Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

There seems to be a fundamental problem with Pauline Christianity's teaching that Jesus freed Jews from the restrictions of following God's laws in the OT.

For example, some Pauline Christians may question today whether it is logical to believe God would say touching pork is forbidden:

The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.

Deuteronomy 14:8

Indeed, event horizon/rayznack asked exactly this point:

I can't wrap my mind around the belief of the latter that God's creations could be considered unholy. Does God create things that are unholy?

To me, that seems pretty illogical.

So, it appears that God's commandment in the Bible is illogical to him. God says Pigs are unclean and shouldn't be eaten or touched. Muslims have no issue with God creating the clean and unclean in the universe - the good things and the things that are bad, those that are healthy and unhealthy etc. Pauline Christians seem to question this logic.

But moving on to why Pauline Christians now think it ok to eat pork..

Firstly, Jesus is reported to say in the Bible that he did not come to change the law (of Moses) but to fulfil the law.

Secondly, and this is where Pauline Christians have a big problem, after Jesus' crucifixion and supposed resurrection and ascension, the Jewish disciples of Jesus continued to follow the Jewish law.

There was no hint from amongst the disciples that Jesus had taught that they could/should stop following the law - be it over circumcission or of eating pork and other dietary restrictions. The Bible is clear that the law was from God (and indeed Jesus said he did not come to change it). The Bible is also clear that the Jewish disciples followed the law and didn't believe that Jesus had said otherwise.

The Bible even records how Peter resisted giving up the dietary laws - it allegedly took multiple attempts by angels to get him to advocate giving up the dietary requirements (eg not eat pork). I.e. it was not a teaching of Jesus.

Typically, Pauline Christians don't have an answer for this issue.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Secondly, and this is where Pauline Christians have a big problem, after Jesus' crucifixion and supposed resurrection and ascension, the Jewish disciples of Jesus continued to follow the Jewish law.

As did Paul, but you wouldn't know this because you have never read the New Testament and have no knowledge of 1st century Jewish teachings.

You should probably read these things called commentaries or scholarly books instead of relying on what Muslim websites tell you to believe.

shafique wrote:Typically, Pauline Christians don't have an answer for this issue.

As I thought. Just some random accusations about not reading the Bible rather than any answer or link to an answer.

Jesus didn't actually free people from the OT laws after all - and the early disciples didn't think so, clearly. Pauline Christians though do seem to justify the eating of pork etc with a supposed vision Peter had and the teachings of Paul.

I wonder whether eh believes God was being illogical when he gave instructions in Deut not to touch dead pigs.

Cheers,
Shafique

Does God make dead people?

(great comparison)

Anyway, shafique's false premise troll thread has been refuted: Paul never broke Jewish law, encouraged Jews to break Jewish law or added dietary teachings that were alien to Jews in the first century.

Paul wasn't a disciple, and whilst I refer to Pauline Christians like you eh - I don't actually mention Paul in the OP at all. Are you answering a different thread? Or just up to your old tricks of not answering the question by creating strawmen?

My point was quite clear, that Jesus never taught that he was freeing anyone from the law - and the fact that his disciples all followed the law. They continued to follow the law after Jesus was crucified.

Even Peter, according to the Biblical accounts, needed multiple supposed visits by an angel to convince him that the law of Moses no longer needed to be followed - not a teaching of Jesus to the disciples.

So, do you think God was being illogical when he forbade the eating of pork and the touching of pork?

Cheers,
Shafique

Get back to me after you've researched 1st century Jewish teachings.

Anyway, it's interesting Jews do not hold the same superstitious teachings regarding pigs others do.

Israel dips her military bullets in pig's blood whereas Arabs/Palestinians don't.

Jews clearly have a different view of pork/pigs than Muslim Arabs.

Even Peter, according to the Biblical accounts, needed multiple supposed visits by an angel to convince him that the law of Moses no longer needed to be followed - not a teaching of Jesus to the disciples.

The vision had nothing to do with following Jewish law; it was an analogy for something else.

(Although Peter did live with a tanner before the vision, interesting that)

For example, some Pauline Christians may question today whether it is logical to believe God would say touching pork is forbidden:

Touching the carcasses of all animals in Judaism is considered unclean. That's something I would agree with - though I think live pigs and pork having a supernatural aura to them is superstitious and illogical.

rayznack wrote:Israel dips her military bullets in pig's blood whereas Arabs/Palestinians don't.

Say that on a Jewish forum, and see the reaction.

rayznack wrote: Jews do not hold the same superstitious teachings

I didn't see an answer to whether you think God forbidding the eating of pork and the touching of pigs carcasses as being illogical or not. Interesting now you bring superstition into it. Perhaps you think that God stating Pigs are unclean is a superstition:

Deut 14.8 is quite specific:

The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.

Now, it is true some Russian Israeli jews enjoy eating 'white meat' - i.e. pork, but they do this inspite of what Judaism teaches, rather than because they think it God has revoked this law. Do the Orthodox Jews share your views on pig meat? I doubt it.

Pauline Christians do, however, believe that eating pork and generally not following God's revealed laws to be ok.

What is interesting is that this is NOT what Jesus taught or what the early disciples practiced. Indeed the elephant in the room is that the disciples resisted the Hellenization of their religion. The thread title is about whether Jesus overturned the law forbidding eating of pork, circumcission or not. That Paul taught that the law could be ignored is a given - but I didn't question whether Paul taught/thought this, did I?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I didn't see an answer to whether you think God forbidding the eating of pork and the touching of pigs carcasses as being illogical or not.

You have a serious case of poor reading comprehension:

I wrote:Touching the carcasses of all animals in Judaism is considered unclean. That's something I would agree with - though I think live pigs and pork having a supernatural aura to them is superstitious and illogical.

shafique wrote:Pauline Christians do, however, believe that eating pork and generally not following God's revealed laws to be ok.

They would be following teachings from 1st century Judaism. Being Biblically and historically illiterate doesn't make your claims accurate.

shafique wrote:Indeed the elephant in the room is that the disciples resisted the Hellenization of their religion.

The less you know the more confident you are.

shafique wrote:The thread title is about whether Jesus overturned the law forbidding eating of pork, circumcission or not.

Jesus overturned several laws and introduced others. I think this was obvious. I also thought it was obvious when I already answered and clarified your comments in this thread.

shafique wrote:That Paul taught that the law could be ignored is a given - but I didn't question whether Paul taught/thought this, did I?

Careful, it's pretty early in the thread to troll it this badly. It's funny what a bigoted and ignorant person you are with no desire to learn anything contradicting your tropes on Christianity.

There's a wealth of material to correct your stereotypical pop culture knowledge of Christianity but it's clear you're not interested in doing the slightest research.

In a word, you're a troll.

When we get past the name calling, there is no substance in your post at all. That is the hallmark of a troll.

God forbade eating of pork and the touching of pigs carcasses in Deut 14.8 - you questioned whether such a commandment was illogical in the quote given in the OP.

Pauline Christians like yourself struggle to explain away the fact that Jesus did not actually do away with the law of Moses according to the earliest disciples. They had to be convinced by arguments and supposed visions that came only after Jesus' crucifixion. You cannot make your point without referring to Paul and to Peter's supposed vision.

This shows that Jesus did not actually teach that the law should not be followed - he and his disciples, after all, followed the law.

Name calling is all you have, it appears. No cogent argument at all.

Cheers,

Shafique

worthless troll wrote:You cannot make your point without referring to Paul and to Peter's supposed vision.

I wrote:

worthless troll wrote:Even Peter, according to the Biblical accounts, needed multiple supposed visits by an angel to convince him that the law of Moses no longer needed to be followed - not a teaching of Jesus to the disciples.

The vision had nothing to do with following Jewish law; it was an analogy for something else.

If you can read, I said the vision had nothing to do with dietary law. You are one worthless troll.

You're a waste of time since you don't have the brain capacity to understand simple words and arguments.

And pray tell, worthless troll, what point have I made referring to Paul? You'll soon become a worthless liar instead of a worthless troll.

worthless troll wrote:Pauline Christians like yourself struggle to explain away the fact that Jesus did not actually do away with the law of Moses according to the earliest disciples.

I've never struggled to explain Jesus did away with Mosaic Law because I never claimed he did.

Worthless troll, learn to read and get back to me.

worthles troll wrote:They had to be convinced by arguments and supposed visions that came only after Jesus' crucifixion.

Worthless troll, you've never read the New Testament: please substantiate such a claim.

worthless troll wrote:Name calling is all you have, it appears. No cogent argument at all.

This is coming from someone who is illiterate, claims I have said things I never said and makes assertions he can never back up. Oh, and you're constantly called out for your lying and dishonest sleaze tactics.

Yeah, you're a worthless troll.

I'll ignore I've already explained the prohibition against carcasses applies to all animals and that I find that logical.

Again, very little substance and a lot of name-calling. Trolling is a sign that you don't actually have a cogent argument.

God in Deut 14.8 is talking about pig carcasses and not eating pork.

The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.

Now that you say that God was being logical to prohibit the touching of pig carcasses (and claiming that this extends to all dead animals, which begs the question where do Jewish butchers and housewives and chefs fit into the picture) - your statement in the other thread I quoted in the OP is all the more bizare.



But given that all your arguments for not following the Jewish law any more (including eating pork) stem from visions Peter allegedly had, and what Paul taught also - and NOT from what Jesus taught and what the early disciples understood, my original point is proven. Pauline Christians can't explain their position without referring to post-crucifixion interpretations and changes to the mission of Jesus, and not on what Jesus actually taught.

Your rants and personal insults make this clear. Jesus did not say it was ok to eat pork.

Cheers,

Shafique

Again, very little substance and a lot of name-calling. Trolling is a sign that you don't actually have a cogent argument.

Like your brain - very little mass and lots of empty volume.

I've responded to every claim you've made. You should try this thing called reading.

God in Deut 14.8 is talking about pig carcasses and not eating pork.

You really need help. The passage:
1) prohibits eating pork
2) prohibits touching pig carcasses which are unclean as all carcasses are in Jewish law

Now compare this to what I actually said in your quote in the OP:

I wrote:I can't wrap my mind around the belief of the latter that God's creations could be considered unholy. Does God create things that are unholy?

To me, that seems pretty illogical.

What I actually said is that it's illogical for me that God would make anything unholy. God doesn't create pig carcasses, he makes pigs (if you want to look at it that way). You should try this thing called reading.

Now that you say that God was being logical to prohibit the touching of pig carcasses

Yes, because God creates pig carcasses. You're not terribly bright - it shows.

But given that all your arguments for not following the Jewish law any more (including eating pork) stem from visions Peter allegedly had

You're both an idiot and a liar.

I have no more use responding to someone as dumb as you.

I wrote:The vision had nothing to do with following Jewish law; it was an analogy for something else.

Moron.

and what Paul taught also

Moron:

1) quote where Paul taught you can eat pork
2) where I argued Paul taught you can eat pork

Your rants and personal insults make this clear. Jesus did not say it was ok to eat pork.

Amazingly, neither did Paul, moron.

Nope, sorry - I can't see where God says in Deut 14.8 that all carcasses are unclean - God is talking specifically about pork and pig carcasses.

The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.

Jews can, and do, touch the carcasses of other animals which they are allowed to eat.


Now, run it by me once again why you think it is ok to eat pork - given that Jesus didn't say you could.

Cheers,
Shafique

I can't see where God says in Deut 14.8 that all carcasses are unclean

That's because I never claimed it was in that passage, you idiot.

Good, so God does not say in Deut 14.8 that all carcasses are not to be touched. Great - He only forbids eating and touching of pig carcasses in that verse.

Now, Jesus says:

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

God says, 'Don't eat pork'. Jesus says ' follow God's commandments'.



Why do Pauline Christians think it is ok to eat pork and not be circumcised? Can't be because of what Jesus taught or the early disciples understood.

Cheers,

Shafique

Why do Pauline Christians think it is ok to eat pork and not be circumcised?

Or eating shellfish, right?

Why don't you read the New Testament?

Can't be because of what Jesus taught or the early disciples understood.

I'll pretend I haven't explained this to you: this was a school of thought in 1st century Judaism.

I just quoted the NT.

Jesus didn't say it was ok to eat pork, and the early disciples all followed the Jewish law. Jesus did say that the law should be followed.

Still can't see your answer as to why Pauline Christians like you think it is ok to eat pork given that Jesus didn't teach it was ok. Which is what the main point in the OP is.

Cheers,
Shafique

Jesus didn't say it was ok to eat pork

He didn't say it was ok to eat shellfish, did he?

and the early disciples all followed the Jewish law. Jesus did say that the law should be followed.

For all time, right?

You wrote:Still can't see your answer as to why Pauline Christians like you think it is ok to eat pork given that Jesus didn't teach it was ok. Which is what the main point in the OP is.

I wrote:I'll pretend I haven't explained this to you: this was a school of thought in 1st century Judaism.

O Feeble-Minded-One, when you will learn to read, attempt to understand answers given and stop repeating yourself?

When you explain why you think it is ok to eat pork, then you can also explain about shell fish too.

I'm more interested in why you are avoiding answering the question why you choose to eat pork when God says it is unclean and forbidden, and Jesus taught that the law should be followed.

I guess I was right in the OP, Pauline Christians don't have a good answer to this question. Should you come up with an answer, I'll gladly read it and comment. Your name calling and avoidance of the issue is tiresome.

Cheers,

Shafique

When you explain why you think it is ok to eat pork

I didn't give a personal opinion on eating pork. Did I?

I did mention the answer is in 1st century Jewish theology. Are you too feeble minded to do basic research on your own?

Anyway, it seems you're intent on making up lies and repeating yourself.

I'm more interested in why you are avoiding answering the question why you choose to eat pork

You're interested in something your crippled brain imagined, are you?

I'm not surprised. When you find that quote that I choose to eat pork, please share it with me.

I guess I was right in the OP, Pauline Christians don't have a good answer to this question

Do "Pauline" Christians differ from this than Petrine or Jamesian Christians? Pray tell, I thought they were all in agreement. You must be some superb Biblical scholar and historian to arrive at this astonishing conclusion.

Why are you being so defensive?

Either you can support the Pauline Christian doctrine that it is ok to eat pork or you can't. No need to go troll these forums with your random thoughts.

Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:Either you can support the Pauline Christian doctrine that it is ok to eat pork or you can't.

I can't explain your stupidity but I can tell you the sky is not green despite you wanting me to explain why it is.

A simple, 'no I can't' would have sufficed.

Cheers,

Shafique

I can't answer something that isn't accurate.

You can't prove this is a "Pauline" doctrine and I can't tell you why the sky is green - it isn't.

But go ahead, consider this a "win". Anyone reading this thread can see you're too stupid to comprehend what I said numerous times in this thread as is.

Such as:

shafique wrote:But given that all your arguments for not following the Jewish law any more (including eating pork) stem from visions Peter allegedly had

I wrote:The vision had nothing to do with following Jewish law; it was an analogy for something else.

One can't have a discussion with someone dumb like you.

Why would I think you capable of understanding something slightly more complex than me explaining the exact opposite of what you imagined I said?

rayznack wrote:But go ahead, consider this a "win".

Thanks, I do.

Cheers,
Shafique