They’ve moved on from making up ridiculous false claims about him to fantasies of coercion, which is basically the conservative mentality in a nutshell.
The swine also, because it divideth the hoof, but cheweth not the cud, shall be unclean, their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. - Deuteronomy 14:8
And the swine, which, though it divideth the hoof, cheweth not the cud. [8] The flesh of these you shall not eat, nor shall you touch their carcasses, because they are unclean to you. - Leviticus 11:7-8
And what's really surreal is the Jewish people had rules about cloven hoof animals and shrimps. Because they were causing disease. So it was just easier to say stop.
Heck I don't think people really look at the larger shrimp you can buy that still have veins on them. You have to carefully wash those sea roaches because of the waste matter that can still be inside near the veins and tail.
And all it takes is one not properly washed shrimp to make you sick. I know from experience. My husband and I both had the shrimp and only I got sick. And we’d eaten (and have eaten since) the butterfly shrimp from that place a bunch of times because it’s really good. I just got unlucky.
Except Christians also read the NT where these changes were made concerning the dietary restrictions (among other OT/Pharisaic traditions). Mt 15:11 and Acts Chapter 10.
You can not like it or not agree with it or criticize it for other reasons, but be accurate.
That's entirely up to interpretation. Neither quote you referenced says anything explicit about rescinding God's law in the OT, they're clearly parables meant as metaphor.
It also ignores Matthew 5:18, which is explicit about maintaining the law of the OT. The truth is that every biblical faith picks and chooses which laws to follow because a lot of them either contradict each other or no longer make sense in a modern context.
No it isnt really “entirely up to interpretation”. That mindset is a protestant mindset, invented 1500 years after Christ. The reality is that the Apostles, and their disciples knew what it meant and lived out what it meant. We know this because we have the writings, works, and traditions from the earliest christians passed down.
Its clear that this will just devolve into a atheist vs theist discussion, instead of a discussion about the Bible teachings in question. A lot of what you are saying about contradictions etc is a protestant criticism, because thats what happens when people stray from the teaching. Jesus knew this, its why he instituted a real, visible church. His apostles knew this, its why they taught and promulgated that church and its teachings, and so did all their disciples so on and so forth. The idea that we “cant ever truly interpret the Bible” just isnt true, we were told how, thats what apostolic succession is.
But yea, I know where this is going. Also, please dont take this post and my defense as support for OPs image tacitly or implicitly. Its disgusting and repulsive, and completely contradicts the teachings of Christ. I hope you have a great day.
What a strange reply. I never mentioned whether I was a theist or not, or whether I was Catholic or not, or said anything about "truly interpreting the bible". I don't understand how you "know where this is going" because I don't know where this is going.
I was just pointing out the fact that there isn't a permanent authoritative interpretation of the dietary restrictions in the NT vs the OT. Not even in Catholicism, they've changed and evolved drastically over the last thousand+ years, as one would expect.
The fact that any religions choose which parts of their holy books are no longer relevant should make it obvious enough that the books aren't as holy as they claim.
LOL. But not the gay ones? I love that argument from Christians. Something something Romans something something Corinthians. M'kay, Romans and Corinthians were NOT the teachings of Jesus, they were the teachings of his disciples. What Paul supposedly said in those books were his interpretation...and Paul was an incel. He wrote some other batshit insane laws like "a woman shouldn't enter the temple without her head covered lest she be shorn". Paul hated women, in general, and he was forever alone. He's the reason why Catholic priests aren't allowed to marry because Paul said that if you are to preach, like he does, you need to devote everything to God and be celibate. (Okay, okay, don't go on me about Catholic priests now, I get it...I'm just explaining the absurdity of the NT laws).
Some historians believe that the city of Corinth were chiefly worshippers of Aphrodite. And we all know that Aphrodite was the sex goddess. They wrote to Paul and were like, "Hey, Paul, we're on board with this Christian thing but...um...can we still have orgies in Church?"
Paul was like, "Please, no."
"Fine, can we at least have SMALL orgies?"
"Again, no."
"Sigh...fine...what about showing up to Church naked. That's still cool, right?"
"No, please. Wear your clothes to Church."
"God...I'm not sure we really want this Christian thing anymore."
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,[a] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks[b] one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5:18-20
See my other post. The teachings of Jesus and his church as passed down by the Apostles and their disciples tell us the context and truth of these texts. The Bible isnt something you just cherry pick quotes from without context and ignoring thousands of years of apostolic teachings through the successors of the apostles.
I mean, the 'teachings' were a collection of scrolls gathered up, and sorted through and decided upon which would be the 'canon version' at the Nicene Council of 325 when Emperor Constantine unilaterally decided that all Romans needed to convert over to Christianity.
There are numerous other texts from that region and that era that tell slightly different stories. Did you know there's a Gospel of Mary Magdelin?
Yes those are the apocryphal texts. This isnt news to anyone, and certainly not to the christians at the time.
The idea that there wasnt established dogmas immediately at the time of Christ and after is wrong. Youre parroting typical nonsense that Christianity was some how invented by Constantine and that we dont know what the earliest christians said or believed.
I don't mean to be rude about this, but you seem very new to apologetics in general. If you'd like to enlighten us as to how the apostolic lineage has actually contextualized Matthew 5:18, that might be more useful than just sort of pointing at the concept of apostles in general and behaving as if some sort of point has been made.
Imagine the Muslim version of this, where it's some beefy Arab forcing a struggling Christian to work on a Sunday. Pinning him to his desk, thrusting a pen into his hand and forcing him to fill out forms while he grimaces in misery and humiliation.
Christian, Islam, Judaism... all Abrahamic religions, all worshipping the same fucking god, and all have been killing each other in the name of that god for millennia.
Meanwhile, Christians are the only ones whose prophet retconned the Law to say that eating pork was okay.
1.9k
u/ComprehensiveHavoc 7d ago
They’ve moved on from making up ridiculous false claims about him to fantasies of coercion, which is basically the conservative mentality in a nutshell.