dmatic,
You wrote:
"I can prove from the scriptures that the Law as revealed through Moses still is used to define "sin". If this is the case, then, its work is still relevant for those of us seeking His righteousness."
In the New Testament, as in the Old, sin is defined by God's moral standards. I'm sure you can prove this, since it is stated everywhere. God's moral standards (e.g. forbidding murder, adultery, and such) were found in the Ten Commandments, but they were also expressed prior to the giving of that covenant (e.g., Gen.9:5-6; 20:9), and can be found in the code of Jesus (and the apostles), which supersedes that covenant (Matt.5:21-28).
What cannot be proved from the New Testament is that the ritual laws that are a part of the Old Covenant have any relevance to the duties of Christian under the New Covenant.
As for your honesty, I am not looking for your protestations of integrity. I would be more impressed by a display. You don't have to be trained in exegesis, nor in debate (I am not trained in either). All that good exegesis involves is common sense approach to language, without any hidden agendas. This is a matter of ordinary intelligence and humility before the Word of God.
Here is a test of your honesty. Can you give a rational reason for your taking Colossians 2:16-17 and Matthew 5:17-20 and Galatians 4:10 in the manner you have suggested, without making Jesus or Paul contradict themselves or each other?
Can you give a reason for believing that the heresy of the Galatians had something to do with their adopting traditions of men, despite the fact that every description of their heresy by Paul depicts them as adopting Jewish ceremonial laws?
You have made assertions. Your assertions have been challenged with responsible (not agenda-driven) exegesis, and you simply reassert the points as if you have not heard the rebuttal. Is this your idea of conducting honest biblical studies? Seekers of truth actually let the Bible correct them. They don't try to force the biblical texts into their own mold. In this entire thread, you have plainly done the latter. You give no evidence of a desire to do the former.
Again, instead of protesting that you have honest intentions, I invite you to demonstrate this in your actions.
Sabbath Observance: 3 Views
Your characterization of my previous post as a "protestation of my honesty" is interesting.
But, before I try to answer your questions, will you answer what your definition of "Judaizing" is. You have bascially called me a "Judaizing heretic", which, in my view is a very serious accusation, as your assertion that I am less than honest (another way of calling me a liar)....
So, I would like to take this one first, if you don't mind. What, to you is a Judaizer?
I love God, and I want others to love Him too. I believe that we should be encouraged to obey His commandments. This is what I try to do with most I meet, whether they are children in a grocery store, or on a web-site discussion forum. You and I may disagree with what God's commandments entail, but we should not disagree that obedience to them is love for God!
I'm really hoping we can get through this so as to get back on topic without the name-calling...I KNOW! I did it too!
peace, dmatic
But, before I try to answer your questions, will you answer what your definition of "Judaizing" is. You have bascially called me a "Judaizing heretic", which, in my view is a very serious accusation, as your assertion that I am less than honest (another way of calling me a liar)....
So, I would like to take this one first, if you don't mind. What, to you is a Judaizer?
I love God, and I want others to love Him too. I believe that we should be encouraged to obey His commandments. This is what I try to do with most I meet, whether they are children in a grocery store, or on a web-site discussion forum. You and I may disagree with what God's commandments entail, but we should not disagree that obedience to them is love for God!
I'm really hoping we can get through this so as to get back on topic without the name-calling...I KNOW! I did it too!
peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
BTW, I want to thank JC for the comments. We don't know each other, but I want to express my gratitude because it takes real guts to stand up for someone that most think is a low-down dog!
Peace, dmatic
Peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
dmatic,
Judaizing is placing Christians under the distinctives of the Jewish religion (which is no better or worse than placing Christians under any other kind of religious obligations beyond the command of Jesus to "love one another"). I am sure that the first-century Judaizers would have said, like yourself, that they loved God—and I assume that they were sincere in saying so (as I also suspect that many Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are sincere in their love for God). Jesus said it is even possible for someone, out of their desire to "do God a service" (would they not call this "love for God"?), to actually kill the disciples (John 16:2).
Corrupt religious views distract people from Jesus, and from what matters to Him. They thus dilute His lordship. Pharisees demand that the disciples keep submit to sabbath, but Jesus said He was the Lord of the sabbath (Mark 2:27-28)—disciples need only submit to Him.
Why do I speak of your doctrine as "Judaizing"? Because you say that we are obligated to keep every jot and tittle of the Jewish religious law. I know your response (you have given it frequently) is to cite Matt.5:17-20 in defense of your position, but, in doing so, you have to be inconsistent in your application, since keeping every jot and tittle of the law would require (among other things) the following:
a) mandatory death penalty (or excommunication) for sabbath-breaking and for failing to be circumcised (Rom.2:28-29/Phil.4:4/ Gal.5:2-4);
b) three pilgrimages to Jerusalem annually, taking animals to sacrifice there (Gal.4:10/Col.2:16);
c) the annual ceremony of the Day of Atonement, which must be carried out by the oldest current son of Aaron (Heb.9:11-15; 10:1-4);
d) ritual abstinence from certain meats "which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who know and believe the truth" (1 Tim.4:3/cf. Gen.9:3/Mark 7:18-19/Acts 10:12-15/Rom.14:1-4/Col.2:16).
To modify any one of these practices is to act as if more than a jot or a tittle has passed from the law, which is what you think Jesus was denying.
It may seem innocuous to you to simply say, "We should keep sabbath and eat only clean foods as an expression of our love for God." But Paul did not find this teaching harmless. For one thing, since God has never commanded followers of Christ to observe holy days, places or foods, it can hardly be an expression of love for Him to do things that He never required one to do. To obey is better than to sacrifice. Christianity is about following and obeying Christ. Judaism is about observing shadows which themselves testify that Messiah has not yet come.
On the Mount of Transfiguration, Peter was tempted to retain Moses and Elijah, along with Jesus, as religious authorities. This was ignorance on Peter's part, so he was not severely rebuked (as he had been a week earlier). However, Moses and Elijah faded out of view, and only Jesus remained for the disciples to follow. The voice from heaven said of Jesus, "This is my beloved Son: hear Him!" It is not Moses who instructs us how to live as disciples, it is Jesus. Hear Him.
Just so I do not assume anything inaccurately about your views, please clarify, in your next post, your belief as to which of the following things commanded in the law are mandatory for Christians to observe. If you exclude anything from the following list, please explain upon what basis you do so, in view of Matthew 5:17-20.
1. Animal sacrifices (Lev.1-7/ Num.28-29)
2. Stone your rebellious teenager (Deut.21:18-21)
3. Make pilgrimages to Jerusalem three times annually (Ex.23:14-19)
4. Bring a tenth of your increase to support the Levites (Num.18:21-24/Deut.14:22-29)
5. Circumcise your son on the eighth day (Gen.17:9-14/Lev.12:3)
6. A childless dead man's brother must marry the dead man's widow (Deut.25:5-10)
7. Abstain from foods forbidden in Leviticus 11
8. When going to war, kill every male of the enemy that does not surrender (Deut.20:12-13)
9. Do no labor on sabbath—including making a fire (Num.15:32-36)
10. Wear tassels on the border of your garment (Num.15:37-39)
11. Settle a man's suspicions about his wife with the ordeal of jealousy (Num.5:11ff)
12. Eat a whole lamb (including the head and entrails) for Passover (Ex.12:9-10)
13. Take multiple wives simultaneously, if you wish (Ex.21:10)
To keep things simple, just place a "yes" or a "no" (with a brief explanation) beside each number.
Judaizing is placing Christians under the distinctives of the Jewish religion (which is no better or worse than placing Christians under any other kind of religious obligations beyond the command of Jesus to "love one another"). I am sure that the first-century Judaizers would have said, like yourself, that they loved God—and I assume that they were sincere in saying so (as I also suspect that many Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are sincere in their love for God). Jesus said it is even possible for someone, out of their desire to "do God a service" (would they not call this "love for God"?), to actually kill the disciples (John 16:2).
Corrupt religious views distract people from Jesus, and from what matters to Him. They thus dilute His lordship. Pharisees demand that the disciples keep submit to sabbath, but Jesus said He was the Lord of the sabbath (Mark 2:27-28)—disciples need only submit to Him.
Why do I speak of your doctrine as "Judaizing"? Because you say that we are obligated to keep every jot and tittle of the Jewish religious law. I know your response (you have given it frequently) is to cite Matt.5:17-20 in defense of your position, but, in doing so, you have to be inconsistent in your application, since keeping every jot and tittle of the law would require (among other things) the following:
a) mandatory death penalty (or excommunication) for sabbath-breaking and for failing to be circumcised (Rom.2:28-29/Phil.4:4/ Gal.5:2-4);
b) three pilgrimages to Jerusalem annually, taking animals to sacrifice there (Gal.4:10/Col.2:16);
c) the annual ceremony of the Day of Atonement, which must be carried out by the oldest current son of Aaron (Heb.9:11-15; 10:1-4);
d) ritual abstinence from certain meats "which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who know and believe the truth" (1 Tim.4:3/cf. Gen.9:3/Mark 7:18-19/Acts 10:12-15/Rom.14:1-4/Col.2:16).
To modify any one of these practices is to act as if more than a jot or a tittle has passed from the law, which is what you think Jesus was denying.
It may seem innocuous to you to simply say, "We should keep sabbath and eat only clean foods as an expression of our love for God." But Paul did not find this teaching harmless. For one thing, since God has never commanded followers of Christ to observe holy days, places or foods, it can hardly be an expression of love for Him to do things that He never required one to do. To obey is better than to sacrifice. Christianity is about following and obeying Christ. Judaism is about observing shadows which themselves testify that Messiah has not yet come.
On the Mount of Transfiguration, Peter was tempted to retain Moses and Elijah, along with Jesus, as religious authorities. This was ignorance on Peter's part, so he was not severely rebuked (as he had been a week earlier). However, Moses and Elijah faded out of view, and only Jesus remained for the disciples to follow. The voice from heaven said of Jesus, "This is my beloved Son: hear Him!" It is not Moses who instructs us how to live as disciples, it is Jesus. Hear Him.
Just so I do not assume anything inaccurately about your views, please clarify, in your next post, your belief as to which of the following things commanded in the law are mandatory for Christians to observe. If you exclude anything from the following list, please explain upon what basis you do so, in view of Matthew 5:17-20.
1. Animal sacrifices (Lev.1-7/ Num.28-29)
2. Stone your rebellious teenager (Deut.21:18-21)
3. Make pilgrimages to Jerusalem three times annually (Ex.23:14-19)
4. Bring a tenth of your increase to support the Levites (Num.18:21-24/Deut.14:22-29)
5. Circumcise your son on the eighth day (Gen.17:9-14/Lev.12:3)
6. A childless dead man's brother must marry the dead man's widow (Deut.25:5-10)
7. Abstain from foods forbidden in Leviticus 11
8. When going to war, kill every male of the enemy that does not surrender (Deut.20:12-13)
9. Do no labor on sabbath—including making a fire (Num.15:32-36)
10. Wear tassels on the border of your garment (Num.15:37-39)
11. Settle a man's suspicions about his wife with the ordeal of jealousy (Num.5:11ff)
12. Eat a whole lamb (including the head and entrails) for Passover (Ex.12:9-10)
13. Take multiple wives simultaneously, if you wish (Ex.21:10)
To keep things simple, just place a "yes" or a "no" (with a brief explanation) beside each number.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
I will answer Steve's questions next time, Lord willing. But, this morning, I was thinking about his allegations. This discussion, presumably, was about whether or not Christians are to keep God's sabbath day holy. I believe the Bible teaches that we should keep the Sabbath day of God, holy, whereas, Steve thinks that we should not. He also thinks that Paul supports his position. I say that Steve has misunderstood Paul. Steve says that I have misunderstood him. Peter declares that Paul's writings are hard to understand, and that the unlearned and unstabel wrest, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction. Both Steve and I think it is the other guy who is so doing. Steve suggests we should make the commandments of God of none effect like the Pharisees of old did, which I believe is what both Paul and Jesus taught against...nmaely, the teachings of the Pharisees and the making of the commandments of God of none effect, and instead, teaching the commandments of men.
Apparently, Steve thinks the Sabbath Day that God has esteemed and blessed as holy, is not all that special! He further thinks that we should disregard God's instructions and intead follow his teachings...regarding God's ways. Steve, apparently, thinks that God's comand to keep His day holy is a "ritual". He apparently thinks that dietary instructions are rituals too, though he may have confused this with "victuals" which means "food fit for humans".
Since the term 'ritual' is unbiblical, I must ask Steve to define his use of it, and since God does not so describe His instructions, why Steve thinks he can dismiss them with an unbibilical term. Steve impugns my exegesis as not coming from scripture, though it appears that much of his argument is based on this unbiblical term, ritual. I presume he means any of the Laws "of" Moses that he thinks we should disregard.
Steve also charges me with not responding to other people's scriptural points. I probably should take issue with his last paragraph of his post dated Jan. 14th at 5:01 p.m., where he charges me with not responding to other people's scrtiptural points and then ridicules me suggesting that I have so few scriptures to back up my arguments that I must bulldoze and parrot them often. He also thinks he has, by his high minded opinion, exploded my interpretations with his "responsible exegesis". Then he closes his diatribe with his insolent judgment that I am not an honest seeker of truth! Amazing! And then he tops this off with his declaration in his puffed up wisdom that he is not fooled by my pretense. Apparently, he thinks my purpose is to make him look foolish in front of his admireers. Honestly,
, that is not my intent, though I suppose a case could be made that he it is who is trying to make me look the fool with his many insinuations.
To that first charge of refusing to respond to other people's scriptural points. I wonder who he is writing about. A cursory glance back through this thread will show that I have attemted to answer every person's contributions. So, he could not have meant my recent ignoring of Allyn's posts....since he has not, to my knowledge raised any scriptures, but seems to be following Steve's lead, trying to make me look foolish and "agenda driven", and that the reason he has not entered this discussion is because he could see from the outset that I was a fool, or a prowler of internet sites. I don't know if anyone was wondering why Allyn was not posting in this discussion, but I certainly was not, nor did I need any explanation why he wasn't.
Earlier, apparently upset at my reminder that we, as men, are affected with the disease of thinking every was we think is right, questioned my method of bringing that fact up. Maybe he thought I was making fun of Steve, and that he needed to come to his rescue, by attacking me, as if to gain Steve's admiration, but when I tried to address it, he did not respond. He'd also called my sincerity into question with my hoping for peace amongst us. Oh well.
So, it wasn't Allyn's scriptural points to which Steve is referring with his accusation. Earlier, I tried to address Steve7150's scriptural references, agreeing with them, save for what I consider to be a mischaracterization of Jesus. I do not believe He ever transgressed any of God's commandments, and thus was sinless (including the sabbath command). I believe His custom was to keep it holy, but the Pharisees with their additions of their own opinions into the commandment were offended that He wasn't keeping it like they thought He should, so they thought He was sinning. He was not, however. We can continue to discuss this point if anybody wishes...but to say that I refused to respond to Steve7150 is wrong.
Homer commented once with some scripture references, but not in a contentious way, and I wasn't sure if he expected me to debate him or not, or if he was just making his point. I did respond with an iquiry of him, but he did not answer it, so to say that I refused to answer him is false.
Anyway, there were a couple of other contributors early that I did respond to, including Paidion. He had asked many questions and gave his opinions of some scriptures he brought. It must be to him alone that you refer to as "other people's scriptural points". But, if you'll read back through this, I tried to answer each of his questions, and then asked one of my own, which he has not yet answered. I even asked it again, but with no response. It did appear that he did not want to engage in an interactive discussion with me, but wanted me to shut up and listen to him. I thought the question I asked very relevant, but he thought I was sidestepping his... It is interesting that Steve accuses me of not interacting with people and that he encourages it, and declares that I have refused to interact! Truly Amazing to me.
I have tried to interact with everyone I perceived was interested in interaction. To say otherwise as Steve has done is an outright lie.
I have chosen not to respond to Allyn's ignorant slams at my character. Is that wrong of me? Does Steve think I should defend myself from these false accusations? If so, I apologize, but scripture is a bit ambiguous regarding answering a fool. One scripture counsels answering a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes, while another counsels not to answer a fool according to his folly lest we become like him!
After Paidion refused to interact with me by answering my question, which I consider very relevant, and apparently, so does Steve as he rightly expressed that we should respect the Word of God over our own opinions. I asked Paidion if he agreed with God's commandments, the ones he quoted, or disagreed with them. His non-answer was my answer. As a result, I find it hard to engage him further.
Also, my "computer time" is very limited, as I do not have access at home but must travel at least 30 miles to the nearest library. This fact, btw, also makes Allyn's stupid allegation that I am an an internet prowler lurking about seeking whom I may devour, laughable!
Before I prove, from the scriptures, that the "ritual" laws of God should be kept by New Covenant Christians, I'd like to ask Steve if I do, will he recant his postive declaration to the contrary? And will he then start keeping God's commandments?
Peace, dmatic
Apparently, Steve thinks the Sabbath Day that God has esteemed and blessed as holy, is not all that special! He further thinks that we should disregard God's instructions and intead follow his teachings...regarding God's ways. Steve, apparently, thinks that God's comand to keep His day holy is a "ritual". He apparently thinks that dietary instructions are rituals too, though he may have confused this with "victuals" which means "food fit for humans".
Since the term 'ritual' is unbiblical, I must ask Steve to define his use of it, and since God does not so describe His instructions, why Steve thinks he can dismiss them with an unbibilical term. Steve impugns my exegesis as not coming from scripture, though it appears that much of his argument is based on this unbiblical term, ritual. I presume he means any of the Laws "of" Moses that he thinks we should disregard.
Steve also charges me with not responding to other people's scriptural points. I probably should take issue with his last paragraph of his post dated Jan. 14th at 5:01 p.m., where he charges me with not responding to other people's scrtiptural points and then ridicules me suggesting that I have so few scriptures to back up my arguments that I must bulldoze and parrot them often. He also thinks he has, by his high minded opinion, exploded my interpretations with his "responsible exegesis". Then he closes his diatribe with his insolent judgment that I am not an honest seeker of truth! Amazing! And then he tops this off with his declaration in his puffed up wisdom that he is not fooled by my pretense. Apparently, he thinks my purpose is to make him look foolish in front of his admireers. Honestly,
, that is not my intent, though I suppose a case could be made that he it is who is trying to make me look the fool with his many insinuations.To that first charge of refusing to respond to other people's scriptural points. I wonder who he is writing about. A cursory glance back through this thread will show that I have attemted to answer every person's contributions. So, he could not have meant my recent ignoring of Allyn's posts....since he has not, to my knowledge raised any scriptures, but seems to be following Steve's lead, trying to make me look foolish and "agenda driven", and that the reason he has not entered this discussion is because he could see from the outset that I was a fool, or a prowler of internet sites. I don't know if anyone was wondering why Allyn was not posting in this discussion, but I certainly was not, nor did I need any explanation why he wasn't.
Earlier, apparently upset at my reminder that we, as men, are affected with the disease of thinking every was we think is right, questioned my method of bringing that fact up. Maybe he thought I was making fun of Steve, and that he needed to come to his rescue, by attacking me, as if to gain Steve's admiration, but when I tried to address it, he did not respond. He'd also called my sincerity into question with my hoping for peace amongst us. Oh well.
So, it wasn't Allyn's scriptural points to which Steve is referring with his accusation. Earlier, I tried to address Steve7150's scriptural references, agreeing with them, save for what I consider to be a mischaracterization of Jesus. I do not believe He ever transgressed any of God's commandments, and thus was sinless (including the sabbath command). I believe His custom was to keep it holy, but the Pharisees with their additions of their own opinions into the commandment were offended that He wasn't keeping it like they thought He should, so they thought He was sinning. He was not, however. We can continue to discuss this point if anybody wishes...but to say that I refused to respond to Steve7150 is wrong.
Homer commented once with some scripture references, but not in a contentious way, and I wasn't sure if he expected me to debate him or not, or if he was just making his point. I did respond with an iquiry of him, but he did not answer it, so to say that I refused to answer him is false.
Anyway, there were a couple of other contributors early that I did respond to, including Paidion. He had asked many questions and gave his opinions of some scriptures he brought. It must be to him alone that you refer to as "other people's scriptural points". But, if you'll read back through this, I tried to answer each of his questions, and then asked one of my own, which he has not yet answered. I even asked it again, but with no response. It did appear that he did not want to engage in an interactive discussion with me, but wanted me to shut up and listen to him. I thought the question I asked very relevant, but he thought I was sidestepping his... It is interesting that Steve accuses me of not interacting with people and that he encourages it, and declares that I have refused to interact! Truly Amazing to me.
I have tried to interact with everyone I perceived was interested in interaction. To say otherwise as Steve has done is an outright lie.
I have chosen not to respond to Allyn's ignorant slams at my character. Is that wrong of me? Does Steve think I should defend myself from these false accusations? If so, I apologize, but scripture is a bit ambiguous regarding answering a fool. One scripture counsels answering a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes, while another counsels not to answer a fool according to his folly lest we become like him!
After Paidion refused to interact with me by answering my question, which I consider very relevant, and apparently, so does Steve as he rightly expressed that we should respect the Word of God over our own opinions. I asked Paidion if he agreed with God's commandments, the ones he quoted, or disagreed with them. His non-answer was my answer. As a result, I find it hard to engage him further.
Also, my "computer time" is very limited, as I do not have access at home but must travel at least 30 miles to the nearest library. This fact, btw, also makes Allyn's stupid allegation that I am an an internet prowler lurking about seeking whom I may devour, laughable!
Before I prove, from the scriptures, that the "ritual" laws of God should be kept by New Covenant Christians, I'd like to ask Steve if I do, will he recant his postive declaration to the contrary? And will he then start keeping God's commandments?
Peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
dmatic-
I have been following this, but not participating. You could save yourself (and us) so much time if you would simply answer Steve's questions in his last post with a "yes" or "no."
The reason for this is that we (at least i am) are trying to figure out just how radical you are. If you dont like the word radical, then how about "extreme?"
I am afraid Jesus would not approve of me for stoning my teenagers if they turn rebellious (they havent yet, thank goodness). That's what we are trying to get at-- do you think Jesus would expect me to stone them to death? If so, how do you explain the parable of the Prodigal Son? if i catch a member of my church cutting his grass on the Sabbath, am I to gather up other members to hunt up some rocks?
You cant have your cake and eat it too. I.e, you cant believe that the ritual laws are for today's church if you aren't willing to follow through with the requirements of the rituals.
what am i missing?
TK
I have been following this, but not participating. You could save yourself (and us) so much time if you would simply answer Steve's questions in his last post with a "yes" or "no."
The reason for this is that we (at least i am) are trying to figure out just how radical you are. If you dont like the word radical, then how about "extreme?"
I am afraid Jesus would not approve of me for stoning my teenagers if they turn rebellious (they havent yet, thank goodness). That's what we are trying to get at-- do you think Jesus would expect me to stone them to death? If so, how do you explain the parable of the Prodigal Son? if i catch a member of my church cutting his grass on the Sabbath, am I to gather up other members to hunt up some rocks?
You cant have your cake and eat it too. I.e, you cant believe that the ritual laws are for today's church if you aren't willing to follow through with the requirements of the rituals.
what am i missing?
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
Hi TK,TK wrote:dmatic-
I have been following this, but not participating. You could save yourself (and us) so much time if you would simply answer Steve's questions in his last post with a "yes" or "no."
The reason for this is that we (at least i am) are trying to figure out just how radical you are. If you dont like the word radical, then how about "extreme?"
I am afraid Jesus would not approve of me for stoning my teenagers if they turn rebellious (they havent yet, thank goodness). That's what we are trying to get at-- do you think Jesus would expect me to stone them to death? If so, how do you explain the parable of the Prodigal Son? if i catch a member of my church cutting his grass on the Sabbath, am I to gather up other members to hunt up some rocks?
You cant have your cake and eat it too. I.e, you cant believe that the ritual laws are for today's church if you aren't willing to follow through with the requirements of the rituals.
what am i missing?
TK
Your last post reminded me of something I recently read on another forum that I thought was quite funny. So I thought I would share it here.
Forgive me if this distracts from the ongoing discussion.
Dear friends,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from this group and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them:
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?
I know you people have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
God Bless
Hi Roblaine,
It is easy to miss, because it was posted years ago here, but I actually responded to a guy who sent this very post to me. You can read my answers here: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=27
dmatic,
You wrote:
"Before I prove, from the scriptures, that the "ritual" laws of God should be kept by New Covenant Christians, I'd like to ask Steve if I do, will he recant his postive declaration to the contrary? And will he then start keeping God's commandments?"
Of course, I will gladly recant any position of mine that is proven false. I am beginning to think that you are stalling until we all fall asleep and forget you were ever here. Why do so many of your posts begin with disclaimers like, "I will answer your questions next time, but let me whine here for a while that you people don't just accept what I say..."?
The reason I don't respect your integrity is that you claim to interact when you don't. What you call interacting is presenting absolutely irresponsible claims (like your view of Col.2:16 and of Gal.4:10), and when they are soundly refuted, and you are challenged to defend your position, you just say, "I stand by my views on this!"
I realize that I may be unreasonable in expecting every rational person to know how to present an argument. If you do not know how to exegete scripture, analyze evidence or present an argument for your case, this may not be your fault. However, those are the things that people at this forum expect participants to do—especially if they are presenting outrageous claims.
I will not answer again the points you brought up in your last post, since you can find my answers in the opening posts of this thread.
It is easy to miss, because it was posted years ago here, but I actually responded to a guy who sent this very post to me. You can read my answers here: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=27
dmatic,
You wrote:
"Before I prove, from the scriptures, that the "ritual" laws of God should be kept by New Covenant Christians, I'd like to ask Steve if I do, will he recant his postive declaration to the contrary? And will he then start keeping God's commandments?"
Of course, I will gladly recant any position of mine that is proven false. I am beginning to think that you are stalling until we all fall asleep and forget you were ever here. Why do so many of your posts begin with disclaimers like, "I will answer your questions next time, but let me whine here for a while that you people don't just accept what I say..."?
The reason I don't respect your integrity is that you claim to interact when you don't. What you call interacting is presenting absolutely irresponsible claims (like your view of Col.2:16 and of Gal.4:10), and when they are soundly refuted, and you are challenged to defend your position, you just say, "I stand by my views on this!"
I realize that I may be unreasonable in expecting every rational person to know how to present an argument. If you do not know how to exegete scripture, analyze evidence or present an argument for your case, this may not be your fault. However, those are the things that people at this forum expect participants to do—especially if they are presenting outrageous claims.
I will not answer again the points you brought up in your last post, since you can find my answers in the opening posts of this thread.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve....Did you agree with my "defense" from your false accusation? If so, do you take it back?
You asked:
Sometimes, however, it is better for me to reflect a bit on my "assignment" before answering. Does that not make sense to you?
Besides, I'm trying to work on an answer to your other question in the previous post....
Why do you not answer my questions? But expect me to answer all of yours? If my previous post appeared to you as whining, I don't know what to say....but you criticize me for not responding to accusations, so I do, and then you call me a whiner!
I thought you were done discussing this anyway, that's why I didn't address you personally in the previous post.
Peace, dmatic
You asked:
When I come to a library, I read your response. If I have time to respond to it right then, I do.Why do so many of your posts begin with disclaimers like, "I will answer your questions next time, but let me whine here for a while that you people don't just accept what I say..."?
Sometimes, however, it is better for me to reflect a bit on my "assignment" before answering. Does that not make sense to you?
Besides, I'm trying to work on an answer to your other question in the previous post....
Why do you not answer my questions? But expect me to answer all of yours? If my previous post appeared to you as whining, I don't know what to say....but you criticize me for not responding to accusations, so I do, and then you call me a whiner!
I thought you were done discussing this anyway, that's why I didn't address you personally in the previous post.
Peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: