Killing in Pakistan for drinking tea...

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Natassia

Senior Member

Joined: 16 July 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 177

Post Options

Post Reply

Quote Natassia

Report Post

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 22 August 2009 at 11:22pm

@ Shasta's Aunt

But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

What, a Christian husband is supposed to hold his pagan wife hostage if she wants to leave him because of his new-found faith? Obviously this verse says that a Christian should allow their unbelieving spouse to leave if they want. If that spouse wants to drink "un-Christian tea" then the Christian is supposed to allow them. (Just keeping things on topic.)

What the Catholic Church does has no bearing on Christianity since the Church is supposed to revolve around Christ and the scriptures...not the other way around. And the epistles of Paul were written to Christians not non-believers. Therefore, to try and say that Paul was writing rules for non-believers to follow is absolutely ridiculous. He was simply giving guidance to Christians who had non-Christian spouses. He was telling them to remain married to their non-believing spouse unless he or she (the non-believer) desired to leave.

That's it.

So...let 'em "drink the tea freely" if that's what they want.

(And remember, Christians are not chained to the Law of Moses or Ezra or whoever else in the Tanakh.)

***

First of all, I said you do not know that his family and disciples never broke the Jewish dietary laws. Obviously the Jewish religious leaders felt they did and took exception to it.

The Pharisees did not accuse Jesus of breaking the laws. (Read the story again.)

Secondly, you have failed to explain the purposes of those dietary laws. Are you saying that God gave us laws for no real reason except to give us laws? Jesus fulfilled the reason for those laws. And he fulfilled the laws themselves.

Thirdly, Jesus' followers became known as Christians (Acts 11:26). Jesus was known as the Nazarene (Mark 16:6), and Paul was charged with being the ringleader of the Nazarene sect (Acts 24:5).

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)

Nazarene

Senior Member

Male
Joined: 05 September 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 298

Post Options

Post Reply

Quote Nazarene

Report Post

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 23 August 2009 at 10:08am

salaams

if true they need to overcome this. i took the U.S.A almost 200 yrs. to let a black person drink from a "WHITES ONLY FOUNTAIN" and blacks were hung here for doing just that. where were ALL THE CHRSITAIN OUTRAGE AT THIS!!! the persecution of and enslavement of the blacks was spearheaded by christians. and than there was the INDIANS. it was GOD'S DIVINE WILL they be wiped out ridding us the pagan heathens and making the west SAFE for settlement.
i get tiered of all the POOR HELPLESS CHRISTIAN CRAP!!!
CHRISTANITY was/is the bloodiest religon ever invented!!
leland

love for all conquers all

Shasta'sAunt View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Female
Joined: 29 March 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1930

Post Options

Post Reply

Quote Shasta'sAunt

Report Post

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 24 August 2009 at 11:47pm

"Thirdly, Jesus' followers became known as Christians (Acts 11:26). Jesus was known as the Nazarene (Mark 16:6), and Paul was charged with being the ringleader of the Nazarene sect (Acts 24:5)."

The followers of Paul in Antioch were called Christians. Not the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem. Why would the Jewish followers of Jesus have used the Latin term Christo to describe the Messiah?

Who were the Nazarenes that Paul was accused of leading? Who did he go to Jerusalem to meet? James, Peter, the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, the Nazarenes. Acts shows clearly that these followers of Jesus adhered to the Mosaic laws:

Acts 21:¹⁷And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

¹⁸And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

¹⁹And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

²⁰And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

Clearly James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, never gave up the Mosaic Laws. Why would he continue to follow the Mosaic Laws if Jesus had commanded his followers to do differently?

Who made the charge against Paul? Ananias, the Jewish high priest. Why would the Jewish high priest of Jerusalem accuse a follower of Jesus of being a Nazarene if they were known as Christians? Because the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem were known as Nazarenes, not Christians.

"First of all, I said you do not know that his family and disciples never broke the Jewish dietary laws. Obviously the Jewish religious leaders felt they did and took exception to it."

You are correct, I do not know. I am going by the Biblical scriptures in my assertation that they never broke the Law. Since I believe that the Bible has been corrupted, these scriptures might not be correct. However, for the sake of argument, if YOU believe the scriptures to be correct, then YOU would have to believe that Jesus' direct followers never broke any of the Maosaic Laws. That would include the dietary laws.

I have posted historical accounts outside of the Biblical scriptures, which you appear to be questioning, that show that they did not break the Mosaic Laws. But I can post another Biblical scripture which would prove so.

The story of Peter:

^{Acts 10:9}On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

¹⁰And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

¹¹And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

¹²Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

¹³And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

¹⁴But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

¹⁵And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

¹⁶This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

¹⁷Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

This occured after the death of Jesus. After Jesus supposedly abrogated the dietary laws. If Jesus had abrogated the dietary laws, why was it necessary for Peter to have a vision from God allowing him to eat that which was "unclean". If the followers of Jesus had already broken the dietary laws, why would Peter have stated that he had never eaten anything "unclean"?

Then in Acts 11:¹And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

²And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,

³Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

If Jesus had abrogated the Laws and they no longer mattered, why were his apostles, the men who actually knew him and followed him personally, confronting Peter about breaking the Laws? If Jesus did not follow the Laws, why did his apostles, disciples, family, and followers do so. Wouldn't they have done what Jesus did? If the followers did not continue to follow the Mosaic Laws after Jesus died, why does the Bible say that they did?

But, if you have scriptural proof that the disciples and family of Jesus did break the Laws, please post them.

"Secondly, you have failed to explain the purposes of those dietary laws. Are you saying that God gave us laws for no real reason except to give us laws? Jesus fulfilled the reason for those laws. And he fulfilled the laws themselves."

You have yet to prove that Jesus fulfilled anything. However, I don't have to explain the purpose of the laws. I posted the scriptures according to the Bible where God ordered man not to eat certain foods because they are unclean. That should be enough of a reason, don't you think?

Edited by Shasta'sAunt - 25 August 2009 at 12:16am

�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Shasta'sAunt View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Female
Joined: 29 March 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1930

Post Options

Post Reply

Quote Shasta'sAunt

Report Post

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 25 August 2009 at 12:01am

"What the Catholic Church does has no bearing on Christianity since the Church is supposed to revolve around Christ and the scriptures...not the other way around. And the epistles of Paul were written to Christians not non-believers. Therefore, to try and say that Paul was writing rules for non-believers to follow is absolutely ridiculous. He was simply giving guidance to Christians who had non-Christian spouses. He was telling them to remain married to their non-believing spouse unless he or she (the non-believer) desired to leave."

Where did I say that Paul was writing rules for non-believers? I never said any such thing. I did write:

"The only one who might be giving Christians commands would be Paul."

Are you trying to redirect the conversation by throwing out false accusations. tsk, tsk, Natassia. Let's just stick to what has REALLY been posted, shall we?

You are absolutely right, Paul was giving guidance by telling the people that if their non-believing spouses wanted to leave, they could divorce them. What guidance did Jesus give regarding Christians married to non-Christian spouses?

Matthew 5:³¹It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

³²But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

What's that? No distinction. Looks like Jesus didn't say whosoever puts away his wife except Christians married to non-believers... Apparently Jesus' guidance regarding divorce was that you couldn't save for cases of fornication.

You are the one who said that Paul's doctrines do not differ from Jesus' doctrines. I think you have yet to prove that they are even compatible.

�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Shasta'sAunt View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Female
Joined: 29 March 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1930

Post Options

Post Reply

Quote Shasta'sAunt

Report Post

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 25 August 2009 at 12:20am

"(And remember, Christians are not chained to the Law of Moses or Ezra or whoever else in the Tanakh.)"

According to whom?

�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Hayfa

Senior Member
Senior Member

Female
Joined: 07 June 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2368

Post Options

Post Reply

Quote Hayfa

Report Post

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 26 August 2009 at 6:35am

So really Natassia you area follower of Paul, not Jesus, correct? Jesus followed the Mosaic laws.. why would you NOT want to follow them? Why don't you strive for a higher level? Seems to make sense to me... that you would WANT to more "Jesus-like." Interesting

When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Natassia Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 16 July 2009 Status: Offline Points: 177	Post Options Post Reply Quote Natassia Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 22 August 2009 at 11:22pm
	@ Shasta's Aunt But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. What, a Christian husband is supposed to hold his pagan wife hostage if she wants to leave him because of his new-found faith? Obviously this verse says that a Christian should allow their unbelieving spouse to leave if they want. If that spouse wants to drink "un-Christian tea" then the Christian is supposed to allow them. (Just keeping things on topic.) What the Catholic Church does has no bearing on Christianity since the Church is supposed to revolve around Christ and the scriptures...not the other way around. And the epistles of Paul were written to Christians not non-believers. Therefore, to try and say that Paul was writing rules for non-believers to follow is absolutely ridiculous. He was simply giving guidance to Christians who had non-Christian spouses. He was telling them to remain married to their non-believing spouse unless he or she (the non-believer) desired to leave. That's it. So...let 'em "drink the tea freely" if that's what they want. (And remember, Christians are not chained to the Law of Moses or Ezra or whoever else in the Tanakh.) *** First of all, I said you do not know that his family and disciples* never broke the Jewish dietary laws. Obviously the Jewish religious leaders felt they did and took exception to it.* The Pharisees did not accuse Jesus of breaking the laws. (Read the story again.) Secondly, you have failed to explain the purposes of those dietary laws. Are you saying that God gave us laws for no real reason except to give us laws? Jesus fulfilled the reason for those laws. And he fulfilled the laws themselves. Thirdly, Jesus' followers became known as Christians (Acts 11:26). Jesus was known as the Nazarene (Mark 16:6), and Paul was charged with being the ringleader of the Nazarene sect (Acts 24:5).
	You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)

Nazarene Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Male Joined: 05 September 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 298	Post Options Post Reply Quote Nazarene Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 23 August 2009 at 10:08am
	salaams if true they need to overcome this. i took the U.S.A almost 200 yrs. to let a black person drink from a "WHITES ONLY FOUNTAIN" and blacks were hung here for doing just that. where were ALL THE CHRSITAIN OUTRAGE AT THIS!!! the persecution of and enslavement of the blacks was spearheaded by christians. and than there was the INDIANS. it was GOD'S DIVINE WILL they be wiped out ridding us the pagan heathens and making the west SAFE for settlement. i get tiered of all the POOR HELPLESS CHRISTIAN CRAP!!! CHRISTANITY was/is the bloodiest religon ever invented!! leland
	love for all conquers all

Shasta'sAunt Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Female Joined: 29 March 2008 Status: Offline Points: 1930	Post Options Post Reply Quote Shasta'sAunt Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 24 August 2009 at 11:47pm
	"Thirdly, Jesus' followers became known as Christians* (Acts 11:26). Jesus was known as the Nazarene (Mark 16:6), and Paul was charged with being the ringleader of the Nazarene sect (Acts 24:5)."* The followers of Paul in Antioch were called Christians. Not the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem. Why would the Jewish followers of Jesus have used the Latin term Christo to describe the Messiah? Who were the Nazarenes that Paul was accused of leading? Who did he go to Jerusalem to meet? James, Peter, the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, the Nazarenes. Acts shows clearly that these followers of Jesus adhered to the Mosaic laws: Acts 21:¹⁷And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. ¹⁸And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. ¹⁹And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. ²⁰And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: Clearly James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, never gave up the Mosaic Laws. Why would he continue to follow the Mosaic Laws if Jesus had commanded his followers to do differently? Who made the charge against Paul? Ananias, the Jewish high priest. Why would the Jewish high priest of Jerusalem accuse a follower of Jesus of being a Nazarene if they were known as Christians? Because the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem were known as Nazarenes, not Christians. "First of all, I said you do not know that his family and disciples* never broke the Jewish dietary laws. Obviously the Jewish religious leaders felt they did and took exception to it."* You are correct, I do not know. I am going by the Biblical scriptures in my assertation that they never broke the Law. Since I believe that the Bible has been corrupted, these scriptures might not be correct. However, for the sake of argument, if YOU believe the scriptures to be correct, then YOU would have to believe that Jesus' direct followers never broke any of the Maosaic Laws. That would include the dietary laws. I have posted historical accounts outside of the Biblical scriptures, which you appear to be questioning, that show that they did not break the Mosaic Laws. But I can post another Biblical scripture which would prove so. The story of Peter: ^{Acts 10:9}On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: ¹⁰And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, ¹¹And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: ¹²Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. ¹³And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. ¹⁴But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. ¹⁵And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. ¹⁶This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. ¹⁷Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, This occured after the death of Jesus. After Jesus supposedly abrogated the dietary laws. If Jesus had abrogated the dietary laws, why was it necessary for Peter to have a vision from God allowing him to eat that which was "unclean". If the followers of Jesus had already broken the dietary laws, why would Peter have stated that he had never eaten anything "unclean"? Then in Acts 11:¹And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. ²And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, ³Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. If Jesus had abrogated the Laws and they no longer mattered, why were his apostles, the men who actually knew him and followed him personally, confronting Peter about breaking the Laws? If Jesus did not follow the Laws, why did his apostles, disciples, family, and followers do so. Wouldn't they have done what Jesus did? If the followers did not continue to follow the Mosaic Laws after Jesus died, why does the Bible say that they did? But, if you have scriptural proof that the disciples and family of Jesus did break the Laws, please post them. "Secondly, you have failed to explain the purposes of those dietary laws. Are you saying that God gave us laws for no real reason except to give us laws? Jesus fulfilled the reason for those laws. And he fulfilled the laws themselves." You have yet to prove that Jesus fulfilled anything. However, I don't have to explain the purpose of the laws. I posted the scriptures according to the Bible where God ordered man not to eat certain foods because they are unclean. That should be enough of a reason, don't you think? Edited by Shasta'sAunt - 25 August 2009 at 12:16am
	�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt

Shasta'sAunt Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Female Joined: 29 March 2008 Status: Offline Points: 1930	Post Options Post Reply Quote Shasta'sAunt Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 25 August 2009 at 12:01am
	"What the Catholic Church does has no bearing on Christianity since the Church is supposed to revolve around Christ and the scriptures...not the other way around. And the epistles of Paul were written to Christians not non-believers. Therefore, to try and say that Paul was writing rules for non-believers to follow is absolutely ridiculous. He was simply giving guidance to Christians who had non-Christian spouses. He was telling them to remain married to their non-believing spouse unless he or she (the non-believer) desired to leave." Where did I say that Paul was writing rules for non-believers? I never said any such thing. I did write: "The only one who might be giving Christians commands would be Paul." Are you trying to redirect the conversation by throwing out false accusations. tsk, tsk, Natassia. Let's just stick to what has REALLY been posted, shall we? You are absolutely right, Paul was giving guidance by telling the people that if their non-believing spouses wanted to leave, they could divorce them. What guidance did Jesus give regarding Christians married to non-Christian spouses? Matthew 5:³¹It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: ³²But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. What's that? No distinction. Looks like Jesus didn't say whosoever puts away his wife except Christians married to non-believers... Apparently Jesus' guidance regarding divorce was that you couldn't save for cases of fornication. You are the one who said that Paul's doctrines do not differ from Jesus' doctrines. I think you have yet to prove that they are even compatible.
	�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt

Shasta'sAunt Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Female Joined: 29 March 2008 Status: Offline Points: 1930	Post Options Post Reply Quote Shasta'sAunt Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 25 August 2009 at 12:20am
	"(And remember, Christians are not chained to the Law of Moses or Ezra or whoever else in the Tanakh.)" According to whom?
	�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt

Hayfa Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Female Joined: 07 June 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2368	Post Options Post Reply Quote Hayfa Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 26 August 2009 at 6:35am
	So really Natassia you area follower of Paul, not Jesus, correct? Jesus followed the Mosaic laws.. why would you NOT want to follow them? Why don't you strive for a higher level? Seems to make sense to me... that you would WANT to more "Jesus-like." Interesting
	When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi