Pleasure

[Ouroboros]

I'd not like a God who dictates everything to us. I rather enjoy the freedom to be stupid and even the freedom to modify and evolve religions!

You rebellious heretic!

[QuinnTheEskimo]

Hopefully I have cleared this up. I see where you are coming from, though i'm not sure why.

Then I'll show you why. We've been discussing just one part, the last part, of a bigger whole. Since you mentioned "context" in a previous post I held back to see if you would do it again here but you didn't so I'll do it now.

 

This discussion on sacrificial food basically starts back in 1 Corinthians 8:

4 So, then, as to the question of taking food offered to images, we are certain that an image is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For though there are those who have the name of gods, in heaven or on earth, as there are a number of gods and a number of lords, 6 There is for us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we are for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we have our being through him.

 

7 Still, all men have not that knowledge: but some, being used till now to the image, are conscious that they are taking food which has been offered to the image; and because they are not strong in the faith, their minds are troubled. 8 But God's approval of us is not based on the food we take: if we do not take it we are no worse for it; and if we take it we are no better. 9 But take care that this power of yours does not give cause for trouble to the feeble. 10 For if a man sees you, who have knowledge, taking food as a guest in the house of an image, will it not give him, if he is feeble, the idea that he may take food offered to images? 11 And so, through your knowledge, you are the cause of destruction to your brother, for whom Christ underwent death. 12 And in this way, doing evil to the brothers, and causing trouble to those whose faith is feeble, you are sinning against Christ. 13 For this reason, if food is a cause of trouble to my brother, I will give up taking meat for ever, so that I may not be a cause of trouble to my brother.

I was trying to highlight a few things and screwed it up a bit (I lost my train of thought). I'm sure you can read it alright though (or just go look it up yourself since this is more of the chapter...this is from the Bible in Basic English translation).

 

Anyhow, this is the start of the the discussion that he basically ends in a couple of chapters. The end point is what we've be discussing...essentially on its own merit but seeing how that's not taking us anywhere it's time to include the rest to see why Paul wrote it in the first place.

 

As can now be seen from this text, Paul mentions that idols have a certain power over the "weak." Eating food sacrificed to them essentially confuses those weak people. In order to prevent doing this you should refrain from eating sacrificial foods. As I said before, not because there is any "offense" but for the "good" of that other person. The same would be true at a common gathering. Once it is known that sacrificial meat is being served you should refrain for the "good" of the others. Eating that meat would essentially validate and empower their god(s) and that is not a "good" thing to do.

 

mwc

 

 

I'm glad you can see this. As the verse says,

 

8 But God's approval of us is not based on the food we take: if we do not take it we are no worse for it; and if we take it we are no better.

 

And yes, you said it yourself finally, you would not eat it in cases which you are infront those who believe it is wrong to eat sacrificial meat, as to not make them stumble. As for there being a law that you should not eat sacrificial food, there is none. All it says is that you should not do anything which would make offense to another, and that goes for everything, not just sacrificial food. This passage was not meant to inform us just about sacrificial food, it was meant to help us not push others astray.

 

So, thank you, I am glad that this passage has been cleared up.

[currentchristian]

I'd not like a God who dictates everything to us. I rather enjoy the freedom to be stupid and even the freedom to modify and evolve religions!

You rebellious heretic!

 

Thomas Jefferson said that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. A little heresy now and then is, too!

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

I'm glad you can see this. As the verse says,

 

8 But God's approval of us is not based on the food we take: if we do not take it we are no worse for it; and if we take it we are no better.

 

And yes, you said it yourself finally, you would not eat it in cases which you are infront those who believe it is wrong to eat sacrificial meat, as to not make them stumble. As for there being a law that you should not eat sacrificial food, there is none. All it says is that you should not do anything which would make offense to another, and that goes for everything, not just sacrificial food. This passage was not meant to inform us just about sacrificial food, it was meant to help us not push others astray.

 

So, thank you, I am glad that this passage has been cleared up.

 

Whoa! Not so fast there Tex (Quinn)!

 

Where the hell did I say anything like the following (especially the bold section): "And yes, you said it yourself finally, you would not eat it in cases which you are infront those who believe it is wrong to eat sacrificial meat, as to not make them stumble."?

 

I believe that's called putting words into my mouth.

 

I said nothing of "offense" (again!) and I said nothing of refraining from something in front of someone else who believes it is wrong. Neither does Paul. This is your own interpretation or one you've been taught.

 

Putting words in my mouth to build this pathetic strawman so that you can claim victory is a pretty dishonest tactic.

 

Let's go ahead and end this now by seeing exactly what the "rules" were shall we?

 

IF we assume that there was a jesus and that he spawned a church and that the various time lines are accurate then we can go ahead and assume that the Jerusalem Council took place in the late 40's. Most authors I've read believe it took place before he wrote Galatians and that letter is believed to have been written prior to either of the Corinthians (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ but there are plenty of other sources). I say IF we assume all this because this is the traditional, orthodox, view. I'm not coming up with my own, strange, version of things to make my case here. No strawmen. I don't have to resort to such things.

 

So, this being the case, then before Paul uttered a single word to his scribe to put down in writing he supposedly at a meeting in Jerusalem where the following discussion took place:

 

Acts 15

 

19 For this reason my decision is, that we do not put trouble in the way of those who from among the Gentiles are turned to God; 20 But that we give them orders to keep themselves from things offered to false gods, and from the evil desires of the body, and from the flesh of animals put to death in ways against the law, and from blood.

See that highlighted portion? That's a bit stronger than saying you should refrain because you may be "offending" someone but rather it is saying sacrificial foods are FORBIDDEN. This is a LAW of the church.

 

Paul then goes on his merry way according to the story in Acts.

 

However, I also mentioned Jews early on in all this. So how does this affect them?

 

Leviticus 17

 

7 And let them make no more offerings to evil spirits, after which they have gone, turning away from the Lord. Let this be a law to them for ever, through all their generations.

This verse is also to apply to all those among the Jews as well. Paul, being Jewish, would be bound by this law as would any other Jew he would be speaking to in his letter. Remember that food offered to idols falls squarely under this law. Note also, that I said that jesus did not abolish the Law. He states that specifically and at no point does any of the gospels state that the Law is abolished. This Law itself states that it is in effect FOREVER. Go ahead and read Leviticus 17 as it pertains to all this stuff. The two basic ends for someone who doesn't follow the rules is to be cut off or to become ritually unclean. Neither of which did a Jew wish to be.

 

Now to do away with, once and for all, your connection of all this to jesus:

Matthew 15

 

2 Why do your disciples go against the teaching of the fathers? for they take food with unwashed hands

...

11 Not that which goes into the mouth makes a man unclean, but that which comes out of the mouth.

...

19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, the taking of life, broken faith between the married, unclean desires of the flesh, taking of property, false witness, bitter words: 20 These are the things which make a man unclean; but to take food with unwashed hands does not make a man unclean.

 

Those are the relevant verses from the story (you're free to counter with your own of course). Notice that this has NOTHING to do with the TYPES of food. There is no undoing of the food law meaning that all foods are acceptable. Simply that the disciples did not wash according to the Law. This did, of course, make them unclean. Jesus is wrong. This does not pave the way to eating pork or food offered to idols and he doesn't come close to even hinting at that. This has nothing to do with Paul. This has nothing to do with Acts. This has nothing to do with Leviticus and idols. Nothing.

 

So as you can see, I've shown that things in general offered to idols was not allowed for Jews and I also showed that same basic rule applied to xians. Can you get that? Unlike you I really can backup my argument.

 

Now without resorting to dishonest tactics can you defend any of this with a reasonable explanation? I very much doubt it considering what you did in your last post.

 

mwc

[QuinnTheEskimo]

No matter what I site to you, you are closed off from seeing what the Bible actually says, in plain text. Of course, the Bible says that will happen also, so what should I expect?

 

1 Cor 8 " 7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

 

Romans 14:14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

 

Romans 14:20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.

 

Food is food, God made it for us. If God gives us food, and we ask a blessing on it, then it is fine to eat. That is that.

[mwc]

No matter what I site to you, you are closed off from seeing what the Bible actually says, in plain text. Of course, the Bible says that will happen also, so what should I expect?

So not only do you NOT own up to putting words into my mouth but you fall back onto this tired old chestnut? Classy.

 

1 Cor 8 " 7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

This addresses any of what I said how? Doesn't matter. It appears that to you Paul is the ultimate authority in all matters. He gets to make rules that overturn his Jewish roots and the Jerusalem Council, comprised of the remaining hand picked 11, simply "because." Okay. Of course Peter gets to see "food visions" too. We shouldn't forget those...not that they should factor into Paul's writings but we should still throw them out there.

 

Romans 14:14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

 

Romans 14:20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.

 

Food is food, God made it for us. If God gives us food, and we ask a blessing on it, then it is fine to eat. That is that.

You do realize that passage is basically about vegetarianism versus meat eating, right? But he does open it up to the larger sense later on so I'll go along if you like.

 

"21 It is better not to take meat or wine or to do anything which might be a cause of trouble to your brother."

 

Food may be food, but it's better to NOT eat it if it's going to cause problems. No wine. No meat. I guess you could eat them in secret (away from these others) but that almost seems a bit...hypocritical. That could be like taking drugs in secret because you find no personal problem with it (after all we supposedly could take from all the plants save one and no plant should be able make you unclean by your own argument so eating "magic" mushrooms should be just fine). What if you're found out? Best not to partake at all so as not to confuse those who are "weak" and may not understand there's no "sin" but rather a misunderstanding on their part, right?

 

Congratulations. You seem to be doing a fine job showing why the early church was comprised of so many vegetarians and why sacrificial meat, among other items, was off limits. It's not exactly what this was supposed to be about but it's still interesting (to me at least...although I do have to tack on the verses you seem to omit at the end of the various passages where Paul says he'd give up this or that if it meant doing some good but I'm not above helping where I can).

 

You see how Paul, being so diplomatic, slowly whittled away all those very edible foods from that vast menu he thought he had made available? It worked very well. Almost as if it were, oh I don't know, intentional.

 

mwc

[QuinnTheEskimo]

First of all, Paul's word is in the Bible because everything he says, he was told by God to write. Therefore, I believe that Paul was appointed by God to write these things, and that these things were to be given to us as to know and understand God to live our lives. Now if you don't believe God, or the Bible, then this doesn't mean anything to you.

 

It's sad that your final end all argument about a topic in the Bible is that the Bible is wrong? Hmmmm...

 

So yes, I do believe God's word is the ultimate authority in all matters; as Paul is giving us God's word, I take and accept it, and try to live by it.

 

If you are referring to Peter's vision about all the unclean animals, that was given to him by God so that he would not be afraid to spread the word to the Gentiles. If you were to take this also as meaning that old law commanding you not to eat unclean food was abolished, you would be safe in saying so.

 

1 Timothy 4 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

 

How many times does the Bible have to have this written in it for you to accept it?

 

I'm glad you have "tacked on the rest of the verses at the end," as I've told you over and over again that Paul is really trying to get at the point, in all things love your neighbor, and do not place a stumbling block before them. You bring this up to counter my statements, yet I've brought it up plenty already. I like that.

 

If you are saying that it is commanded not to eat unclean food, then how could the Bible say eat whatever is placed in front of you? Anything includes sacrificial food. This is contradicting, one or the other is wrong. Since it's your opinion vs the Bible, I choose the Bible.

 

As for your skewed drug example... Food is meant for the body, it is meant for nourishment to keep you're flesh alive. A psilocybin mushroom is not for nourishment, it is for tripping, for getting a high, it is eaten purely because the flesh might desire it. Psilocybin mushrooms in the purest form, when picked from the ground and eaten, will not do anything to you. These mushrooms are picked, dried, and cured before they are to be eaten to give psychedelic effects.

 

Anyways... I think you're starting to try too hard. Ah well, it is not in my control for you to understand the Bible.

[Mythra]

If you are referring to Peter's vision about all the unclean animals, that was given to him by God so that he would not be afraid to spread the word to the Gentiles.

 

Wait a minute. Wasn't that instruction already given to Peter? In Matthew 28 Jesus left specific instructions. To go preach the gospel to all nations. Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

 

To all nations. The last words of Jesus.

 

Why on earth did Peter need to have a special revelation/vision/ecstatic/dream/thing at Joppa to reveal to him what christ plainly had already told him and the other disciples?

[Mythra]

So yes, I do believe God's word is the ultimate authority in all matters; as Paul is giving us God's word, I take and accept it, and try to live by it.

 

Really? Then what are you doing here?

 

God's word tells you to come out from them and be separate. What are you doing here, wallowing amongst us, the unclean?

 

Of course, I don't know you very well, quinn. Or else I could list at least 100 things in God's word that you utterly ignore.

[Lycorth]

First of all, Paul's word is in the Bible because everything he says, he was told by God to write.

 

Not so - Paul's words are in the Babble because the Council of Trent decided that they were inspired by God. Again, we have human beings telling us with a deity wants.

 

Human languages recorded on human devices (parchment, paper, etc) and promulgated exclusively by human beings indicates nothing but a completely human source for the entire Babble. There is nothing non-human about it.

[currentchristian]

First of all, Paul's word is in the Bible because everything he says, he was told by God to write. Therefore, I believe that Paul was appointed by God to write these things, and that these things were to be given to us as to know and understand God to live our lives. Now if you don't believe God, or the Bible, then this doesn't mean anything to you.

...

 

Remember QuinnTheEskimo, not all Christians see it this way. What would be the point of God dictating a letter to Paul? Paul's words were his own and he dictated them to his scribe. This is not to say that Paul's words are, therefore, not worthy of our time and attention. To me, they are. Very much so. But they are not holy writ.

 

I think Paul would be quite surprised to discover how we have elevated his words to scripture. Theologically, I stand by Paul's views and embrace them myself. Sociologically, I do not. He was wrong about slavery. He was wrong about women. He was wrong about gays and lesbians. He was wrong that it is shameful for men to have long hair. And on and on -- about social issues.

 

Did Paul ever, even once, anywhere, write that his words were dictated to him by God?

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

...

 

Why on earth did Peter need to have a special revelation/vision/ecstatic/dream/thing at Joppa to reveal to him what christ plainly had already told him and the other disciples?

 

Peter was very much as we are: stubborn and forgetful.

 

Perhaps he needed coaxing; perhaps he needed a reminder. Even after this vision, I don't think he ever felt truly peaceful eating with Gentiles or having them that close to him in the community of believers. Upbringing trumps truth.

 

What Gentiles were to Peter, homosexuals are to Jerry Falwell.

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

First of all, Paul's word is in the Bible because everything he says, he was told by God to write. Therefore, I believe that Paul was appointed by God to write these things, and that these things were to be given to us as to know and understand God to live our lives. Now if you don't believe God, or the Bible, then this doesn't mean anything to you.

 

It's sad that your final end all argument about a topic in the Bible is that the Bible is wrong? Hmmmm...

 

So yes, I do believe God's word is the ultimate authority in all matters; as Paul is giving us God's word, I take and accept it, and try to live by it.

Alright, I'm happy that you've taken the time to explain this to me.

 

So why did Paul suddenly have the authority to override the Jerusalem Council? Why was the xian god so short sighted on that decision? I laid out the time line on the whole thing for you. This god only wanted that decision to be in effect days, weeks, months, years? He handed the ruling to Paul and then, while on the road, handed Paul an "update?"

 

In addition, would Paul's words in the bible, where he specifically states that he's not speaking on behalf of his god, be covered by what you say in that they really are the words of god? That Paul really didn't know when he was and when he was not speaking for his god.

 

If you are referring to Peter's vision about all the unclean animals, that was given to him by God so that he would not be afraid to spread the word to the Gentiles. If you were to take this also as meaning that old law commanding you not to eat unclean food was abolished, you would be safe in saying so.

You show me where jesus does away with these things and I'll give you a cookie. In the OT that god states those laws will last forever. In the NT that same god, in the guise of jesus, states he did not come to change the law. Now, you say, that law is gone. Let me guess...Paul? So far you seem to do a lot more of what Paul orders than what the actual god command and you can't seem to connect the two together except they're in the same library collection (bible).

 

1 Timothy 4 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

 

How many times does the Bible have to have this written in it for you to accept it?

See my last paragraph. "The Bible" contradicts you. It's only the parts of "The Bible" you choose to follow that do not.

 

I'm glad you have "tacked on the rest of the verses at the end," as I've told you over and over again that Paul is really trying to get at the point, in all things love your neighbor, and do not place a stumbling block before them. You bring this up to counter my statements, yet I've brought it up plenty already. I like that.

 

If you are saying that it is commanded not to eat unclean food, then how could the Bible say eat whatever is placed in front of you? Anything includes sacrificial food. This is contradicting, one or the other is wrong. Since it's your opinion vs the Bible, I choose the Bible.

You've chosen the bible over me?

 

"The Bible" says no such thing. The "Paul" tries to. "The Bible" is not Paul. These two items are not equal. I'm a patient person. Why don't you go find a Rabbi and ask what his "The Bible" says about eating sacrificial food. Then I doubt it will be my opinion versus "The Bible" but his opinion, my opinion and his "The Bible" versus your opinion and your "The Bible." But wait, since now you're speaking on behalf of "The Bible" because I noticed it was my opinion versus "The Bible" I guess you can remove the "your opinion" part. Your opinion and "The Bible" are one and the same. What a high opinion you have of yourself.

 

As for your skewed drug example... Food is meant for the body, it is meant for nourishment to keep you're flesh alive. A psilocybin mushroom is not for nourishment, it is for tripping, for getting a high, it is eaten purely because the flesh might desire it. Psilocybin mushrooms in the purest form, when picked from the ground and eaten, will not do anything to you. These mushrooms are picked, dried, and cured before they are to be eaten to give psychedelic effects.

Hmmm...now where does "The Bible" state what is, and what is not, food? Or what is, or what is not, to be put in the body for whatever reason? Unclean versus clean. Does the mushroom make you UNCLEAN? NO.

 

But notice what you said. You're speaking of the flesh desiring it. Does not the "flesh" desire meat? Why not eat vegetables? You've explained the mushroom, can be eaten safely...or it can be used for "fleshly" desires. One can be seen by the "weak" and perhaps cause them to stumble so it's best to not indulge, while the other is okay. The same with the meat. The same exact cut of meat but it's best to leave it be.

 

Anyways... I think you're starting to try too hard. Ah well, it is not in my control for you to understand the Bible.

Yes. I guess those years I spent as a xian studying "The Bible" in school everyday was for naught. Sadly you were not there to truly enlighten to its deeper meaning.

 

Stop with this condescending bullshit. You've no greater understanding as a xian than anyone else. Unless I see a tongue of fire resting on your head and you speaking true tongues (the one that is ALL languages simultaneously...not Paul's jacked version that required a "translator"...nothing more than a parlor trick there) then you've got nothing more than anyone else.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

And another thing (my favorite issue) with Paul, he didn't learn from Jesus or the disciples, but had the "Damascus" experience and left for 3 years (or more) to do his own studies, come back and tell everyone else what Jesus supposedly said. That to me is a "huh?" Paul would know better what Jesus said than Peter, when Peter actually (supposedly) saw and listened to Jesus, while Paul didn't and didn't even learn from Peter or read anything but the Torah... To me, that smells scam, fraud and ideas built on delusional people. No one in their right mind would approve a person like that. I wouldn't approve to a person coming to my house, telling me what my kids or wife wants and thinks, when I lived with them for years, and this stranger claims he know through "revelation". I'd call him LOONY! So maybe one should rename Paul to Mr. ImPAULsible (ana. implausible)?

[QuinnTheEskimo]

Wait a minute. Wasn't that instruction already given to Peter? In Matthew 28 Jesus left specific instructions. To go preach the gospel to all nations. Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

 

To all nations. The last words of Jesus.

 

Why on earth did Peter need to have a special revelation/vision/ecstatic/dream/thing at Joppa to reveal to him what christ plainly had already told him and the other disciples?

 

CC gave some good input, we are all stubborn and forgetful, and maybe even misunderstanding?

 

 

Really? Then what are you doing here?

 

God's word tells you to come out from them and be separate. What are you doing here, wallowing amongst us, the unclean?

 

Of course, I don't know you very well, quinn. Or else I could list at least 100 things in God's word that you utterly ignore.

 

I don't really think I need to get into this, as Jesus sat with all sorts of sinners all over the place to preach the word. Besides wanting all of you guys to have the spirit to understand the Bible, you give me great chances to dig deeper into topics.

 

As for your last remark, you do not know me very well, but you can list as many things as you want that I ignore, please do. I know I am a sinner, I know i am stubborn, but I do try very hard to follow God, and I think you would give me a good laugh.

 

 

Not so - Paul's words are in the Babble because the Council of Trent decided that they were inspired by God. Again, we have human beings telling us with a deity wants.

 

Human languages recorded on human devices (parchment, paper, etc) and promulgated exclusively by human beings indicates nothing but a completely human source for the entire Babble. There is nothing non-human about it.

 

Yes, and why did they put it into the Bible? They believed it was God's word.

[QuinnTheEskimo]

Remember QuinnTheEskimo, not all Christians see it this way. What would be the point of God dictating a letter to Paul? Paul's words were his own and he dictated them to his scribe. This is not to say that Paul's words are, therefore, not worthy of our time and attention. To me, they are. Very much so. But they are not holy writ.

 

I think Paul would be quite surprised to discover how we have elevated his words to scripture. Theologically, I stand by Paul's views and embrace them myself. Sociologically, I do not. He was wrong about slavery. He was wrong about women. He was wrong about gays and lesbians. He was wrong that it is shameful for men to have long hair. And on and on -- about social issues.

 

Did Paul ever, even once, anywhere, write that his words were dictated to him by God?

 

-CC in MA

 

Paul wrote many times that what he said was a command from God, he wrote many times that Christ had given him authority to preach the word, Paul wrote many times that God told him to write these things. There are pieces throughout his writings that say, "This is not a command, but you would do well to..." However, for the most part what Paul write is from God.

 

Of course there will be people who do not see it this way, just as there are people who think the whole Bible is a load of junk. But, as for me, I believe that Paul was an apostle of Christ, that he was given word through Christ, and that he was preaching in the name of Christ.

 

 

 

Alright, I'm happy that you've taken the time to explain this to me.

 

So why did Paul suddenly have the authority to override the Jerusalem Council? Why was the xian god so short sighted on that decision? I laid out the time line on the whole thing for you. This god only wanted that decision to be in effect days, weeks, months, years? He handed the ruling to Paul and then, while on the road, handed Paul an "update?"

 

In addition, would Paul's words in the bible, where he specifically states that he's not speaking on behalf of his god, be covered by what you say in that they really are the words of god? That Paul really didn't know when he was and when he was not speaking for his god.

 

I covered this last section in my upper reply to CC. No, what Paul says when he tells us it is not directly commanded by God is not words of God, although I still think for the most part he would be giving good advice.

 

As for when did Paul have authority over anyone? Never, only God does. God's word has authority over all.

 

The Bible" says no such thing. The "Paul" tries to. "The Bible" is not Paul. These two items are not equal. I'm a patient person. Why don't you go find a Rabbi and ask what his "The Bible" says about eating sacrificial food. Then I doubt it will be my opinion versus "The Bible" but his opinion, my opinion and his "The Bible" versus your opinion and your "The Bible." But wait, since now you're speaking on behalf of "The Bible" because I noticed it was my opinion versus "The Bible" I guess you can remove the "your opinion" part. Your opinion and "The Bible" are one and the same. What a high opinion you have of yourself.

 

Hmm... Go ask a Rabbi, now why would this not be a qualified thing to do? Oh, maybe because a Rabbi does not believe in Jesus Christ?

 

Hmmm...now where does "The Bible" state what is, and what is not, food? Or what is, or what is not, to be put in the body for whatever reason? Unclean versus clean. Does the mushroom make you UNCLEAN? NO.

 

But notice what you said. You're speaking of the flesh desiring it. Does not the "flesh" desire meat? Why not eat vegetables? You've explained the mushroom, can be eaten safely...or it can be used for "fleshly" desires. One can be seen by the "weak" and perhaps cause them to stumble so it's best to not indulge, while the other is okay. The same with the meat. The same exact cut of meat but it's best to leave it be.

 

Let's see, psychedelic mushrooms hurt your body and change your mind. Meat does not. You can't pick and choose verses to follow, if one verse says that you can eat all food, but another says you should not get drunk or you should keep your body as a temple of God, there is no contradiction here. There are two commands that should be kept as one body of the word of God, and it should be followed as so.

 

Yes. I guess those years I spent as a xian studying "The Bible" in school everyday was for naught. Sadly you were not there to truly enlighten to its deeper meaning.

 

Stop with this condescending bullshit. You've no greater understanding as a xian than anyone else. Unless I see a tongue of fire resting on your head and you speaking true tongues (the one that is ALL languages simultaneously...not Paul's jacked version that required a "translator"...nothing more than a parlor trick there) then you've got nothing more than anyone else.

 

mwc

 

I believe I have the Holy Spirit within me that gives me understanding of the Bible. You do not believe in any of this, therefore how can you even start to argue any of it? Yes, I do believe that I have a better understanding of the Bible than you only because Jesus of Christ. If you can argue part of the Bible, then you can see in the Bible that it says those with the Holy Spirit will be given understanding of it, and those without will be led astray.

 

 

And another thing (my favorite issue) with Paul, he didn't learn from Jesus or the disciples, but had the "Damascus" experience and left for 3 years (or more) to do his own studies, come back and tell everyone else what Jesus supposedly said. That to me is a "huh?" Paul would know better what Jesus said than Peter, when Peter actually (supposedly) saw and listened to Jesus, while Paul didn't and didn't even learn from Peter or read anything but the Torah... To me, that smells scam, fraud and ideas built on delusional people. No one in their right mind would approve a person like that. I wouldn't approve to a person coming to my house, telling me what my kids or wife wants and thinks, when I lived with them for years, and this stranger claims he know through "revelation". I'd call him LOONY! So maybe one should rename Paul to Mr. ImPAULsible (ana. implausible)?

 

Many people believe that Paul was not speaking through Christ, just as many believe that Christ Jesus was a nobody. This argument has been played out ever since the time of Paul I assume.

[Lycorth]

Yes, and why did they put it into the Bible? They believed it was God's word.

 

My point exactly - they believed one thing, but all the evidence indicates the opposite.

 

Wishing and believing changes nothing. All the facts point toward strictly human origins for anything found in the Xian religion, as well as any other religion. Xianity shares the same source as all known faiths in the world - the human mind.

 

There is no non-human origin for any of it. All the evidence says we are behind it.

[Ouroboros]

Many people believe that Paul was not speaking through Christ, just as many believe that Christ Jesus was a nobody. This argument has been played out ever since the time of Paul I assume.

So, who decided that Christ was speaking through Paul? (I assume that's what you really meant, not the reversed)

 

I tell you who decided it in the early Church: Paul did. He took on the apostolic role, without the approval of the 12, spread his blasphemous and non-true doctrines through-out the known world. Christianity as we see it today, is Paulinity, and not true to its source. I believe the real Christians, before Paul, were nothing but Essenes like John the Baptist. Jesus was just one of the high-teachers with some good sayings and good insights, and got glorified by people like Paul and made to godhood and divinity. Basically he made Christianity to a a worship of a fellow human being as divine. Jesus probably had some good things to say, but most is lost, and he was made to god, because that was Paul's delusional "revelation". And now you're stuck in a false religion buddy.

[mwc]

I covered this last section in my upper reply to CC. No, what Paul says when he tells us it is not directly commanded by God is not words of God, although I still think for the most part he would be giving good advice.

 

As for when did Paul have authority over anyone? Never, only God does. God's word has authority over all.

So why the Jerusalem Council at all only to change it a very short time later? If Paul was the ONLY one to get this "update" then we have TWO sets of rules being handed down by this single god. This only creates confusion and this god is not supposed to be a god of confusion.

 

The council was a primary reason Paul even went back to Jerusalem. These items needed clarification. If a "vision" could magically "fix" this problem while he was on the road then there's no need for the trip to Jerusalem to have a council and straighten this all out. For this god to put all these people together, have them come to an agreement, but only tell Paul the "secret" update after the fact simply doesn't fit the supposed character of the god being discussed. It does, however, fit the character of a single man taking things into his own hands OR a meeting having never happened but being a later addition to unify theologies (which means the LATER church denounced sacrificial items and had Paul agree to it after the fact...which I wouldn't put past them).

 

Hmm... Go ask a Rabbi, now why would this not be a qualified thing to do? Oh, maybe because a Rabbi does not believe in Jesus Christ?

Yes. Ask a Rabbi. You said "The Bible." When did "The Bible" become the sole property of "The Christians?" As I recall the Jews have first rights to the thing you refer to as the Old Testament. The thing they claim, and rightly so, you bastardize in your interpretation. So, yes, ask a Rabbi. You'd be amazed what some of them know about the character of Jesus of Nazareth. Some put many "Christians" to shame.

 

Let's see, psychedelic mushrooms hurt your body and change your mind. Meat does not. You can't pick and choose verses to follow, if one verse says that you can eat all food, but another says you should not get drunk or you should keep your body as a temple of God, there is no contradiction here. There are two commands that should be kept as one body of the word of God, and it should be followed as so.

The food restrictions from the OT are felt to be in place for essentially the same reasons you give here. But yet you probably won't see the parallel. Pork, used incorrectly, will harm you. Water, not purified, will harm you. Shellfish, can harm you. Meat can harm you. You told me that if those mushrooms were prepared a certain way, then, they were harmless. The same holds for all the OT foods. Done right they are suitable. Done wrong then bad things can happen. Whether it be illness/death or simply an altered state of some sort. The body as a temple concept really only came in after 70AD so I don't care about that here.

 

Now, you ARE picking and choosing which verses to follow. The OT says some foods are not to be eaten...EVER. Period. Not until this god changes his mind and sends his kid to do some special magic thing that alters the word forever to mean something else. So the food is off limits. Jesus comes along and makes no changes. The Jerusalem Council comes along and makes no changes. Paul comes along and...something changes. But Paul AGREES to the Jerusalem Council. Now there are two sets of rules. Now there is confusion in the church.

 

You probably like to eat meat. You agree with Paul. To bad studying the early church shows they didn't. They tended to be vegetarians.

 

I believe I have the Holy Spirit within me that gives me understanding of the Bible. You do not believe in any of this, therefore how can you even start to argue any of it? Yes, I do believe that I have a better understanding of the Bible than you only because Jesus of Christ. If you can argue part of the Bible, then you can see in the Bible that it says those with the Holy Spirit will be given understanding of it, and those without will be led astray.

I bet you do believe you have the spirit. It allows you to have that attitude. You know, the one that lets you put words in others mouths and not retract those statements. You talk the talk but you don't walk the walk. I took offense but it meant jack shit nothing to you. If I have to point it like I am now then whatever spirit you possess is quite disconnected from the world at large and whatever "help" it is giving you is worthless.

 

So if your spirit is blind to the offense of others why should I accept that it is any better at interpreting the bible? As I pointed out, it didn't do so well in creating a consistent rule via the Jerusalem Council. Prior to that in the same book the apostles needed the help of the spirit to choose the 12th apostle and through the spirit they chose that apostle by casting lots. A lot of help the spirit is. If, on the other hand, having the spirit makes you babble like a drunken fool, then I might be inclined to agree.

 

mwc

[Mythra]

Peter was very much as we are: stubborn and forgetful.

 

uh uh. Not plausible.

 

He didn't forget the final words of his lord and master. Occam's razor says no. That ain't how it went down.

 

Peter would have had to completely had zero recollection of the Great Commission, since, as he's explaining his visions to the church in Jerusalem, he never says "no, really guys - don't you remember what Jesus said? Don't you remember? It was the last thing he spoke to us! Go and preach to all the nations!"

 

But Peter doesn't say that in Acts. And, common sense tells us why. The writer of the book of Acts didn't have the book of Matthew in his hands as he wrote Acts. Or, he had Matthew, but the Great Commission had not yet been inserted into it.

 

It had nothing to do with Peter's memory.

[NotBlinded]

I believe I have the Holy Spirit within me that gives me understanding of the Bible. You do not believe in any of this, therefore how can you even start to argue any of it? Yes, I do believe that I have a better understanding of the Bible than you only because Jesus of Christ. If you can argue part of the Bible, then you can see in the Bible that it says those with the Holy Spirit will be given understanding of it, and those without will be led astray.

So, how do you know you have the Holy Spirit? Other people make that claim too and arrive at a different conclusion than you. It leaves quite a few options: 1) You don't have the Spirit, but they do, 2) They don't have the Spirit, but you do, 3) No one has the Spirit, 4) Everyone has the capability of understanding it in an inclusive manner (the inner spirit), or 5) The Spirit lies.

 

Of course I go with 4. 1 and 2 are exclusive, 3 is likely, 4 is possible and 5 is unlikely (especially if 3 is likely). I feel the way I understand the bible has greater meaning to me than the way you understand it. Of course, your way has meaning to you, it is just exclusive and causes arrogant and condescending behavior on your part. Oh well...

[currentchristian]

...

 

Did Paul ever, even once, anywhere, write that his words were dictated to him by God?

 

-CC in MA

 

Paul wrote many times that what he said was a command from God, he wrote many times that Christ had given him authority to preach the word, Paul wrote many times that God told him to write these things. There are pieces throughout his writings that say, "This is not a command, but you would do well to..." However, for the most part what Paul write is from God.

 

Of course there will be people who do not see it this way, just as there are people who think the whole Bible is a load of junk. But, as for me, I believe that Paul was an apostle of Christ, that he was given word through Christ, and that he was preaching in the name of Christ.

 

But did Paul ever write that he was dictating to his scribe what God had dictated to him? No, he did not. Of course Paul believed that he had encountered the risen Jesus; he believed that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit; he believed that he had been caught up into heaven. I believe this about Paul, too. But Paul was not writing "the word of God," and not making this distinction complicates many issues. IMO.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

I tell you who decided it in the early Church: Paul did. He took on the apostolic role, without the approval of the 12, spread his blasphemous and non-true doctrines through-out the known world. Christianity as we see it today, is Paulinity, and not true to its source. I believe the real Christians, before Paul, were nothing but Essenes like John the Baptist. Jesus was just one of the high-teachers with some good sayings and good insights, and got glorified by people like Paul and made to godhood and divinity. Basically he made Christianity to a a worship of a fellow human being as divine. Jesus probably had some good things to say, but most is lost, and he was made to god, because that was Paul's delusional "revelation". And now you're stuck in a false religion buddy.

 

Paul was accepted by the 12. They sent him out to the Gentiles. Peter praised him in one of his two epistles. Yes, there were differences among them, but Paul was not spreading blasphemy or untrue doctrines, as far as the apostles were concerned. He was as far as many others (Romans, religious leaders of Judah, etc.) were concerned, of course.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

...

Yes. Ask a Rabbi. You said "The Bible." When did "The Bible" become the sole property of "The Christians?" As I recall the Jews have first rights to the thing you refer to as the Old Testament. The thing they claim, and rightly so, you bastardize in your interpretation. So, yes, ask a Rabbi. You'd be amazed what some of them know about the character of Jesus of Nazareth. Some put many "Christians" to shame.

 

That's right.

 

My all-time favorite spiritual life author is Rabbi Harold Kushner. Ten books out now and I recommend them all!

 

The Hebrew Bible (so-called OT) is about 75% of the book Christians call "the Bible." The Christian Scriptures (NT) are but one-quarter.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Peter was very much as we are: stubborn and forgetful.

 

uh uh. Not plausible.

 

He didn't forget the final words of his lord and master. Occam's razor says no. That ain't how it went down.

 

Peter would have had to completely had zero recollection of the Great Commission, since, as he's explaining his visions to the church in Jerusalem, he never says "no, really guys - don't you remember what Jesus said? Don't you remember? It was the last thing he spoke to us! Go and preach to all the nations!"

 

But Peter doesn't say that in Acts. And, common sense tells us why. The writer of the book of Acts didn't have the book of Matthew in his hands as he wrote Acts. Or, he had Matthew, but the Great Commission had not yet been inserted into it.

 

It had nothing to do with Peter's memory.

 

You're not convincing me on this one. The Acts of the Apostles provides the briefest of sketches on the Jerusalem Council. It is entirely plausible to me that there was differences of opinion in the early church as it evolved out of Jerusalem and into the world and away from Jews toward Gentiles. It makes sense to me.

 

-CC in MA