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

Forum Index » Religion

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

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]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. 
[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

When have I lied about my own posts?[/quote]

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/[/quote]

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 [b]nothing[/b] 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 [b]whatever[/b] 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)

[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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[/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

PS. Citing a bible literalists who uses Genesis and Deuteronomy to back up claims about Leviticus is pretty funny.

Is your argument that all Jews and Christians should be bible literalists?[/quote]

No, I’m an atheist. My argument is that Jesus never declared un kosher meats proper for Israelites to eat. You can’t seem to grasp that Jesus was saying that bread, which can’t be un kosher, is not defiled and will not defile one who eats it if a Jew handles it before washing his hands. https://www.ucg.org/good-news/the-surprise-sayings-of-jesus-christ-did-jesus-declare-all-meats-clean[/quote]

You can’t seem to grasp that “nothing is unclean” means exactly that, and goes way beyond bread. [/quote]

Read the passage. Jesus is only talking about his disciples eating bread with unwashed hands. The Talmud commands that Jews wash their hands before eating anything or the food will defile them. Orthodox Jews still do this. Here, Jesus is siding with the Sadducees, who reject the Oral Law, against the Pharisees, who codified the Oral Law in the Talmud. Had Jesus meant that Jews should go and eat bacon and pork chops that would have been monumental and he would not have just used bread as his example. If he had meant bacon and pork chops, he would have himself eaten bacon and pork chops, which he never did. https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/MARK+7.html[/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