Yeah, I hope so. It’s unfortunate when people think that Christ’s approval depends on how much hatred they show everyone else.
My interpretation of the following scripture: Jesus gave these two commandments as the greatest and most important commandments. This does not say that the previous 10 were cancelled: but these two are more important than the rest. Nothing should get in the way of observing these.
Matthew 22: 34-40:
“34”: But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
“35”: Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
“36”: Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
“37”: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
“38”: This is the first and great commandment.
“39”: And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
“40”: On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Douchebags hate menstruation? Is it like a professional rivalry?
It was totally a response to what you said. Well, the last line of it, anyway. Also, that sentence would be much more legible if you’d at least put in a damn comma splice instead of just jamming two sentences together.
Also: ennui doesn’t mean what you apparently think it means.
It’s taught that Jesus canceled them out–he showed up and said, “Look, these laws are getting out of hand. Let’s cut it down to something manageable.” And then threw out most of the nitpicky old stuff. Which is why, e.g., Christians don’t keep kosher while some sects of Judaism still do.
Where did he say that? Matthew 5:17-18 (above) says exactly the opposite.
Close to 20 years of Catholic school is my cite–I don’t have a Bible handy to go skimming through the entire New Testament.
If you want to argue that Christians apply the pre-Jesus rules of Judaism, though, I’d like to see where they keep kosher, or require circumcision, or can’t wear cotton-poly blends, etc.
I think the cite is in Acts somewhere; something to do a vision granted to Peter in regards to whether to let non-circumcized types into the Church.
Not keeping kosher is definitely Paul - Jesus kept kosher, and didn’t evangelize to non-Jews (or go out of his way to heal them). He also said, as **Sampiro **notes, to keep to the law.
Paul had a dream where God said, “Hey, do you think I made pigs and stuff so you wouldn’t eat them? What’s that about?”
I think Paul is also the Sunday Sabbath instead of Saturday, also, but that might have been Peter.
Jesus was the inventor, Paul was the guy who handled the marketing.
Oh sweetness, then I’m cool.
Maybe this God thing wasn’t such a bad idea at all for you guys.
The non-kosher dream was Peter’s. And Jesus healed non-Jews (the centurion’s slave, for one) and evangelized to the Samaritan woman (for your faith, you will be saved).
Oh. Gotta reread that.
Well, I said he didn’t go out of his way to heal them. Sometimes the non-Jews really had to twist his arm. And the Samaritan (quasi-Jew anyway) is a sort of exception - that’s really the point of that little episode.
Quasi-Jew like Ismaili Shi’ites are quasi-Muslims to Wahhabi Sunnis. The Samaritans and Jews hated each other…that’s the whole point of the Good Samaritan parable. There’s no loathing like family loathing…
My cite is “nuh-hu!”, and the Bible. (You know somebody ought to put a full-text electronically searchable Bible [or 6,000] online sometime.)
I wonder if in the original Greek he mentioned bananas.
It’s little known that Paul wrote his letters in a mnemonic device for easy memory- it was to the tune of a popular song that originated in Rome’s LITTLE BABYLON THEATRICUM in a stage show called GYPTICA. Excerpts in the original translation:
Why did I do it?
What did it get me?
Papyruses full of me in the byline
Give him devotion and what does it get you?
They get Gospels and you’re tried for treason
All your life and what does it get ya?
Thanks a lot now the boat to Rome’s this way
He’s a God and you’re a misogynistic nutcase.
“I had a dream! I dreamed it for you Gentiles!
It wasn’t for me Peter!
And if it wasn’t for me
Just where would you be?
Je-sus of Galilee!”
Well someone tell me when is it my turn?
Don’t I get a dream for myself?
Startin’ now it’s gonna be my turn
stand back Rome get off of my via
startin’ now I bat a thousand
this time Jews I’m taking the bows and
Everything’s coming up ham!
Everything’s comin’ up pork chops and sausages,
everything’s comin’ up shrimp balls and lobster tails
everything’s comin’ up wabbit and camel cheese
this time for meeeeeee!
This time for meeeeeeeat!
FOR MEAAAAAAAAAT!"
Also consider the “man was made for the Sabbath, not the Sabbath for man” bit, in terms of resetting the rules.
So we can do pretty much anything we like and justify it scripturally if we say that “somewhere along the line somebody said that Jesus said it was okay” without need of proof or further cite or discussion?
Also the “Fuck a buncha fasting n’ shit. We got hookers and blow!”
I think there was something like that.
I think you got that quote backwards.
Still, AFAIK, any rule resets were initiated by Peter’s nap in Acts, and that was post-Ascension.
Speaking as a chick, I hate menstruation. Periods suck.
I am not interested in hearing about how angry and butthurt someone is that they can’t get married and straight people can every time we discuss the theology of it. If he wants to discuss the theology of it fine. If he wants to whine about how life is unfair he should start a thread. I won’t participate. It’s unfair, I agree, but we don’t need to hijack every discussion of Christian theology and its relationship to sex to talk about how unfair it is that straight people can marry and gay people cannot.
Yeah, you’re right.
Sampiro Well by definition their job is to get rid of any remnants of it.
So the douchebag is the Winston Wolf of the Menstrual Mafia…