Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Jesus Declare All Food Clean?
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 86 of 88 (847571)
01-23-2019 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by candle2
01-23-2019 1:17 PM


Your PROOF: Jesus' position on hand washing, pork THEN the Rabbinical/Mosaic reasons.
You said this:
quote:
Hand washing was a tradition of the Pharisees. It was ceremonially done in a prescribed manner that had nothing to do with sanitation.
Jesus knows the importance of good hygieneore than any of us. But this was about a ritual, nothing more.
quote:
For the Pharisees it was about ritual purity. In their beady little minds it wasn't about love.
I am asking for proof.
Your bare web address for a modern religion (1911 origin) is a joke.
I am talking about the claims you made about the very strict 1st century followers of the Torah: The Pharisees.
You keep saying that the pork issue was about health (with ZERO evidence), yet you deny the hand washing was about health.
I haven't found any evidence to back up your (very contradictory) claims.
The pork ban had 0% to do with health.
However:
The various hand washing rules might possibly have some health-related components.
Here is one translation of rabbinical food rules WHICH MIGHT RELATE TO HEALTH.
( Tosefta - Wikipedia )
( Tannaim - Wikipedia )
Jacob Neusner has had questions raised about his translations.
quote:
Comparative Hermeneutics of Rabbinic Judaism, The, Volume One: Introduction ...
By Jacob Neusner
2000
p.73
T. 5:8 One should not take a bite from a piece [of bread] and return it to the [common] plate, on account of mortal danger [to others who may thereby be infected by communicable diseases].
Here is another from sefaria.org, with actual rabbinical text parallel.
Tosefta Berakhot 5
quote:
A person should not take a bite from a piece [of bread] and then put it back into the [common] dish [with bread], because of danger.
The relevant part is the end: ‘ .
In the dish IS ‘
from the face or to keep away IS
danger or mortal danger IS
of souls or lives IS
QUESTION
How can you contradict yourself, and say the food rules in the first-century TRADITIONS aren't (at all?) about health , when it comes to the people who followed the LAW OF MOSES (strictly as a way of life), yet you claim that the original LAW OF MOSES was all about health - when it came to the parts that involved food?
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by candle2, posted 01-23-2019 1:17 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by candle2, posted 01-24-2019 7:16 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 88 of 88 (847665)
01-24-2019 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by candle2
01-24-2019 7:16 AM


I see the Roman Empire laws (Council of Nicaea especially) are taking over the topic.
I was attempting to have a discussion, based on the views of Jewish and Christian folks IN THE FIRST CENTURY.
Since the 4th century Roman Empire impositions keep coming up, it needs to be shown that this Roman Empire theology was not 1st century theology at all (the Council of Nicea actually added new twists and turns that didn't even exist in the second century - to make the issue of the mutant Jesus being "God" IN ADDITION TO JEHOVAH somehow compatible with monotheism), but a doctrine imposed by the Roman Empire.
I just got a book, from a great scholar, about Augustine, and by coincidence I found a good online review that describes the book's description of the legal situation in the Roman Empire AFTER IT RE FOUND NICAEA in 379-381.
quote:
The last written words of Augustine, of the five million surviving from his pen, are these, addressed to the "Pelagian" Julian of Eclanum (c. Iul. Imp. 6.41): "When you deny the evil of the things that are evil and do not connect their origin to the sin of the first man, you don't make them not be evil. But by believing that their evil nature makes them coeternal with the eternal good, you are blindly and detestably supporting the Manichees, and there's no point to your attacking them, because in reality you are their wretched supporter." In their grinding, wearying slanging match, Augustine was returning the compliment: Julian had claimed that Augustine was still spouting Manichean doctrine.
....
BeDuhn is also excellent on context in an important way: by showing how ignorant Augustine himself was of the context within which his story played out. BeDuhn emphasizes the creation of "Nicene" and "Catholic" Christianity in 379-381 CE and following, when Theodosius came to the throne. The emperor's church made the surprising choice of going back to the Nicene formulation that had been all but abandoned, even by Constantine, and using it to create an approved form of Christianity that passed under what was now a brand name of "Catholic." The word had been a generic creed word for a long time, but from the 380s forward, perhaps drawing on usage already coming into play in Africa to differentiate Caecilianists from Donatists, it appears as a label for the kind of Christianity that emperors could approve of. That relaunched brand of Christianity, so to speak, was what Augustine stumbled upon in Milan.2
The "early" Augustine, the one, that is, already baptized and writing Christian books, was still woefully ignorant. He got to be who he was by going off by himself, first to Cassiciacum, then Tagaste, without a teacher, without a library, without guidance. He made stuff up. As late as 391, when he was being press-ganged into ordination, there is no sign that he knew much about going to church or even that he had been to church at all since his baptism. He was entirely obtuse on resurrection. Christ for the becoming-Catholic Augustine is not a redeemer or an atoner, but an awakener and informer. Other surprises lay ahead for Augustine the cleric: miracles, infant baptism, millennial expectations. He swallowed most of them.
Perhaps the most important new argument in BeDuhn and one that will be tested intensely is his claim that Augustine in the early 380s really did have good reason to leave Africa, one step ahead of the law. The standing position on this issue has been that he left two years or so ahead of a crackdown on Manichees, that his enemies claimed he had been fleeing that suppression, but that Augustine was really just innocent and lucky. BeDuhn discounts innocence and luck (1.135ff, 1.218ff). There was a new law of 383 threatening increased pursuit of Manichees. Augustine could not have foreseen that this law would not be enforced in Africa until the proconsul Messianus did so in 386. When Augustine left Africa, he did so as a Manichee and lived with Manichees in Rome into 384. BeDuhn shows that when the crackdown came in Africa, Augustine was indeed named, so he reads the 386/87 winter's retreat to Cassiciacum (and the resignation from his public position) as at least in part motivated by a desire to lay low. A public amnesty from Theodosius in January 387 was followed by Augustine's reappearance in Milan a month or two later as a baptismal candidate. The evidence for this argument is thinner than one could wish and the attachment to Augustine's saintly honesty is so intense among many readers that there will be fierce resistance. I accept that the departure from Africa was motivated as BeDuhn says and take under consideration the remainder of the argument.
....
The great set piece in the second volume is his discussion of the debate in 392 with Fortunatus the Manichee (2.122ff). In 392, we still have the Augustine who makes stuff up. He went after Fortunatus in a public debate arguing on grounds of reason, but promptly had his head handed to him on the first day of debate on grounds of scripture. BeDuhn is lucid and even funny on the "all-nighter" Augustine had to pull between days of the debate just to rescue something from scripture to come back with. He pulled it off about as well as the best student papers written during all-nighters do. The debate ended messily. Fortunatus, BeDuhn argues, was happy to have made his point and escape arrest. Augustine wrote it up and crowed victory. But this was the day that started the turn towards what emerged a few years later as his distinctive, pessimistic reading of Paul. BeDuhn 2.163: "Hence, he may have been the last one to recognize the degree to which he gradually reconstructed Fortunatus's reading of Paul and made himself vulnerable to the charge of leading the Catholic Church in Africa in a Manichaean direction." The things Julian of Eclanum would later attack in Augustine as Manichean do not go back to his Manichean days, but result from focusing his attention and defending his position from this moment in 392. His firmly orthodox Christianity was shaped, defensively, in a way that would do as much justice as he felt he had to do to the Manichee position. That accommodation would baffle those who did not have Augustine's Manichee past and would read to them as simple Manicheism. They were not as wrong as Augustine would like to think.
Augustine’s Manichaean Dilemma, Volume 1; Volume 2 – Bryn Mawr Classical Review
Roman Empire Catholic Christianity has been imposed, and ardent defenders of the popular religion (like Faith) will keep on telling us that their Roman Empire "Christianity" is somehow based on the teachings of the Semites like Jesus, James, Paul, Peter, etc., and they will strongly deny/ignore the European government invention of their faith.
Faith, additionally, denies that the Roman Empire persecuted non-Nicaean Christians.
The facts speak otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by candle2, posted 01-24-2019 7:16 AM candle2 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024