Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws

[oldbadger]

Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws

It most certainly did!
Would anybody like to challenge that ?

[1213]

The bible does include same sex marriage because Mosaic Law banned males from laying with males. But the was a reason for every and any law and the laws provided for good health. strength, cohesion, security and provision for all the people.

But today communities do not need increase in population for security, indeed most communities are strongly against such increases. And so closed male partnership and marriage poses no problem.

Marriage doesn't necessary include sex. So, it is not necessary against the ban of males laying with males. But, it would still not be reasonable to do it.

[TRANSPONDER]

... Jesus was having his disciples cut Sabbath worship because it didn't matter. ...

What do you mean with "Sabbath worship"?

Worshipping (religious worship) on the designated Holy Day. Now try to answer the question and no more faux - ignorance of evasion.

[oldbadger]

Marriage doesn't necessary include sex. So, it is not necessary against the ban of males laying with males. But, it would still not be reasonable to do it.

I think it would be unreasonable to challenge it now, myself.

[1213]

... Jesus was having his disciples cut Sabbath worship because it didn't matter. ...

What do you mean with "Sabbath worship"?

Worshipping (religious worship) on the designated Holy Day. Now try to answer the question and no more faux - ignorance of evasion.

I think you are again making baseless claims. No good reason to think Jesus was having his disciples cut Sabbath worship.

[TRANSPONDER]

... Jesus was having his disciples cut Sabbath worship because it didn't matter. ...

What do you mean with "Sabbath worship"?

Worshipping (religious worship) on the designated Holy Day. Now try to answer the question and no more faux - ignorance of evasion.

I think you are again making baseless claims. No good reason to think Jesus was having his disciples cut Sabbath worship.

The basis is clear to be found in the synoptics - breaking the Mosaic law on not working on the sabbath - on the grounds it is ok to do good on the sabbath.

David and the Shewbread is explicit and I explained it in Mark

Here is Matthjew's version.

12 1. At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Matthew bakes it explicit. Jesus is greater than the temple. Sabbath breaking is 'guiltless'. And not for healing the sick on the sabbath (which could be ok if life is endangered, but otherwise, not) this is just the 12 and Jesus amusing themselves and rubbing gain, with the teachers of the law following them to catch them out.

It is plain (and not 'baseless') that this is a fabricated (set up story) to argue that the Sabbath is obsolete because the intent of Pauline Christianity (which is what the Synoptic gospels are) is to sideline the sabbath, dietary laws, the temple, Pharisee and priestly authority and even the place of the Jews as 'God's people', and it is not 'baseless' but plain there in the Bible, and if you can't see it.... well none of the others appear to have twigged it, either.

[TRANSPONDER]

We may as well get the whole set and do Luke, together with the example of the same point that follows.


6. 1 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their
hands.
2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?
3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
6 And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.
7 And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.
8 But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.
9 Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?
10 And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
11 And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.

I already explained that the Shewbread is not only a fabricated tale intended to make a point - the Sabbath doesn't matter ()thus he declared the Mosaic Law obsolete (1) but is a bad and invalid argument anyway. But the story of course does not give the Pharisee side.

Which is why I also included the other sabbath breaking on another occasion - which also follows in the other synoptics, showing this is copying of text, not relating of memories - Mark 3. who just has it, Matthew says it was right afterwards and Luke on another Sabbath.

But the point is, that there could be a debate on the lawfulness. 'This was not to save life, and could be done another day' 'But maybe Jesus couldn't do this another day; it had to be now.'' 'But he can't as it is against the law', 'so is saving Life'.
But this would be a pharisee about where the fence of the torah is - where to draw the line. But there is no debate. The pharises skuly away to plot because this is pauline Christian law - busting propaganda and you may bet that as sure as Trump's decline in the polls.

(1) "But Jesus said that no jot and tittle of the law will pass away.."

"Until all is fulfilled". In Matthew, but not in Luke. My explanation or take is that this is imported "Q" and even Luke did not junk scripture, he just fiddled it. So he says it is hard for the law to pass away, which is not the same as it hasn't.

Matthew is more concerned with the OT and the Old Laws, so he uses the argument we saw before 'The law and the prophets were until John".

The resurrection was the 'Fulfillment' and clearly when the gospels were written, the Old Law was replaced by Jesus, which is what Paul set out to do. And we could maybe look at who set aside the law and teaches the little ones to do so.

[POI]

...
Leviticus 14:8 the pig is also unclean.......... You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcases.

I think that law is still valid, in Christians point of view, people should not eat unclean things. The problem with that is, it can be so that a pig is cleaned so that it is not anymore unclean and therefore not prohibited. Many Christians think it is not unclean anymore, after it has been cleaned, and therefore it is not wrong and against the law to eat it. Can you say they are wrong?

Nice rationalization 1213. The verse offers no caveat as to what would make a pig 'clean.' It is deemed unclean and the orthodox Jews do not consume them.

"No, Orthodox Jews do not eat pork because the Torah states that pigs are not kosher, or fit to eat. The Torah explains that kosher animals are ruminants, which means they chew cud and have split hooves, like cows and sheep. Pigs are not ruminants, so they are not kosher. In Judaism, pigs are also considered unclean animals."

[1213]

...Nice rationalization 1213. The verse offers no caveat as to what would make a pig 'clean.' It is deemed unclean and the orthodox Jews do not consume them.
...

Ok, if one thinks pork is still unclean, it is better not to eat it.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Nice rationalization 1213. The verse offers no caveat as to what would make a pig 'clean.' It is deemed unclean and the orthodox Jews do not consume them.
...

Ok, if one thinks pork is still unclean, it is better not to eat it.

Where we are, then, is that science (which has enabled pork to be cleaned up, beats religion which only opined that it is unclean, which didn't bother too many cultured in the old days, and it is hard not to see the prohibition as being cultural, rather than practical, let alone gis 0 given information.

To remove all doubt, science wins again and religion loses another point.

[POI]

...Nice rationalization 1213. The verse offers no caveat as to what would make a pig 'clean.' It is deemed unclean and the orthodox Jews do not consume them.
...

Ok, if one thinks pork is still unclean, it is better not to eat it.

You are missing the poster's point. The point is that the Christians CHERRY PICKED the Torah. You just proved it too. There is nothing you can do to a pig, aside from genetic mutation, to make it 'clean'. Any Christian who eats pork is a cherry picker. Do you eat pork?