tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955743899449414041.post1050189066123744196..comments2023-07-19T21:00:42.352+08:00Comments on Sound The Alarm 吹号角: Jack Black, Jesus, and Prop 8Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00405752957915442213noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955743899449414041.post-46670175355755698912008-12-24T01:59:00.000+08:002008-12-24T01:59:00.000+08:00Acts 10: "You yourselves know how unlawful it is ...Acts 10: "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. "<BR/><BR/>It's pretty clear that Peter's vision had nothing to do with dinner!Darshanchunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12288284772940023419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955743899449414041.post-86035859094901878752008-12-24T01:50:00.000+08:002008-12-24T01:50:00.000+08:00If Peter's vision in Acts 10 really mean "you can ...If Peter's vision in Acts 10 really mean "you can eat whatever the hell you want from now on", then the Jerusalem council 5 chapters later does not make any sense, don't you think?Darshanchunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12288284772940023419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955743899449414041.post-2420315605646841732008-12-24T01:34:00.000+08:002008-12-24T01:34:00.000+08:00"So Peter's vision in Acts would mean that by fait..."So Peter's vision in Acts would mean that by faith you can eat anything. In Christ there is no Jews nor gentiles. We are all christians. Except those Jews who refused to convert and they will continue to stick to the OT laws. So actually there is no need of literal declaration of what you can eat and what cannot."<BR/><BR/>Again you are reading the Bible in the modern light. In the NT, it is precisely the opposite. Followers of Jesus who still kept kosher laws had no doubt that they will be saved, because they were doing exactly what Jesus was doing when he was with them. The issue that comes up again and again in Paul's letters and in Acts is whether Gentile converts to the nascent Christianity can be saved, and whether they have to be circumcised, eat kosher food, etc.Darshanchunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12288284772940023419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955743899449414041.post-35953401348784553652008-12-24T01:28:00.000+08:002008-12-24T01:28:00.000+08:00"It was the wisdom of God that Jesus didn't abolis..."It was the wisdom of God that Jesus didn't abolish the law (OT), but instead fulfilling it. Jesus is the NT. OT is by works and the people observed the laws in fears. Now what were shadows in OT has become reality int the person fo Jesus. It is the age of salvation by faith and not by works. It is not Jesus wants if we fear punishment for eating the so-called "banned food"."<BR/><BR/>What you find so clear cut (OT vs NT) in fact gradually evolved over 100 years after Jesus death. When exactly does the age of NT begin? With Jesus birth? Death? That announciation in Matt 15? If it was so clear cut, why the Jerusalem council? If Jesus believed that the Old Laws do not have to be observed, then why did he simply say so to the Pharisees on the many occasions that he was challenged/accused by them (in fact he did just the opposite--by affirming those laws)? Why did Peter and gang continued to observe Jewish ceremonial laws long after Jesus' death? Why did Paul quarrel so much with the Jerusalem church over precisely these matters?Darshanchunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12288284772940023419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955743899449414041.post-89935692959928816242008-12-24T01:19:00.000+08:002008-12-24T01:19:00.000+08:00Why is having sex with members of the same sex mor...Why is having sex with members of the same sex more corrupting than eating shrimps? This is a decidedly modern conception that Jesus himself would have found very odd indeed. By the way, in Matt 15:11, it's very clear in the context that Jesus was talking about whether eating with unclean hands makes food un-kosher.<BR/><BR/>Peter's vision in Acts is meant metaphorically. The vision corresponds to him meeting two Gentile visitors the next day.Darshanchunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12288284772940023419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955743899449414041.post-55869374509690700792008-12-23T14:23:00.000+08:002008-12-23T14:23:00.000+08:00It was the wisdom of God that Jesus didn't abolish...It was the wisdom of God that Jesus didn't abolish the law (OT), but instead fulfilling it. Jesus is the NT. OT is by works and the people observed the laws in fears. Now what were shadows in OT has become reality int the person fo Jesus. It is the age of salvation by faith and not by works. It is not Jesus wants if we fear punishment for eating the so-called "banned food".<BR/><BR/>So Peter's vision in Acts would mean that by faith you can eat anything. In Christ there is no Jews nor gentiles. We are all christians. Except those Jews who refused to convert and they will continue to stick to the OT laws. So actually there is no need of literal declaration of what you can eat and what cannot.<BR/><BR/>So we don't live in fear over dietary matters. We should fear over what our soul and spirit feed on.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00405752957915442213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955743899449414041.post-71003752249923623142008-12-23T11:54:00.000+08:002008-12-23T11:54:00.000+08:00If God was so clear in his instructions, then why ...If God was so clear in his instructions, then why the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, which still bounds Gentiles to certain dietary observations? Surely the spirit would have been guiding the apostles in that council?Darshanchunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12288284772940023419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955743899449414041.post-3543602272654794502008-12-23T11:51:00.000+08:002008-12-23T11:51:00.000+08:00But Jesus didn't say, "From now on all dietary law...But Jesus didn't say, "From now on all dietary laws are null and void and you can eat whatever the hell you want." In fact, he said, ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. {19} Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. {20} For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Which sounds pretty strict to me. The distinction between physical and moral simply does not exist in Jewish law. Eating shrimps makes you unclean. Homosexuality makes you equally unclean. They are very clear about that. It's only after Jesus' death, when Christianity spread to the Gentiles, did they start to make distinctions between dietary and 'ceremonial' laws and 'moral' laws.Darshanchunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12288284772940023419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955743899449414041.post-51342331951466049292008-12-22T11:55:00.000+08:002008-12-22T11:55:00.000+08:00The author quotes Matthew 15:11: “It is not what e...The author quotes Matthew 15:11: “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”<BR/><BR/>"Shrimps" is physical, whether you eat or not does not affect your soul. Remember Peter's vision in Acts? Both clean and unclean food, God told him to slaughter and eat! So if God lifts the ban of certain food, it is not fatal. Paul syas give thanks and eat. NT is the age of faith.<BR/><BR/>"Homosexuality" is moral and it contaminates the soul. Just like J. Lee Grady says, moral law sticks to God's characters. Therefore it is unchangeable.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00405752957915442213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955743899449414041.post-55796825001116508932008-12-20T23:00:00.000+08:002008-12-20T23:00:00.000+08:00You misunderstand. My point is, why contextualize...You misunderstand. My point is, why contextualize certain parts of the Bible and not the others? How do you decide that the Biblical ban on shrimps does not apply to us, yet the ban on homosexuality does?Darshanchunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12288284772940023419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955743899449414041.post-67351812943249239952008-12-20T15:01:00.000+08:002008-12-20T15:01:00.000+08:00Reading it this way will give us direct revelation...Reading it this way will give us direct revelation. Of course the Bible is for all generations though some texts may mean for the people of the times.<BR/><BR/>Stop with shrimps? No. The author is able to speak on if he wants.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00405752957915442213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955743899449414041.post-81742136856202756012008-12-19T23:53:00.000+08:002008-12-19T23:53:00.000+08:00So you're basically saying one should read the Bib...So you're basically saying one should read the Bible contextually according to the socio/political circumstances of the times. This begs the question: why stop with shrimps?Darshanchunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12288284772940023419noreply@blogger.com