Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is baffling.

Atheist pp clearly opposes homophobia, as do I.

So why has she been banging on for 10 pages about how Christians should be following ALL of Leviticus? Her complaint seems to be that Christians (although it’s actually a minority) selectively pick up Levitical rules about homosexuality and ignore the dietary laws. But if she (like me) is against homophobia, then why not side with the argument that Christians don’t need to follow Leviticus at all, because of the universal interpretations (excepting those two fundie preachers with 500 congregants max and some Jews for Jesus groups) of Matthew and Mark, plus the fact that Jesus said that loving God, your neighbor and your enemy were the basis of all law?

It would seem that trying to show Christians are hypocrites is more important to atheist pp than accepting the universal Christian interpretation (pace those two bible literalist southern pastors with 500 congregants max and some Jews for Jesus groups) that Levitical dietary rules don’t apply.

I haven’t said that Christians “should” do anything but stop being homophobic. Christians can do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t require hate. I am saying Jesus never made all meat kosher. My interlocutor has said that Mark, where Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for criticizing his followers for not washing their hands before eating bread somehow means that all meat is kosher. One might as well ask why isn’t circumcision a rule for Christians anymore? Did Jesus say that circumcision was no longer necessary?

You keep insisting that Jesus didn’t mean “whatever goes into your mouth is clean” because “whatever” doesn’t actually mean “whatever,” it only means bread and unclean hands and some fringy argument that Mark and Matthew were addressing Jews only (they weren’t). And you keep insisting that Jesus, a skilled rhetorician, didn’t mean “nothing is unclean” because “nothing” doesn’t mean “nothing” for similar reasons. And you keep ignoring that Jesus singled out two commandments, about loving God and your neighbor, to which he added loving your enemy, as the only ones that matter.

It’s hard to understand why you, a non-Christian, cling to these extreme fringe interpretations and insist all Christians should keep kosher. Whatever, think what you want and Christendom will ignore you.

Paul got rid of circumcision.

Yes, Paul said circumcision was no longer necessary. He was going to say anything he needed to say to get more converts. He said this over the objection of Peter, head of the church, and James, which led to their bitter confrontation in Galatians. I’m not sure what gave Paul the authority to eliminate circumcision.

I have never said all Christians should keep kosher. All I want Christians to do is to stop hating. Stop hating homosexuals, stop hating Jews. Whether or not Christians keep kosher is a matter of complete indifference to me. I’m simply saying that Jesus condemning the Pharisees for criticizing the disciples for not washing their hands before eating bread does not make all meat kosher. But if Christians, or Jews for that matter, don’t want to keep kosher that’s fine with me. As I’ve said a hundred times, I believe men wrote these rules, not God.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is baffling.

Atheist pp clearly opposes homophobia, as do I.

So why has she been banging on for 10 pages about how Christians should be following ALL of Leviticus? Her complaint seems to be that Christians (although it’s actually a minority) selectively pick up Levitical rules about homosexuality and ignore the dietary laws. But if she (like me) is against homophobia, then why not side with the argument that Christians don’t need to follow Leviticus at all, because of the universal interpretations (excepting those two fundie preachers with 500 congregants max and some Jews for Jesus groups) of Matthew and Mark, plus the fact that Jesus said that loving God, your neighbor and your enemy were the basis of all law?

It would seem that trying to show Christians are hypocrites is more important to atheist pp than accepting the universal Christian interpretation (pace those two bible literalist southern pastors with 500 congregants max and some Jews for Jesus groups) that Levitical dietary rules don’t apply.

I haven’t said that Christians “should” do anything but stop being homophobic. Christians can do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t require hate. I am saying Jesus never made all meat kosher. My interlocutor has said that Mark, where Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for criticizing his followers for not washing their hands before eating bread somehow means that all meat is kosher. One might as well ask why isn’t circumcision a rule for Christians anymore? Did Jesus say that circumcision was no longer necessary?

You keep insisting that Jesus didn’t mean “whatever goes into your mouth is clean” because “whatever” doesn’t actually mean “whatever,” it only means bread and unclean hands and some fringy argument that Mark and Matthew were addressing Jews only (they weren’t). And you keep insisting that Jesus, a skilled rhetorician, didn’t mean “nothing is unclean” because “nothing” doesn’t mean “nothing” for similar reasons. And you keep ignoring that Jesus singled out two commandments, about loving God and your neighbor, to which he added loving your enemy, as the only ones that matter.

It’s hard to understand why you, a non-Christian, cling to these extreme fringe interpretations and insist all Christians should keep kosher. Whatever, think what you want and Christendom will ignore you.

Paul got rid of circumcision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is baffling.

Atheist pp clearly opposes homophobia, as do I.

So why has she been banging on for 10 pages about how Christians should be following ALL of Leviticus? Her complaint seems to be that Christians (although it’s actually a minority) selectively pick up Levitical rules about homosexuality and ignore the dietary laws. But if she (like me) is against homophobia, then why not side with the argument that Christians don’t need to follow Leviticus at all, because of the universal interpretations (excepting those two fundie preachers with 500 congregants max and some Jews for Jesus groups) of Matthew and Mark, plus the fact that Jesus said that loving God, your neighbor and your enemy were the basis of all law?

It would seem that trying to show Christians are hypocrites is more important to atheist pp than accepting the universal Christian interpretation (pace those two bible literalist southern pastors with 500 congregants max and some Jews for Jesus groups) that Levitical dietary rules don’t apply.

I haven’t said that Christians “should” do anything but stop being homophobic. Christians can do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t require hate. I am saying Jesus never made all meat kosher. My interlocutor has said that Mark, where Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for criticizing his followers for not washing their hands before eating bread somehow means that all meat is kosher. One might as well ask why isn’t circumcision a rule for Christians anymore? Did Jesus say that circumcision was no longer necessary?

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is baffling.

Atheist pp clearly opposes homophobia, as do I.

So why has she been banging on for 10 pages about how Christians should be following ALL of Leviticus? Her complaint seems to be that Christians (although it’s actually a minority) selectively pick up Levitical rules about homosexuality and ignore the dietary laws. But if she (like me) is against homophobia, then why not side with the argument that Christians don’t need to follow Leviticus at all, because of the universal interpretations (excepting those two fundie preachers with 500 congregants max and some Jews for Jesus groups) of Matthew and Mark, plus the fact that Jesus said that loving God, your neighbor and your enemy were the basis of all law?

It would seem that trying to show Christians are hypocrites is more important to atheist pp than accepting the universal Christian interpretation (pace those two bible literalist southern pastors with 500 congregants max and some Jews for Jesus groups) that Levitical dietary rules don’t apply.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ why am I bothering? You don’t seem to read anything, you just keep typing the same debunked arguments.

You’ll just come back with more of the same claims, without acknowledging these claims are based on debunked and frankly ridiculous arguments.

Pp (what to call her? The former Jew?) has a clear strategy. When one of her points, like the claim about Peter’s dream, is torn apart, she doesn’t respond and just moves on to another claim.

But she waits a day or two, and multiple pages, to come back with the exact same claim about Peter.

I guess she’s hoping old readers have moved on and nobody here today will remember what a crock that was shown to be?

Doesn’t seem particularly honest.

There you go again calling me “a former Jew.” How many times have I got to tell you that to be a Jew one must be born of a Jewish mother. For the umpteenth time my mother is Christian. Moreover, you still haven’t answered if Jesus made all meat kosher in Mark, then why does Peter refuse to eat un kosher meat in Acts? Jesus kept kosher. http://travelingrabbi.com/unique/was-jesus-kosher-what-did-kosher-jesus-eat-at-the-last-supper-jesus-kept-kosher-even-then/index.html

I’m not the former person but I will explain why Peter remains kosher.

The purpose of the vision is to show Peter that God accepts all people (there is no chosen people): Jewish people, Gentiles, Christians, Muslims, Athirsts, everybody Jesus will except you no matter who you are and what your beliefs are. Peter will always be Jewish he will always want to keep kosher because that was his culture that is OK and he will be excepted as a Jew for Jesus basically.

That’s what I’ve been saying all along. I’ve already said that in this thread. In the early Christian church, according to Paul, Jewish Law, such as kashrut and circumcision, apply only to Jewish Christians, not to Gentile Christians. Peter and James believed Jewish Law applied to all Christians which is why they had their huge confrontation in Galatians.

I’ve addressed your post about Peter twice, most recently on the page right before this one. This only confirms the suspicion that you don’t even bother to read responses.

Here’s my previous response, again. Scholars look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about either (1) eating meat at all, or (2) people not food, specifically Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people, which is the context of this dream. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t necessarily come into it (although I’m to the interpretation about accepting Peter with his adherence to Jewish law).

But, none of this supports your point that Jesus kept kosher or required his Jewish followers to keep kosher. It only says that Peter kept kosher.

To the contrary, 6:40 was absolutely right. Peter, head of the church, was always going to keep kosher. You have no answer for why Peter said he had never eaten un kosher meat and wasn’t about to start now. As 6:40 said, Peter’s dream meant all people could be Christians, not just Jews.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ why am I bothering? You don’t seem to read anything, you just keep typing the same debunked arguments.

You’ll just come back with more of the same claims, without acknowledging these claims are based on debunked and frankly ridiculous arguments.

Pp (what to call her? The former Jew?) has a clear strategy. When one of her points, like the claim about Peter’s dream, is torn apart, she doesn’t respond and just moves on to another claim.

But she waits a day or two, and multiple pages, to come back with the exact same claim about Peter.

I guess she’s hoping old readers have moved on and nobody here today will remember what a crock that was shown to be?

Doesn’t seem particularly honest.

There you go again calling me “a former Jew.” How many times have I got to tell you that to be a Jew one must be born of a Jewish mother. For the umpteenth time my mother is Christian. Moreover, you still haven’t answered if Jesus made all meat kosher in Mark, then why does Peter refuse to eat un kosher meat in Acts? Jesus kept kosher. http://travelingrabbi.com/unique/was-jesus-kosher-what-did-kosher-jesus-eat-at-the-last-supper-jesus-kept-kosher-even-then/index.html

I’m not the former person but I will explain why Peter remains kosher.

The purpose of the vision is to show Peter that God accepts all people (there is no chosen people): Jewish people, Gentiles, Christians, Muslims, Athirsts, everybody Jesus will except you no matter who you are and what your beliefs are. Peter will always be Jewish he will always want to keep kosher because that was his culture that is OK and he will be excepted as a Jew for Jesus basically.

That’s what I’ve been saying all along. I’ve already said that in this thread. In the early Christian church, according to Paul, Jewish Law, such as kashrut and circumcision, apply only to Jewish Christians, not to Gentile Christians. Peter and James believed Jewish Law applied to all Christians which is why they had their huge confrontation in Galatians.

I’ve addressed your post about Peter twice, most recently on the page right before this one. This only confirms the suspicion that you don’t even bother to read responses.

Here’s my previous response, again. Scholars look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about either (1) eating meat at all, or (2) people not food, specifically Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people, which is the context of this dream. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t necessarily come into it (although I’m to the interpretation about accepting Peter with his adherence to Jewish law).

But, none of this supports your point that Jesus kept kosher or required his Jewish followers to keep kosher. It only says that Peter kept kosher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ why am I bothering? You don’t seem to read anything, you just keep typing the same debunked arguments.

You’ll just come back with more of the same claims, without acknowledging these claims are based on debunked and frankly ridiculous arguments.

Pp (what to call her? The former Jew?) has a clear strategy. When one of her points, like the claim about Peter’s dream, is torn apart, she doesn’t respond and just moves on to another claim.

But she waits a day or two, and multiple pages, to come back with the exact same claim about Peter.

I guess she’s hoping old readers have moved on and nobody here today will remember what a crock that was shown to be?

Doesn’t seem particularly honest.

There you go again calling me “a former Jew.” How many times have I got to tell you that to be a Jew one must be born of a Jewish mother. For the umpteenth time my mother is Christian. Moreover, you still haven’t answered if Jesus made all meat kosher in Mark, then why does Peter refuse to eat un kosher meat in Acts? Jesus kept kosher. http://travelingrabbi.com/unique/was-jesus-kosher-what-did-kosher-jesus-eat-at-the-last-supper-jesus-kept-kosher-even-then/index.html

I’m not the former person but I will explain why Peter remains kosher.

The purpose of the vision is to show Peter that God accepts all people (there is no chosen people): Jewish people, Gentiles, Christians, Muslims, Athirsts, everybody Jesus will except you no matter who you are and what your beliefs are. Peter will always be Jewish he will always want to keep kosher because that was his culture that is OK and he will be excepted as a Jew for Jesus basically.

That’s what I’ve been saying all along. I’ve already said that in this thread. In the early Christian church, according to Paul, Jewish Law, such as kashrut and circumcision, apply only to Jewish Christians, not to Gentile Christians. Peter and James believed Jewish Law applied to all Christians which is why they had their huge confrontation in Galatians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ why am I bothering? You don’t seem to read anything, you just keep typing the same debunked arguments.

You’ll just come back with more of the same claims, without acknowledging these claims are based on debunked and frankly ridiculous arguments.

Pp (what to call her? The former Jew?) has a clear strategy. When one of her points, like the claim about Peter’s dream, is torn apart, she doesn’t respond and just moves on to another claim.

But she waits a day or two, and multiple pages, to come back with the exact same claim about Peter.

I guess she’s hoping old readers have moved on and nobody here today will remember what a crock that was shown to be?

Doesn’t seem particularly honest.

There you go again calling me “a former Jew.” How many times have I got to tell you that to be a Jew one must be born of a Jewish mother. For the umpteenth time my mother is Christian. Moreover, you still haven’t answered if Jesus made all meat kosher in Mark, then why does Peter refuse to eat un kosher meat in Acts? Jesus kept kosher. http://travelingrabbi.com/unique/was-jesus-kosher-what-did-kosher-jesus-eat-at-the-last-supper-jesus-kept-kosher-even-then/index.html

I’m not the former person but I will explain why Peter remains kosher.

The purpose of the vision is to show Peter that God accepts all people (there is no chosen people): Jewish people, Gentiles, Christians, Muslims, Athirsts, everybody Jesus will except you no matter who you are and what your beliefs are. Peter will always be Jewish he will always want to keep kosher because that was his culture that is OK and he will be excepted as a Jew for Jesus basically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ why am I bothering? You don’t seem to read anything, you just keep typing the same debunked arguments.

You’ll just come back with more of the same claims, without acknowledging these claims are based on debunked and frankly ridiculous arguments.

Pp (what to call her? The former Jew?) has a clear strategy. When one of her points, like the claim about Peter’s dream, is torn apart, she doesn’t respond and just moves on to another claim.

But she waits a day or two, and multiple pages, to come back with the exact same claim about Peter.

I guess she’s hoping old readers have moved on and nobody here today will remember what a crock that was shown to be?

Doesn’t seem particularly honest.

There you go again calling me “a former Jew.” How many times have I got to tell you that to be a Jew one must be born of a Jewish mother. For the umpteenth time my mother is Christian. Moreover, you still haven’t answered if Jesus made all meat kosher in Mark, then why does Peter refuse to eat un kosher meat in Acts? Jesus kept kosher. http://travelingrabbi.com/unique/was-jesus-kosher-what-did-kosher-jesus-eat-at-the-last-supper-jesus-kept-kosher-even-then/index.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ why am I bothering? You don’t seem to read anything, you just keep typing the same debunked arguments.

You’ll just come back with more of the same claims, without acknowledging these claims are based on debunked and frankly ridiculous arguments.

Pp (what to call her? The former Jew?) has a clear strategy. When one of her points, like the claim about Peter’s dream, is torn apart, she doesn’t respond and just moves on to another claim.

But she waits a day or two, and multiple pages, to come back with the exact same claim about Peter.

I guess she’s hoping old readers have moved on and nobody here today will remember what a crock that was shown to be?

Doesn’t seem particularly honest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ why am I bothering? You don’t seem to read anything, you just keep typing the same debunked arguments.

You’ll just come back with more of the same claims, without acknowledging these claims are based on debunked and frankly ridiculous arguments.

Pp (what to call her? The former Jew?) has a clear strategy. When one of her points, like the claim about Peter’s dream, is torn apart, she doesn’t respond and just moves on to another claim.

But she waits a day or two, and multiple pages, to come back with the exact same claim about Peter.

I guess she’s hoping old readers have moved on and nobody here today will remember what a crock that was shown to be?

Doesn’t seem particularly honest.

Anonymous wrote:^^ why am I bothering? You don’t seem to read anything, you just keep typing the same debunked arguments.

You’ll just come back with more of the same claims, without acknowledging these claims are based on debunked and frankly ridiculous arguments.

Anonymous wrote:Jesus changed the rules.

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

Nothing else matters.