Reply to Did the god of the bible kill people?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Did the god of the bible kill people?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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? [/quote]

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 [b]fulfill[/b] 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.”[/quote]

Jesus never changed the dietary laws. [/quote]

[b]Christians don’t keep kosher. [/b]

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.'

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

[b]Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.[/b] [/quote]

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

sorry, due to[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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[/quote]

You can, of course, think whatever suits your purposes. You’d be an outlier, though. [b]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.[/b] [/quote]

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?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics