Controversial Christian theology

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 10-17-2009, 10:35

Originally Posted by Idaho

Getting literal about the bible... I don't know where to start with that.

How come christian fundamentalists don't follow biblical dietary rules?

because the New Testemant absolves Christians of those rules, several times and most notably in Acts.

**Beskar** · 10-17-2009, 21:03

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

because the New Testemant absolves Christians of those rules, several times and most notably in Acts.

The word of God contradicts itself? :o

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 10-17-2009, 21:35

Originally Posted by Beskar

The word of God contradicts itself? :o

No, the word of Man does, genius.

**Rhyfelwyr** · 10-17-2009, 22:34

Originally Posted by Beskar

The word of God contradicts itself? :o

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, the word of Man does, genius.

This isn't the issue when it comes to dietary laws. They were part of the ceremonial law which God only ever stated that he gave specifically to ethnic Israel.

**Kadagar_AV** · 10-17-2009, 22:45

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

This isn't the issue when it comes to dietary laws. They were part of the ceremonial law which God only ever stated that he gave specifically to ethnic Israel.

Can anyone explain why the jews are not allowed to eat some stuff, while the rest of us are A-OK to eat it.

I mean, it is the same god, isn't it?

**Louis VI the Fat** · 10-17-2009, 22:57

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Can anyone explain why the jews are not allowed to eat some stuff, while the rest of us are A-OK to eat it.

I mean, it is the same god, isn't it?

The Jews don't follow the New Testament.

Dietary laws are Old Testament. In the NT, Paul absolves Christians from having to follow these laws: 'no food is impure of itself'. I think it is in one of his letters, I am too lazy to look it up.

Edit: there are several new covenants, with a different relationship between God and Man / Jews / Christians. There is a progression in the Bible.

**Kadagar_AV** · 10-17-2009, 23:34

Ok... So... God first said we are not supposed to do some stuff, and then he changed his mind?

Just to be clear....

**Idaho** · 10-22-2009, 21:21

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

because the New Testemant absolves Christians of those rules, several times and most notably in Acts.

So Paul - not divine, but just an early church bureaucrat, gets to overturn the word of god given to Moses, and add to the word of Jesus, God's son?

Surely that can't be right?

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 10-22-2009, 21:29

Originally Posted by Idaho

So Paul - not divine, but just an early church bureaucrat, gets to overturn the word of god given to Moses, and add to the word of Jesus, God's son?

Surely that can't be right?

Actually, all the rejections of the Law are voiced by Christ in the Gospels or by Peter in Acts.

Paul came late to the party.

**Tribesman** · 10-23-2009, 01:04

Well on Fridays, Catholics aren't supposed to eat meat. But since beavers live in the water, they're obviously fish, so you can eat them on a Friday.

That was Puffins that were classed as fish.

**Idaho** · 10-28-2009, 10:43

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Actually, all the rejections of the Law are voiced by Christ in the Gospels or by Peter in Acts.

Paul came late to the party.

These are the same Acts and Gospels written between 100 and 300 years after the death of Jesus in Aramaic, then translated to Latin?

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 10-28-2009, 17:34

Originally Posted by Idaho

These are the same Acts and Gospels written between 100 and 300 years after the death of Jesus in Aramaic, then translated to Latin?

No, the ones written in Greek arounf 90 AD and still extant in Greek.

There's really no reason to believe any Gospel, even Apophycal, was written later than 200 AD.

**Papewaio** · 10-29-2009, 04:56

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

There's really no reason to believe any Gospel.

Quote for the win... well that is how modern news would sound bite it. ;)

There's really no reason to believe any Gospel, even Apophycal, was written later than 200 AD.

More seriously...
The later the writings the less trusting of the source. But why draw the line at 200AD not 150/100/50?

What is the reasoning for the reason?

ie Ghost writer needs a person who was there at the time as a adult, and currently has no dementia or history of hallucination. That would mean roughly speaking up to 50 years after the event one could have a large selection of eyewitness accounts. At 70 years after the events one might find a 20 year old who saw it. At 100 years the only eyewitness accounts would likely be from children. At 150 years it would have to have been a very long lived eyewitness.