Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

MGS..I have already "briefly" explained that the dietary laws were for the Israelites during the old testament dispensation....not the Christian, and that the moral laws are transcendent. I don't mind having an exchange with you through PM. This is sort of off topic.? But maybe not...

GG

Where does it state that the dietary laws are temporary?

Where in the Bible is this stated?

So in the interest of brevity...

Christian doctrine (and I'm speaking from the reformed theological tradition, that being of Luther, Calvin and so forth) is taken from the Bible, which includes the old testament, the gospels, the acts of the apostles, and the apostolic epistles.We also refer to the early church fathers to try to gain an understanding of how the early church thought about these things. So there is a past history of theological thought and study that we can reference to help us understand what God is trying to tell us in regards to theological issues.

And to be honest, there was a large debate even in the apostolic era regarding these very issues, covered in the book of Acts, and also several epistles. There arose a group of converts called the Judaizers which were trying to force newly converted Gentile Christians into following certain old testament customs to include circumcision, and so forth. This issue is clearly spoken about and condemned by Paul the apostle in several of his epistles, which are part of the Bible. And if you reject Pauls teachings, and writings you may as well reject the entire new testament, because he was an apostle, which we believe was chosen by God, to lead the evangelical mission to the Gentiles. Therefore we believe that since he was directly chosen by God, his writing were inspired by God, therefore we accept them as scripture and therefore part of the Bible.

So having said that...in regards to the issue of dietary laws..Jesus said in Mark 7: 14-23

14And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:

15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.



acts 10:10-15

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

11 And 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:

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

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

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

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

Those are two examples from the Bible, where we draw our theological argument that Christians are not required to follow the dietary restrictions, from the old testament.

Also from the book of the acts of the apostles.

Chapter 15 deals with the issue of circumcision..this is why Christians are not required to perform the act of circumcision.

I would also recommend a study of the book of Hebrews, which was an epistle written by(we believe the apostle Paul) to the Hebrews where he goes into detail on a lot of these issues we are speaking of.

Those are just a few biblical examples, but I could quote pages and pages of biblical references.

MGS there have literally been volumes of books written on these issues, on basic Christian doctrine, and where in the bible we draw our doctrine from.

not to mention that you could easily google search this and find all of this information fairly easily yourself.

GG

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

You do realise that there is more to Christian theology than just the Bible, right?
As Jesus said: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus came to fulfill. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New.
Which indeed means that the old Mosaic laws do not apply to Christians and those who claim otherwise have a horrible lack of knowledge about the Christian religion.

It doesn't say that, how do you know that's what it means? That's conjecture. That is your interpretation of the English translation, or it's someone else's you've latched onto. How in heaven or earth do you or any mortal get to tell me what Jesus said 'actually means' something else...?

Are you the risen Christ? I doubt it.

'It says this, but what it actually means is this' on the one hand, then it's 'but the bible says this is wrong' on the other.

Such hypocrisy, it's almost as though certain elements claiming themselves Christian think they can 'interpret' the Bible to allow them to act in one way whilst denouncing others acting in another, as though it's literal for one man's 'sin' but entirely allegorical for another.

I would remind you of Matthew 5:19, you're either in or your out.

Really you people grasping at straws and seeking evasive measures to excuse yourselves from one part of the good book whilst damning others for another sound far less like people of God and far more like lawyers pawing over the small print and seeking loopholes or 'interpretations'...

Keep wriggling, it makes you look terrible. And hilarious.

It has been official Church doctrine (all major denominations) for centuries. The Old Covenant has been superseded by the New, and texts like Galatians 5:4 leave little doubt about it: "You who are trying to be justified by the Law have been severed from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Paul here refers to the Galatians, who attempted to reach spiritual purity by observing the (Mosaic) Law. However, their devotion to the Law hindered their devotion to each other)

The Laws have been fulfilled, they were there to prepare for the coming of the Messiah, and are no longer necessary. As Thomas Aquinas said, the judicial laws are no longer binding as new ones have been put in their place, and to still observe the ritual laws would be equal to denying the coming of Christ.
No person knows what Christ actually, literally said, and we can't ask him questions of "what did you precisely mean when you said that." All we have is interpretation. Other people get to tell you what Christ said (or rather how they interpret what Christ said) because they spent their entire life studying every aspect of the Bible. Their words, though not infallible, are of great value. If you get to a different conclusion, fine, but that does not mean that the other is wrong.

That's dogma, not doctrine.

Doctrine is what is explicitly stated in the Bible.

Dogma is everything else that various denominations have said throughout history.

The two rarely match.

 generalgrog wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

MGS..I have already "briefly" explained that the dietary laws were for the Israelites during the old testament dispensation....not the Christian, and that the moral laws are transcendent. I don't mind having an exchange with you through PM. This is sort of off topic.? But maybe not...

GG

Where does it state that the dietary laws are temporary?

Where in the Bible is this stated?

So in the interest of brevity...

Christian doctrine (and I'm speaking from the reformed theological tradition, that being of Luther, Calvin and so forth) is taken from the Bible, which includes the old testament, the gospels, the acts of the apostles, and the apostolic epistles.We also refer to the early church fathers to try to gain an understanding of how the early church thought about these things. So there is a past history of theological thought and study that we can reference to help us understand what God is trying to tell us in regards to theological issues.

'Church fathers' are human beings interpreting the bible, not the bible. What a pontiff or hermit decides, not in the bible, is opinion of mortal man, born of original sin.

 generalgrog wrote:

And to be honest, there was a large debate even in the apostolic era regarding these very issues, covered in the book of Acts, and also several epistles. There arose a group of converts called the Judaizers which were trying to force newly converted Gentile Christians into following certain old testament customs to include circumcision, and so forth. This issue is clearly spoken about and condemned by Paul the apostle in several of his epistles, which are part of the Bible. And if you reject Pauls teachings, and writings you may as well reject the entire new testament, because he was an apostle, which we believe was chosen by God, to lead the evangelical mission to the Gentiles. Therefore we believe that since he was directly chosen by God, his writing were inspired by God, therefore we accept them as scripture and therefore part of the Bible.

So there was misunderstanding that far back and yet you know how to interpret the Will of God... ok then.

 generalgrog wrote:

So having said that...in regards to the issue of dietary laws..Jesus said in Mark 7: 14-23

14And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:

15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Excellent, so he does not mention homosexuality there at any point and only references the foods being eaten, which would have precluded the animals forbidden as food items according to the Leviticus guide to eating. This in no way removes the onus on not eating certain foods, only states that what comes from man's intention and deed is 'evil', since pork or shellfish would not have been considered 'food' or 'eaten' at that time, there is no reason to conclude what he said refers to those things. No absolution for your bacon there buddy...

 generalgrog wrote:

acts 10:10-15

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

11 And 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:

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

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

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

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

So if food levitates down from heaven, regardless of it's status, and God commands you to eat it, you can totes eat it. That's great, again it in no way sanctions shrimp cocktail, which is obtained by getting shrimp from the sea, rather than supernatural transportation...

 generalgrog wrote:

Those are two examples from the Bible, where we draw our theological argument that Christians are not required to follow the dietary restrictions, from the old testament.

No they aren't, I've just shown you how they can be entirely differently interpreted.

 generalgrog wrote:

MGS there have literally been volumes of books written on these issues, on basic Christian doctrine, and where in the bible we draw our doctrine from.

not to mention that you could easily google search this and find all of this information fairly easily yourself.

All by people, with people's bias and I can just as easily obtain counterpoints to any of those arguments about potential meanings of verse. You are forsaking the literal text (in whichever interpreted version you choose to read... ) to rely on a number of people's opinions on what it meant, which means you're also ignoring or rejecting the opinions of many more people about the meanings of the scripture.

The new testament also deals, on several occasions, with the keeping of slaves, at no point does it damn or overturn the keeping of slaves and our friend Paul, on receiving Onesimus, who requests sanctuary, returns him to his master... very 'Christian'. So, are you in favor of slavery?

Allright..so as I predicted MGS doesn't really want to discuss this honestly. So I'll bow out and let the other watchers decide who is really debating with honesty here, and who just wants to make political soundbites.

GG




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
That's dogma, not doctrine.

Doctrine is what is explicitly stated in the Bible.

Dogma is everything else that various denominations have said throughout history.

The two rarely match.

Wrong.....

doc·trine
ˈdäktrən/
noun
noun: doctrine; plural noun: doctrines

a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.
"the doctrine of predestination"
synonyms: creed, credo, dogma, belief, teaching, ideology;


GG

 Iron_Captain wrote:

It has been official Church doctrine (all major denominations) for centuries. The Old Covenant has been superseded by the New, and texts like Galatians 5:4 leave little doubt about it: "You who are trying to be justified by the Law have been severed from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Paul here refers to the Galatians, who attempted to reach spiritual purity by observing the (Mosaic) Law. However, their devotion to the Law hindered their devotion to each other)

You mean they were using their interpretation of the religious laws to excuse their improper and unfair treatment of those around them...

...interesting...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Laws have been fulfilled, they were there to prepare for the coming of the Messiah, and are no longer necessary. As Thomas Aquinas said, the judicial laws are no longer binding as new ones have been put in their place, and to still observe the ritual laws would be equal to denying the coming of Christ.

Thomas Aquinas was born one thousand, two hundred and twenty five years after the death of Christ, tell me again how his opinion is law and the opinion of Dudley Moore, Christopher Hitchens, Attila the Hun or the next person I accost in the street is relevant to what is actually WRITTEN in the bible?
Hey, Aquinas, this is for you!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

No person knows what Christ actually, literally said, and we can't ask him questions of "what did you precisely mean when you said that." All we have is interpretation. Other people get to tell you what Christ said (or rather how they interpret what Christ said) because they spent their entire life studying every aspect of the Bible. Their words, though not infallible, are of great value. If you get to a different conclusion, fine, but that does not mean that the other is wrong.

And with that one, you've done my job for me. Because they're not wrong, they have the absolute right to hold to their opinion... but they don't get to legislate based on an opinion of an interpretation of the possible things that a person who died over 2 thousand years ago said. They DO, absolutely, get to live to that interpretation for themselves, in their churches, in their homes, they do not dictate their religious dogma via legislation or political manipulation.

This is a democracy, not a theocracy. As I said in the very beginning, go attend to your house and stay the hell out of attempting to govern everyone else's.

Is it safe to assume this thread has now become a "Bible is true/no it isn't", conversation between two groups that will never convince each other of anything?

 generalgrog wrote:
Allright..so as I predicted MGS doesn't really want to discuss this honestly. So I'll bow out and let the other watchers decide who is really debating with honesty here, and who just wants to make political soundbites.

GG

You have in no way debated and in every way sought to alter the goalposts of what others were discussing by including extrapolation and disguising opinions, both your own and those of others, as 'Christianity' and protection for your bigoted and exclusionary viewpoint.

The Church, whichever version that might be, may support your viewpoint, a theologian might well do so, but the Holy Bible does not and the rest is frankly conjuration and the prejudices of mortal men.

At this point, we must take a deep breath and ask ourselves, what would Brian Blessed say? Never mind, I can well imagine. I only wish I could be there to hear it.

The Bible is a great book to guide you on a path to living your own life. It makes *several* statements on how it is *not* a guide, or even a mandate, to tell other people on how to live theirs.

It also, in fact, explicitly suggests against being the sort who prays out-loud in public and making a great show of how "faithful" one is.

noun, plural dogmas or (Rare) dogmata [dawg-muh-tuh] (Show IPA)
1.
an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church.
Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.
2.
a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption;
the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility.
Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.
3.
prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group:
the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
4.
a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle:
the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation.
Synonyms: conviction, certainty.

It bears noting that the full definition of dogma contains the description of "opinion" or "set down by an authority" several times. It's an opinion that is held as fact by a group. That is different that it being an objective fact.

To some Christian beliefs, it is a dogmatic truth that the Earth is only 5000 years old. This is, obviously, not a widely-held belief, even amongst various Christian theologies. There are others who hold the dogmatic belief that God spent only six twenty-four-hour periods in creating everything... even though the Sun did not come to exist until Day 4, and prior to that we just had Light and Darkness, and (apparently) some motive force that allowed one to pass into the other... and, even earlier than that, the universe was not "nothing", it was simply formless and desolate, a darkness described as a raging ocean (sounds rather a lot like the Warp, doesn't it?) that covered everything.

This to not even mention that the Moon does not produce its own light, as some versions of the Bible claim (1 Genesis 14-18, GNT). Upshot? It's a parable, a story, not a literal telling of events (since there was no one else there to witness it). The Bible... most especially Genesis... is not meant to be taken literally. It's a Creation myth, something that existed in some form or another in every ancient culture and every culture that remains "primitive" in the modern world (such as various African or Amazonian tribes).

It is, by way of example, doctrine that Christ was crucified. This is laid out explicitly in the Bible, and no Christian group denies this. Even most non-Christians do not deny this event, whether they hold that Jesus was just a prophet, a conglomerate historical figure based on the deeds of several men, or something else entirely. It is doctrine to Christianity that he underwent the resurrection on the third day following his crucifixion, again the event being explicitly laid out in the Bible.

It is dogmatic to the LDS that in those 3 days he zipped over to the New World and visited with the faithful in what would become America, performing miracles and calling to him twelve new disciples to create His Church in the Americas. (Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 11:18; 3 Nephi 12:1-2)

Jesus talks about it in John 10, verse 16, when he tells about the other sheep he will go to.



16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

A talk concerning Jesus visiting the Americas:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/02/the-shepherd-and-his-other-sheep?lang=eng

Yes, again, dogmatic to LDS. Not accepted by any other major Christian organization. The link you provided is to a discussion on their own dogma by the LDS. It is interpreted to mean that he came to the Americas to meet with... natives, I guess?... to preach to them. This is not backed by historical record in any way (how many Christian Natives did the waves of explorers encounter? None.) and is not held as factual by other denominations.

I'd say we're well done here. See you all next supreme court ruling/government official refusing work/whatever comes next