question for a christian

[جوري]

I like to consider the analogy with the way parents bring up their child. When the child is very young, they have to obey rules that would be ridiculous for a teenager to have to follow (like being in bed before 8 o'clock, or not being allowed outside on their own). Though these rules no longer apply to the teenager, that does not mean that the now-abandoned rules were worthless (just "words on a page"); no, rather, they had a particular purpose for a particular time, and teach the child valuable principles that will apply to all of life (like the importance of resting and being safe). The rules are fulfilled in the child growing up, now that they have understood these principles.

Just in the same way, we see that the purposes of particular Old Testament laws has been completed (which is what "fulfilled" means) by Jesus. The laws are still immensely valuable, because of their underlying principles and the way they point towards their fulfillment in Jesus.

The analogy fails.. this isn't about some curfew where we are stretching the time, it is about a prohibition, which Jesus as a ( messenger to the Jews was to uphold)
Either way it doesn't matter how you interpret your book or the words of your god.. to other parties it is very odd for a god to change his mind!


all the best

 

[Nathaniel]

The analogy fails.. this isn't about some curfew where we are stretching the time, it is about a prohibition, which Jesus as a ( messenger to the Jews was to uphold)
Either way it doesn't matter how you interpret your book or the words of your god.. to other parties it is very odd for a god to change his mind!

The point is that God isn't changing his mind: rather, He had a set purpose for particular Laws when he commanded them which He fulfilled in Jesus. The purpose of the analogy was to compare this to an example where a rule has a set purpose for a particular amount of time, and no longer applies when its purpose is fulfilled. Clearly Jesus fulfils the Law very differently to the way parents' rules are fulfilled by their child growing up.

 

[جوري]

The point is that God isn't changing his mind: rather, He had a set purpose for particular Laws when he commanded them which He fulfilled in Jesus. The purpose of the analogy was to compare this to an example where a rule has a set purpose for a particular amount of time, and no longer applies when its purpose is fulfilled. Clearly Jesus fulfils the Law very differently to the way parents' rules are fulfilled by their child growing up.

what was the purpose fulfilled in the case of allowing this prohibition?
They start off on baby formula and graduate to neurocysticercosis?

what an odd thing to write...


all the best

 

[Supreme]

Answer to the question: Neither pork nor usury is forbidden in Christianity. I do think Jewish Christians can't have pork, and possibly some small sects who claim to be Christian do not eat pork, but other than that, neither is forbidden.

 

[mohammed_alim]

hello people quite a few replies here i c. anyway in work today i told my m8 pork and interest is not allowed in ur religion and i have the verses frm the bible to prove it so he got his ipod out bocs he has got the bible in there bt unfortunately his ipod was not working. he was eager to check if i was right. so good thing i work in amazon online retailer warehouse, where me and my m8 work we are surrounded by books and theres kjv and niv bibles about on the shelves. so there we are...i grabbed the niv bible and i showed him the verses, i was quite supprised myself bcos in the niv bible it VERY clearly states pigs are unclean and to not eat it i didint think it would be as clearer than that. anyway he said he'll speak to his pastor.

this thread can b closed now i think.. i got what i needed to know, no point turning this into a debate bcos its very simple, bible says wat it says so if ur a practising christian n u read kjv or niv bible then u should accept it and follow it and not make excuses to suit ur desires.

once again thanks a lot mr italian guy u got straight to the point

 

[Supreme]

No he didn't- Nathaniel got right to the point when he showed the verse of when Jesus (quite rightly) said that what goes into a man is of no relevance, but what comes out of a man.

 

[mohammed_alim]

No he didn't- Nathaniel got right to the point when he showed the verse of when Jesus (quite rightly) said that what goes into a man is of no relevance, but what comes out of a man.

so then why does CLEARLY say in Leviticus 11 pig is unclean and NOT to eat it? why is two differnt things being said?

 

[Supreme]

so then why does CLEARLY say in Leviticus 11 pig is unclean and NOT to eat it? why is two differnt things being said?

Because that law is a Jewish law, not a Christian one.

 

[mohammed_alim]

Because that law is a Jewish law, not a Christian one.

i would appreciate if you could answer these questions thank you.

so that rulling is only for the jews and not for the followers of jesus (peace be upon him)?

was jesus (peace be upon him) a jew?

so if jesus (peace be upon him) was a jew then that rulling was also for jesus (peace be upon him) and...... the followers of jesus (peace be upon him) should also stick to that rulling.

i would like to know if there is one rulling for jesus (peace be upon him) and a differnt rulling for his followers?

 

[Supreme]

so that rulling is only for the jews and not for the followers of jesus (peace be upon him)?

Yes. It's for Jews and Jewish Christians. Christians may follow the law, it is by no means obligatory, however, as the majority of Christians are not Jewish.

was jesus (peace be upon him) a jew?

Yes.

so if jesus (peace be upon him) was a jew then that rulling was also for jesus (peace be upon him) and...... the followers of jesus (peace be upon him) should also stick to that rulling.

Jesus was a Jew and therefore abided by the rules. His disciples (and I suspect most of His followers) were also Jews, and would have followed Jewish dietary laws.

i would like to know if there is one rulling for jesus (peace be upon him) and a differnt rulling for his followers?

No they followed the same rules.

 

[Italianguy]

i would appreciate if you could answer these questions thank you.

so that rulling is only for the jews and not for the followers of jesus (peace be upon him)?

was jesus (peace be upon him) a jew?

so if jesus (peace be upon him) was a jew then that rulling was also for jesus (peace be upon him) and...... the followers of jesus (peace be upon him) should also stick to that rulling.

i would like to know if there is one rulling for jesus (peace be upon him) and a differnt rulling for his followers?

No their is no distinction, we must try (emphasis on try) to be as Christ like as possible. We wouldn't have the Old Testament if it were cancelled out by the comming of the Messiah. We are not to sacrifice aything for repentence anymore, Because Crist the Lamb was the last sacrifice by God. Thus the reason He is called the sacrificial lamb, and addresses this in the Bible. But it is not an excuse to cancell out what was commanded of us. There were many things that changed after Jesus was here, as He commanded. But there are certian things tha we are to stick to that are not subject to interpretation nor opinion.......but....i lean more towards the more Orthodox veiws anyway.

 

[Grace Seeker]

hello all. am not here to turn this thread into a debate just want to ask 2 questions which i need some answers for and then the thread can simply be closed.

• i would like to know if interest (usary) is forbiden in christianity
• and if eating pig is forbidden

if they are forbiden can u tell where it says so from the king james version of the bible. if its not forbiden then no problem we just leave it there.

thank you all

No, neither of these are forbidden to Christians. Regarding Italianguy's several responses, and still with respect to him as a brother in Christ, I believe he has misapplied and misunderstood the scriptures in arriving at the conclusions he has expressed here.

 

[Italianguy]

No, neither of these are forbidden to Christians. Regarding Italianguy's several responses, and still with respect to him as a brother in Christ, I believe he has misapplied and misunderstood the scriptures in arriving at the conclusions he has expressed here.

Helllllllloooooooooo GraceSeeker!!

Thats cool, I canot condem nor relinquish ones opinion on these matters. I humbley appologise if i came across a little rudeimsad I need to understand that I do lean more to the Orthodox sect of faith, although i am considered protestant. And should not tell you you ae wrong on what you believe. My decision to follow these rules are my choice.......I still love all my Christian bro's and sis's here May we see each other at the gates.Amen

 

[mohammed_alim]

i never heard of "christian jews" what is the religion of a "christian jew"? i know theres jews and there are christians. but anyway nevermind... pork was forbidden for jesus (peace be upon him) because he was a jew and he abided by the rules so did his followers.

so why is it not obligatory for now a day followers of jesus (peace be upon him) to also abide by the rules? because it just makes sence jesus (peace be upon him) and his followers didnt eat pork then u guys now adays should also not eat prok.

pork was forbiden for jesus (peace be upon him).
the bible says not to eat it as stated earlier on.
u say that rule is for jews ok but (jesus peace be upon him) was a jew his follwers at the time didint also eat pork...... u as followers now should also not eat it too. beacuse its forbidden

 

[Grace Seeker]

so why is it not obligatory for now a day followers of jesus (peace be upon him) to also abide by the rules? because it just makes sence jesus (peace be upon him) and his followers didnt eat pork then u guys now adays should also not eat prok.

The forbidding of pork was a part of the old covenant that God made with the nation of Israel, and thus is required of all Jews. But, there is no requirement for Christians to become Jews. Jesus himself established a new covenant. That covenant is different than the one that God made with the Jews through Moses. Very few of the old covenant's Levitical laws (such as the prohibition against eating pork) are included in the new covenant. And since one does not have to become a Jew or a participant of the old covenant to be part of the new covenant or a follower of Jesus, the rules of the old covenant simply do not apply to the members of the new covenant, for the two covenants (though both being covenants with God) are as much two different things with different commands and different rewards as are apples and oranges (though both fruit) different from one another.

 

[Grace Seeker]

i never heard of "christian jews" what is the religion of a "christian jew"? i know theres jews and there are christians.

There are a few, a very few, Jews who have recognized Jesus to be the Messiah. These individuals understand themselves to be as Jewish now as they have ever been, but they also believe Jesus to be God's promised Messiah. They see themselves as participants in both the old covenant (hence being bound by the Levitical rules) and the new covenant (hence receiving the promise of new life in Jesus). They go by a variety of different names (Jews of Jesus, Messianic Jews, Followers of Yeshua). Some of them participate fully in Jewish synagouge life even as they, others have immersed themselves in modern church life retaining only their Jewish ethnicity but none of the religious practices, and others still feel a need to make a new way not feeling completely comfortable in either church nor synagogue.

I have a good friend who doesn't use any of these titles. She simple considers herself a Jewish Christian (the way that one might consider themselves an Irish Catholic). Her husband is even a Christian pastor. But every Friday night she lights the candles for Shavvoth, they don't eat pork, the sweep the house clean for passover, and they also attend church every Sunday, they put up a Christmas tree, they worship Jesus as Lord the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel and all the peoples of the earth.

 

[Italianguy]

If you consider yourself a Christian than there should be no distinction, Being a Christian ahould hold no other titles to it. .....just my opinion

But there are some other groups that don't call them selves Christians, but follow Christ as their Messiah, or savior.

Just google these and you will find them.(I don't think i am allowed to post links to these on this site?)

Titles:

"Jews for Jesus"

"Muslims for Jesus"

 

[Rabi Mansur]

so why is it not obligatory for now a day followers of jesus (peace be upon him) to also abide by the rules? because it just makes sence jesus (peace be upon him) and his followers didnt eat pork then u guys now adays should also not eat prok.

pork was forbiden for jesus (peace be upon him).
the bible says not to eat it as stated earlier on.
u say that rule is for jews ok but (jesus peace be upon him) was a jew his follwers at the time didint also eat pork...... u as followers now should also not eat it too. beacuse its forbidden

These things were debated right after the death of Jesus. If you read the book of Acts in the New Testament you will find that there was a dispute about how much of the Law the Christians would have to keep. The Gentile Christians, who were not Jews, were told that they did not have to be circumcised or follow the whole law. The church leaders basically came up with a compromise:

Acts 15

24"Since we have heard that (BB)some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have (BC)disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls,

25(BD)it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26men who have (BE)risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27"Therefore we have sent (BF)Judas and (BG)Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth.

28"For (BH)it seemed good to (BI)the Holy Spirit and to (BJ)us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:

29that you abstain from (BK)things sacrificed to idols and from (BL)blood and from (BM)things strangled and from (BN)fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

30So when they were sent away, (BO)they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter.

31When they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement.

If you read the whole chapter it makes more sense. But the bottom line was that the new Gentile converts did not have to follow the Law and were not required to be circumcised. The were required to not eat meat sacrificed to idols and refrain from things strangled and from fornication. They were not required to follow the kosher dietary laws.

Hope this helps.

:wa:

 

[جوري]

These things were debated right after the death of Jesus. If you read the book of Acts in the New Testament you will find that there was a dispute about how much of the Law the Christians would have to keep. The Gentile Christians, who were not Jews, were told that they did not have to be circumcised or follow the whole law. The church leaders basically came up with a compromise:

Acts 15


If you read the whole chapter it makes more sense. But the bottom line was that the new Gentile converts did not have to follow the Law and were not required to be circumcised. The were required to not eat meat sacrificed to idols and refrain from things strangled and from fornication. They were not required to follow the kosher dietary laws.

Hope this helps.

:wa:

I don't believe that christianity was meant for the 'gentiles' anyway and I think that is part of its mess, it makes no sense to me that god would change his mind, and it makes less sense, that god would now be a son and a spirit, so what can I say?.. That is just my view on the matter...

New International Version (©1984)
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."New Living Translation (©2007)
Then Jesus said to the woman, "I was sent only to help God's lost sheep--the people of Israel."
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
International Standard Version (©2008)
But he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel."
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus responded, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel."
King James Bible
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
American King James Version
But he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
American Standard Version
But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Bible in Basic English
But he made answer and said, I was sent only to the wandering sheep of the house of Israel.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel.
Darby Bible Translation
But he answering said, I have not been sent save to the lost sheep of Israel's house.
English Revised Version
But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Webster's Bible Translation
But he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Weymouth New Testament
"I have only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," He replied.
World English Bible
But he answered, "I wasn't sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Young's Literal Translation
and he answering said, 'I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'

 

[Rabi Mansur]

And that is why the apostle Paul is frequently called the apostle to the Gentiles. In the Christian view, Jesus (PBUH) was sent to the lost sheep of Israel and Paul was sent to the Gentiles.

I don't believe that christianity was meant for the 'gentiles' anyway and I think that is part of its mess, it makes no sense to me that god would change his mind, and it makes less sense, that god would now be a son and a spirit, so what can I say?.. That is just my view on the matter...

If you don't believe that Christianity was meant for the Gentiles, I assume, then, that you are saying that Muhammad's (PBUH) message was the one for the Gentiles? (Since it was addressed to all mankind.) I'm just trying to understand your point...



:wa: