Originally Posted by daewoo

Why did Peter think the dietary laws of the old testament still applied even after Jesus death?'

This is a question I have been trying to get easyrider to answer. Anybody else want a go?

Most likely because he was following the teachings of Jesus and Jesus never changed the Laws of Leviticus.

Matt: 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Matt 5 :18
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

But for EZ he has to believe the Law was changed because he has committed an Abomination before his God by eating Dirty old Pigs and Shrimp. He will freely claim that Jesus changed the Law and then Go attack a Gay person using the same Book of Laws. Pathetic.

Jesus declared all foods clean. He said it, that settles it.

You folks should be more concerned with recognizing that you need Christ for salvation. A diet debate won't win you eternal life in heaven, but Christ will. Focus on the important things.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Jesus declared all foods clean. He said it, that settles it.

You folks should be more concerned with recognizing that you need Christ for salvation. A diet debate won't win you eternal life in heaven, but Christ will. Focus on the important things.

Except that we already covered this, Easy, and the fact is that he DID NOT declare all foods clean.

You interpret his conversation with the pharisees as him declaring all foods clean, despite the fact the entire conversation was about ritual cleanliness vs spiritual cleanliness.

My question is how is it that Peter, who was there, did not come to the same conclusion? It would appear that even Jesus did not come to the same conclusion since it is logical to assume that Jesus continued to follow the dietary laws or at some point Peter would have noticed.

Was Peter mentally defective? Did they edit out the part where Peter was drunk that day? Had he run off to the whore house?

Are you somehow more qualified that Peter to know what Jesus was saying or doing?

So we have the FACT that nowhere in the bible does Jesus declare that all foods are clean. So, since Jesus did not declare them clean, how did we decide they were clean, and why was Peter unaware of it? Matthew, John, and Paul also apparently missed the message, but Peter is the most clear on it and as Jesus first and favorite disciple his ignorance seems most significant.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Jesus declared all foods clean. He said it, that settles it.

Uh... No he didn't.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

You folks should be more concerned with recognizing that you need Christ for salvation. A diet debate won't win you eternal life in heaven, but Christ will. Focus on the important things.

Once again this is YOUR opinion . You have no absolute proof that any of it's real so you don't really have a leg to stand on when preaching to someone else on how they should live their life.

Originally Posted by daewoo

My question is how is it that Peter, who was there, did not come to the same conclusion? It would appear that even Jesus did not come to the same conclusion since it is logical to assume that Jesus continued to follow the dietary laws or at some point Peter would have noticed.

This is between you and EZ of course, but FWIW I think you may want to re-read Acts. The narrative goes on to tell how Peter was corrected on this matter by God via his infamous 'sheet' vision. EZ's interpretation that Jesus declared all foods clean isn't just his, but is indeed both Paul's and the author of Acts (who was one of the gospel authors, no less), at least.

Anyone who eats shrimp could not possibly comment on fornication, homosexuality or coveting your neighbours XXX could they?
Some think the dietary laws apply and some dont...glad to clear that up

Originally Posted by jyoshu

This is between you and EZ of course, but FWIW I think you may want to re-read Acts. The narrative goes on to tell how Peter was corrected on this matter by God via his infamous 'sheet' vision. EZ's interpretation that Jesus declared all foods clean isn't just his, but is indeed both Paul's and the author of Acts (who was one of the gospel authors, no less), at least.

No, it does not. In acts it specifically indicates that god cleansed those specific animals that Peter was looking at (not the entire species). The point of the vision, as explained by Peter, was that he was not to judge which men were clean and unclean. This was actually a turning point for the christian religion because prior to that point Peter was doing everything he could to keep gentiles (non jews) away from Christianity.

The idea that the old dietary laws were no longer valid would have been an absolute shock to the disciples and apostles. The Bible confirms that the disciples followed them even after Jesus died, and the apostles followed them. It was not until the 3rd century that the idea that the old dietary laws no longer applied showed up and rapidly became dogma...and that was to help grow the religion by helping to bring pagans on-board.

Originally Posted by gansao

Anyone who eats shrimp could not possibly comment on fornication, homosexuality or coveting your neighbours XXX could they?
Some think the dietary laws apply and some dont...glad to clear that up

Anybody who claims that they are passing on the word of god had better make sure they have their ducks in a row. The term typically used is "moral authority".

Over the last few days Easyrider has shown that he knows SHOCKINGLY little about the bible, but somehow it is supposed to mean something to us when he tells us what it in it, or what god thinks about certain activities? I think not.

Originally Posted by daewoo

Anybody who claims that they are passing on the word of god had better make sure they have their ducks in a row. The term typically used is "moral authority".

Over the last few days Easyrider has shown that he knows SHOCKINGLY little about the bible, but somehow it is supposed to mean something to us when he tells us what it in it, or what god thinks about certain activities? I think not.

Well there are shockingly different views of god's word by many different churches of Christianity, let alone other religions that claim to worship the same god.
Better tell the Pope to get his ducks in a row.He couldnt have read his bible either...

Originally Posted by daewoo

Over the last few days Easyrider has shown that he knows SHOCKINGLY little about the bible, but somehow it is supposed to mean something to us when he tells us what it in it, or what god thinks about certain activities? I think not.

You're the one who doesn't have the first clue who Jesus is. And you're the authority on "knowing" the Bible? Get real.

Originally Posted by gansao

Well there are shockingly different views of god's word by many different churches of Christianity, let alone other religions that claim to worship the same god.
Better tell the Pope to get his ducks in a row.He couldnt have read his bible either...

I am sure he has...the pope does not claim that the bible is the literal word of god. He sure as hell does not claim it is the literal word of god and then go around screaming at people that they are going to hell based on stuff he cherry picked out of there....much of which, in context, does not mean anything close to what he is claiming.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

You're the one who doesn't have the first clue who Jesus is. And you're the authority on "knowing" the Bible? Get real.

I am literate, Easy. We are not talking deeply hidden truths here...this is stuff that is in the plain text of the bible. You claim to have studied the bible in detail...claim to believe every word of it...claim it is the primary basis of your religion....and yet somehow managed to miss these things...and they are BIG things, easy.

I am sure there are plenty of people who know more about the bible than me. OBVIOUSLY not you, but I am sure there are folks out there who do. The problem is that most of them agree with me on these points, Easy, because if you actually study the bible, and look at the times, they are the RIGHT answers. It is not multiple choice. It is not my opinion. I am not making this stuff up. THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS...THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT.

Originally Posted by daewoo

I am sure there are plenty of people who know more about the bible than me. OBVIOUSLY not you, but I am sure there are folks out there who do. The problem is that most of them agree with me on these points, Easy,

No way. Your views are hardly typical of mainline beliefs.

And once again, you still don't understand who one of the central figures of the Bible is - Jesus Christ.

Why don't you tell us all who you really believe he is?

Originally Posted by daewoo

I am sure he has...the pope does not claim that the bible is the literal word of god. He sure as hell does not claim it is the literal word of god and then go around screaming at people that they are going to hell based on stuff he cherry picked out of there....much of which, in context, does not mean anything close to what he is claiming.

The Pope himself is considered infallible according to Catholicism and the holy spirit works in the body of the church.
What part of the bible does the catholic church regard NOT the literal word of God?
No he doesnt go around screaming at people that they are going to hell based on the stuff he cherry picks..he has priests doing that.

http://www.catholicfaith.org.uk/Home...nguage)/eng-GB
Scripture and Tradition together constitute the single deposit of revealed truth given by God to the Church. Scripture is the single collection of 73 books called the Bible. It is the entire content of God’s inspired written truth, revealing himself and his saving plan. Scripture is divided into the Old Testament, written before the birth of Jesus Christ, and the New Testament, written after his death and resurrection. Given its importance for salvation, God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has guaranteed that the Bible records faithfully and without error, everything that he wanted written and no more (c.f. Dei Verbum 11).


I think you may find that the pope does think the bible is the literal word of god


As for hell...not so simplistic as EZs hell some of you good people will get the purgatory card first but according to the pope sinners will go to hell if they dont repent.


http://www.catholicfaith.org.uk/Home...nguage)/eng-GB

Jesus Christ reveals that heaven is our eternal home where God gives us the vision of his face and shares his divine life with us. Scripture describes heaven as a city or kingdom where the saints enjoy the perfected creation and the reward they deserve. Those who die in God’s grace either go straight to heaven or first enter purgatory, a place of purification for sins and for reparation. Only those who freely choose to reject God’s grace to the very end of their lives will fail to reach heaven. The state of those who have chosen to resist God’s offer of salvation is called Hell. We should truly hope for heaven since it is God’s desire for us. We should ask him to prepare us for heaven even if we face sufferings on the way. It is good to make the saints our companions through prayer and to pray for the holy souls in purgatory (c.f. 2 Macc 12:44).


You obviously do not know as much as you would like us to believe....