provides helpful details on Jewish law for the gentile part of his audience. It’s like either of us posting on DCUM about the beltway, and including details on MD for readers in DC and VA, even though lots of the DCUM audience live in MD and already know these details. Next.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

Matthew 5:17 is hardly fringe. Jesus did not come to abolish the law.

What the what? Ensley doesn’t look at Matthew 5:17 at all. It’s just you misdirecting words like “fringe.” It’s almost like you lost the last 5 pages of arguments so now you’re trying to float square one arguments again with a different scripture passage. Weird, but understandable, that you didn’t go with Matthew 22:37-40 instead, because that would have undermined your argument.

Anyway, in Matthew 5:17 Jesus says he’s come to “fulfill” the law, by which means change it. And that he did. For example, Jesus said and did things that were shocking to Leviticus-followers, like telling his followers to drink his (symbolic) blood, which is totally not kosher. You can’t claim that was consistent with Leviticus. Also, you and Joshua can’t substantiate your claim about the dietary laws being only for gentiles and only about washing your hands, so we’re left with “nothing” being unclean and followers being able to eat “whatever” they put in their mouths. And Jesus abolished eye-for-eye justice; your point about the Pharisees getting there first is irrelevant to the point that Jesus didn’t want people following that part of Leviticus either. He made divorce illegal instead of the Levitical rules around divorce. He said love your enemy, not just the Levitical rule about living your neighbor. And so on and so on.

So, Jesus was definitely not encouraging his followers to adhere to Leviticus letter by letter. There’s no way you can argue the statements above didn’t contradict Leviticus.

Baffled as to why you, as a Jew who’s now an atheist, care so much about whether Christians are bound by Levitical rules on diet and homosexuality.

Wrong. In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus makes it clear he is NOT here to change the law. Whether non Israelite Christians had to obey the kosher laws was the subject of Acts. Jesus did not change the kosher laws. https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/library/article/id/1049/clean-unclean-meats.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

When have I lied about my own posts?

When did I lie about my own posts. Jesus was talking about the elders criticizing his followers for eating bread with unwashed hands. Bread cannot be un kosher. Jesus never changed the Kosher laws. https://joshuaensley.org/2018/03/19/mark-7-did-jesus-change-the-biblical-dietary-laws/

OK wow, you’re relying on the fringe of the fringe. Joshua Ensley is a pronominian Christian. His Facebook page has 431 likes. A Facebook page for pronomian Christians has 84 members.

As for Ensley’s arguments, they seem tendentious—at best. For example, Ensley claims Mark was only writing for a gentile audience, based on the fact that Mark includes details on Jewish law. But that in no way means Mark is *only* speaking to gentiles. Basic logic says Mark is talking to an audience of both Jews and Gentiles, and Mark provides helpful details on Jewish law for the gentile part of his audience. It’s like either of us posting on DCUM about the beltway, and including details on MD for readers in DC and VA, even though lots of the DCUM audience live in MD and already know these details. Next.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

Matthew 5:17 is hardly fringe. Jesus did not come to abolish the law.

What the what? Ensley doesn’t look at Matthew 5:17 at all. It’s just you misdirecting words like “fringe.” It’s almost like you lost the last 5 pages of arguments so now you’re trying to float square one arguments again with a different scripture passage. Weird, but understandable, that you didn’t go with Matthew 22:37-40 instead, because that would have undermined your argument.

Anyway, in Matthew 5:17 Jesus says he’s come to “fulfill” the law, by which means change it. And that he did. For example, Jesus said and did things that were shocking to Leviticus-followers, like telling his followers to drink his (symbolic) blood, which is totally not kosher. You can’t claim that was consistent with Leviticus. Also, you and Joshua can’t substantiate your claim about the dietary laws being only for gentiles and only about washing your hands, so we’re left with “nothing” being unclean and followers being able to eat “whatever” they put in their mouths. And Jesus abolished eye-for-eye justice; your point about the Pharisees getting there first is irrelevant to the point that Jesus didn’t want people following that part of Leviticus either. He made divorce illegal instead of the Levitical rules around divorce. He said love your enemy, not just the Levitical rule about living your neighbor. And so on and so on.

So, Jesus was definitely not encouraging his followers to adhere to Leviticus letter by letter. There’s no way you can argue the statements above didn’t contradict Leviticus.

Baffled as to why you, as a Jew who’s now an atheist, care so much about whether Christians are bound by Levitical rules on diet and homosexuality.

Wrong. In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus makes it clear he is NOT here to change the law. Whether non Israelite Christians had to obey the kosher laws was the subject of Acts. Jesus did not change the kosher laws. https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/library/article/id/1049/clean-unclean-meats.htm

Do you think you’re funny or something? Another one-church pastor rehashing the arguments about Peter and the animals that were easily debunked a page or two ago.

Wikipedia says membership is 400 people, and that’s worldwide. The way the guy struggles with Peter and Timothy, trying to twist basic logic (as I already went into for the same arguments above and I’m not going to repeat for you) is entertaining, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate the sin, love the sinner.

I hate this saying especially when it is applied to people who are gay - how horrific. By hating the sin of your child's sexuality you will disapproving of their lifestyle and who they choose to love all their lives. Religious people really disgust me sometimes.

The same sin applies to premarital sex and adultery. The point is, everyone sins, and everyone forgives.

So is someone in a gay marriage still a sinner? If so it is not the same.