Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just gleaned these from the last 2 pages of your posts. Now which one of us is a liar? Peace
"Maybe if you cut down on your sinning, you'd feel a smidge better."
"Fortunately, your opinion and a fart in a windstorm have equal merit."
"Everybody knows what you are. And those that matter, know what I am."
"But I have. It's not that difficult. I'm sorry you don't possess the strength of character required to stop hurting your god."
"If truth mattered to fundamentalists, there wouldn't be any."
"I don't understand why you just don't stop sinning if it tends to upset your god."
"LOL. You're a funny, sad little man."
"Fundies follow their heart by worshiping a god who hates. Hate resonates with them."
""Helping people to realize" a lie is not helping anyone except the liar. "
"No, I don't believe in any of the bible gods. Or in Satan. Makes for better sleep. "
"You live for the feeling of being persecuted. Then you can parade your psychic crown of thorns and garner pity from others who are equally spiritually twisted."
"It's plain to see those who worship a god because he scares the **** out of them. How sad. "
"You do indeed. But keep in mind that it's fundamentalists we're dealing with here. Most do not have either the intellect or education to add shades of grey to their black and white world. Nuance... "
"Book-burners are the last to lecture anyone about what constitutes spirituality, or morality - or really anything at all. That's like pigs defining haute cuisine."
"If navel-gazing is your thing, go for it. But finding lint doesn't hold my interest."
"Son of Sam heard voices too."
"The fact they're so unhesitant to expose their ignorance only hastens their extinction. Keep singin' it Rbbi1!! "
"Two poster children for the harm that can be inflicted on certain mindsets simply by reading and believing the bible. I hope the lurkers realize the importance of common sense and a high school education."
Peter's understanding of the scripture did NOT change, the OT said that and meant that. What changed was the addition of the gentiles into the covenant. Big difference. Peace
For your edification about the times Peter lived in:
Quote:
---as we approach the Christian era the attitude of the Jews toward the Gentiles changes, until we find, in New Testament times, the most extreme aversion, scorn and hatred. They were regarded as unclean, with whom it was unlawful to have any friendly intercourse. They were the enemies of God and His people, to whom the knowledge of God was denied unless they became proselytes, and even then they could not, as in ancient times, be admitted to full fellowship. Jews were forbidden to counsel them, and if they asked about Divine things they were to be cursed. All children born of mixed marriages were bastards. That is what caused the Jews to be so hated by Greeks and Romans, as we have abundant evidence in the writings of Cicero, Seneca and Tacitus. Something of this is reflected in the New Testament (John 18:28Acts 10:28; Acts 11:3).
If we inquire what the reason of this change was we shall find it in the conditions of the exiled Jews, who suffered the bitterest treatment at the hands of their Gentile captors and who, after their return and establishment in Judea, were in constant conflict with neighboring tribes and especially with the Greek rulers of Syria. The fierce persecution of Antiochus IV, who attempted to blot out their religion and Hellenize the Jews, and the desperate struggle for independence, created in them a burning patriotism and zeal for their faith which culminated in the rigid exclusiveness we see in later times.
The understanding of the OT had CHANGED for the Jews themselves. Therefore, Peter rejected that new interpretation just as he rejected the continuing interpretation of "unclean foods."
Hey, hey you 2 knock it off...Rbbi and Trout. ..
Trout and Rbbi...Take it somewhere else.
Start your own thread on each other!
Well, no, I don't think that would be in the rules.
The understanding of the OT had CHANGED for the Jews themselves. Therefore, Peter rejected that new interpretation just as he rejected the continuing interpretation of "unclean foods."
Peter didn't reject any of the laws, and whether he found a hidden truth is beside the point, Peter didn't start eating unclean food, unclean food did not become clean, only the truth of what the law meant was exposed. Just like people telling rumors about Stephen and Paul saying they taught Jews not to keep the laws of Moses and Stephen was killed for this lie when it was a lie. They tried to kill Paul more than once because liars were saying that this new religion was teaching Jews to forsake the laws of Moses, and Paul had to go out of his way to prove that these were lies.
You think Peter stopped practicing Judaism and then just rejected the laws of Moses to be an example how to break the commandments of God?
You would be saying the same things said against Stephen, the same things said against Paul.
Heck no, Hanni, Peter, Paul and Stephen were just teaching that Mosaic Law and traditions were not necessary, but they all figured that it was as good a framework as any and "to the Jews (they) became as a Jew." As I have said all along, it isn't about religion, but Faith and a way of life. There is not a Jew in the world today that practices the Hebrew religion as it existed in the days of these people.
Heck no, Hanni, Peter, Paul and Stephen were just teaching that Mosaic Law and traditions were not necessary, but they all figured that it was as good a framework as any and "to the Jews (they) became as a Jew." As I have said all along, it isn't about religion, but Faith and a way of life. There is not a Jew in the world today that practices the Hebrew religion as it existed in the days of these people.
In other words you are saying that Peter, Paul, and Stephen were all teaching Jews not to keep the laws of Moses because it was no longer necessary.
Tell that to Stephen when liars were paid to say the same thing about him before they stoned him to death, and liars had to be paid because they were lying, Stephen never taught anyone that the laws of Moses were not necessary and every time you insinuate it, what are you saying about the paid liars?
In other words you are saying that Peter, Paul, and Stephen were all teaching Jews not to keep the laws of Moses because it was no longer necessary.
Tell that to Stephen when liars were paid to say the same thing about him before they stoned him to death, and liars had to be paid because they were lying, Stephen never taught anyone that the laws of Moses were not necessary and every time you insinuate it, what are you saying about the paid liars?
That is the exact opposite of what I said, Hanni. They were NOT teaching Jews not to follow Torah and traditions even though the framework of religion was not necessary, it was a strong element of Jewish life that they wanted to maintain and no reason not to, but it was neither a requirement nor something to require of gentiles.
If you think it is a requirement, why do no Jews do what was required at the time of these people? Now, depending on which branch of Judaism they belong to, Jews do as much of Torah as they feel is appropriate in the ways they find appropriate, but it is far different from what was done at that time. Stephen might have wished that they didn't practice stoning then either.
That is the exact opposite of what I said, Hanni. They were NOT teaching Jews not to follow Torah and traditions even though the framework of religion was not necessary, it was a strong element of Jewish life that they wanted to maintain and no reason not to, but it was neither a requirement nor something to require of gentiles.
If you think it is a requirement, why do no Jews do what was required at the time of these people? Now, depending on which branch of Judaism they belong to, Jews do as much of Torah as they feel is appropriate in the ways they find appropriate, but it is far different from what was done at that time. Stephen might have wished that they didn't practice stoning then either.
Peter didn't reject any of the laws, and whether he found a hidden truth is beside the point, Peter didn't start eating unclean food, unclean food did not become clean, only the truth of what the law meant was exposed. Just like people telling rumors about Stephen and Paul saying they taught Jews not to keep the laws of Moses and Stephen was killed for this lie when it was a lie. They tried to kill Paul more than once because liars were saying that this new religion was teaching Jews to forsake the laws of Moses, and Paul had to go out of his way to prove that these were lies.
You think Peter stopped practicing Judaism and then just rejected the laws of Moses to be an example how to break the commandments of God?
You would be saying the same things said against Stephen, the same things said against Paul.
What did Paul say about "unclean" foods?
Quote:
I am convinced and fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.----For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.…
Romans 14;14; 14:17
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
