Should Christians eat pork? Drink alcohol? Celebrate Christmas?

[Lamb]

John 2:10 “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

You try to deny it but it's right there that wine...not a watered down type of wine that you insist is happening...real wine was turned from water by Jesus so that guests could drink. This is fermented wine and context, which is right there in that verse, shows you that it is. Your lengthy posts have not been successful in proving that that Jesus turned water into wine and that guests at the wedding received it to drink. This is not unfermented wine because of the context of the verse.

 

[JRT]

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively by a great many Christians. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.​

The first thing to be pointed out is that the Pharisees were not priests. The priesthood was entirely of the Tribe of Levi and their duties centred completely around the Temple. Their duties included conducting the rituals around Temple worship --- offering sacrifices, collecting offerings, ritual circumcisions and the like. They made up the religious/political faction known as the Saduccees. They were not teachers.



At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.



Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The High Priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the Roman Procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.



The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church’ and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as although it is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.



In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone. The Romans did not remove this right from the Sanhedrin until AD 39, some years after the crucifixion.



Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a grandson of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.



About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.



This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.

 

[Albion]

Your basic point is correct. However, Christ's criticism of the Pharisees didn't concern all of that. Rather, it was how the Pharisees saw themselves and behaved before the Jewish people that earned them His scorn, in part because theirs was a failing that any of us can drift into if we aren't careful.

 

[Matthew ten Verseight]

John 2:10 “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

...

That 'translation' doesn't actually translate the koine Greek of John 2:10. It is more like a personal paraphrase of someone with an agenda or bias to prop up.

Joh 2:10 και λεγει αυτω πας ανθρωπος πρωτον τον καλον οινον τιθησιν και οταν μεθυσθωσιν τοτε τον ελασσω συ τετηρηκας τον καλον οινον εως αρτι​

Never the less. Moving past getting into such details, please allow me to ask you the following:

Do you believe that the bible (KJB) teaches that there are two kinds of "wine", a (1) pure juice of the grape ("wine"), and (2) and alcoholic content ("wine")? If so, can you provide 2-3 texts for each case (with at least one example for each from both the OT and the NT). If not, what do you make of the following text (or do you agree that this text speaks of the pure juice of the grape as "wine")?

​

Isaiah 65:8 Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.​

 

[Matthew ten Verseight]

Christians have been reading Sirach long before the RCC. ...

Yes, and many have also read Homer, Aristotle, Plato and a bunch of other foolishness (1 Corinthians 3:19), and yet none of it is scripture, and they too contradict the word of God, and err in themselves. Do you know who tutored them? It was satan. He was their 'muse', their 'inspiration'. I could also show you the many errors in the other apocrypha, and the contradictory statements that go counter to not merely scripture, but even themselves. I could even show the hypocrisy of accepting some apocrypha, and rejecting others, like some accept 1-2 Maccabees, but reject 3-4 Maccabees. Some accept the complete mess that is Sinaiticus (codex 'aleph', 'א‎'), but reject 'Shepherd' and 'Barnabas' which is attached to it.

I have also read plenty of Josephus, but I do not accept him as Canon, and neither do I take everything he says as pure fact, and check everything that he says, since he had his own bias.

When I was a Catholic (Roman) of 30 years, I have fully read all of the so called 'deutero-canon', and many other such works, and later I also read so called 1st Enoch, so called Jasher, some of the dead sea scrolls (War scroll, etc), and plenty of historical materials. It is not like I have not read them. I even still use 1-2 Maccabees against the Jesuits' Preterism (Antiochus Epiphanes IV) to this day, showing from their own sources, that such does not fit the prophecies of Daniel at all. I could do the same having read much of the so called 'ecf' (easily confused fellows) and show that though they use some scripture, they themselves are not scripture, and contradict themselves. Even pointing to examples of 'ecf' citing apocrypha is not reason to accept their reasoning, for Isaiah 8:20 is clear. The same goes for Philo of Alexandria, and whomever else, etc.

I am sure you could point to Jews who have read the apocrypha. I could even point to NT examples of some jews who really loved the name 'judas', being a hero of the Maccabean revolt, and were zealots themselves. Did it make them right? No. Do I accept the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud's because they were read and kept after the dispersion? Do I accept all the parts where it mocks Jesus Christ and blasphemes Him?

 

[Matthew ten Verseight]

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel.

That is nonsense. Jesus was not a Pharisee. The very clothing of Jesus refutes that idea. The very diet of Jesus refutes that idea. The very mannerism of Jesus refutes that idea. The fact that the Pharisees continually harrassed him, along with the Sadducees, shows he was neither (and neither an Essene or Zealot). Jesus was taught of His Father in Heaven.

Joh_7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?​

Jesus was never "of Bet Hillel". All that is a bunch of post-modern nonsense; an attempt to make Jesus more acceptable to modern day 'jews' (Ashkenazic and Sephardic).

 

[Andrew]

Yes, and many have also read Homer, Aristotle, Plato and a bunch of other foolishness (1 Corinthians 3:19), and yet none of it is scripture, and they too contradict the word of God, and err in themselves. Do you know who tutored them? It was satan. He was their 'muse', their 'inspiration'. I could also show you the many errors in the other apocrypha, and the contradictory statements that go counter to not merely scripture, but even themselves. I could even show the hypocrisy of accepting some apocrypha, and rejecting others, like some accept 1-2 Maccabees, but reject 3-4 Maccabees. Some accept the complete mess that is Sinaiticus (codex 'aleph', 'א‎'), but reject 'Shepherd' and 'Barnabas' which is attached to it.

I have also read plenty of Josephus, but I do not accept him as Canon, and neither do I take everything he says as pure fact, and check everything that he says, since he had his own bias.

When I was a Catholic (Roman) of 30 years, I have fully read all of the so called 'deutero-canon', and many other such works, and later I also read so called 1st Enoch, so called Jasher, some of the dead sea scrolls (War scroll, etc), and plenty of historical materials. It is not like I have not read them. I even still use 1-2 Maccabees against the Jesuits' Preterism (Antiochus Epiphanes IV) to this day, showing from their own sources, that such does not fit the prophecies of Daniel at all. I could do the same having read much of the so called 'ecf' (easily confused fellows) and show that though they use some scripture, they themselves are not scripture, and contradict themselves. Even pointing to examples of 'ecf' citing apocrypha is not reason to accept their reasoning, for Isaiah 8:20 is clear. The same goes for Philo of Alexandria, and whomever else, etc.

I am sure you could point to Jews who have read the apocrypha. I could even point to NT examples of some jews who really loved the name 'judas', being a hero of the Maccabean revolt, and were zealots themselves. Did it make them right? No. Do I accept the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud's because they were read and kept after the dispersion? Do I accept all the parts where it mocks Jesus Christ and blasphemes Him?

Do you mind joining us in this thread for further discussion?

In what ways does the Apocrypha point to Jesus as Savior?

In what ways does the Apocrypha point to Jesus as Savior?

christianityhaven.com

 

[Matthew ten Verseight]

Do you mind joining us in this thread for further discussion?

In what ways does the Apocrypha point to Jesus as Savior?

In what ways does the Apocrypha point to Jesus as Savior?

christianityhaven.com

I cannot. It's in the 'Christians superfan and exclusivity club section' who accept Nicene Creedalism (which has its own errors) and the heretical 'trinity' definition. I adhere to neither, as neither are scriptural. Lift such silly restrictions and this forum will be much better, and free for expression and discussion and actual evidential back and forth.

I would also have some things to share on the non-existent and so called lxx. I might make another thread for that sometime.

 

[Lamb]

I cannot. It's in the 'Christians superfan and exclusivity club section' who accept Nicene Creedalism (which has its own errors) and the heretical 'trinity' definition. I adhere to neither, as neither are scriptural. Lift such silly restrictions and this forum will be much better, and free for expression and discussion and actual evidential back and forth.

I would also have some things to share on the non-existent and so called lxx. I might make another thread for that sometime.

Our restrictions, that you disrespect, will not be lifted for those who do not adhere to them.

 

[Matthew ten Verseight]

Our restrictions, that you disrespect, will not be lifted for those who do not adhere to them.

Then why was I asked to join a conversation I could not be a part of?

Also, "disrespect" has nothing to do with it. I said those beliefs were error, heretical (based upon the Bible, not my own personal preference). To have them as requirements is silly, since it shows how very little of scripture and early Christianity one knows, as neither required any such thing for fellowship and discussion.

Why not challenge me on it in a place I can discuss those two things? Your forum really needs a formal challenge or debate area.