Bacon eaters! Do you see?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver, I know full well what the Scriptures say, and I also know how you interpret it, at least 50% of the time. If it is all of God, it is all of God, and the will of man plays no part or it is not all of God. Which is it Steaver, is it all of God or all of God and mans obedience?

What do you mean by “man’s willingness to submit??” Have you forgotten the Word of God so man have posted in the past concerning “.Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.?” Are you preaching our will is not involved in our salvation but is in our sanctification? Again either way you are contradicting yourself, acting as if our will has nothing in the end to do with the outcome but is still involved in the outcome. You cannot have it both ways. I say again, it is either all of God or it is God and our will. Are you adding works (the formation of an intent to act obediently, i.e., a direct act of the will) to grace?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I tire of being told one adds to grace if obedience is demanded, yet those making such charges can speak of the need of obedience most often without being challenged. Steaver and may others try to hold to ‘all of God’ and then tell us we need to be obedient. I want to know if in fact obedience on our part is in reality ‘necessary’ for salvation or sanctification, both issues involving the grace of God, or not? Is obedience in reality optional on our part or is it necessary for salvation and or sanctification to be completed? If God’s will is going to be done in the end, and that without qualification according to Steaver, what possible mandate to obedience can one reasonably and rationally make??? Would not disobedience be just as much God’s will, everything being‘all of God’ according to Steaver, God determining the outcome in all cases ( obedience or disobedience) being ‘all of God?’

Beating the drum of ‘all of God’ with one stick while beating a drum of ‘obedience’ and man needing to ‘accept’ with another stick, makes a convoluted disconcerting maelstrom of confusion and that without exception. It is contradictory by any measurement of logic, reason or Scripture.

 

[Tom Bryant]

So tell me guys,where do you get the best pork BBQ? Do you like Sonny's or some whole in the wall along the side with their own smoker?

I am a certified BBQ judge with the Florida Barbecue Association Another guy in our church and I judge 5-6 competitions a year.

Anyone else try to do competition pork BBQ?

 

[BobRyan]

And note lev 11 Quote:
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud.
4 " 'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The coney, [a] though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

9 " 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.

13 " 'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

20 " 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

has all this even before you come before the diseased carcases. Quote:
24 " 'You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. 25 Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

26 " 'Every animal that has a split hoof not completely divided or that does not chew the cud is unclean for you; whoever touches the carcass of any of them will be unclean. 27 Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. 28 Anyone who picks up their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. They are unclean for you.

29 " 'Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, 30 the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon. 31 Of all those that move along the ground, these are unclean for you. Whoever touches them when they are dead will be unclean till evening. 32 When one of them dies and falls on something, that article, whatever its use, will be unclean, whether it is made of wood, cloth, hide or sackcloth. Put it in water; it will be unclean till evening, and then it will be clean. 33 If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot. 34 Any food that could be eaten but has water on it from such a pot is unclean, and any liquid that could be drunk from it is unclean. 35 Anything that one of their carcasses falls on becomes unclean; an oven or cooking pot must be broken up. They are unclean, and you are to regard them as unclean. 36 A spring, however, or a cistern for collecting water remains clean, but anyone who touches one of these carcasses is unclean. 37 If a carcass falls on any seeds that are to be planted, they remain clean. 38 But if water has been put on the seed and a carcass falls on it, it is unclean for you.

39 " 'If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening. 40 Anyone who eats some of the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

41 " 'Every creature that moves about on the ground is detestable; it is not to be eaten. 42 You are not to eat any creature that moves about on the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is detestable. 43 Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them. 44 I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. 45 I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

46 " 'These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. 47 You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.' "

1. Rats are not to be eaten as we see in vs 29
2. Animals that "die of themselves" even if they are clean animals - are not to be eaten. vs 39.
3. If a dead animal falls into food pots etc - they are not to be used for food.
4. Animals that have paws (cats, dogs etc) are "detestible" for you as food.

Thus - Noah - in Gen 7 takes the Clean animals in by Sevens and the unclean by Twos. Noah - not a Jew.

Thus in Isaiah 66 they are eating "detestible things" who eat mice - and they are destroyed at the 2nd coming by God's fiery judgment.

Thus - Peter says (long after the cross) "I have never eaten anything unclean".


So both the non-Jewish and the Post-Cross nature of this statement on not eating mice and rats etc - is affirmed in scripture.

thus the restriction here is lifted for the gentiles.

Not even remotely.

and Acts 15 seems pretty inclusive for the gentiles with regard to diet.

Acts 15 is not exhaustive - making no mention at all of blashemy or coveting or stealing, or Loving God with all your might -- but it DOES mention the Lev 17 prohibition against eating any animal that has been strangled.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

For those not even reading the Bible in this regard - I can only suggest to you that - the Bible has 66 books and 2Tim 3:16-17 says it is to be used for doctrine.

For those reading the Bible - the easiest rule to follow is - if you see non-Jews observing this scripture in the Bible - then don't try to bend the text to get out of it. If you see it applied STILL in the New Earth and after the cross - do not try to break the Law of God as if Matt 5 statements of Christ would approve rebellion against His own scripture.

So for example in the case of clean and unclean animals - Noah is acting in regard to them - and Noah is long before any Jew.

In regard to unclean animals - Isaiah 66 makes it clear that even at the 2nd coming - judgment is rendered by God regarding those that eat mice and rats etc.

Isaiah 66 also shows that in the New Earth "all mankind comes before God to Worship" -- from Sabbath to Sabbath.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Steaver

...in the gardens behind one [tree] in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

The spoken of in this text are they who offer meats unto false gods believing these meats sanctify themselves.
In Isaiah 66 - we have the judgment of God at the end of the world - judgment by fire and God says that those who eat "mice and detestible things" come to an end in that fiery post-cross NT day of judgment.

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[/b], 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.

Isa 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one [tree] in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Boast again to us how you pay attention to detail, context

Did you forget to post a point here??

Have another go at it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

So tell me guys,where do you get the best pork BBQ?

Around here it's Tunnel Bar-B-Q

At the foot of the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Canada

http://tunnelbarbq.com/

 

[BobRyan]

1. It is not clear that no Jew ever worshipped a false god or idol
2. It is clear that all the Jews in the Context of Is 66 - knew that Lev 11 was "the Word of God" and if they chose to rebel against God's Word - they did so knowingly.



In Isaiah 66 - we have the judgment of God at the end of the world - judgment by fire and God says that those who eat "mice and detestible things" come to an end in that fiery post-cross NT day of judgment.

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[/b], 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.




Romans 14 does not say "go ahead and eat meat offerred to idols".

Romans 14 talks about those gentiles who are weak in the faith and who "eat vegetables only" in order to avoid meats offerred to idols.

And remember - in Acts 15 gentiles are specifically told NOT to eat meat offerred to idols - so those who "eat vegetables only" in order to steer clear of that problem may be sort of "weak in the faith" by 1Cor 8 and 10 standards - but they are doing so in the spirit of "following orders".

God said -

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[/b], will come to an end altogether,'' declares the LORD.


(Hint: It is possible to be guilty of more than one sin in that Isaiah 66 case - otherwise the text could just as well say "those who breath fresh air and dring water will come to an end altogether" after talking about the "purify themselves" thing. It is clearly a problem addressed in the form of "both and" and not falling into the logical fallacy of "either or".

Isaiah 66 does not say "they sanctify themselves BY eating swine and mice".

But Lev 11 does say that swine and mice "are not for food".

and in Genesis 7 we see that the clean animals go into the ark by SEVENS and the unclean by TWOS.

The Gospel is not about making diseased meat and rat-sandwiches -- good for food.

The Gospel is about saving humans from the 2nd death - the lake of fire - fire and brimstone - etc etc.

Hard to believe that some people think that the cross is supposed to make it ok to eat diseased beef.

Here are few more versions.....

"Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine's flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together," says the LORD. (NKJV)

“Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the midst of* those who eat the flesh of pigs and rats and other abominable things—they will meet their end together,” declares the Lord. (NIV)

Indeed the text is clear - it is "both AND" not "either or". In fact God is not randomly pointing out that they "consecrate themselves and they also get dressed every morning" as you seem to imagine.

Rather God points to two things they do besides going into the gardens in some form of ritual worship - they also eat what God's Word in Lev 11 says they are not to eat.

EXEGESIS - means that we look at Lev 11 "in context" as the writer would have known it and given it to his readers. Thus for Isaiah's readers it was KNOWN that Lev 11 forbids the eating of rats - regardless of whether you eat them in a garden or not.

Obviously.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

In Isaiah 66 - we have the judgment of God at the end of the world - judgment by fire and God says that those who eat "mice and detestible things" come to an end in that fiery post-cross NT day of judgment.


in Christ,

Bob

How many times do you have to be shown the "context" and the "details"?

You are always boasting about details and context until Is 66. Why is that?

You keep posting the text but cannot unbiasly and objectively accept the "inconvenient details".

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.

There, I gave you some blue so you could pick out the "detail" and "context" of the passage. (Hint; it's not supper time)

Tell us again how you unbiasly and objectively exgesis the details of the text. Maybe one day we will be able to see you practice as you preach.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Indeed the text is clear - it is "both AND" not "either or". In fact God is not randomly pointing out that they "consecrate themselves and they also get dressed every morning" as you seem to imagine.

Rather God points to two things they do besides going into the gardens in some form of ritual worship - they also eat what God's Word in Lev 11 says they are not to eat.

EXEGESIS - means that we look at Lev 11 "in context" as the writer would have known it and given it to his readers. Thus for Isaiah's readers it was KNOWN that Lev 11 forbids the eating of rats - regardless of whether you eat them in a garden or not.

Obviously.

in Christ,

Bob

So EXEGESIS involves "conjecture" in your pov. You now know what Isaiah was "thinking" when "he" wrote God's Word.

I believe that holy men of God spoke and wrote as the Holy Spirit told them what to say and write. You believe this was Isaiah's "way of thinking".

That's different for sure.

 

[steaver]

Steaver, I know full well what the Scriptures say, and I also know how you interpret it, at least 50% of the time. If it is all of God, it is all of God, and the will of man plays no part or it is not all of God. Which is it Steaver, is it all of God or all of God and mans obedience?

What do you mean by “man’s willingness to submit??” Have you forgotten the Word of God so man have posted in the past concerning “.Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.?” Are you preaching our will is not involved in our salvation but is in our sanctification? Again either way you are contradicting yourself, acting as if our will has nothing in the end to do with the outcome but is still involved in the outcome. You cannot have it both ways. I say again, it is either all of God or it is God and our will. Are you adding works (the formation of an intent to act obediently, i.e., a direct act of the will) to grace?

MAybe answering a couple of questions will help you.

1) Have you been justified by God through your faith in Jesus Christ?

2) Have you been sanctified by God through your faith in Jesus Christ?

 

[steaver]

Indeed the text is clear - it is "both AND" not "either or".

in Christ,

Bob

I think you are the one advocating an "either or" reading of the text. To say that those whom God is going to destroy are doing "either this or that".

Maybe you misspoke. Or maybe the Spirit was trying to get your attention having you write the truth instead of your error. I don't even think I would call it an error. You are blatantly refusing to adhere to "details and context", something you boast about doing over and over in your rants.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver, this discussion is not about my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, nor is it about yours. It is about the doctrines we teach and the comments we make. You need to address my questions directly. :thumbsup:

 

[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.

I think you are the one advocating an "either or" reading of the text. To say that those whom God is going to destroy are doing "either this or that".

On the contrary - 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.

You are blatantly refusing to adhere to "details and context", something you boast about doing over and over in your rants.

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

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Steaver is framing his recent remarks as a Bible based argument and so also Thinkingstuff on this subject but on another thread - so I am adding Thinkingstuff to this thread since it is the same subject - and given that he is making a Bible case for his eat-rat-sandwiches position instead of toying around with "my pope covets so I dishonor my parents" -- I wanted to be sure his example gets posted here.

Coming up next.

I'm not catholic. I know alot about it because my family is and we argue more about it than you can even imagine.

I did not mean to say that you are Catholic - I am saying that the baptist argument on this thread that claims "if fail in obeying Deut 22:11 then I am free to ignore Lev 11" is using a "papal argument" in the form "my pope covets so it must be ok for me to dishonor my parents". That entire line of reasong is more dark-ages catholic than it is Bible-protestant.

For the protestant solution - we need something like an actual Bible position.

Just because I have an indepth knowledge of something does not mean I'm that thing. So your "my pope covets" statment is a unnecissary slur. And I ask you to retract it.

Again - I think that you mistake my point.

I am asking that my baptist friends here - appeal to a Bible solution for their position. That is all.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Steaver, this discussion is not about my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, nor is it about yours. It is about the doctrines we teach and the comments we make. You need to address my questions directly. :thumbsup:

You are missing the whole purpose of studying the scriptures. If we cannot apply what we read to our own lives in a practical manner then we will never understand the doctrines we teach and hold.

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.

As for my own personal relationship with Jesus Christ I am always willing to entertain any questions you might have for me. I love practical life application of scripture.

You probably seen in the bacon thread how Bob refused to apply scripture to his life because it would expose an error in his doctrine. This is what happens if we refuse to apply our held beliefs to our ownselves. We end up holding erronious views.

Can you stop believing in Jesus Christ as you preach one can? Apply it to yourtself. Try it. Just give it five seconds and tell me what you experienced.

 

[steaver]

Exegesis demands that we "notice" ..........
Bob

Here you go again giving us a lesson on exegesis while refusing to notice the details and context of the text in question.

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

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!

Turns out, Isaiah was not writing his own thoughts about the matter. He was writing what the Lord God was telling him to write down.

Turns out, true exegesis demands the text remains as written.

 

[Tom Bryant]

We've eaten some great BBQ at Bush Gardens in Tampa. For mass produced stuff it really is very good.

My favorite thing at a competition is the Friday night "Anything But" meal. You can fix anything except for ribs, chicken, pulled pork and brisket. Last month I had some home made bacon and sausages made from scratch.

They were amazing!

 

[DHK]

I did not mean to say that you are Catholic - I am saying that the baptist argument on this thread that claims "if fail in obeying Deut 22:11 then I am free to ignore Lev 11" is using a "papal argument" in the form "my pope covets so it must be ok for me to dishonor my parents". That entire line of reasong is more dark-ages catholic than it is Bible-protestant.
Bob

You repeat this statement over and over again, but it is quite slanderous isn't it?
The Baptist position is sola scriptura, whereas yours is EGW. But you won't admit that because you want to save face.
Our position is entirely Biblical and has nothing to do with the pope of Catholicism. That is a slanderous accusation brought on by you. Let's look at it.

The Levitical law was done away at the cross by Christ. It is no longer in effect. It has been abolished, nailed to the cross.
Having said that, even if you disagree, and believe that you are under the law, your position must follow the logic and the laws of the Bible, which has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Here is how it works.

You claim that the Levitical law of Leviticus 11 applies to you and you must keep the dietary laws today. But what does the Bible say:

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
James 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

If you say you keep one law you must keep all the law. If you break one law you are just as guilty as if you had broken all the laws. There is no difference in God's sight. Sin is sin. All sin is abhorrent in God's eyes. If you keep the Levitical law of Lev.11, then you must be consistent in keeping the Levitical law of Deu.22:16. Your sidestepping of this law is not consistent with the rest of Scripture. You do not keep this law. You are guilty of breaking all the law. In fact, according to Gal.3:10 you have put yourself under a curse for you do not continue in all things under the law to do them (all your life every day, every moment). You fail. You are a transgressor of the law. You say you keep the Levitical law of dietary foods, but you know you don't keep the Levitical law of clothing. This is pure hypocrisy. For now you are a transgressor of all the law of God--no better than the thief on the cross. But the thief turned to grace. You turn back to the law.

 

[BobRyan]

I did not mean to say that you are Catholic - I am saying that the baptist argument on this thread that claims "if fail in obeying Deut 22:11 then I am free to ignore Lev 11" is using a "papal argument" in the form "my pope covets so it must be ok for me to dishonor my parents". That entire line of reasong is more dark-ages catholic than it is Bible-protestant.

You repeat this statement over and over again, but it is quite slanderous isn't it?

On the contrary - 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" - are in fact NOT anything remotely like "sola scriptura" Bible based positions.

And the argument you make against the Lev 11 chapter based on "Well this is what I imagine Bob does with Deut 22:11" is transparently flawed and using that same non-Bible solution mentioned above.

Feel free to return to an actual Bible argument at any point in time.

The Baptist position is sola scriptura

I for one like to think that - which is why I prefer that you guys get off that "toy" argument for why you think it is ok to ignore God's Word in Lev11. You need a more "Bible based" argument than "Because this is what I imagine Bob does in the case of Deut 22:11" as your solution to God's Word in Lev 11.

I never tire of reminding you guys of that not-so-subtle and oh so obvious detail.

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.

It has been abolished, nailed to the cross.

Wrong.

The Bible makes no such claim about the book of Lev.

My Bible still has 66 books.

Having said that, even if you disagree, and believe that you are under the law, your position must follow the logic and the laws of the Bible, which has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Here is how it works.

You claim that the Levitical law of Leviticus 11 applies to you and you must keep the dietary laws today. But what does the Bible say:

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
James 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

If you say you keep one law you must keep all the law.

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

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?

If you break one law you are just as guilty as if you had broken all the laws.

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.

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.

There is no difference in God's sight. Sin is sin. All sin is abhorrent in God's eyes. If you keep the Levitical law of Lev.11, then you must be consistent in keeping the Levitical law of Deu.22:16.

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".

Your sidestepping of this law is not consistent with the rest of Scripture. You do not keep this law. You are guilty of breaking all the law.

Your argument is jumbled because you are aruing that Lev 11 defines sin. Once you do that you are under Romans 6 command NOT to violate the text of scripture - not to "sin" using grace as an excuse for "more sin".

You have shot down your own argument.

In fact, according to Gal.3:10 you have put yourself under a curse for you do not continue in all things under the law to do them (all your life every day, every moment). You fail.

Again your argument fails - because in Gal 3 we are talking about the moral and health laws that define sin and the fact that the lost sinner BEFORE coming to Christ is under condemnation if they have not yet been saved.

But once we have been saved - the law that define sin functions in the James 4 and Romans 6 role of SHOWING us our sin and calling us to conform to the will of God - by NOT sinning.

thus in stead of choosing to hate God and hate our neigbor in James 2 - we are told to LOVE God (Deut 6:5) and LOVE our Neighbor (Lev 19:18)

You are a transgressor of the law. You say you keep the Levitical law of dietary foods, but you know you don't keep the Levitical law of clothing.

Making stuff up does not help your case.

in Christ,

Bob