What do people mean by, "This is the Word of God?"

[Zevico]

What do people mean by, "This is the Word of God?"

They're asking a rhetorical question.

[MrFun]

Hey Ben Kenobi, do you wear clothing of mixed fabrics?

[Ben Kenobi]

You never answered my question.

This is the quote I was looking for.

Mark 7:1-20

The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"

He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

This deals with your 'supposed' contradiction.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would like to add my own amusement of those who pick and choose passages of Leviticus that conveniently fits their political agenda, such as passages in Leviticus that they interpret as condemning romantic love between two men or two women, but ignoring other passages they ought to follow, such as not wearing clothing of mixed fabric, avoding certain types of seafood, and so forth.

Is following the word of Christ 'adhering to a political agenda'?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You never answered my question.

This is the quote I was looking for.

Mark 7:1-20



This deals with your 'supposed' contradiction.

The sexual immorality that you have bolded at the end of the excerpt which I read may be prohibition against rape, incest, and so forth.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Is following the word of Christ 'adhering to a political agenda'?

Whenever people have used the word of Christ to denigrate/dehumanize women or blacks in United States, yes, it was politically-motivated based on hatred and prejudice.

The same holds through for using the Bible as a weapon of hate toward gays and lesbians (spare me the two-faced talk of "love the sinner, but hate the sin").

[Ben Kenobi]

The sexual immorality that you have bolded at the end of the excerpt which I read may be prohibition against rape, incest, and so forth.

Part of it yes, but go on there are lists in the NT that talk about what things are sexual immoral. Or I could just quote Matthew and say that this is what Christ said that the purpose of sex ought to be in the union of one man and woman for life.

It's one thing for someone who isn't a Christian to claim that he is right to say that such things are permitted, but Christ does not allow us this. It's not just the rule for one group of people, but for everyone.

He also gives us a choice, whether our love for him is stronger then our love for the things that we must cast aside.

The same holds through for using the Bible as a weapon of hate toward gays and lesbians (spare me the two-faced talk of "love the sinner, but hate the sin").

Else we could not be saved, if we could not be forgiven of our sins Mr. Fun. If our sins are an essential part of us, then we are doomed, and forsaken.

[lord of the mark]

"After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "


Wllingly defying the word of G-d , by defying the ritual law, is something that comes from within, not from without. Eating something unclean, doesnt make a man unclean, it makes him a sinner. It is indeed arrogance and folly.

This is shown by the laws of kashrut. If milk enters a pot of meat by accident, and the proportion is under 1/60th, then the meat may still be consumed (to reduce hardship). If the milk is introduced deliberately, than ANY amount, no matter how small, renders the food unfit. It is intention, what is in your heart, that is determinative. Such distinctions are found throughout the halacha.

Now maybe these ruling had not been set during the time the gospel describes, as we have few reliable records of what the halacha was then. For my part, I doubt the changes were that dramatic.

[Straybow]

And what is the difference between ritual law and the Word of God?

A great many similar commandments were laws against specific religious practices of the Canaanites. The commandment against boiling a kid in its mother's milk could well be prohibiting some otherwise undocumented ritual. In that case the mixing of milk and meat in food is irrelevant.

This is quite the point that Jesus was making. The rules interpreted from scripture so obscure the original point of the commands as to become either meaningless or counterproductive.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
This is shown by the laws of kashrut. If milk enters a pot of meat by accident, and the proportion is under 1/60th, then the meat may still be consumed (to reduce hardship). If the milk is introduced deliberately, than ANY amount, no matter how small, renders the food unfit. It is intention, what is in your heart, that is determinative. Such distinctions are found throughout the halacha.

This would seem to imply that God did not want us to eat Chicken Veronique. That's absurd. God gave us opposible thumbs and the power of reason precisely so that we might someday come up with the recipe for Chicken Veronique.

[Heresson]

4) If God Exists, Why Does Phil Collins?

Genesis

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
This would seem to imply that God did not want us to eat Chicken Veronique. That's absurd. God gave us opposible thumbs and the power of reason precisely so that we might someday come up with the recipe for Chicken Veronique.

A salient point. The other side of the issue is that kashrut was established (not necessarily in its present form) for Israel, to set them apart from the nations. At no point does scripture say that to believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob one must become a Jew and live under the law. Abraham himself did not live under the law.

[Kataphraktoi]

The new testament essentially renders the whole jew thing obsolete anyway. Its written quite clearly that christianity is judiasm 2.0 better and improved. Saving the best for last...

[Proteus_MST]

But they don´t answer which form of christianity,
catholic church, evangelicals, orthodox church or even Jehovas witnesses

[Straybow]

Not by name, since none of them existed yet. The form described in the NT doesn't match any of them too well. They've mostly devolved into myopic, risk-averse bureaucracies.