Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 15:50     Subject: Re:If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
Jesus changed the rules.

All we have to do is believe in him and love others like ourselves.

Nothing else matters.
Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 15:47     Subject: If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Sorry, hit submit too soon.

To sum up: Mark and Matthew support a reading that Jesus wanted his followers to follow Levitical dietary rules if you agree with the following.
1. Mark and Matthew were talking to Jews, not to gentiles.
2. “Whatever” means bread and nocturnal emissions and “nothing” means “nothing that’s not kosher.”
3. Drinking wine as a metaphor for blood would have been completely acceptable to kosher-keeping Jews of the day.

#1 is patently rejected by most scholars, who point to the inclusion of detail on Jewish ritual as being for the benefit of gentile readers. Also, Mark and Matthew were written 40-50 years after Jesus, and long of after Paul’s mission to the gentiles, who were by then a big part of growing Christianity. Mark and Matthew were addressed to both Jews and Gentiles.
#2 if you think a rhetorical and debating genius like Jesus didn’t understand what “whatever” and “nothing” mean, and how his words would be interpreted as being far broader than nocturnal emissions and bread.
#3 Are you kidding?


We have dealt with these questions exhaustively. As far as Jesus asking his followers to remember him when they eat or drink, I don’t see what law that violates. I think you’re sub rosa suggesting transubstantiation. Wine and wafers aren’t supposed to become the body and blood of Jesus until a priest, who has been given special powers, has performed transubstantiation. If I believed transubstantiation were real then I would say it violated not only Leviticus, but the law of man since it would be cannibalism. But since I don’t believe transubstantiation exists, I don’t see it as breaking any law.

The point is, Jesus never changed the kosher laws. https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/jewish-studies/jesus-kept-kosher-by-prof-daniel-boyarin-ucla-berkeley/


The point is, every single link you’ve posted has bizarre logic and weird contortions about the audience and purpose, probably because any flake with 50 people in their congregation and strong opinions can make a website. Although thanks for this most recent link where the poster actually appears mock the scholar and the lecture itself is in Hebrew. Do you even read what you post?

The vast majority of scholars do NOT agree with these contortions, like the weird insistence (repeated in all your links) that Mark and Matthew were speaking only to Jews, and only about an internal Jewish dust-up between the Sadducees and Pharisees. Nope, the vast majority of scholars disagree, as I posted above, along with a link giving evidence that Mark’s audience was Christian converts in Rome.

This destroys the foundation of your argument and the arguments on those websites, but you haven’t even (because you can’t) responded to that.

There’s long been an atheist here who doesn’t read other posts and just posts their own positions over and over—is that you? That’s a generous conclusion.


I don’t know what atheist you’re talking about. It’s not me. There’s no issue about responding to your posts. Of course Christians want to say that the kosher laws are anachronistic. Christians want to believe that no Christians, including Jews who convert, need obey the kosher laws. Nothing difficult about that. The issue is, they’re wrong. Obviously Peter knew about Mark but didn’t consider it to mean that all meat is kosher. In Peter’s vision, God tells him to eat un kosher meat in Acts, chapter 10. Peter says, no, that would be wrong. God then tells him it is He who makes clean and unclean. Christians have said that even if Mark only meant the washing of hands, Acts, chapter 10, makes un kosher meat clean. And Acts was written a century after Jesus died. But Acts chapter 10 indicates that anyone can be a Christian. Peter does not give up kashrut. https://messianic-revolution.com/l11-29-did-peters-vision-in-acts-10-really-mean-the-kosher-food-laws-were-abolished/


Are you with Jews for Jesus or a similar group? You keep linking to them. That might explain your dogged persistence.

Your line about “Christians have said” is beyond funny. You mean those two extreme fringy, fundie groups in the south you linked to, with maybe a total of 500 congregants. Who rely on the debunked ideas that Mark and Matthew were only talking to Jews.

Speaking of Mark and Matthew, you still haven’t addressed the problem with the very basis of the arguments about Matthew and Mark (who and what were they talking about?) Yet you keep mouthing conclusions based on these arguments as “fact.”

I already poked holes in your argument about Peter. That was one of the easier ones to dismiss. But now it’s easy to cut and paste here. God told Peter 3 times he could eat ALL the animals. Actual scholars (as opposed to your links) 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.

And finally, you’re completely unable to address the fact that Jesus used the equivalent words for “whatever” you put in your mouth and “nothing” is unclean. Jesus actually meant what you say he meant, he would had said, “what’s on your hands doesn’t make you unclean.” See the difference?
Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 15:10     Subject: If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Sorry, hit submit too soon.

To sum up: Mark and Matthew support a reading that Jesus wanted his followers to follow Levitical dietary rules if you agree with the following.
1. Mark and Matthew were talking to Jews, not to gentiles.
2. “Whatever” means bread and nocturnal emissions and “nothing” means “nothing that’s not kosher.”
3. Drinking wine as a metaphor for blood would have been completely acceptable to kosher-keeping Jews of the day.

#1 is patently rejected by most scholars, who point to the inclusion of detail on Jewish ritual as being for the benefit of gentile readers. Also, Mark and Matthew were written 40-50 years after Jesus, and long of after Paul’s mission to the gentiles, who were by then a big part of growing Christianity. Mark and Matthew were addressed to both Jews and Gentiles.
#2 if you think a rhetorical and debating genius like Jesus didn’t understand what “whatever” and “nothing” mean, and how his words would be interpreted as being far broader than nocturnal emissions and bread.
#3 Are you kidding?


We have dealt with these questions exhaustively. As far as Jesus asking his followers to remember him when they eat or drink, I don’t see what law that violates. I think you’re sub rosa suggesting transubstantiation. Wine and wafers aren’t supposed to become the body and blood of Jesus until a priest, who has been given special powers, has performed transubstantiation. If I believed transubstantiation were real then I would say it violated not only Leviticus, but the law of man since it would be cannibalism. But since I don’t believe transubstantiation exists, I don’t see it as breaking any law.

The point is, Jesus never changed the kosher laws. https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/jewish-studies/jesus-kept-kosher-by-prof-daniel-boyarin-ucla-berkeley/


The point is, every single link you’ve posted has bizarre logic and weird contortions about the audience and purpose, probably because any flake with 50 people in their congregation and strong opinions can make a website. Although thanks for this most recent link where the poster actually appears mock the scholar and the lecture itself is in Hebrew. Do you even read what you post?

The vast majority of scholars do NOT agree with these contortions, like the weird insistence (repeated in all your links) that Mark and Matthew were speaking only to Jews, and only about an internal Jewish dust-up between the Sadducees and Pharisees. Nope, the vast majority of scholars disagree, as I posted above, along with a link giving evidence that Mark’s audience was Christian converts in Rome.

This destroys the foundation of your argument and the arguments on those websites, but you haven’t even (because you can’t) responded to that.

There’s long been an atheist here who doesn’t read other posts and just posts their own positions over and over—is that you? That’s a generous conclusion.


I don’t know what atheist you’re talking about. It’s not me. There’s no issue about responding to your posts. Of course Christians want to say that the kosher laws are anachronistic. Christians want to believe that no Christians, including Jews who convert, need obey the kosher laws. Nothing difficult about that. The issue is, they’re wrong. Obviously Peter knew about Mark but didn’t consider it to mean that all meat is kosher. In Peter’s vision, God tells him to eat un kosher meat in Acts, chapter 10. Peter says, no, that would be wrong. God then tells him it is He who makes clean and unclean. Christians have said that even if Mark only meant the washing of hands, Acts, chapter 10, makes un kosher meat clean. And Acts was written a century after Jesus died. But Acts chapter 10 indicates that anyone can be a Christian. Peter does not give up kashrut. https://messianic-revolution.com/l11-29-did-peters-vision-in-acts-10-really-mean-the-kosher-food-laws-were-abolished/
Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 14:55     Subject: If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Sorry, hit submit too soon.

To sum up: Mark and Matthew support a reading that Jesus wanted his followers to follow Levitical dietary rules if you agree with the following.
1. Mark and Matthew were talking to Jews, not to gentiles.
2. “Whatever” means bread and nocturnal emissions and “nothing” means “nothing that’s not kosher.”
3. Drinking wine as a metaphor for blood would have been completely acceptable to kosher-keeping Jews of the day.

#1 is patently rejected by most scholars, who point to the inclusion of detail on Jewish ritual as being for the benefit of gentile readers. Also, Mark and Matthew were written 40-50 years after Jesus, and long of after Paul’s mission to the gentiles, who were by then a big part of growing Christianity. Mark and Matthew were addressed to both Jews and Gentiles.
#2 if you think a rhetorical and debating genius like Jesus didn’t understand what “whatever” and “nothing” mean, and how his words would be interpreted as being far broader than nocturnal emissions and bread.
#3 Are you kidding?


We have dealt with these questions exhaustively. As far as Jesus asking his followers to remember him when they eat or drink, I don’t see what law that violates. I think you’re sub rosa suggesting transubstantiation. Wine and wafers aren’t supposed to become the body and blood of Jesus until a priest, who has been given special powers, has performed transubstantiation. If I believed transubstantiation were real then I would say it violated not only Leviticus, but the law of man since it would be cannibalism. But since I don’t believe transubstantiation exists, I don’t see it as breaking any law.

The point is, Jesus never changed the kosher laws. https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/jewish-studies/jesus-kept-kosher-by-prof-daniel-boyarin-ucla-berkeley/


The point is, every single link you’ve posted has bizarre logic and weird contortions about the audience and purpose, probably because any flake with 50 people in their congregation and strong opinions can make a website. Although thanks for this most recent link where the poster actually appears mock the scholar and the lecture itself is in Hebrew. Do you even read what you post?

The vast majority of scholars do NOT agree with these contortions, like the weird insistence (repeated in all your links) that Mark and Matthew were speaking only to Jews, and only about an internal Jewish dust-up between the Sadducees and Pharisees. Nope, the vast majority of scholars disagree, as I posted above, along with a link giving evidence that Mark’s audience was Christian converts in Rome.

This destroys the foundation of your argument and the arguments on those websites, but you haven’t even (because you can’t) responded to that.

There’s long been an atheist here who doesn’t read other posts and just posts their own positions over and over—is that you? That’s a generous conclusion.
Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 14:31     Subject: If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Sorry, hit submit too soon.

To sum up: Mark and Matthew support a reading that Jesus wanted his followers to follow Levitical dietary rules if you agree with the following.
1. Mark and Matthew were talking to Jews, not to gentiles.
2. “Whatever” means bread and nocturnal emissions and “nothing” means “nothing that’s not kosher.”
3. Drinking wine as a metaphor for blood would have been completely acceptable to kosher-keeping Jews of the day.

#1 is patently rejected by most scholars, who point to the inclusion of detail on Jewish ritual as being for the benefit of gentile readers. Also, Mark and Matthew were written 40-50 years after Jesus, and long of after Paul’s mission to the gentiles, who were by then a big part of growing Christianity. Mark and Matthew were addressed to both Jews and Gentiles.
#2 if you think a rhetorical and debating genius like Jesus didn’t understand what “whatever” and “nothing” mean, and how his words would be interpreted as being far broader than nocturnal emissions and bread.
#3 Are you kidding?


We have dealt with these questions exhaustively. As far as Jesus asking his followers to remember him when they eat or drink, I don’t see what law that violates. I think you’re sub rosa suggesting transubstantiation. Wine and wafers aren’t supposed to become the body and blood of Jesus until a priest, who has been given special powers, has performed transubstantiation. If I believed transubstantiation were real then I would say it violated not only Leviticus, but the law of man since it would be cannibalism. But since I don’t believe transubstantiation exists, I don’t see it as breaking any law.

The point is, Jesus never changed the kosher laws. https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/jewish-studies/jesus-kept-kosher-by-prof-daniel-boyarin-ucla-berkeley/
Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 14:20     Subject: If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
Anonymous wrote:Sorry, hit submit too soon.

To sum up: Mark and Matthew support a reading that Jesus wanted his followers to follow Levitical dietary rules if you agree with the following.
1. Mark and Matthew were talking to Jews, not to gentiles.
2. “Whatever” means bread and nocturnal emissions and “nothing” means “nothing that’s not kosher.”
3. Drinking wine as a metaphor for blood would have been completely acceptable to kosher-keeping Jews of the day.

#1 is patently rejected by most scholars, who point to the inclusion of detail on Jewish ritual as being for the benefit of gentile readers. Also, Mark and Matthew were written 40-50 years after Jesus, and long of after Paul’s mission to the gentiles, who were by then a big part of growing Christianity. Mark and Matthew were addressed to both Jews and Gentiles.
#2 if you think a rhetorical and debating genius like Jesus didn’t understand what “whatever” and “nothing” mean, and how his words would be interpreted as being far broader than nocturnal emissions and bread.
#3 Are you kidding?
Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 13:05     Subject: If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
My gay priest is fine with it.
Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 12:54     Subject: If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
Easy, I would choose my child 100% of the time. Anecdotally, we have friends who continue to attend LDS church and continue to love and support their gay child who is married and has a child of his own now. I can't imagine ever turning away from a child because of their sexual identity. I worked too hard to get my children here and develop a loving relationship with them to give that up.
Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 12:46     Subject: If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:To sum up: Mark and Matthew support a reading that Jesus followed dietary rules if you believe:
(1) Mark and Matthew were talking to Jews, not to gentiles.
(2) “Whatever” means bread and what
(3) Drinking wine as a metaphor for blood would have been completely acceptable to kosher-keeping Jews of the day

(1) is patently rejected by most scholars, who point to the inclusion of detail on Jewish ritual as being for the benefit of gentile readers.
,

That’s all misperceived. Jesus was dealing with a particular problem with a particular group of people: Pharisees who were adding prophylactic rules to Leviticus 15:11. We’ve discussed your other points ad nauseum. https://www.chosenpeople.com/did-jesus-keep-kosher/


You can post as many extreme fringe southern baptists and Jews for Jesus groups as you want.

The vast, vast majority of actual scholars agree that Matthew and Mark were written for both Jews and Gentiles. Why? The inclusion of detail on Jewish ritual wouldn’t have been necessary for a purely Jewish audience, but was included for the benefit of Gentiles. Mark and Matthew were written 30-40 years after Jesus’ mission to the gentiles.

In fact, there’s plenty of evidence that Mark was writing to Gentile converts in Rome. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gospel-According-to-Mark


* after Paul’s mission to the gentiles
Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 12:37     Subject: If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:To sum up: Mark and Matthew support a reading that Jesus followed dietary rules if you believe:
(1) Mark and Matthew were talking to Jews, not to gentiles.
(2) “Whatever” means bread and what
(3) Drinking wine as a metaphor for blood would have been completely acceptable to kosher-keeping Jews of the day

(1) is patently rejected by most scholars, who point to the inclusion of detail on Jewish ritual as being for the benefit of gentile readers.
,

That’s all misperceived. Jesus was dealing with a particular problem with a particular group of people: Pharisees who were adding prophylactic rules to Leviticus 15:11. We’ve discussed your other points ad nauseum. https://www.chosenpeople.com/did-jesus-keep-kosher/


You can post as many extreme fringe southern baptists and Jews for Jesus groups as you want.

The vast, vast majority of actual scholars agree that Matthew and Mark were written for both Jews and Gentiles. Why? The inclusion of detail on Jewish ritual wouldn’t have been necessary for a purely Jewish audience, but was included for the benefit of Gentiles. Mark and Matthew were written 30-40 years after Jesus’ mission to the gentiles.

In fact, there’s plenty of evidence that Mark was writing to Gentile converts in Rome. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gospel-According-to-Mark
Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 12:31     Subject: If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
Sorry, hit submit too soon.

To sum up: Mark and Matthew support a reading that Jesus wanted his followers to follow Levitical dietary rules if you agree with the following.
1. Mark and Matthew were talking to Jews, not to gentiles.
2. “Whatever” means bread and nocturnal emissions and “nothing” means “nothing that’s not kosher.”
3. Drinking wine as a metaphor for blood would have been completely acceptable to kosher-keeping Jews of the day.

#1 is patently rejected by most scholars, who point to the inclusion of detail on Jewish ritual as being for the benefit of gentile readers. Also, Mark and Matthew were written 40-50 years after Jesus, and long of after Paul’s mission to the gentiles, who were by then a big part of growing Christianity. Mark and Matthew were addressed to both Jews and Gentiles.
#2 if you think a rhetorical and debating genius like Jesus didn’t understand what “whatever” and “nothing” mean, and how his words would be interpreted as being far broader than nocturnal emissions and bread.
#3 Are you kidding?
Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 12:21     Subject: If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
Anonymous wrote:To sum up: Mark and Matthew support a reading that Jesus followed dietary rules if you believe:
(1) Mark and Matthew were talking to Jews, not to gentiles.
(2) “Whatever” means bread and what
(3) Drinking wine as a metaphor for blood would have been completely acceptable to kosher-keeping Jews of the day

(1) is patently rejected by most scholars, who point to the inclusion of detail on Jewish ritual as being for the benefit of gentile readers.
,

That’s all misperceived. Jesus was dealing with a particular problem with a particular group of people: Pharisees who were adding prophylactic rules to Leviticus 15:11. We’ve discussed your other points ad nauseum. https://www.chosenpeople.com/did-jesus-keep-kosher/
Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 12:11     Subject: If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
To sum up: Mark and Matthew support a reading that Jesus followed dietary rules if you believe:
(1) Mark and Matthew were talking to Jews, not to gentiles.
(2) “Whatever” means bread and what
(3) Drinking wine as a metaphor for blood would have been completely acceptable to kosher-keeping Jews of the day

(1) is patently rejected by most scholars, who point to the inclusion of detail on Jewish ritual as being for the benefit of gentile readers.
Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 11:45     Subject: If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[

“Nothing” means “nothing” and “whatever” means “whatever. And while “whatever” would include bodily impurities and bread, insisting on such a narrow definition of obvious words is actually stupid.

But keep posting links that talk about excrement and washing your hands as long as you want—besides being a former Jew, you’re also clearly Atheist Don Quixote who never, ever, ever concedes you’ve utterly lost an argument. It’s almost like you have nothing else in your life so you keep posting the same ridiculous arguments.

I’m out of here, because I do have other things to do. Please don’t do your usual dishonest spin, and post later on that because people stopped responding to your nonsense, this means you’ve “won” the argument. Your argument is stupid and your links to groups of a few hundred people proves nothing.


Why do you keep calling me “a former Jew”? To be a Jew one must be born of a Jewish mother. I’ve already told you my mother is Christian. I’ve studied Judaism but I’ve never been a Jew.

Jesus was talking about a particular problem with the Pharisees about hand washing which is still practiced today in Orthodox Jewish households. He wasn’t saying anything about kashrut. https://davidbcapes.com/2016/03/09/did-jesus-keep-kosher/


So you’re an atheist with a Protestant (you said earlier) mom and a Jewish, or something else, dad? And you’re not walking away from being French “I’m a research scientist.”

And you’re here 24/7. And, like a dog with a bone, you won’t give up on even the dumbest, most illogical arguments.

I’ve learned nothing else from this thread (apart from becoming acquainted with some really tiny churches who think Mark was talking to Jews but not Gentiles, and lots about excrement). But identifying Atheist Don Quixote is interesting!


“You’re not running away from being French ‘I’m a research scientist.’”? I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Anonymous
Post 03/03/2022 11:41     Subject: If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay
Anonymous wrote:Do you stay or do you go? Did you choose between your church and your DC? If you stayed in the church, how did that affect your relationship with your DC?


Your child is as God made them. Your church is wrong. Leave.