ottoman_strikes_back

In these 2 verses it is crystal clear that pig is unclean:

Deuteronomy 14:8 says --“The pig is also unclean, although it has a split hoof, it does not chew or cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.�

Leviticus 11:7-8 says--�Though the pig has split hooves, but it does not chew cud. It is unclean for you. You cannot eat any of its flesh. And you must not touch its dead body. It is unclean for you.�

Dr. Glen Shephard wrote the following on the dangers of pork eating on May 31st, 1952 in the Washington Post: “One in six people in the United States of America and Canada have germs in their muscles TRICHINOSIS. From pork eating infected with TRICHINA worms. Many people so infected show no symptoms. Most of these who do have, recover very slowly, some die, some are reduced to permanent invalids. All were careless pork eaters. No one is immune from this disease and there is no cure. Neither anti-biotic nor drugs, nor vaccines affect these tiny deadly worms. Preventing infection is the only answer. Fully-grown TRICHINA worms are about 1/8� long and about 1/400� broad. They remain alive for up to 40 years, curled up in lemon shaped invisible tiny capsules between muscle fibers. When you eat infected meat, those dormant worms reach your blood. Symptoms can resemble those of 50 other diseases. This makes diagnosis difficult. Ordinary methods of salting and smoking do not kill those worms, nor can the Government inspection 9f meat at packing houses or abattoirs can identify all infected pork.�

Hindu religion prohibits pork eating. High caste Hindus consider it shameful to eat pork. Only the low caste Harijans and untouchables eat pork.

Zoroastrians shun eating pork.

Buddhists never touch pork.

A Chinese Book of Rites says---�A gentleman does not eat flesh of pig or dog.�

Jesus disciple Peter also followed the law:

Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean.

Acts 11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered into my mouth.

Circumcision is what Prophet Abraham practices, research has shown that one who goes for circumcision will reduce the risk of getting AIDS infection. Lets look at these verses below:

GEN 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

GEN 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Genesis 17:24 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

Genesis 17:25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

Jesus also followed and even tell the Jews to follow the law:

Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil."

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

All of a sudden in this verse Paul tried to stop people from receiving circumcision and say that Christ will profit anyone nothing for doing so:

Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.

So it was Paul the liar who tampered the bible.

premjan

Hindus generally shun beef, but it is possible that few of them eat pork as well.
Buddha was said to have died after eating spoilt pork (could be an Islamic slander, not sure).

Chili

Circumcision was to serve as a reminder that Judaic Law was a substitute for censorship by Natural Law and that is exactly where the contradiction comes in for Christians who have been set free from Judaic Law in that Christ fulfilled the Law. Christians, therefore, are censored by natural law as in "a broken reed he shall not crush."

Gal.2:1 says that "It was for LIBERTY that Christ freed us. Therefore, stand firm and do not take upon yourself the yoke of slavery a second time." Then in verse 2 comes the exclamation to take heed that "if any of you [saved Galatians] keep yourself censored by Judaic Law, Christ will be of no use to you." More to the point in verse 3, "those of you who maintain the observance to the Law are bound to the Law in its entirety" and that contradicts the freedom in Christ because they are, in fact, taking upon themselves the yoke of slavery a second time. Therefore in verse 4 "any of you who seek your justification in the Law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God's favor" . . . to say that Christians who pay attention to religion are not part of God's people (or there would be temples in the new Jerusalem as well).

I think that these are very simple passages and Paul knew exactly what he was talking about. I think the problem is that Paul's Christians are in a different realism then you are thinking of and if pork doesn't "tickle your fancy" you should not eat pork. The message here is that Christians should not have a fancy that can be tickled, period. That way nothing can be unlawful either. Didn't Jesus say something like that as well?

ottoman_strikes_back

The law which the Jews practice like don't eat pork, do circumcision, don't go fishing on Saturday, do not commit adultery was practised by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is of circumcision.

Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil."

Well you might want to reason with the word "fulfil", now this is another verse:

MAT 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS,

And there is no reason for going for crusade:

Matthew 5:44 but I say unto you, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, and PRAY FOR THEM that PERSECUTE YOU;

I don't see any Christians praying for Hitler, Saddam Hussein, terrorists, at all but instead curse them into hell !

What is more interesting is that Jesus taught his followers that when someone hit them, invite that fellow to hit them again:

Matthew 5:39 but I (Jesus) say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Nor I heard any Christians following this verse:

Matthew 6:30 Give to every one that asketh thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

Infact many Christians report it to the police because it is "part of the law" and as a "responsible citizen" to fight "crime".

Now who say Jesus didn't follow the law ?

Matthew 5:30 And if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell.

And Jesus was for:

Matthew 15:24 He (Jesus) answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." (From the NIV Bible)

Jesus also said:

"These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ' Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.' (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 10:5-6)"

Is very crystal clear for the lost sheep of Israel.

The conclusion is that Jesus did follow and abide the law.

sodium

The story has Jesus being circumcised. Of course, they wouldn't portray him committing adultery. Fishing on Saturday is just speculation, isn't it?
I don't think this suggests fealty to the Law. It's a deliberate re-interpretation. What he's saying is that he is a fulfilment of the Law, that the Jewish scriptures are meant to be interpretted as prophecy, not as a code of conduct.

It's like if someone claimed I was breaking the law, and I said, "I came not to break the Criminal Code, but to fulfil it," and then went on to explain how passages from the criminal code were prophecies of my birth and exploits. It wouldn't really mean I intend to obey the law, and in fact, would tend to suggest the opposite.
Jesus might have said that people should follow the Law. Instead, he says they should follow the commandments. But his commandment list is significantly different from what you find in the Old Testament.
But read the passage. A woman asks for her daughter to be healed. Jesus says, no, because she isn't of the lost sheep of Israel. But she persuades him to do it anyway, and he heals the girl on account of the woman's faith.

I think it's a little unclear exactly what the passage is intended to convey, but it's a bit of a stretch to take it as simply affirming that Jesus was meant solely for the Jews, since at the end, that isn't what happens.
But this was an order given specifically to "these twelve". Now, I agree that this could have been taken as a command to the whole of the Christian community. But it also might be an after-the-fact explanation to Romans and Greeks for why they never encountered anyone with first-hand knowledge of Jesus.

JoeWallack

JW:
Wallack's first Rule of History is:

Writings which tend not to claim the Impossible are more likely to be authentic than writings which claim the Impossible.

Regrettably, most historians of our time are still afraid to publicly declare this but I tell you the Truth and go out on a stauros and prophecy that in a thousand years hotel rooms will have copies of Hume's "A Treatise Of Human Understanding" instead of Bibles which if correct will give me one more correct prophecy than John the Baptist had in his entire career who Jesus called the greatest prophet of all time.

Applying this Rule to the Gospel Jesus and Paul indicates that the Letters of Paul are more likely to be authentic. I mention this because if the Gospels are primarily Fiction and not History it helps support your observation that Paul had a much different message than the Gospel Jesus as:

1) No historical Gospel Jesus means there probably were no Gospels considered authoritative in Paul's time for him to compete with.

2) No historical Gospel Jesus means Paul had no competition from people who knew a Gospel Jesus.

3) No historical Gospel Jesus means Paul's writings had no competition from people who knew someone who knew a Gospel Jesus.

4) No historical Gospel Jesus means Paul's interpretations in his writings had no competition from an oral tradition of interpretations coming from a Gospel Jesus.

5) No historical Gospel Jesus meant Paul was competing with a dead person and in such competition the person who isn't dead usually fares better.

From a Naturalistic viewpoint it makes sense that the primary advocate of Christianity did not know any historical Jesus, instead relieing on "personal revelation" because the real memory of those who knew the historical Jesus could never match the imagination of someone who didn't and was therefore not limited by history.



Joseph

MYTHOLOGY, n.
The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished from the true accounts which it invents later.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Chili

There is no argument that Jesus fulfilled the Law if you look at the purpose of the Law which was the conviction of sin. To be convicted of sin a set stream of consciousness is needed against which "the lost sheep of Israel" can be identified. Joseph was one of these who went back to 'square one' to give an account of himself and it was right then and there that Christ was born unto him. This made him a new creation now called Jesus who was therefore the fulfillment of the Law . . . for without the Law that convicted Joseph the upright Jew, Christ would not have been born unto him. Hence Jesus could say to others: "Thou shalt not" etc.Of course there was if a set stream of consciousness is needed so the sheep can hear the shepherds voice in the entire domain. For a new culture to grow and bloom a high degree of like-mindedness is needed so the mythology can be the cause of its success. In this sense is the domain the canvas, we are the paint, and the mythology is the painter who carefully mixes and matches the paint which is subjective to the painter. Hence Jesus could say to his followers: "Love your enemies" etc.

Notice that a new dimension is added wherein the domain is the canvass which is unlike Judaism wherein the nation Israel is a state of mind without physical boundaries. That would be redundant since they are motivated by the fires of hell.