Bacon eaters! Do you see?

[BobRyan]

Is 66

15 For behold, the LORD will come in fire And His chariots like the whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames of fire.

16 For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh, And those slain by the LORD will be many.
17 ""Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens, Following one in the center, Who eat swine's flesh, detestable things and mice, will come to an end altogether,'' declares the LORD.
18 ""For I know their works and their thoughts; the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and see My glory.


- this could not be any simpler.

Exegesis demands that we "notice" that Isaiah is writing to those who "have scripture" and that both Isaiah and his readers would be "aware" that the 1st commandment forbids idolatry AND that Lev 11 forbids eating rats and mice etc.

Thus it would be impossible to argue the myopic solution you suggest that is of the form "they would only notice the 2nd commandment as the Word of God being violated in the Isaiah 66 description".

You are free to imagine that neither Isaiah nor his readers would notice that eating rats is condemned by God's Word in Lev 11 -- but exegesis would not support you in that fiction.

Thus exegesis demands that we see same TWO violations going on in the Is 66:17 scenario that both Isaiah and his first-order primary intended audience would have "noticed".

They would see BOTH problems - the one of violating the 1st commandment AND the one of violating the entire chapter of Lev 11.


I am appealing to details while you insist that we ignore a few key details.

Here you go again giving us a lesson on exegesis

I am consistent that way.

Turns out - exegesis "is a good thing".

It begins with noting the context - and in this case the fact that both Isaiah and his readers would have known about Lev 11 being "the Word of God" that is in fact to be honored and obeyed rather than ignored.

Conjecture is not exegesis. The sooner you learn this the sooner you will understand Is 66, or any other scripture for that matter.

If you have some fiction about Isaiah and his readers NOT knowing about Lev 11 at the writing of Isaiah 66, or that they would not at that time consider violation of God's Word in Lev 11 to be sin - please by all means "share with the class".

We are all here to listen.

You may begin.

Here it is again Bob.....

"Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens, Following one in the center, Who eat swine's flesh, detestable things and mice, will come to an end altogether,'' declares the LORD".

(Hint; It is all one sentence with commas).

Let's reword it to fit your SDA doctrine....

"Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens. [Also those] who are Following one in the center. [Also those] Who eat swine's flesh. [Also those] who eat detestable things and mice. [All of these violators of these differing offenses] will come to an end altogether,'' declares the LORD".

There you go Bob. Just add your conjecture and presto! Like majic the text does say what you claim it says. How about that!

Easily debunked simply by "noticing" that Lev 11 does NOT say "it is only wrong to eat mice IF you are also in a garden or worshipping false gods -- otherwise it is ok to eat mice".

in fact Peter continued to "get that point" as late as Acts 10 -- where "apart from any garden" and "apart from following in the center to worship a false god" Peter said "NO I have never eaten anything unclean".

next. :sleep:

in Christ, :godisgood:

Bob

 

[DHK]

it is true that inventing those wild solutions of the form "I don't have to pay attention to HONOR our father and mother if my pope fails on the commandmente about coveting" -

Nobody on this thread or even in this entire forum has said this but you. These are your words. Why are you attributing them to Baptists and others? Why do you relish in slandering others?

Wrong.

In Matt 22 we see Lev 19:18 quoted.

In James 2 we see Lev 19:18 quoted.

In Romans 13 we see Lev 19:18 quoted.

There is no Levitical law quoted in this verse. Just because a verse from Leviticus is quoted that does not mean it is Levitical law. Deu.22:16 and Lev. 11 fall under the category of Levitical law. However:

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
--This is not Levitical Law. This is one of the Two Great Commandments on which all the law rests. It is moral law; not Levitical law. Learn your Bible and learn how to rightly divide the truth.

In Acts 15 we see an appeal to Lev 17 prohibition against eating animals that were strangled.

The fiction about "no more book of leviticus" simply does not pass the "sola scriptura" test of doctrine.

A moot point--it has nothing to do either with: Lev.11; Deu.22:16; or the Levitical Law as a whole. Save if for another discussion.

Is this your way of claiming that you freely choose to ignore Lev 19:18 telling us to "Love our Neighbor"

Here you go again confusing God's moral law with the Levitical law given to Israel and Israel alone. Hint: Why is it called "Levitical" law, and found in the book of "Leviticus."

Is this you way of telling us that Catholics are now free to use images in worship in violation of the 2nd commandment?

Is this where start taking up the idea of "taking the Lord's name in vain" as no longer being something you pay attention to - because to do so is to "obey one law" and far be it from you to "obey one law"??

Is this where you explain how Paul is wrong in 1Cor 7:19 "but what MATTERS is KEEPING the Commandments of God"?

Is this where you tell us that Paul is wrong in Rom 3:31 to say "Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our Faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of God"?

Is this where you explain that you do NOT have the New Covenant promise of Heb 8 with the "LAW written on the heart"??

Is this where you tell us that the Rev 12 and 14 statements about the Saints "KEEPING the COMMANDENTS of GOD" and "having the FAITH of Jesus" is another odd "doctrine of demons" from 1Tim 4??

Or is this where you see the argument I have been making and admit that you have an incredibly obvious flaw in your position?

There you go again: confusing God's moral law with the ceremonial laws of Israel throughout this quote. When will you learn to separate them? When will you learn to rightly divide the word of truth and stop deceiving others?

That is true. Which is why I keep pointing out that the laws that are binding are the same laws that were binding on gentiles in the OT who lived in their own nations. There never was an OT law that gentiles had to be circumcised or "look" like Jews.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
--James 2:10 is always right.
When you break one law you are just as guilty as breaking them all.
But you don't differentiate between the ceremonial, civil, and moral laws of the OT, but try to apply them all today. And when one points out the inconsistency of your position you remain silent as you have these many pages.

But the moral and health laws applied "to all" as we see even in the case of Noah in Gen 7 - long before any Jews came along, regarding clean and unclean animals.

Health laws are not moral laws. Health laws were for the Jews and Jews alone. They were not carried over to the NT no more than were the laws concerning apparel for the common Jew or the apparel for the priests. We are not under the law.

Hint - civil laws in Israel can not be applied to gentiles living in gentile nations. One is a theocracy the other is not. Deut 22:16 can't be used as your example.

You are restricted to moral and health laws for "defining sin".

1John 3:4 defines sin as a transgression of the law. It doesn't define which law. If you believe that health law applies to you and you break that law then it is sin.
If Deu. 22:16 cannot be used as an example then either can Lev.11, for both are Levitical laws. One law does not trump another law. One is no less important than another. Both are reserved for the Jews alone.

Making stuff up does not help your case.

I don't make up stuff. You are a hypocrite concerning the Levitical law. You choose what you want to keep and what you want to avoid, and that is hypocritical.

 

[targus]

I find BobRyan's talk of "non-Bible solutions" and "Baptist popes" to be hilarious. :laugh:

SDA beliefs are heavily immersed in cultic beliefs based on nothing more than the hallucinations of pope Ellen White - giants on Saturn and the amalgamation of man and beast just to name two.

SDA cult members rely heavily on the SDA cut and paste library to answer anyone's questions. Why else do you think that BobRyan is incapable of providing any kind of answer to numerous questions posed over and over and over to him. There is no answer in the SDA cut and paste library so he doesn't have any answer.

His answers are either SDA cut and paste or employ the typical SDA tactic of setting up a strawman of misrepresenting the words of others and slandering others with stuff like Baptist popes.

I have also noticed that SDA's like to put words in "quotes" and CAPITAL letters or underlined, bolded, or italicized with no apparent reason.

I guess that it makes them think that their non-answer looks more offical with all of that non-sense.

 

[BobRyan]

I find BobRyan's talk of "non-Bible solutions" and ... to be hilarious. :laugh:

Me too - maybe our Baptist friends will avoid the "I imagine so and so to fail in some regard with Deut 22:11 so that I means I can ignore Lev 19:18 -- and so dishonor parents".

But as long as the Deut 22:11 thing is raised as an "excuse" to ignore Lev "anything you want to name" the non-Bible dark ages problem remains for them.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Levitical law was done away at the cross by Christ. It is no longer in effect. Wrong.

In Matt 22 we see Lev 19:18 quoted.

In James 2 we see Lev 19:18 quoted.

In Romans 13 we see Lev 19:18 quoted.

In Acts 15 we see an appeal to Lev 17 prohibition against eating animals that were strangled.

The fiction about "no more book of leviticus" simply does not pass the "sola scriptura" test of doctrine.

There is no Levitical law quoted in this verse. Just because a verse from Leviticus is quoted that does not mean it is Levitical law.

Now there is a happy fiction on your part that I never imagined you would invent for this discussion. Tell us how Leviticus is not Law or Leviticus is not well.. "Leviticus".

This has got to be good.

Deu.22:16 and Lev. 11 fall under the category of Levitical law. However:

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

--This is not Levitical Law. This is one of the Two Great Commandments on which all the law rests.

Your reasoning so far is "illusive".

While it is true that this is one of the GREATEST commandments - it is not by that very nature "NOT a Commandment" as you seem to imagine.

Levitical law refers to the Law of God found in Leviticus.

Turns out that includes the "Commandments of God" (also found in Leviticus in chapter 19) - and yes even the "greatest commandments".

Thus in Matt 22 when asked by the Pharisees about the "Greatest Commandment" there is no one there imagining that Leviticus 19:18 is NOT Law, or NOT Leviticus or not "Levitical Law".

. Learn your Bible and learn how to rightly divide the truth.

I was just about to suggest that to you.

Have you thought of an actual Bible statement proving that Lev 19 is not part of "Levitical Law" or that "Lev 19:18" is not part of "Levitical Law" - or is this one of those papal non-sola-scriptura "DHK said so" laws coming up again?



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Health laws are not moral laws. Health laws were for the Jews and Jews alone.

wrong.

We see the case of Noah in Gen 7 - a non-Jew observing the Clean vs unlcean distinction of Lev 11.

We see the future point in Isaiah 66 where people are consumed in God's fiery judgment at the 2nd coming who eat mice.

The "not moral" and "only Jews" argument dies before it ever gets off the ground.

1John 3:4 defines sin as a transgression of the law. It doesn't define which law. If you believe that health law applies to you and you break that law then it is sin.

The Law defines sin.

And Romans 6 says that if we claim to be enslaved to sin - we are no longer saved.

That much you have right.

If Deu. 22:16 cannot be used as an example then either can Lev.11

That fiction was debunked by showing that you cannot apply the laws of a theocracy to non-theocracy contexts and such was the case even in OT times for gentile believers living in gentile nations.

obviously.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
--This is not Levitical Law. This is one of the Two Great Commandments on which all the law rests. It is moral law; not Levitical law
..
I don't make up stuff. .

That is certainly a comment worth saving in the files.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: If you could apply justification to your own life and sanctification to your own life you will probably not get so frustrated about these things that can be difficult to understand.

HP: You are in direct violation of the rules of this forum to suggest as you have that I am devoid of justification and or sanctification. Moderator please.

 

[DHK]

That fiction was debunked by showing that you cannot apply the laws of a theocracy to non-theocracy contexts and such was the case even in OT times for gentile believers living in gentile nations.
Bob

Good!! Then that should henceforth and forthwith end all: present, future, and past discussion of the dietary laws of Israel, and any references thereto, or pertaining or herewith; we have therefore concluded with this admission of BobRyan that both the application of dietary laws of Leviticus 11 and the clothing law of Det.22:16, as herein stated as "fiction...debunked by showing that you cannot apply the laws of theocracy to non-theocracy contexts...for Gentile believers living in gentile nations," and therefore not applicable for any believer today.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I only eat turkey bacon. Am I saved?

 

[Tom Bryant]

I only eat turkey bacon. Am I saved?

Maybe... but you are walking a thin line. A weaker brother might think that you were eating real bacon and fall into sin. Even worse, we Baptists would think that you'd become SDA. :tongue3:

 

[steaver]

HP: You are in direct violation of the rules of this forum to suggest as you have that I am devoid of justification and or sanctification. Moderator please.

No such suggestion was made.

By applying one's doctrines to one's own life they can make a good determination if said doctrine makes logical sense.

Take for instance your doctrine of a born of God believer stopping belief in Jesus Christ. Try it. Stop believing for just five seconds and tell me what you experienced.

You see, you like to impose the doctrine on others and say I know it can happen to others, but it has never happened to you, has it?

I have been born of God for 36 years now and I have never experienced a stopping of belief in Jesus Christ. Have you?

 

[DHK]

Maybe... but you are walking a thin line. A weaker brother might think that you were eating real bacon and fall into sin. Even worse, we Baptists would think that you'd become SDA. :tongue3:

Don't laugh. An Islamic nation I visited wouldn't allow the import of "bacon bits" even though they are made of soy products.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: If you could apply justification to your own life and sanctification to your own life……..

HP: If justification or sanctification has not been applied, one is not a believer. Your denial of questioning another’s salvation by such a remark is ludicrous. Your present denial is not strange when just a few posts ago I posted several Scriptures in direct contradiction to another comment of yours in which you could not even man up and admit to your error there either. Oh well. That is precisely the attitude I have came to expect from you.

Steaver clearly dodges the direct questions concerning the remarks he has made, specifically in my posts to him of #232 and #241. It is meaningless to try and debate with someone who simply avoids any direct questions and does not have the desire to fairly examine the questions directed at them, and refuses to admit to the clear implications of the remarks he makes.

 

[DHK]

Steaver clearly dodges the direct questions concerning the remarks he has made, specifically in my posts to him of #232 and #241. It is meaningless to try and debate with someone who simply avoids any direct questions and does not have the desire to fairly examine the questions directed at them, and refuses to admit to the clear implications of the remarks he makes.

When you make such absurd statements as this (post #32)

Obedience,’ as you seem to imply, in effect is nothing more than the results of determinative council,

I don't blame Steaver for not answering them. They deserve to be ignored. They are actually false accusations in the realm of Calvinism which you have accused both of us. Such ridiculous statements ought to be ignored. They ought not to be made in the first place.

 

[Eric B]

I only eat turkey bacon. Am I saved?

SDA's do eat soy bacon. I used to see it sold in their bookstore.
Of course, turkey bacon is no good for being meat, and let's not forget, they also unofficially forbid all meat, even though that is not in the Law or these other scriptures (Isaiah, etc) they use.

(Re: "cut and past library"; do all of them do that?)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

So, DHK, are you taking exception to Steavers remark that “all… provided for of the Lord?” If all is provided by the Lord, all is determined by the Lord. If all is determined by the Lord, obedience is determined by the Lord. If our obedience is determined by the Lord, obedience to you and Steaver must be nothing more then the necessitated results of the Lord.

Show us DHK how logic, reason or Scripture would conclude any differently.

By the way I believe you are referring to the wrong post. Post #32 was not even written by me.

 

[DHK]

So, DHK, are you taking exception to Steavers remark that “all… provided for of the Lord?” If all is provided by the Lord, all is determined by the Lord. If all is determined by the Lord, obedience is determined by the Lord. If our obedience is determined by the Lord, obedience to you and Steaver must be nothing more then the necessitated results of the Lord.

Show us DHK how logic, reason or Scripture would conclude any differently.

By the way I believe you are referring to the wrong post. Post #32 was not even written by me.

First of all I assume your back on your mantra of trying to refute the truth that "salvation is all of God." What has that got to do with the OP: Bacon eaters! Do you see? You are way off topic. Start another thread. This thread revolves around Levitical law; not NT salvation.

 

[ccrobinson]

You are in direct violation of the rules of this forum to suggest as you have that I am devoid of justification and or sanctification. Moderator please.

#1, I find it hilarious that you think Steaver violated rules when you have no problem calling both DHK and Steaver liars when you haven't demonstrated that they are, in fact, lying.

#2, if you think Steaver has violated the rules, report the post and let the Admins decide. Or, is it just easier to pretend to be outraged over a ridiculous so-called insult?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CCR, refresh my memory where I have ever called Steaver a liar. Why should it shock you when I say DHK lied, when he is a self avoided liar, stating clearly that all men are liars.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CCR: #1, I find it hilarious that you think Steaver violated rules

HP: Read Steavers comment as written for yourself, and then tell us he was not calling into question my salvation/snactification by direct implication. That is a violation of the rules. Remember the phony charges against Brother Bob?

If calling one a liar is a rule violation, DHK violates the rules by his remark that all are liars. If one wants to be perfectly honest, DHK also called my salvation into question by his repeated and thinly veiled attack of aligning my positions with those outside the Christian faith. That is about as low as it can get on the issue of fair and kind treatment of the views of a fellow Christian believer. But what is new about that on this forum??