• Reminder: Do not call, text, or mention harrassing someone in real life. Do not encourage it. Do not talk about killing or using violence against anyone, or engaging in any criminal behavior. If it is not an obvious joke even when taken out of context, don't post it. Please report violators.

    DMCA, complaints, and other inquiries:

    [email protected]

Lying fat hunk of shit nigger who knows nothing about Christianity or Judaism doesn't know what the Talmud is

Riccardo Bosi

has janny powers
Forum Clout
70,189

D8ECL.png


Couple of things here.

1. Maybe, by some technicality, you can say that the Judeans or Ancient Jews/Hebrews followed the 'Talmud' as an oral law as far back as 300 BC. Maybe. So they say, right? However, the Talmud was compiled and made official for Jews between the 2nd and 7th Century AD; transferred from an oral law into print by rabbis. It is not understood that anybody before Christ's time followed any 'Talmud' except perhaps through happenstance; through Christ's sacrifice, certain laws from the Torah/Old Testament no longer had to apply, NOT from any 'Talmud'.

2. Jesus dying on the cross did not throw out any rules for what constituted sin! He forgives them, yes. But he still condemns certain acts as being sinful. He upheld the Ten Commandments, and upheld the Old Testament's laws in general. He made Himself the sacrifice to pay for all of it, but he didn't change any rules.

3. Pat's a fat, uneducated buffoon, so of course he is wrong about this, and is even more wrong for saying that he's right.

And just for the record, what is now known as 'Judaism' is modern Judaism which is a newer religion than Christianity. Newer than Islam, even. The Talmud works like this for Jews:

Study the Torah -> is a part of it inconvenient? -> yes -> forget it, G-d owes us one anyway, we're the Chosen People lmao
 

AntSucks

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
Forum Clout
20,769
After Jesus' death Christianity continued as a branch of Judaism. St Peter was a practicing Jew. There were Jewish-Christian gospels which were later left out of the Christian bible. None of the people in the Bible were fat. Your dietary requirements are: stop eating so much.
 

RoTheHo69

I was sad at him.
Forum Clout
33,522
Listen, as a homo, I wish his stupid, Midwestern rube understanding of Christianity was correct. Let’s just say that parts of Leviticus are kind of a bummer. However, just because I want something, it doesn’t make it a fact. Only a fat child like Pat would think that.

He's just wrong about everything he said theologically. There are a lot of different ethnicities and traditions. From "my son david", to groups in Ethiopia, Yemen, Caucus mountains that don't follow the talmudic tradition or have anything to do with it at all, are patrilineal, and still follow dietary and other restrictions in a different fashion because these things were outlined in the old testament itself.

He's a stupid fuck. Nobody gives a shit anyway but if your going to open your fat fish-creased mouth about something don't be so wrong.
 

RoTheHo69

I was sad at him.
Forum Clout
33,522
I am constantly amazed at the wealth of talent and knowledge we have on here.


I though it got rid of, or at least mitigated a few. Like saying Grace over food "cleansed" it so you could eat non-kosher.

"Kosher" (as it's most commonly known to everyone) means according to rabbinical law which only applies to the "my son david" group. As one example that I know of at least, you have Karaites from the Caucus Mountains that disagree and follow their own interpretation of that law which is not from the talmud but strictly from the old testament. Think of it as similar to a split between the Romans and the Eastern Church. They can't eat with each other because of that disagreement.

So considering that there are evidently different interpretations of old testament dietary laws to begin with that's a tough one to answer.
My main point is that fatrick is wrong and fat.


I always suspected you were a theologian

Just very autistic.
 
Last edited:

Mikekeke

Trouble In Tomlinson Town
Forum Clout
6,829
Jesus dying on the cross didn't change the dietary laws, that came in here:

Acts 10

9 The next day, as they were on their journey and coming near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

Confidently incompetent. I've been reading the Bible cover to cover, and I'm halfway through The Book of Judges. Oh boy was the last half Exodus and all of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy really boring. I would certainly not speak so confidently about my knowledge of it, yet, Pat's an atheist and hasn't read it but he has the confidence of a prince.
 

Riccardo Bosi

has janny powers
Forum Clout
70,189
I though it got rid of, or at least mitigated a few. Like saying Grace over food "cleansed" it so you could eat non-kosher.
This isn't a "sin" so much as it is a law that came out of practical reasoning. An orthodox Jew or a rabbi will tell you that the law came to be because whenever they ate things like shellfish and pork they would get sick, because the food would travel in the heat and spoil. They follow rules like these not because it's a sin per se, but because it's tradition and their thing is to experience life and to suffer like their ancestors. As @RoTheHo69 mentioned, only the rabbinical law observes these rules, not necessarily the Biblical law.

Put it this way: John 8:1-11 is not "adultery is no longer a sin", it's "commit adultery no more".
 
Top