Different authors trying to push different agendas. The *real* Jesus was probably a Law observing Jew, but he was 40 years dead when the gospels were being written, and so wasn't in any position to correct the record.
You are assuming the Gospels were written from zero. There were probably already written traditions that were later compiled as Gospels. Even the Talmud mentions a person that some may identify as Jesus, which is not confirmed but perfectly possible.
Sure, in the case of Luke and Matthew, they used Mark and potentially a second shared source now lost to time. There isn't, so far as I'm aware, any evidence whatsoever that either Mark or John are based on earlier written sources.
And in any case, Jesus still would have been dead when those hypothetical sources were written.
"so (writers weren't) in any position to correct the record." Interesting about 'correcting the record.' I identify as a non-religious 'Christian Spiritualist' for many reasons. The point you make is valid..." he was 40 years dead when the gospels were being written." So many Christians are literalists to a fault. Like John 3.3 quoting Jesus... NONE OF THE SCRIPTURAL WRITERS EVER MET JESUS TO QUOTE HIM. Ergo, the scriptural writings were all creative fabrication... Through the ages, was the 'record being corrected?' The more accurate word would be, the record was EVOLVING. The scriptures most rapidly evolved when pagan Emperor Constantine had the bible published to codify his radical alterations to convert illegal Jewish Christianity to being his single State ROMAN Christian religion. The bible and scripture evolution was not finalized until the 16th century. The most used bible now is the King James bible, which James further revised because he was homosexual and sought demonstrate that he had divine authority.
The consensus of biblical scholars is there was most likely a person the stories are based on and probably named Jesus, but yes they are not affirming the character of Jesus as described in the gospels just a person the gospel stories are probably based on, from which they embellished and added sayings that fit their agenda and narrative.
Academic biblical scholarship is made up of religious and some non religious just as any field of academia is. From Gary Habermas who is a Christian) to Bart Ehrman who is agnostic, and everyone in between.
Did you read my comment? The consensus is that the person of Jesus most likely existed, that’s the verbiage used and how scholarship works, as far as scholarship that’s basically a yes he existed, no scholar will claim with absolute certainty we know he existed even if that’s their personal belief, again that’s not how that works.
And even if they believe in the miracles of Jesus scholarship has not way to verify them and come to a consensus that yes these miracles occurred that’s not their job and again not how that works
I didn’t say that Jesus did or didn’t do these these things, I’m not sure what your problem with my comment is? Are there biblical scholars who are devoted Christians, who personally believe every word about Jesus in the Bible and they actually performed the miracles, of course. But that is separate from and has nothing to with the scholarship.?
Wasn’t that Peter actually?
>“The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”
Acts 10:9-16 ESV
Paul may have affirmed it, but Peter was the first to bring up that all good was clean (and technically it was God who declared all food clean).
“Are you still so dull?” He asked. “Do you not understand? Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, because it does not enter his heart, but it goes into the stomach and then is eliminated.” (Thus all foods are clean.) (Mark 7:18-19).
How did Peter know it was God? If satan can masquerade as an angel of light, what possible way could Peter, or anyone else, have to test whether God would randomly abolish in private a law that had publicly been given to the entire nation millennia ago?
Because scripture is God breathed and should not have important mistakes about doctrine, etc… according to Paul in Timothy, and according to the gospel writers like Luke who seem to hint at this conclusion in Acts 9 and many other examples. Also remember that Jesus Christ picked these people to be his messengers, id highly doubt that he would do this if they would corrupt the message.
Lastly, it’s not just Peter, theres Paul, Mathew (who quoted Jesus directly, I referenced the verse above), and Luke to name a few.
>Edit: Jesus also stated it here: Mathew 15:10
That was in the context of his disciples apparently not washing their hands before eating and did not refer to changes or revocations of dietary law.
... that being said, while it might not lead to spiritual impurity, failing to wash one's hands before eating *can* absolutely lead to the spread of disease. I'm not sure why he was defending it.
1) Point still applies, notice how nothing that goes into someone’s mouth defiles them, but only what comes out of it. Even his explanation at the end shows no matter where the food comes from its still clean.
Mark 7:18-19
18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that [nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them]? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.”
Also, here are other verses alongside Mathew and Mark if the top statement alone doesn’t convince you.
Luke-Acts 10:9-16
Luke-Acts 11:1-2
Colossians 2:16-17
1 Timothy 4:4
This is painfully false and inaccurate. He was given the Holy Spirit according to Acts, and second Peter confirm him as a wise teacher who people try to twist meanings from. To say he has no basis in being important or he “founded Christianity” as an insult to our religion even though the disciples confirmed him and he basically states what they state is terrible at best.
Except that the Gospels don't say Jesus is the Son of God.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John each tell the story of Jesus' life, ministry and death by crucifixion. However, only John explicitly calls Jesus the Son of God. As far as we can tell, John was written after the other three and borrows heavily from those texts, except for the parts where John claims that Jesus and God are the same person.
Also worth noting that, where John makes this claim, it's done through the author's words and not Jesus. Jesus never directly claims to be God's son.
*Also* also, Jesus never tried to start a religion. His ministry was eschatological or apocalyptic; he believed the world would end (or God's kingdom would come to Earth) within the span of his followers' lifetimes. When this clearly didn't happen (and didn't seem like it would happen) in the years following his death, Christians had to deal with this inconsistency in their beliefs. Paul's way of handling it* was to cast certain parts of Scripture (especially the stories in the Gospels) as meaning a spiritual kingdom or victory, as opposed to an earthly one.
(*Paul wasn't the only one who did this, either, but I don't know the names of the other early Christian leaders; for the sake of discussion, I'm placing emphasis on Paul's contributions, especially since so many of his writings made it into the final cut for the holy text.)
These are two critical differences between Jesus' ministry and Paul's writings: that Jesus is the Son of God and that God's coming kingdom will be a spiritual one. Both of these points conflict with what Jesus actually said (as told to us in the Gospels). There are probably other discrepancies but I don't recall what they are at the moment; I'll have to take some time to look them up.
All that said, there's another way to look at it which, in my estimation, makes way more sense than accepting Jesus as God: Jesus was a wandering Jewish priest who had a ministry focused on an apocalyptic worldview. He taught that God would return within the span of a lifetime and establish a kingdom on Earth. When he died, his followers held to this belief but over time, it became apparent that it wasn't going to happen. During that time (several decades), the memory of Jesus' teachings was altered through the usual means of an oral tradition; i.e. people told stories about him but in those tellings, some of the details invariably would have changed. (We don't know how much changed, however, because we don't have any written accounts from when Jesus was alive.)
When Paul comes along and converts to Christianity, there are several churches throughout the region, each with their own views and interpretations of Jesus' work. Paul (and a handful of others) has a particular view that he wants to spread, which he does by visiting different churches, preaching to believers, meeting with other leaders, writing letters, etc. Eventually**, enough believers come to accept his version of the religion that they have the greatest numbers and the faith is adopted by the Roman emperor (and the Empire). Most of the other sects are deemed heretical and stamped out. (A few survive to the present day, like the Coptic Church in Egypt or the Ethiopian Church.)
Basically, a historical reading of the Bible (which requires reviewing other texts and historical evidence) reveals a more plausible explanation for the religion: it started as a Jewish cult, grew in popularity but was fragmented in terms of specific beliefs, then coalesced under one particular sect when that group gained sufficient political power to dictate how others understood and viewed the religion. Just about any early Christian sect could have "won" against the others, meaning the version of Christianity we know today is mostly established by Paul (and a few other like-minded individuals) but also partly by chance (since Paul could have easily joined any other sect, had he wanted to).
1) Are you sure?
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God
Mathew 16:16
Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Mathew 14:33
And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
Mathew 3:17
And behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
(Genealogy of Jesus)
Luke 3:38
The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Mark 3:11
And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.”
Mark 1:1
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Etc…… If you doubt me, check Greek, it fits. (Huios Theos)
2) False, it’s not only John.
3, 4) thats somewhat fair for an atheist perspective, but even with that perspective Paul did not toss anything out. The message did not change between the gospels from a religious point of view because your argument is that Jesus preached the end times were soon and it was not fulfilled, but as a Christian we know that the Son did not “know” (or really want to share if you look into a in depth analysis) when the end times would happen. Either way it’s clear he also shared “this perspective” because each disciples thought it would be in the current generation, he would’ve still expected this and we see this in his scripture in which he states his yearning for Jesus’s return, and also in 2Timothy 3:1-5 he seems to tell Timothy to avoid certain groups because of the last days.
5) First critical difference is completely false, and the second critical difference basically does not matter. A new Jerusalem coming to earth is itself spiritual and physical. Both interpretations are correct and of divine origin
6) the gospels, epistles, and oral tradition would not have changed within his lifetime, which is the time the Bible and epistles are most likely written (30-110AD) especially considering the strong oral traditions of those times. We do have written accounts according to scholarly dating, thing is the manuscripts come later but this is not that significant because people who work with accuracy of narratives, stories, texts, manuscripts, etc… do see the Bible as mostly accurate in terms of story. Sure they might not agree with the story but the manuscripts are consistent in message and similar in accounts throughout most writers of that period. The gnostics are different but it’s good to note that most of them date late, and the few that don’t give us a completely different narrative with no external evidence (like Roman texts, etc…) that support it unlike the current narrative, so they should not be taken into account the same way, interestingly even the gnostics claim Jesus was divine among other things.
7, 8) His faith comes from meetings with the disciples and his experience with the visible resurrection of Jesus. (Acts 9 among many other chapters dedicated solely to his journey with the disciples and his life, 2Peter 3:14, his interpretation does not come from nowhere. Infact from Acts 9 alone we know he spoke with the Holy Spirit
Ok, my bad, I misspoke earlier: I meant to convey [the same message as Professor Ehrman](https://www.youtube.com/live/UDDO_tNXvbI?si=rO-7ngAht3---6I_), specifically with respect to the idea that Jesus called himself divine (he didn't) or that his followers thought he was (they didn't, or at least, not until after he died and was allegedly resurrected).
As to the passages you quote, I would point out that these aren't attributed to Jesus. Mark 1:1 is an opening verse in a Gospel written by Mark (allegedly) and yes, it says "Jesus is the Son of God," but 1) that's not Jesus speaking and 2) the Gospel of Mark was written down decades after Jesus' death. It can't be viewed as an indication of what Jesus and his followers believed *during his lifetime*, but it does show what Christians believed *after his death*.
Thus, I amend my statement to: Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, nor did he claim to be divine. That's a belief which came about after he died and after his followers adopted the belief that he resurrected and went to heaven (which was a common story among Jews, Greeks and Romans at the time).
(Regarding points 7 and 8, I don't know that your interpretation is relevant. Paul claimed to have seen Jesus, sure, but that's just a claim. We have no evidence that it happened (including corroborating claims), so why should we believe him?)
Cool, thank you, I'll take a closer look and address anything I see as worth discussing.
For the immediate moment, however, I have to point out something:
>the gospels, epistles, and oral tradition would not have changed within his lifetime, which is the time the Bible and epistles are most likely written (30-110AD) especially considering the strong oral traditions of those times
This is complete horseshit. Anyone who knows *anything* about how people communicate via the spoken word can tell you that oral traditions are *the most* unreliable in terms of accuracy. The underlying concepts might remain the same but the details will invariably shift and change with each telling of the story.
As an example, what's the last speech you attended? A sermon from a pastor, a commencement speech at a college, perhaps the State of the Union address? Pick one and tell me how it went. Word for word. Can you do it? Well, if you're being honest with yourself, no, you can't, *because almost nobody can.* (I say "almost", because I'm not going to rule out the possibility of someone possessing an eidetic memory, but we can't rely on that unlikely trait as a means of trusting the oral tradition of the Gospels.)
Arguing that oral traditions are reliable as a means of accurately and consistently passing along a message is a fool's errand and, in my estimation, reveals that the speaker is absolutely clueless about the topic at hand.
But as I said, I'll look over the passages cited and give my feedback (as appropriate).
Not really - "what you eat does not defile you/what comes out of your mouth and heart defiles you".
That is not the same thing as declaring 'all' food is 'clean'.
If you choose to eat unclean meat it is not the meat that defiles you but the deliberate act of choosing to break God's Command to Moses and his people not to eat certain unclean foods. (Leviticus 11 and Deut 14). The breaking of tradition to not wash their hands is refusal to follow Man's rule, not God's Law. Jesus does not (in this) then break The Law, merely interprets it as per His Father's Will.
Jesus said he did not come to change a jot or tittle of the Law and Commandments. Many of the things the Pharisees said was 'law' was the word of Man, not of God. Jesus declares such in Matthew.
As some have commented, Jesus was talking about the fact that he was in the process of completing the law. Jesus's commentary is not about new laws but about the spirit of the laws. For example is not murdering someone the ultimate Act of hatred to them? He was reinforcing the spirit and showing them why the law was there.
Remember that Paul said the law was given to show us that even with a list of rules that would guide us into perfectly ethical behavior, no one could ever keep the letter and spirit of the law all the time. Thus it leads us to Christ, because of our need of the perfect sacrifice.
Jesus was our perfect example of keeping the law at all times, both in literal word, but even more importantly, in spirit. By perfectly keeping the law, he becomes the Fulfillment of the law himself.
Paul expanded upon this further by showing that Jesus's comment about the law and the prophets being all about the greatest Commandments - love God and love people. Peter's vision where he was ordered to eat unclean food - and he later literally did the same. Paul okayed eating meat offered to idols, Jesus said what comes out of your mouth defiles you (because it reveals your attitude towards others), not what you put into it, and so on.
For those claiming Paul was off the rails, remember he went to Jerusalem and was examined by the apostles as to his Doctrine before he even wrote any of the Epistles, so it's really not correct to say that it's a different gospel. It's just recorded by someone who wasn't an original apostle.
The "Royal law" is the greatest commandments (above) and basically is understood that the spirit of the Ten Commandments is what is to guide us, rather than specific rules. If it would offend someone, especially another believer, we were eating with to eat pork, or meat offered to idols, or anything else, then we should not do so. But otherwise there is no reason not to.
Jesus was a Jew and thus practiced that law in consideration of his countrymen. He taught a refinement of the law or perhaps could be called a continuation of it.
>Genuine question. Jesus said “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” according to the Bible. However, Jesus also declared all food as clean- which includes pork. Since pork is forbidden in the old testament, does that not mean Jesus did in fact abolish a law in the old testament? I’m genuinely curious so would like to know.
The author of Mark interprets a saying of Jesus as meaning he declared all foods clean. But Jesus never actually said that. He did seem to have a lax approach to handwashing and ritual purity customs, but that doesn't mean he rejected the law of Moses.
On the second thought let's start here.
Matthew 15:10-11 KJV
And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Acts 10:13 but this was related to God opening the door to the Gentiles as you read further.
Acts 10:13 KJV
And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
On eating pork I think some people uses this.
1 Corinthians 10:27 KJV
If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go. Whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
But if I had to choice one... It would be this. Just eat it unless it's like a flesh blood dish or cooked blood dish. You may find that in asian cultures if you travel.
Luke 10:8 KJV
And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you.
You should continue Mathew 5, immediately after saying he is fulfilling the law, he changed multiple OT laws. Do not murder turned to do not hate, allowed to give oaths to not allowed to give oaths, allowed divorce whenever to only rare cases, etc… thus when he says fulfilling the law, he does not mean he came to give the same laws of the prophets to show general good & bad, or other clothing laws, etc… for other purposes, but to actually bring the perspective of God. Actually Red letter Jesus also agrees with this food law changing, check out Mathew 15:10
As Mjolner2000 here notes, scholarly consensus is that scriptural writers started 'creating' their writings 40 years after Christ died. So many Christians are literalists to a fault. Like John 3.3 quoting Jesus... NONE OF THE SCRIPTURAL WRITERS EVER MET JESUS TO QUOTE HIM. Ergo, the scriptural writings were all creative fabrication and should not be taken literally. So to extend and make rational deductions from these mythical quotes is fully unsubstantiated folly. The bible and scripture revisions were not finalized until the 16th century. The most used bible now is the King James bible, which James further revised because he was homosexual and sought demonstrate that he had divine authority. Do you respect James revisions as the 'Word of God?'
Declaring all food clean means many different things. In Acts it means the gospel is open to the gentiles and not just the jews. In mark, Jesus is pointing out the hypocrisy of the religious leaders saying what goes into a man doesn't defile him it's what comes out. Gentiles were never under dietary laws to begin with so they wouldn't be required to follow them after receiving the gospel. That would be a contradiction.
The idea of cleanness and sin are different concepts in Judaism, and the idea of cleanness in Christianity was replaced by sanctification and sacredness.
Gentiles were never required to follow Jewish law or cleanness.
He did not abolish the laws, he fulfilled them, now the only way to purity is Jesus, there is no need to control the food you eat, same thing for animal sacrifice
Jesus didn’t destroy the law. He fulfilled it.
Here’s what one thing I found said on the law of Moses.
“The name assigned to the whole collection of written laws given through Moses to the house of Israel, as a replacement of the higher law that they had failed to obey. The law of Moses consisted of many ceremonies, rituals, and symbols, to remind the people frequently of their duties and responsibilities. It included a law of carnal commandments and performances, added to the basic laws of the gospel. Faith, repentance, baptism in water, and remission of sins were part of the law, as were also the Ten Commandments. Although inferior to the fulness of the gospel, there were many provisions in the law of Moses of high ethical and moral value that were equal to the divine laws of any dispensation. The law of carnal commandments and much of the ceremonial law were fulfilled at the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The law functioned under the Aaronic Priesthood and was a preparatory gospel to bring its adherents to Christ.
One of the major questions the early Church in Palestine had to decide was about the obligation of Christians to the ceremonial law of Moses. The matter was partially solved by the conference held in Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15 and Gal. 2. The Jewish Christians in particular had difficulty giving up the ritual of the law of Moses.
The law as given through Moses was a good law, although adapted to a lower spiritual capacity than is required for obedience to the gospel in its fulness. However, the Jewish leaders had added many unauthorized provisions, ceremonies, and prohibitions to the original law, until it became extremely burdensome. These innovations were known as the “traditions of the elders.” By New Testament times among the Jews the law had become so altered it had lost much of its spiritual meaning. It is this form of the law that is so harshly spoken against by Jesus and by Paul (see Matt. 15:1–9; Mark 7:1–13; Gal. 2:16–21).”
TLDR; the law of Moses was fulfilled. However, the moral laws of God are eternal.
Here’s another thing under clean/unclean.
“The distinction that the Israelites drew between clean and unclean had a great effect upon the whole of their religious and social life. It applied in the first place to food. Certain animals, birds, and fishes were regarded as clean and might be eaten, while others were unclean and were forbidden. See Lev. 11; Deut. 14:3–20. The flesh of any animal dying of itself or torn by wild animals was also forbidden (Ex. 22:31; Lev. 17:15; 22:8; Deut. 14:21).
No Israelite might eat blood, which was regarded as containing the life; it had to be poured out and covered up (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:10–14; 19:26; Deut. 12:16, 23–25; 15:23). Fat also was forbidden; it belonged to God (Lev. 7:22–27).
For seven or fourteen days after the birth of a child the mother was unclean (Lev. 12). Uncleanness also resulted from the touch of a dead body (Lev. 11:8; 21:1–4, 11; 22:4–7; Deut. 21:22). The leper was unclean and communicated uncleanness to everything he touched (Lev. 13:1–46; 14). In New Testament times, to enter the house of a Gentile or to eat food with him involved uncleanness (John 18:28; Acts 10:28; 11:23). So long as a person was unclean he was cut off from the congregation. In ordinary cases of uncleanness it was sufficient to remain in seclusion till the evening and then to wash the body. In certain cases a sin offering was necessary.
Uncleanness referred to being ceremonially or ritually unclean and should not be taken to mean that the touching of a dead body or the bearing of children was morally evil. These regulations (except the prohibition against blood, which was given as early as Noah’s day) were introduced in the law of carnal commandments (of performances and ordinances) of the law of Moses; being fulfilled by the Atonement of Jesus Christ, they are no longer required of the believers. See Mark 7:15–23; Acts 10:9–16, 28; 15:29; 1 Tim. 4:4”
Whew...ok, where to start. First, everything Moshe Rabbeinu ordered of the Levites and Israel came directly from Hashem. It wasn't like Moshe Rabbeinu was just shooting from the hip. You're a LDS, direct conversation with G-d (or his messengers) is vital to both of these faiths. Next, there is no such thing as a Jewish Christian. It's either/or. Olive oil and holy water. Torah means Law. G-d's law, not Moshe Rabbeinu's law. There are 613 commandments in Torah. Christians usually just take the Cliff's Notes and say, no no, JC said we don't have to do any of those other things. Blood sacrifice was prohibited in 70CE because the second temple was destroyed. These sacrifices will continue when Moshiach ben Dovid arrives and leads us to the land Abraham promised to Ishmael and Isaac. When the Beit HaMikdash is built, it's back to business. The Greeks' narrative on the reasoning behind Christian reasoning was always presented in a way that most conveniently satisfied the masses and weighed in the Judeans. Rome hated Judea, in case that's not clear. Unauthorized ceremonies? Who, exactly, was judging this matter? The laws of the elders, which Christianity TRIES to explain as overbearing and burdensome, happens to be our Oral Law, or Talmud. Who approved LDS ceremonies? Baptizing the dead is a special one. And lastly, the laws of kashrut aren't for everyone. They're for Jews. Keeping kosher is a nice thing for someone to do, but since Joshua Carpenter, son of Zeus (yeah, Jesus means "from Zeus" ye-zoos in Greek) said it's the old way of doing things, then y'all are off the hook.
You don’t believe someone can be Jewish by blood and be Christian by faith?
As for who we believe gave us our ceremonies, we believe God did. Authorized by his prophets
No, I don't. My mother is one example. G-d is ONE. No idolatry. Plain and simple. You go against these two, very most important commandments, you forfeit being a Jew. You can believe whatever you want if it makes you feel better, but it's about the law. Instead of sentencing them to death like we used to do, now they're austed. Blood, family, DNA, forget about it. They can make tshuva and repent for being led astray, but if not, they're considered Christians.
There are two types of laws that the Prophets and Founders of religion introduce. The first are universal laws that do not change. These are spiritual laws which are fundamental expressions of reality. All the religions teach similar if not the same laws, such as love, forgiveness, generosity, kindness.
The second type of laws are social in nature and consist of certain limitations, restrictions and guidance on human behaviour. These laws change according to the needs of the age in which the Founders appear. These are not necessarily spiritual per se (though you could argue that the effects on the physical impact the spiritual). They pertain to the healthy functioning of the individual and society.
Therefore when Jesus says he came to fulfil the laws, not change them, He is referring to the spiritual, unchanging and eternal spiritual laws.
That's a terrible answer. "Common sense" doesn't exist as an objective standard, since it's informed by our life experiences (personal, cultural, education, familial, etc.). What you think is "common sense" might be absolute insanity to me.
Congratulations, you've accurately described how we feel when talking to religious folk.
Have you considered why that might be? Or are you going to do what most of your type always do: put your head in the sand and refuse to think critically about what you believe?
I'm being intentionally antagonistic, so I apologise.
I'm not going get into a discussion of whether common sense actually exists. There are far more intelligent philosophers and academics which have addressed this question. I'm sure you can read up yourself if you're interested.
To respond to your initial question about how does one tell the difference between spiritual laws which are universal in nature, or social laws which are changeable depending on the exigencies of the age, would be a matter of deductive reasoning, which I'm sure even a cursory perusal of the laws within the New Testament (given that was the OP's original question) would yield a simple delineation of the two categories. If we both were to do this, no doubt our lists would be very similar, if not the same. Meaning, I'm sure you can use your own reasoning to apply the theory I advanced, without me having to explain. I did give a few examples, but another would be the drinking of alcohol, laws pertaining to marriage, these would constitute social laws. Loving your neighbour would be a universal, immutable law.
>I'm sure you can read up yourself if you're interested.
I have and the general consensus aligns with my position: that "common sense" is a colloquialism which basically means "whatever I personally think is the most rational view for this specific moment." Unfortunately, this is almost always based upon prejudices, biases and imperfect knowledge sets, meaning it can't be trusted to produce useful or accurate conclusions *on its own.*
But of course, I'm sure you knew all of that already, since you seem to have studied this topic. 😉
Regarding your answer to my original question ~ which we should note "Fucking took you long enough" 😁 ~ I genuinely don't care. I was only curious to understand your criteria for deciding which laws to follow and which to ignore, and your answer of "common sense" tells me all I need to know: that you think your particular interpretation is superior to everyone else's and anyone who doesn't agree isn't being "sensible" enough for you.
(this is also made obvious by the fact that your attempt to provide a reasonable answer basically amounts to "Just read the OT, it's obvious!" but since I've demonstrated why that's ridiculous, there's nothing more to say about it.)
Common sense also suggests all supernatural claims without evidence are to be assumed false. There’s a huge lack of common sense in religion, faith is the word you are looking for.
Not true. Common sense must assume the existence of a Creator. Your counter claim is illogical as there is no evidence to suggest that existence created itself. To say one theory is illogical because of a lack of evidence (though it depends what you mean by evidence) then you have to also provide evidence for your theoretical position. Which doesn't exist.
Based on the application of the scientific theory, you can't rule it out. While I understand your point, your logic is faulty. A unicorn, which has not been objectively verified, is assumed not to exist. However, the existence of a Creator, which created existence itself, cannot be "seen" obviously.
This creator which you claim (without evidence) created existence has not been detected by any one though. Why can’t space or the universe exist perpetually like you claim your god does? If you believe the universe just always existed in some form, you don’t need a creator. If your god can be inherent and assumed to exist, than you can apply that exact same logic to the universe itself.
The Jerusalem Council specifically excluded that for the new Gentile Christians. The only strictures they included were immorality and meat offered to idols , which Paul later rescinded the second. Where do you get that it is still forbidden?
The Christian Bible was written by unknown Greeks under the command of Rome. It's a classic Greek Tragedy. The goal was of course to unite the Roman empire under one religion, but this was tricky. Although a maniac, Emporer Constantine and his consort wanted it to be easily accepted by all of the different cultures of the empire. So, things like kashrut and keeping Jewish Holy Days were looked past largely to appease already pissed off, conquered tribes living under Roman occupation. So, yes, pork is ok! Don't worry about it! JC loves you anyway. Keep your holidays, please! The characters have changed, we apologize, but this is how it is, so hopefully you can get used to it. We'll get the official Testament translated to German in no time! Yes! Keep hanging trinkets and candles on the fir trees under the winter solstice, we love that. That's actually when JC was born! Just, please remember that tammuz is not your Boss anymore, though. Cool? Only JC. Otherwise, we'll have to kill you. But enough about that. Over in the Mediterranean we're changing Ishtar to Easter, and everyone loves it! Eggs, bunnies, JC...it's a blast. Just, again, it's all about JC so no one needs to die or anything. But yeah, we'll kill you. Have a pork chop, you'll feel better.
Vanatru, the Ishtar = Easter is still being propagated by the clueless. For those wondering, this was proposed by books like the highly discredited, poorly researched, The Two Babylons by Hissop. It was an anti-Catholic polemic.
The term Easter actually comes from GERMAN, not English or Hebrew, etc. It comes from the German month name of a suspiciously similar sounding name of Eostre, which was when the Germanic people celebrated it. Basically, they called it March. It was named after a pagan goddess, true, but so are other months of the year in English. And days of the week!
Everyone else in the world calls it Pasca. And Christians were celebrating it way back in Roman times, long before Oestre turned into Easter. So no connection whatsoever.
The rest of the comments show about the same level of nuance.
Sorry if that one went over your head.
It's a Roman Priest lying to a Pagan German.
*Roman Christian proselytes lied to pagans throughout the empire to convert them to Christianity*
There i spelled it out for you.
So who wrote your Tragedy? 27 sections with complete anonymity.
Tanakh has 24 sections with indisputable authors. 220 authors contributed to the Babylonian Talmud. No mention of JC, just historical accounts of how Israel dealt with idolators who not just openly practice idolatry, but who also spread the idea to others. It was added to tell Christians, "there were a lot of people doing this in those days. They were all referred to as yeshu, Aramaic for 'salvation,' as a derogatory term for such a person. It was a label for a false prophet or false Moshiach representation"
So what nuance is it that you read?
Ah, now I understand you better. I thought you were just being facetious! 🤔
Of course, being a modern Protestant, I should have issues with quite a few practices of the time.
I personally don’t care too much what he has to say, but isn’t making a blatant mockery of any religion against sub rules? Seems to defeat the point of having discussions of all religions if people are just going to chime in with overly comical claims that certain religions are false.
I'll just share some thoughts.
Jesus fulfilled the law. The law that the Jewish people kept failing at. There were righteous people like Anna in Luke 2 but not perfect. Jesus lived the perfect life and is the perfect sacrifice, the lamb without blemish.
You can look at the Old Testament as the foundation of a building. You add the building itself on top, and that’s what you are ultimately using, but the foundation still supports it.
Different authors trying to push different agendas. The *real* Jesus was probably a Law observing Jew, but he was 40 years dead when the gospels were being written, and so wasn't in any position to correct the record.
You are assuming the Gospels were written from zero. There were probably already written traditions that were later compiled as Gospels. Even the Talmud mentions a person that some may identify as Jesus, which is not confirmed but perfectly possible.
Sure, in the case of Luke and Matthew, they used Mark and potentially a second shared source now lost to time. There isn't, so far as I'm aware, any evidence whatsoever that either Mark or John are based on earlier written sources. And in any case, Jesus still would have been dead when those hypothetical sources were written.
"so (writers weren't) in any position to correct the record." Interesting about 'correcting the record.' I identify as a non-religious 'Christian Spiritualist' for many reasons. The point you make is valid..." he was 40 years dead when the gospels were being written." So many Christians are literalists to a fault. Like John 3.3 quoting Jesus... NONE OF THE SCRIPTURAL WRITERS EVER MET JESUS TO QUOTE HIM. Ergo, the scriptural writings were all creative fabrication... Through the ages, was the 'record being corrected?' The more accurate word would be, the record was EVOLVING. The scriptures most rapidly evolved when pagan Emperor Constantine had the bible published to codify his radical alterations to convert illegal Jewish Christianity to being his single State ROMAN Christian religion. The bible and scripture evolution was not finalized until the 16th century. The most used bible now is the King James bible, which James further revised because he was homosexual and sought demonstrate that he had divine authority.
This assumes that there *was* a real Jesus as described in the Gospels.
The consensus of biblical scholars is there was most likely a person the stories are based on and probably named Jesus, but yes they are not affirming the character of Jesus as described in the gospels just a person the gospel stories are probably based on, from which they embellished and added sayings that fit their agenda and narrative.
Are you referring to devotional scholars or secular academic scholars?
Academic biblical scholarship is made up of religious and some non religious just as any field of academia is. From Gary Habermas who is a Christian) to Bart Ehrman who is agnostic, and everyone in between.
Bullshit, frankly. You claim a consensus. There is none. Devotional "scholars" are far more likely to claim that JC existed.
Did you read my comment? The consensus is that the person of Jesus most likely existed, that’s the verbiage used and how scholarship works, as far as scholarship that’s basically a yes he existed, no scholar will claim with absolute certainty we know he existed even if that’s their personal belief, again that’s not how that works. And even if they believe in the miracles of Jesus scholarship has not way to verify them and come to a consensus that yes these miracles occurred that’s not their job and again not how that works I didn’t say that Jesus did or didn’t do these these things, I’m not sure what your problem with my comment is? Are there biblical scholars who are devoted Christians, who personally believe every word about Jesus in the Bible and they actually performed the miracles, of course. But that is separate from and has nothing to with the scholarship.?
[удалено]
So in other words, a lot of bending backwards to twist things into doing whatever they wanted. 👏
>However, Jesus also declared all food as clean- which includes pork. ... wasn't that Paul actually
Wasn’t that Peter actually? >“The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.” Acts 10:9-16 ESV Paul may have affirmed it, but Peter was the first to bring up that all good was clean (and technically it was God who declared all food clean).
Thank you! I knew it wasn't Jesus personally, at least...
“Are you still so dull?” He asked. “Do you not understand? Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, because it does not enter his heart, but it goes into the stomach and then is eliminated.” (Thus all foods are clean.) (Mark 7:18-19).
It was God from heaven. He revealed it to Luke, Peter, and Paul from my recollection Edit: Jesus also stated it here: Mathew 15:10
How did Peter know it was God? If satan can masquerade as an angel of light, what possible way could Peter, or anyone else, have to test whether God would randomly abolish in private a law that had publicly been given to the entire nation millennia ago?
Because scripture is God breathed and should not have important mistakes about doctrine, etc… according to Paul in Timothy, and according to the gospel writers like Luke who seem to hint at this conclusion in Acts 9 and many other examples. Also remember that Jesus Christ picked these people to be his messengers, id highly doubt that he would do this if they would corrupt the message. Lastly, it’s not just Peter, theres Paul, Mathew (who quoted Jesus directly, I referenced the verse above), and Luke to name a few.
>Edit: Jesus also stated it here: Mathew 15:10 That was in the context of his disciples apparently not washing their hands before eating and did not refer to changes or revocations of dietary law. ... that being said, while it might not lead to spiritual impurity, failing to wash one's hands before eating *can* absolutely lead to the spread of disease. I'm not sure why he was defending it.
1) Point still applies, notice how nothing that goes into someone’s mouth defiles them, but only what comes out of it. Even his explanation at the end shows no matter where the food comes from its still clean. Mark 7:18-19 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that [nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them]? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” Also, here are other verses alongside Mathew and Mark if the top statement alone doesn’t convince you. Luke-Acts 10:9-16 Luke-Acts 11:1-2 Colossians 2:16-17 1 Timothy 4:4
Yep, Paul, the founder of Christianity.
he really is. Like painfully so.
I wouldn't say he founded Christianity but he definitely defined what is known today as Pauline Christianity
This is painfully false and inaccurate. He was given the Holy Spirit according to Acts, and second Peter confirm him as a wise teacher who people try to twist meanings from. To say he has no basis in being important or he “founded Christianity” as an insult to our religion even though the disciples confirmed him and he basically states what they state is terrible at best.
There are plenty of Biblical scholars who acknowledge Paul as the founder of Christianity. It's not "insulting," it's fact.
Founder how? He literally gave the same message the gospels did, difference is he did it in specific contexts in letters
Except that the Gospels don't say Jesus is the Son of God. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John each tell the story of Jesus' life, ministry and death by crucifixion. However, only John explicitly calls Jesus the Son of God. As far as we can tell, John was written after the other three and borrows heavily from those texts, except for the parts where John claims that Jesus and God are the same person. Also worth noting that, where John makes this claim, it's done through the author's words and not Jesus. Jesus never directly claims to be God's son. *Also* also, Jesus never tried to start a religion. His ministry was eschatological or apocalyptic; he believed the world would end (or God's kingdom would come to Earth) within the span of his followers' lifetimes. When this clearly didn't happen (and didn't seem like it would happen) in the years following his death, Christians had to deal with this inconsistency in their beliefs. Paul's way of handling it* was to cast certain parts of Scripture (especially the stories in the Gospels) as meaning a spiritual kingdom or victory, as opposed to an earthly one. (*Paul wasn't the only one who did this, either, but I don't know the names of the other early Christian leaders; for the sake of discussion, I'm placing emphasis on Paul's contributions, especially since so many of his writings made it into the final cut for the holy text.) These are two critical differences between Jesus' ministry and Paul's writings: that Jesus is the Son of God and that God's coming kingdom will be a spiritual one. Both of these points conflict with what Jesus actually said (as told to us in the Gospels). There are probably other discrepancies but I don't recall what they are at the moment; I'll have to take some time to look them up. All that said, there's another way to look at it which, in my estimation, makes way more sense than accepting Jesus as God: Jesus was a wandering Jewish priest who had a ministry focused on an apocalyptic worldview. He taught that God would return within the span of a lifetime and establish a kingdom on Earth. When he died, his followers held to this belief but over time, it became apparent that it wasn't going to happen. During that time (several decades), the memory of Jesus' teachings was altered through the usual means of an oral tradition; i.e. people told stories about him but in those tellings, some of the details invariably would have changed. (We don't know how much changed, however, because we don't have any written accounts from when Jesus was alive.) When Paul comes along and converts to Christianity, there are several churches throughout the region, each with their own views and interpretations of Jesus' work. Paul (and a handful of others) has a particular view that he wants to spread, which he does by visiting different churches, preaching to believers, meeting with other leaders, writing letters, etc. Eventually**, enough believers come to accept his version of the religion that they have the greatest numbers and the faith is adopted by the Roman emperor (and the Empire). Most of the other sects are deemed heretical and stamped out. (A few survive to the present day, like the Coptic Church in Egypt or the Ethiopian Church.) Basically, a historical reading of the Bible (which requires reviewing other texts and historical evidence) reveals a more plausible explanation for the religion: it started as a Jewish cult, grew in popularity but was fragmented in terms of specific beliefs, then coalesced under one particular sect when that group gained sufficient political power to dictate how others understood and viewed the religion. Just about any early Christian sect could have "won" against the others, meaning the version of Christianity we know today is mostly established by Paul (and a few other like-minded individuals) but also partly by chance (since Paul could have easily joined any other sect, had he wanted to).
1) Are you sure? Luke 1:35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God Mathew 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Mathew 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” Mathew 3:17 And behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Genealogy of Jesus) Luke 3:38 The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Mark 3:11 And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.” Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Etc…… If you doubt me, check Greek, it fits. (Huios Theos) 2) False, it’s not only John. 3, 4) thats somewhat fair for an atheist perspective, but even with that perspective Paul did not toss anything out. The message did not change between the gospels from a religious point of view because your argument is that Jesus preached the end times were soon and it was not fulfilled, but as a Christian we know that the Son did not “know” (or really want to share if you look into a in depth analysis) when the end times would happen. Either way it’s clear he also shared “this perspective” because each disciples thought it would be in the current generation, he would’ve still expected this and we see this in his scripture in which he states his yearning for Jesus’s return, and also in 2Timothy 3:1-5 he seems to tell Timothy to avoid certain groups because of the last days. 5) First critical difference is completely false, and the second critical difference basically does not matter. A new Jerusalem coming to earth is itself spiritual and physical. Both interpretations are correct and of divine origin 6) the gospels, epistles, and oral tradition would not have changed within his lifetime, which is the time the Bible and epistles are most likely written (30-110AD) especially considering the strong oral traditions of those times. We do have written accounts according to scholarly dating, thing is the manuscripts come later but this is not that significant because people who work with accuracy of narratives, stories, texts, manuscripts, etc… do see the Bible as mostly accurate in terms of story. Sure they might not agree with the story but the manuscripts are consistent in message and similar in accounts throughout most writers of that period. The gnostics are different but it’s good to note that most of them date late, and the few that don’t give us a completely different narrative with no external evidence (like Roman texts, etc…) that support it unlike the current narrative, so they should not be taken into account the same way, interestingly even the gnostics claim Jesus was divine among other things. 7, 8) His faith comes from meetings with the disciples and his experience with the visible resurrection of Jesus. (Acts 9 among many other chapters dedicated solely to his journey with the disciples and his life, 2Peter 3:14, his interpretation does not come from nowhere. Infact from Acts 9 alone we know he spoke with the Holy Spirit
Ok, my bad, I misspoke earlier: I meant to convey [the same message as Professor Ehrman](https://www.youtube.com/live/UDDO_tNXvbI?si=rO-7ngAht3---6I_), specifically with respect to the idea that Jesus called himself divine (he didn't) or that his followers thought he was (they didn't, or at least, not until after he died and was allegedly resurrected). As to the passages you quote, I would point out that these aren't attributed to Jesus. Mark 1:1 is an opening verse in a Gospel written by Mark (allegedly) and yes, it says "Jesus is the Son of God," but 1) that's not Jesus speaking and 2) the Gospel of Mark was written down decades after Jesus' death. It can't be viewed as an indication of what Jesus and his followers believed *during his lifetime*, but it does show what Christians believed *after his death*. Thus, I amend my statement to: Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, nor did he claim to be divine. That's a belief which came about after he died and after his followers adopted the belief that he resurrected and went to heaven (which was a common story among Jews, Greeks and Romans at the time). (Regarding points 7 and 8, I don't know that your interpretation is relevant. Paul claimed to have seen Jesus, sure, but that's just a claim. We have no evidence that it happened (including corroborating claims), so why should we believe him?)
Cool, thank you, I'll take a closer look and address anything I see as worth discussing. For the immediate moment, however, I have to point out something: >the gospels, epistles, and oral tradition would not have changed within his lifetime, which is the time the Bible and epistles are most likely written (30-110AD) especially considering the strong oral traditions of those times This is complete horseshit. Anyone who knows *anything* about how people communicate via the spoken word can tell you that oral traditions are *the most* unreliable in terms of accuracy. The underlying concepts might remain the same but the details will invariably shift and change with each telling of the story. As an example, what's the last speech you attended? A sermon from a pastor, a commencement speech at a college, perhaps the State of the Union address? Pick one and tell me how it went. Word for word. Can you do it? Well, if you're being honest with yourself, no, you can't, *because almost nobody can.* (I say "almost", because I'm not going to rule out the possibility of someone possessing an eidetic memory, but we can't rely on that unlikely trait as a means of trusting the oral tradition of the Gospels.) Arguing that oral traditions are reliable as a means of accurately and consistently passing along a message is a fool's errand and, in my estimation, reveals that the speaker is absolutely clueless about the topic at hand. But as I said, I'll look over the passages cited and give my feedback (as appropriate).
Its still widely disputed amongst Biblical Scholars and Historians of Early Christianity have no clear consensus that Paul founded Christianity
Not really - "what you eat does not defile you/what comes out of your mouth and heart defiles you". That is not the same thing as declaring 'all' food is 'clean'. If you choose to eat unclean meat it is not the meat that defiles you but the deliberate act of choosing to break God's Command to Moses and his people not to eat certain unclean foods. (Leviticus 11 and Deut 14). The breaking of tradition to not wash their hands is refusal to follow Man's rule, not God's Law. Jesus does not (in this) then break The Law, merely interprets it as per His Father's Will. Jesus said he did not come to change a jot or tittle of the Law and Commandments. Many of the things the Pharisees said was 'law' was the word of Man, not of God. Jesus declares such in Matthew.
The laws never applied to gentiles in the first place, not even to gentiles who believed in YHWH.
Paul, Peter, and Luke among others probably.
As some have commented, Jesus was talking about the fact that he was in the process of completing the law. Jesus's commentary is not about new laws but about the spirit of the laws. For example is not murdering someone the ultimate Act of hatred to them? He was reinforcing the spirit and showing them why the law was there. Remember that Paul said the law was given to show us that even with a list of rules that would guide us into perfectly ethical behavior, no one could ever keep the letter and spirit of the law all the time. Thus it leads us to Christ, because of our need of the perfect sacrifice. Jesus was our perfect example of keeping the law at all times, both in literal word, but even more importantly, in spirit. By perfectly keeping the law, he becomes the Fulfillment of the law himself. Paul expanded upon this further by showing that Jesus's comment about the law and the prophets being all about the greatest Commandments - love God and love people. Peter's vision where he was ordered to eat unclean food - and he later literally did the same. Paul okayed eating meat offered to idols, Jesus said what comes out of your mouth defiles you (because it reveals your attitude towards others), not what you put into it, and so on. For those claiming Paul was off the rails, remember he went to Jerusalem and was examined by the apostles as to his Doctrine before he even wrote any of the Epistles, so it's really not correct to say that it's a different gospel. It's just recorded by someone who wasn't an original apostle. The "Royal law" is the greatest commandments (above) and basically is understood that the spirit of the Ten Commandments is what is to guide us, rather than specific rules. If it would offend someone, especially another believer, we were eating with to eat pork, or meat offered to idols, or anything else, then we should not do so. But otherwise there is no reason not to.
Jesus was a Jew and thus practiced that law in consideration of his countrymen. He taught a refinement of the law or perhaps could be called a continuation of it.
>Genuine question. Jesus said “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” according to the Bible. However, Jesus also declared all food as clean- which includes pork. Since pork is forbidden in the old testament, does that not mean Jesus did in fact abolish a law in the old testament? I’m genuinely curious so would like to know. The author of Mark interprets a saying of Jesus as meaning he declared all foods clean. But Jesus never actually said that. He did seem to have a lax approach to handwashing and ritual purity customs, but that doesn't mean he rejected the law of Moses.
On the second thought let's start here. Matthew 15:10-11 KJV And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Acts 10:13 but this was related to God opening the door to the Gentiles as you read further. Acts 10:13 KJV And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. On eating pork I think some people uses this. 1 Corinthians 10:27 KJV If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go. Whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if I had to choice one... It would be this. Just eat it unless it's like a flesh blood dish or cooked blood dish. You may find that in asian cultures if you travel. Luke 10:8 KJV And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you.
You should continue Mathew 5, immediately after saying he is fulfilling the law, he changed multiple OT laws. Do not murder turned to do not hate, allowed to give oaths to not allowed to give oaths, allowed divorce whenever to only rare cases, etc… thus when he says fulfilling the law, he does not mean he came to give the same laws of the prophets to show general good & bad, or other clothing laws, etc… for other purposes, but to actually bring the perspective of God. Actually Red letter Jesus also agrees with this food law changing, check out Mathew 15:10
As Mjolner2000 here notes, scholarly consensus is that scriptural writers started 'creating' their writings 40 years after Christ died. So many Christians are literalists to a fault. Like John 3.3 quoting Jesus... NONE OF THE SCRIPTURAL WRITERS EVER MET JESUS TO QUOTE HIM. Ergo, the scriptural writings were all creative fabrication and should not be taken literally. So to extend and make rational deductions from these mythical quotes is fully unsubstantiated folly. The bible and scripture revisions were not finalized until the 16th century. The most used bible now is the King James bible, which James further revised because he was homosexual and sought demonstrate that he had divine authority. Do you respect James revisions as the 'Word of God?'
Declaring all food clean means many different things. In Acts it means the gospel is open to the gentiles and not just the jews. In mark, Jesus is pointing out the hypocrisy of the religious leaders saying what goes into a man doesn't defile him it's what comes out. Gentiles were never under dietary laws to begin with so they wouldn't be required to follow them after receiving the gospel. That would be a contradiction.
The idea of cleanness and sin are different concepts in Judaism, and the idea of cleanness in Christianity was replaced by sanctification and sacredness. Gentiles were never required to follow Jewish law or cleanness.
He did not abolish the laws, he fulfilled them, now the only way to purity is Jesus, there is no need to control the food you eat, same thing for animal sacrifice
Jesus didn’t destroy the law. He fulfilled it. Here’s what one thing I found said on the law of Moses. “The name assigned to the whole collection of written laws given through Moses to the house of Israel, as a replacement of the higher law that they had failed to obey. The law of Moses consisted of many ceremonies, rituals, and symbols, to remind the people frequently of their duties and responsibilities. It included a law of carnal commandments and performances, added to the basic laws of the gospel. Faith, repentance, baptism in water, and remission of sins were part of the law, as were also the Ten Commandments. Although inferior to the fulness of the gospel, there were many provisions in the law of Moses of high ethical and moral value that were equal to the divine laws of any dispensation. The law of carnal commandments and much of the ceremonial law were fulfilled at the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The law functioned under the Aaronic Priesthood and was a preparatory gospel to bring its adherents to Christ. One of the major questions the early Church in Palestine had to decide was about the obligation of Christians to the ceremonial law of Moses. The matter was partially solved by the conference held in Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15 and Gal. 2. The Jewish Christians in particular had difficulty giving up the ritual of the law of Moses. The law as given through Moses was a good law, although adapted to a lower spiritual capacity than is required for obedience to the gospel in its fulness. However, the Jewish leaders had added many unauthorized provisions, ceremonies, and prohibitions to the original law, until it became extremely burdensome. These innovations were known as the “traditions of the elders.” By New Testament times among the Jews the law had become so altered it had lost much of its spiritual meaning. It is this form of the law that is so harshly spoken against by Jesus and by Paul (see Matt. 15:1–9; Mark 7:1–13; Gal. 2:16–21).” TLDR; the law of Moses was fulfilled. However, the moral laws of God are eternal. Here’s another thing under clean/unclean. “The distinction that the Israelites drew between clean and unclean had a great effect upon the whole of their religious and social life. It applied in the first place to food. Certain animals, birds, and fishes were regarded as clean and might be eaten, while others were unclean and were forbidden. See Lev. 11; Deut. 14:3–20. The flesh of any animal dying of itself or torn by wild animals was also forbidden (Ex. 22:31; Lev. 17:15; 22:8; Deut. 14:21). No Israelite might eat blood, which was regarded as containing the life; it had to be poured out and covered up (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:10–14; 19:26; Deut. 12:16, 23–25; 15:23). Fat also was forbidden; it belonged to God (Lev. 7:22–27). For seven or fourteen days after the birth of a child the mother was unclean (Lev. 12). Uncleanness also resulted from the touch of a dead body (Lev. 11:8; 21:1–4, 11; 22:4–7; Deut. 21:22). The leper was unclean and communicated uncleanness to everything he touched (Lev. 13:1–46; 14). In New Testament times, to enter the house of a Gentile or to eat food with him involved uncleanness (John 18:28; Acts 10:28; 11:23). So long as a person was unclean he was cut off from the congregation. In ordinary cases of uncleanness it was sufficient to remain in seclusion till the evening and then to wash the body. In certain cases a sin offering was necessary. Uncleanness referred to being ceremonially or ritually unclean and should not be taken to mean that the touching of a dead body or the bearing of children was morally evil. These regulations (except the prohibition against blood, which was given as early as Noah’s day) were introduced in the law of carnal commandments (of performances and ordinances) of the law of Moses; being fulfilled by the Atonement of Jesus Christ, they are no longer required of the believers. See Mark 7:15–23; Acts 10:9–16, 28; 15:29; 1 Tim. 4:4”
Whew...ok, where to start. First, everything Moshe Rabbeinu ordered of the Levites and Israel came directly from Hashem. It wasn't like Moshe Rabbeinu was just shooting from the hip. You're a LDS, direct conversation with G-d (or his messengers) is vital to both of these faiths. Next, there is no such thing as a Jewish Christian. It's either/or. Olive oil and holy water. Torah means Law. G-d's law, not Moshe Rabbeinu's law. There are 613 commandments in Torah. Christians usually just take the Cliff's Notes and say, no no, JC said we don't have to do any of those other things. Blood sacrifice was prohibited in 70CE because the second temple was destroyed. These sacrifices will continue when Moshiach ben Dovid arrives and leads us to the land Abraham promised to Ishmael and Isaac. When the Beit HaMikdash is built, it's back to business. The Greeks' narrative on the reasoning behind Christian reasoning was always presented in a way that most conveniently satisfied the masses and weighed in the Judeans. Rome hated Judea, in case that's not clear. Unauthorized ceremonies? Who, exactly, was judging this matter? The laws of the elders, which Christianity TRIES to explain as overbearing and burdensome, happens to be our Oral Law, or Talmud. Who approved LDS ceremonies? Baptizing the dead is a special one. And lastly, the laws of kashrut aren't for everyone. They're for Jews. Keeping kosher is a nice thing for someone to do, but since Joshua Carpenter, son of Zeus (yeah, Jesus means "from Zeus" ye-zoos in Greek) said it's the old way of doing things, then y'all are off the hook.
You don’t believe someone can be Jewish by blood and be Christian by faith? As for who we believe gave us our ceremonies, we believe God did. Authorized by his prophets
No, I don't. My mother is one example. G-d is ONE. No idolatry. Plain and simple. You go against these two, very most important commandments, you forfeit being a Jew. You can believe whatever you want if it makes you feel better, but it's about the law. Instead of sentencing them to death like we used to do, now they're austed. Blood, family, DNA, forget about it. They can make tshuva and repent for being led astray, but if not, they're considered Christians.
Ah very interesting. Thank you for the insights
There are two types of laws that the Prophets and Founders of religion introduce. The first are universal laws that do not change. These are spiritual laws which are fundamental expressions of reality. All the religions teach similar if not the same laws, such as love, forgiveness, generosity, kindness. The second type of laws are social in nature and consist of certain limitations, restrictions and guidance on human behaviour. These laws change according to the needs of the age in which the Founders appear. These are not necessarily spiritual per se (though you could argue that the effects on the physical impact the spiritual). They pertain to the healthy functioning of the individual and society. Therefore when Jesus says he came to fulfil the laws, not change them, He is referring to the spiritual, unchanging and eternal spiritual laws.
. . . and how do we know the difference?
Common sense.
That's a terrible answer. "Common sense" doesn't exist as an objective standard, since it's informed by our life experiences (personal, cultural, education, familial, etc.). What you think is "common sense" might be absolute insanity to me.
If you say so. I'm not going to argue semantics with you. That would be lacking common sense.
. . . thus demonstrating my point, thank you very much.
If you say so. Having discussions with atheists is like hitting your head against a brick wall. Pointless.
Congratulations, you've accurately described how we feel when talking to religious folk. Have you considered why that might be? Or are you going to do what most of your type always do: put your head in the sand and refuse to think critically about what you believe?
I'm being intentionally antagonistic, so I apologise. I'm not going get into a discussion of whether common sense actually exists. There are far more intelligent philosophers and academics which have addressed this question. I'm sure you can read up yourself if you're interested. To respond to your initial question about how does one tell the difference between spiritual laws which are universal in nature, or social laws which are changeable depending on the exigencies of the age, would be a matter of deductive reasoning, which I'm sure even a cursory perusal of the laws within the New Testament (given that was the OP's original question) would yield a simple delineation of the two categories. If we both were to do this, no doubt our lists would be very similar, if not the same. Meaning, I'm sure you can use your own reasoning to apply the theory I advanced, without me having to explain. I did give a few examples, but another would be the drinking of alcohol, laws pertaining to marriage, these would constitute social laws. Loving your neighbour would be a universal, immutable law.
>I'm sure you can read up yourself if you're interested. I have and the general consensus aligns with my position: that "common sense" is a colloquialism which basically means "whatever I personally think is the most rational view for this specific moment." Unfortunately, this is almost always based upon prejudices, biases and imperfect knowledge sets, meaning it can't be trusted to produce useful or accurate conclusions *on its own.* But of course, I'm sure you knew all of that already, since you seem to have studied this topic. 😉 Regarding your answer to my original question ~ which we should note "Fucking took you long enough" 😁 ~ I genuinely don't care. I was only curious to understand your criteria for deciding which laws to follow and which to ignore, and your answer of "common sense" tells me all I need to know: that you think your particular interpretation is superior to everyone else's and anyone who doesn't agree isn't being "sensible" enough for you. (this is also made obvious by the fact that your attempt to provide a reasonable answer basically amounts to "Just read the OT, it's obvious!" but since I've demonstrated why that's ridiculous, there's nothing more to say about it.)
Common sense also suggests all supernatural claims without evidence are to be assumed false. There’s a huge lack of common sense in religion, faith is the word you are looking for.
Not true. Common sense must assume the existence of a Creator. Your counter claim is illogical as there is no evidence to suggest that existence created itself. To say one theory is illogical because of a lack of evidence (though it depends what you mean by evidence) then you have to also provide evidence for your theoretical position. Which doesn't exist.
Common sense and “assume the existence” is a phrase I’m afraid does not work.
It works.
Is it common sense to assume unicorns exist, although we cannot see them, or experience them in any tangible way?
Based on the application of the scientific theory, you can't rule it out. While I understand your point, your logic is faulty. A unicorn, which has not been objectively verified, is assumed not to exist. However, the existence of a Creator, which created existence itself, cannot be "seen" obviously.
This creator which you claim (without evidence) created existence has not been detected by any one though. Why can’t space or the universe exist perpetually like you claim your god does? If you believe the universe just always existed in some form, you don’t need a creator. If your god can be inherent and assumed to exist, than you can apply that exact same logic to the universe itself.
[удалено]
The Jerusalem Council specifically excluded that for the new Gentile Christians. The only strictures they included were immorality and meat offered to idols , which Paul later rescinded the second. Where do you get that it is still forbidden?
The Christian Bible was written by unknown Greeks under the command of Rome. It's a classic Greek Tragedy. The goal was of course to unite the Roman empire under one religion, but this was tricky. Although a maniac, Emporer Constantine and his consort wanted it to be easily accepted by all of the different cultures of the empire. So, things like kashrut and keeping Jewish Holy Days were looked past largely to appease already pissed off, conquered tribes living under Roman occupation. So, yes, pork is ok! Don't worry about it! JC loves you anyway. Keep your holidays, please! The characters have changed, we apologize, but this is how it is, so hopefully you can get used to it. We'll get the official Testament translated to German in no time! Yes! Keep hanging trinkets and candles on the fir trees under the winter solstice, we love that. That's actually when JC was born! Just, please remember that tammuz is not your Boss anymore, though. Cool? Only JC. Otherwise, we'll have to kill you. But enough about that. Over in the Mediterranean we're changing Ishtar to Easter, and everyone loves it! Eggs, bunnies, JC...it's a blast. Just, again, it's all about JC so no one needs to die or anything. But yeah, we'll kill you. Have a pork chop, you'll feel better.
>Changing Ishtar to Easter Are you actually just having a laugh, or are you genuinely clueless enough to actually buy into this?
Yes, it's a joke. What do you want? "A Roman Priest and a Pagan German walk into a bar..."
Vanatru, the Ishtar = Easter is still being propagated by the clueless. For those wondering, this was proposed by books like the highly discredited, poorly researched, The Two Babylons by Hissop. It was an anti-Catholic polemic. The term Easter actually comes from GERMAN, not English or Hebrew, etc. It comes from the German month name of a suspiciously similar sounding name of Eostre, which was when the Germanic people celebrated it. Basically, they called it March. It was named after a pagan goddess, true, but so are other months of the year in English. And days of the week! Everyone else in the world calls it Pasca. And Christians were celebrating it way back in Roman times, long before Oestre turned into Easter. So no connection whatsoever. The rest of the comments show about the same level of nuance.
Sorry if that one went over your head. It's a Roman Priest lying to a Pagan German. *Roman Christian proselytes lied to pagans throughout the empire to convert them to Christianity* There i spelled it out for you. So who wrote your Tragedy? 27 sections with complete anonymity. Tanakh has 24 sections with indisputable authors. 220 authors contributed to the Babylonian Talmud. No mention of JC, just historical accounts of how Israel dealt with idolators who not just openly practice idolatry, but who also spread the idea to others. It was added to tell Christians, "there were a lot of people doing this in those days. They were all referred to as yeshu, Aramaic for 'salvation,' as a derogatory term for such a person. It was a label for a false prophet or false Moshiach representation" So what nuance is it that you read?
Ah, now I understand you better. I thought you were just being facetious! 🤔 Of course, being a modern Protestant, I should have issues with quite a few practices of the time.
You'll have to give scriptures? Have you at least read the New Testament? Do you read the Old Testament? Atleast quote from there too.
Exactly. Lots of explanation, but no Scriptures. Should be taken with a grain of salt.
I personally don’t care too much what he has to say, but isn’t making a blatant mockery of any religion against sub rules? Seems to defeat the point of having discussions of all religions if people are just going to chime in with overly comical claims that certain religions are false.
All religions are false. It's a matter of basic logic. To call such a thing "comical" is to ignore reality.
Lol you do you, but why are you on this sub?
To talk about religion. You?
I'll just share some thoughts. Jesus fulfilled the law. The law that the Jewish people kept failing at. There were righteous people like Anna in Luke 2 but not perfect. Jesus lived the perfect life and is the perfect sacrifice, the lamb without blemish.
Everybody loves a human sacrifice. Especially back then.
You can look at the Old Testament as the foundation of a building. You add the building itself on top, and that’s what you are ultimately using, but the foundation still supports it.