₦airaland Forum

Deicide:
Doctoralien why don't you Quote the Verse out instead of citing them out?

So that you can read it for yourself. You can access parallel verses of the Bible online on Biblehub.com or Biblegateway.com.

You can find out more about the foods GOD wants us to eat here.

Here we plainly see that God had used the vision of the sheet to teach the prejudiced Peter that he should no longer shun the Gentiles. The vision had nothing to do with eating and drinking. It was addressing Peter's attitude toward people, not toward food.

What a dramatic lesson for that early church! And it's a lesson that all of us should learn, also. Let those be corrected who try to apply this vision to any cleansing of unclean animals. It actually proves the opposite, and then presses home one of the greatest lessons for Christians everywhere–count every individual of equal worth before God, and make every effort to win that one to Christ.

Cc: PastorAIO

While he was trying to figure it out, the three servants sent by Cornelius knocked on Peter's door. He listened to their account of Cornelius' vision, then lodged the men. The next day Peter returned with them to Caesarea, where Cornelius had his family and friends gathered to welcome the apostle.

The crux of the entire narrative is found in verse 28, where the previously blinded fisherman-disciple tells how the vision had been explained to him. He addressed the Gentile assembly with these words: "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Acts 10:28, emphasis added.

Cc: PastorAIO

At this point, we should make some crucial observations. Peter's response to the invitation to eat establishes a very important point. He said, "Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." Acts 10:14. This proves that during his entire three and one-half years with Jesus, Peter had never seen or heard anything that made him accepting of unclean meats. In other words, Jesus had not changed the prohibition against eating the forbidden animals, because if He had, Peter would have known about it and would not have responded as
he did.

In fact, the context of Acts chapter 10 reveals that Peter at first did not understand the meaning of the perplexing vision. Verse 17 says that "Peter doubted in himself" what it meant. And again, verse 19 says that "Peter thought on the vision."

Cc: PastorAIO

On Peter's trance:

As a Jewish convert, Peter held the opinion that all Gentiles were unclean, and therefore unworthy of salvation. He would not preach to them or have any type of social interaction with them.

Peter received the vision just before messengers arrived at his Joppa home from Cornelius, a Gentile centurion. God had instructed Cornelius to send for Peter, and his servants were practically at Peter's door when the faithful apostle fell into a trance on the rooftop.

In that vision, Peter saw a great sheet descending from heaven, filled to overflowing with all kinds of beasts, birds, and creepy-crawly animals. Three times Peter was invited to eat the disgusting collection of creatures, and three times he refused. Each time a voice declared, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." Acts 10:15. Finally, the sheet was lifted back into heaven with its cargo of wriggling varmints.

Cc: PastorAIO

PastorAIO:
No they are not.

You can believe whatever you want.

PastorAIO:
Nothing you have said contradicts my point that Ideas evolved in christianity.

Jesus is called the Son of GOD in Mark 5:7, Luke 8:28 and Matt. 8:29.

Jesus forgave sins in Matt. 9:5 and Luke 7:48. Forgiving sin is a prerogative of GOD.

PastorAIO:
I haven't seen anything to back up what you're saying in the link. Please copy and paste the relevant paragraphs.

Scroll down to the part of the page that says "Early Writings".

PastorAIO,

Moreover, the meat in question in Romans 14 was not "unclean meat" in the biblical sense. The question was only about the food esteemed unclean by the Gentile Christians because it has been offered to idols. Actually, the heathen did not offer swine, or other unclean animals in their sacrifices, as Acts 14:13 establishes.

Moreover, Paul states emphatically that he never broke any commandment, nor the precepts of his fathers in Acts 25:8. Therefore, he could not have taught people to eat forbidden meat.

You can visit this source for more information on foods that a Christian should eat.

...and their conscience being weak is defiled. ... But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." 1 Cor. 8:4-9, emphasis added. Here we locate the weak brother of Romans 14:1-3. He was the Gentile Christian who felt that it was sinful to eat the meat which had been offered to idols. Paul agreed with the Jewish converts that there was nothing wrong with the food, since there is only one God after all. But he advised that the food not be eaten in front of the Gentile believers lest it be a stumbling block to them. Compare this language with Paul's counsel in Romans 14:13: "Judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

"Judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Rom. 14:13

"Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died also." v.15

So, Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8 are referring to the same problem.

Cc: PastorAIO

PastorAIO,

The first few verses of Romans 14: "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" Rom. 14:1-4.

By comparing other Scriptures, we can locate the weak brother, and also locate the problem which created the "judging" situation. Paul had to deal with it at considerable length in 1 Cor. 10 and 1 Cor. 8. Notice his description: "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. ... Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol...

PastorAIO,

There were two main groups in the early church: those converted from Judaism and those won from heathenism. These two groups did not get along very well: they were always judging each other(note also that there is a constant theme of judgment running through the whole of Romans 14). The Gentile converts judged the Jewish converts for eating foods sacrificed to idols, having a good knowledge of idolatry and food sacrifices to idols and the fact that GOD condemns idolatry. The Jewish convert, on the other hand, felt no such compunctions because he had always acknowledged the true GOD, and so felt no guilt eating meat sacrificed to idols. Such meat were sold at the marketplace cheaper, and the Jewish Christians considered it a desirable bargain.

PastorAIO,

In summary, the most recent discoveries indicate that all the books of the NT were written within 50 years after the event they report, which would have been within the lifetimes of the eyewitness, as the Bible internally claims.

Please click on [url=theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/42659#]the source[/url] to find out more about the first century eyewitness manuscripts.

PastorAIO:
John's Gospel was written around 100AD. Christianity had evolved plenty by then. The synoptics were written about 30 years earlier and they make no mention of a divine Jesus.

It was once thought that the gospel of John was no older than 150 years after Jesus' death. However, a papyrus discovered in Egypt, acquired by John Ryland Library in England and dated about 135 A.D. or earlier contained portions of John 18. This means that the book thought to be the latest of the NT can now be dated to at least 50 years of John's estimated lifetime, if not sooner.

William F. Albright, one of the World's foremost archaeologists: "We can already say emphatically that is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the NT after about A.D. 80" Albright, William F., Recent Discoveries in Biblical Lands, New York, New York: Funk and Wagnalis, 1955, p.136.

randomperson:
I guess the bible is now hear say... In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Lazarus's finger was mentioned... Can u have a finger without having a body. The bible also says the SOUL that sins shall die... Unless u are one of those Christians who hold your opinions higher than the words of the bible

I've told you before that you're very ignorant. I'm very sure you don't know what a parable is.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not about the fate of the dead: it is about the relationship between the Jews and the Gentiles.

If you had any commonsense, you would know that at death there is no communication, neither do righteous people go to Abraham's bosom.

Please go and read.

PastorAIO:
Meeenh! Was Divine Jesus in Christianity in the first place?

The apostles knew that Jesus was a GOD. His divinity was never a point of argument. See Jn. 20:28

Was eating pork in Christianity in the first place?

Eating pork is still not permitted for a Christian. It is unclean, and GOD forbids it.

Was ignoring circumcision in christianity in the first place?

Circumcision after the flesh is not a prerequisite for making Heaven, "for he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh" Rom. 2:28

Does Christianity not evolve and add on ideas and drop ideas over time?

Nope. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Heb. 13:8

randomperson:
Oh.... Really?? We don't shed our physical bodies?? We carry our flesh to hell or heaven?? U think because u still believe fairy tales, u are more knowledgeable about the fairy tale... U better think again

It's a waste of time engaging in any argument about the Bible with you.

Only informed people should argue, not uninformed, hearsay peddlers.

hopefulLandlord:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."

Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."


to use your example

DoctorAilen: No Christian becomes an atheist

Hopefullandlord: but I was a Christian before and presently an atheist

DoctorAilen: No True Christian becomes an atheist so you weren't a Christian to begin with

I know what No True Scotsman fallacy is.

I was simply tryna point out the fact that most of what you hear these "ex-christians" put forth as what puts them off in Christianity are not even in Christianity in the first place.

HCpaul:
To be honest, I was a good Christian before I was emitted outa Christianity and embraced atheism.

let's see:

I loved God so much to the extent that I even liked been a pastor or even a prophet.

Being likened to a pastor does not mean you love GOD. Read Jn. 14:15

I loved heaven so much and was just ready for anything God said according to his word.

This is a lie because right now you're not doing GOD's word so you were not ready.

I sees Gods word (the Bible) as the book of books as I was told that every other books informed but only the bible transformed.

Of course, that's what the Bible is. I'm a testimony. It's a pity you were only told that

I love the personality of Jesus and still love some even now.

Again, read Jn. 14:15 to know what it means to love Jesus. Stop lying.

So just take it easy bro as I was once enslaved like you

Yes, I'm a slave of Christ. His yoke is easier to bear.

hopefulLandlord:
this is No True Scotsman Fallacy

Shouldn't a Scotsman show it that he is really a Scotsman? And what becomes of the man who claims to be a Scotsman but has no quality of a Scotsman?

HCpaul:
The kingdom of God is at hand What!

But when I was a Christian, I was told that it was in my mouth 'probably my leg too'

Its high time to rule your life from within and stop letting an ancient primitive book keep ruling your life.

Are you sure you're not lying? Were you ever a Christian? What do you think Christianity is?

randomperson:
Of course I am... When I die, I get a mansion, a crown and I get to sing for ever, other people that are not like me will be burnt forever whilst being tortured by the devil and other demons.... So yes, am proud

This level of ignorance can't be real.

randomperson:
The idea of hell is so silly, I wonder how I managed to believe it in the first place. The bible says we will get rid of our physical bodies and yet our spirits will be roasted by fire. Do spirits feel pain??
Again, how are mad people judged?? They don't have the consciousness or lucidity to make the decision to "give their lives to Christ". So are they just thrown into fire all the same?

The bolded: are you lying or are you exhibiting your normal ignorance?

Most All of these folks claiming they were Christians before they became atheists are simply lying. When you behold the magnitude of ignorance oozing from their arguments, you begin to wonder whether they ever opened a copy of the Bible. Most of them argue based on what they heard other people say about the Bible. Nobody who tastes the goodness of Christ ever turns back from Him.

4everGod:
My brother his dishonesty makes skyscrappers look like bungalows. Everybody can see that he was bobbing and weaving so much in this argument he was making deliberate dishonest and ignorant comments everwhere. Records do not lie and those records show that he lied...

It's very disgusting, to say the least.

I believe everybody can see who's dishonest here.

dalaman:
Don't be dishonest. You asked me if you can build a house and leave it

This is what I asked:

DoctorAlien:
So I can no longer bring out my own money and command that a house be built, for which I have no purpose?

Continue lying.

Cc: 4everGod.

Very coherent and consistent:

dalaman:
To build a house you need purpose. Without it you can't build the house in the first place so how have you defeated my argument?

dalaman:
Can you build a house without a purpose?

dalaman:
You can. But it will be an anomaly. Most people will look at you as a foolish person as a result because normally people build houses for the purpose of sheltering them and their things.

Cc: 4everGod

dalaman:
After building a house you can leave it and it won't serve any purpose. But you need purpose to construct the house.

You're certified confused.

Or dishonest.

You can now go.

dalaman:
You can. But it will be an anomaly. Most people will look at you as a foolish person as a result because normally people build houses for the purpose of sheltering them and their things.

dalaman:
To build a house you need purpose. Without it you can't build the house in the first place so how have you defeated my argument?

Why are you speaking from both sides of your mouth?

Are you now confused?

dalaman:
It is not. When building a house you must have a purpose. That is to build something that will can stand, something that will not fall on you as you are buidling it, something that can accomodate, humans or their things. Something that has space, rooms, etc. You need purpose and sense of direction to build a house.

You can not jut start putting block ontop of block.with no purpose and a sense of direction. When you do that you can create a wall or something and not a house.

You agreed that I can build a house with which I intend to do nothing. I can finish building the house today, and tomorrow forget that I even built such a house.

Your purpose argument is defeated.

dalaman:
You can do that [s]but it will be an anomaly. Basically when you talk of a house , you are talking about a something constructed by humans to serve as shelter for them and their things. House have universal objective purposes.

What is the objective purpose of humans on earth?[/s]

Good, so your argument that houses must be built with purpose is defeated. You have agreed that a house can be constructed with no purpose for it.

What again were you saying?

4everGod:
Chai now you are shifting to asteroids? So much dishonesty in one person

They survive on goalpost-shifting.