[quote]rainjack wrote:
This thread wasn’t set up for this debate. If you want to have a debate over how wrong you think Paul’s teachings are…
[/quote]
Actually, the original poster wanted to find out how to have a “diet based on the standards set down in the bible.”
God set clear standards in the Old Testament. Standards on what to eat, how to eat it, when to eat it. Standards which Peter’s alleged dream negates, according to you.
Poster wants to follow biblical standards, you say they no longer apply. Ergo, we have a debate.
So, I ask, on what authority does an alleged dream negate something God himself called “an everlasting covenant?” I genuinely am curious as I don’t see it anywhere in the Bible. That is until Paul has trouble selling the program to the gentiles and has to come up with his own watered-down version. A version, I repeat, the original disciples strongly disagreed with.
Mohammed had dreams and visions too. So did Joseph Smith. So did David Koresh…
I’m just saying.
But then, I don’t care what anybody believes as long as they know why they believe it. I’m just trying to show Moon Knight what the Bible actually says, as opposed to years of brainwashing about what it says. There’s quite a difference.
[quote]vroom wrote:
On another note, unless you are Jewish, the Jewish rules don’t apply to you. According to them the rest of us should live by the Noahide laws.
I like this idea, because it makes life pretty damned simple.
[/quote]
Vroom… fantastic post. I consider myself someone who follows more along the lines of the Noachide laws. The jews do not believe gentiles need to convert in order to be righteous. And yes, following the law was a burden given to them by God.
However, you cannot follow the Noachide laws and believe that Jesus is the son of God and equal to God. That is idolatry, plain and simple.
[quote]futuredave wrote:
Moon… this is why I recommended you actually talk to a rabbi. To the Jews who know and understand the Old Testament, the God presented therein is a loving, merciful God, abounding with grace and forgiveness.
The kind of logic you are following is what lead to the self-righteousness that allowed Christians to murder tens of thousands of “pagan” Jews over the years.[/quote]
Unbelievable. That logic has zero to do with anti-Semitism and it amazes me you would even make that leap of logic. I have zero problem with anyone being Jewish or any other faith - I respect them all. But how can you not notice a striking difference between the OT and the NT? It’s not to criticize the Jews in the slightest, but they are just very different books. Yahweh loved His people, but at the same time, it’s a different approach to flood the world, kill all the first born in Egypt and destroy Sodom and Gomorrah in comparison to so famously turning the other cheek.
Anyway, I am with rainjack. This is going too far afield of the original thread anyway and this is quickly deteriorating into an ugly debate that no one is going to gain anything from.
Best of luck to everyone in following their chosen faiths.
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
ZEB wrote:
CaptnJ wrote:
Im a christian as well. Here are my thoughts on biblical diet. Im with the guys who say we can eat meat:)
Genesis 9:3 “every living thing that moves shall be food for you” (yay!)
Why i beleive God allowd us to eat meat after the fall of man, was that sin came into the world and with it, degeneration of nature. Thus before the fall, there was no muscle damage that needed to be recovered from. Thus no need to consume complete proteins.
Some have claimed that that occurred after the flood as evidenced by the reduced lifespans.
I wouldn’t neccesarily attribute the decline in lifespans to the degeneration of nature. I have a feeling this is where CaptnJ(or his minister) got the idea that nature was degenerating, and thus the theory of no muscle damage before that.
The way I read it, it seems that the decline in lifespan was not a sign of degeneration, but rather of the co-mingling of the sons of God with the daughters of man.[/quote]
Haha its just my thoughts:). But nature fell at the sin of man , not at the flood. The lifespan issue is another thing altogether, many theories about that as well but degenration is a seperate thing.
[quote]futuredave wrote:
Moon Knight wrote:
Futuredave, I’m not completely sold on the idea of two seperate "God"s, but, I was just trying to say I’m openminded enough to keep it as a possability.
Actually, the idea is not that there was a competing God who authored the new testament. Since there is only One God, there can be no competing God, see? Instead, some early Christian postulated that the Old Testament was authored by satan.
[/quote]
Well, some sects theorized that it was Satan, others were more general and simply considered it a lesser divine being(eg: an angel or some other being in the angelic hierarchy, which could include satan(a fallen angel)). They did not believe this being was on par with the supreme God(only one).
I guess I didn’t explain that well, since you thought I was suggesting something akin to dualistic equality between the two "God"s(note the quotes, as in my previous message).
I appreciate the wishes of good luck with this, its been nice to have a bit of a debate without it becoming anger filled as sometimes occurs.
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
The theory then was that Jesus was sent by the true supreme God to save us from the imperfect, earthly material realm created by this wannabe.[/quote]
Matthew 15:10 “Jesus called the crowd to him and said, 'Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean.”
This would denote that it is not all that important what you eat, but what you think and speak!