Isaiah 63:16

John Milton

Well-known member
Actually, Mark 7:19 states Jesus made all foods clean. So, if this is a later insertion, then what can we trust in the NT?
You haven't followed my remarks very closely and/or I wasn't very clear earlier. I said that the only passage where it could be understood that Jesus changed the dietary laws was in Mark 7. But I said that this passage is likely a fuller understanding of the meaning of Jesus's words written from the vantage of having understood what true purity was after Jesus's death.

That's what I was trying in this quote above:
The abolition of the distinction between clean/unclean foods appears to have been a later Christian development based on Jesus's teaching about the true sources of sin and defilement, and the comment on Mark 7 appears to have been given from this perspective.
I don't think it was added to the text. I think it was something that the Christians finally understood and practiced after Jesus's death. The fact that Peter had eaten no unclean foods until after Jesus had been crucified is evidence for this view.
I'm surprised you haven't read the rest of the story, Acts 10:27-29. Looks like your wrong.
Of course, I've read the rest of the story. My argument has always been that Jesus didn't change the Jewish food laws (God did after his death according to the book of Acts) and Peter had not eaten any unclean foods as of Acts 10:14. You can go back and find all of these remarks. I can only assume at this point that you didn't follow my remarks very closely.
It's the Sabbath, and Jesus relates David's hunger in eating the shewbread to their situation.
I was asking you about the purpose of your remark as it pertains to "matters of life and death" which you added to the conversation.
Even among his own disciples he has no authority to judge them. That's left for the judges.
According to the text he has the authority to forgive sins. That would certainly qualify, but I know you don't accept that supposition.
What, that you think Pilate was a fair guy? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
I never said Pilate was a fair guy. I said he did what he thought was best for a situation given the circumstances. This was sometimes in favor of the Jews and sometimes not. His personal feelings toward the Jews, whatever they may have been, were not the decisive factor in his dealings with them.
Not when sects are confused,
Put bluntly: there's no evidence of this. You are seeing what you want to see.
passages are cut and taken out of context from Tanakh, etc.
At least this is a justifiable remark given your assumptions.
Rotfl... I don't but it nor is there support in your idea.
That's what the Hebrew author thinks. I agree with him.
That's fine. I don't think you understand the sects and the peoples attitudes towards them.
I don't understand them as well as I'd like to, but I think I understand them. You haven't raised any objection that has caused me any difficulty.
Because he supposedly was a Pharisee. The groups didn't relate well to each other. Another point on understanding the sects.
And the New Testament says that they didn't get along, but the Sadducees were still in charge. This means that they had to work with each other. I truly don't know why this is so troubling to you.
Look closer.
I've really tried, but even then your objections don't seem to carry water.
Which was actually the medium.
Again, that's not what the text says nor how the text presents it. To rehash an old illustration, what we know about donkeys says that donkeys should not be able to talk. Why do you think that a donkey could talk in the instance of Balaam? You seemingly use different assumptions for different cases.

If action can be taken to make a donkey talk, action could certainly be taken to raise a person from the dead. You seem to assume that God is limited to acting in ways that are within our usual understanding. It's faulty logic when you acknowledge that God has the power to do what he wills. It might not be likely, but it can happen. I think it is much more likely to have happened when his inspired writings tell us it did. I accept the story for what it plainly says, you reject it in favor of how you think it should've been told.
It's common knowledge mediums do this. And again, Saul nor his men saw Samuel.
The text doesn't say whether Saul or his men saw Samuel. The text tell us that there was a point in time when Saul was not able to see Samuel when the witch could. It does not mean that he could not have seen him later. You are arguing from silence.
That's a big point.
Your big argument is an argument from silence.
Not really. If you check Radak on the story, he finds that Saul's imagination has gotten the better of him. Jewish thought is quite vast.
It is. But your views are not considered mainstream as I understand it.
I have to laugh here. How often do you go to a medium for advice, JM? Mediums words aren't valid words from God. Saul already knew he was doomed to lose his kingdom from Samuel and in seeking advice from a medium, he knew he was forfeiting his life. The medium knew all of this.
Laugh away. The fact remains that the medium (according to you, Samuel according to me) was able to give Saul accurate information about not only his death but also about the death of his sons and when these things would occur. And more than that, she was able to say why Saul was coming to her in the first place and the means by which Saul and his sons would die, etc. This medium seems to be pretty accurate; it's almost like the text is telling us that the medium isn't the one talking in the first place...
No, if God said it was sinful and idolatry to seek advice from mediums, He wouldn't validate their use in any case. That would give more reason and excuses for people to use them against God's words. In any event, the story is a glimpse into Saul's desperation and who he thought he was speaking to.
I never said God validated the use of mediums. I said that he apparently allowed one to raise Samuel.
The fact that contact is forbidden should be enough to know that it isn't valid nor blessed of God.
There is no requirement that something has to be blessed by God for him to use an occasion for his purposes.
The fact that no one but the medium saw Saul,
That's not a fact. That's another of your unfounded assumptions.
and even then she just made up a generic figure,
That's what she saw initially. It does not mean that what she saw at that moment was the clearest picture she had. And that is without acknowledging the great difficulty of trying to describe someone in the first place.
should tell you that the story of the medium was a fraud. You sound like you'd trust the words of a medium. Do you happen to know their success rate?
She was highly accurate. I attribute this to Samuel. You attribute this to a fraud. I think my position is much stronger all the way around.
 
Top