Bacon eaters! Do you see?

[steaver]

Most Catholics I have talked with also claim that they have read the 2nd commandment forbiding the use of images in worship.

Shall I keep bringing this point up until you see that your argument needs more work.

I am not here to tell you how to read scripture. The Holy Spirit does that - not me.

I point to the scriptures - I explain valid methods of Bible study - I leave it to each person and their relationship to God to determine if they are open to be convicted of "sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16.

That is the work of the Holy Spirit. Not me.

in Christ,

Bob

Anyone who is born of God has the Holy Spirit indwellment to teach them ALL things...

Jhn 14:26But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

There is no such thing as a believer reading a commandment of scripture and the Spirit NOT teaching/convicting the believer what the commandment is saying. ALL things are taught.

1Jo 2:27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

So your doctrine of a believer reading a scripture and the Holy Spirit not teaching them is unsupported by scripture. In fact, scripture tells the exact opposite of what you preach.

You pluck out this verse...

Jhn 16:12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
This scripture is post Holy Spirit indwellment. It does not work for your SDA doctrine.

If you read the very next verse it defeats your argument flat out...

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Thus your argument by the point of "the Spirit has not convicted certain believers who have read or heard the word of God" is bunk!

Once a person becomes born of God by recieving the Holy Spirit there is no teaching withheld.

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

In John 16 Jesus said "I have many more things to teach you but you cannot bear them now" and then Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit "the Spirit of truth" would come and would enlighten them over time as they could bear it "Will guide you into all truth".

No fire-hosing the saints.

No "instantly having all-knowledge" for the saints - because if that was a magic model that Christ was willing to use - he could simply have zapped their brains right there in John 16 - and saved them a lot of headache at the trial.

(Hint: in John 14:17 Jesus explains that the disciples already have the Holy Spirit.)

Christ states in John 3 that all teachers of Israel know about the work of the Holy Spirit if they are students of the Bible - and Jesus said that the way that people come to God is through the Holy Spirit.

But even so - in John 16 the disciples themselves did not have "all knowledge" nor even COULD they receive certain teachings from Christ - because they were soo blinded still by man-made tradition on some points.

In Matt 16:17 Christ states that God Himself was instructing-teaching Peter. "Blessed are you Simon Barjona because flesh and blood did not REVEAL this to you, but My Father who is in HEAVEN"

The problem in John 16 was NOT that their "teacher" was not capable enough. And your argument that Christ was arbitrarily withholding truth is debunked explicitly in the text of John 16 - for He states His willingness to teach them - but declare that they themselves are not ready and cannot endure more light.

In Heb 5 we see the same problem CONTINUED in the NT church as Paul says that "by now you should be ready for meat - but you have need again for milk" - then in Heb 6 Paul talks about "not laying again the foundation" of the simple truths. Paul rebukes those Christians for by this time they themselves should be teachers.

Thus debunking your idea that at the cross all Christians instantly received all-knowledge and forever after.


The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

In John 16 Jesus said "I have many more things to teach you but you cannot bear them now" and then Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit "the Spirit of truth" would come and would enlighten them over time as they could bear it "Will guide you into all truth".


in Christ,

Bob

Interesting little tweak you perform on the word of God. (Hint: don't change up the words or sentence structures of scripture, let it speak as it is written)

What does the text say?

Jhn 16:12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

What is Bob's version...

"I am telling you many things, as ye can bear them the Spirit will teach ye".

(Hint: Notice how the whole message changes when we change the sentence structure as Bob would like it to read).

Interesting that you would rewrite the verse so it appears you have a correct point. Very telling.

(Hint: in John 14:17 Jesus explains that the disciples already have the Holy Spirit.)

Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Bible student will be quick to realize the difference between "with' and "in" as Jesus made the distinction. (Hint: it says "shall be in you" which is different than "is in you". One notices right away that it is a prophecy of what is to come)

Christ states in John 3 that all teachers of Israel know about the work of the Holy Spirit if they are students of the Bible - and Jesus said that the way that people come to God is through the Holy Spirit.

(Hint: ye must be born again)

But even so - in John 16 the disciples themselves did not have "all knowledge" nor even COULD they receive certain teachings from Christ - because they were soo blinded still by man-made tradition on some points.

Amen! I give credit where credit is due.

In Matt 16:17 Christ states that God Himself was instructing-teaching Peter. "Blessed are you Simon Barjona because flesh and blood did not REVEAL this to you, but My Father who is in HEAVEN"

Amen again! The Holy Spirit is always at work drawing all men unto Christ.

.....And your argument that Christ was arbitrarily withholding truth is debunked explicitly in the text of John 16 - for He states His willingness to teach them - but declare that they themselves are not ready and cannot endure more light.

(Hint: what does Jesus state in the text?)

Jhn 16:12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

(Hint: you do not read "I am saying many things, but ye cannot bear them now". Can you see the difference?)

In Heb 5 we see the same problem CONTINUED in the NT church as Paul says that "by now you should be ready for meat - but you have need again for milk" - then in Heb 6 Paul talks about "not laying again the foundation" of the simple truths. Paul rebukes those Christians for by this time they themselves should be teachers.

This would work for you if the text said "I am saying many things, but ye cannot bear them now". Unfortunately for your case, Jesus did not say as you would like to imagine.

Thus debunking your idea that at the cross all Christians instantly received all-knowledge and forever after.


The point remains.

That is your own making of a straw man. I never presented any such idea.
(Hint: Jesus said, I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. This does not equate to "instantly" as you would have imagined)

Your explanations on this has failed miserably at each point. You have not been able to back up your beliefs with the scriptures you have presented. Conjecture is not helping you. Rewriting God's words are not helping you. Think it over and give it another attempt or better yet just except what Jesus said without looking though the lens of the SDA.

Those watching this debate should take careful notice how just changing a word or reversing a sentence can totally change the entire teaching of the text. Some may do this by honest mistake and are willing to see the mistake and correct it, Others seem to do it deliberately to further their personal agenda. They have fine tuned the art of deception with slight of speech and push forward uneffected by anyone exposing their error. Will Bob stop rewording this passage of scripture or will he just keep on preaching the lie? We'll see.

Here are the two versions again;

Jesus....I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Bob........"I am telling you many things, as ye can bear them the Spirit will teach ye".

Quite a difference!

 

[billwald]

>Most Catholics I have talked with also claim that they have read the 2nd commandment forbiding the use of images in worship.

Please define "image" and "worship."

The Orthodox Church nee Orthodox Catholic Church teaches that the text (images) refers to three dimensional objects and not ikons (2 dimensional representations).

SEcond, then is it idolatry to put pictures claiming to represent Jesus in Bibles?

Third, God instructed Moses to place three dimensional representations of living critters in the Holiest of Holies. How doe anyone deal with that?

 

[DHK]

You are a hypocrite in that you choose to pick parts of the law--the ones you want to obey, and the others you want to ignore or disobey.

Why do you ignore my questions?
How would this law be obeyed by the Israelites? (Deu. 22:11)
How would this law be obeyed today if applied in a practical way?

Try again. Will this be the fourth time you will avoid answering this question? Why can't you answer a simple question Bob?

 

[BobRyan]

>Most Catholics I have talked with also claim that they have read the 2nd commandment forbiding the use of images in worship.

Please define "image" and "worship."

The Orthodox Church nee Orthodox Catholic Church teaches that the text (images) refers to three dimensional objects and not ikons (2 dimensional representations).

SEcond, then is it idolatry to put pictures claiming to represent Jesus in Bibles?

Third, God instructed Moses to place three dimensional representations of living critters in the Holiest of Holies. How doe anyone deal with that?

To Keep my illustration simple - I am using the example of the RCC and actual images.

in Chriist,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And your argument that Christ was arbitrarily withholding truth is debunked explicitly in the text of John 16 - for He states His willingness to teach them - but declare that they themselves are not ready and cannot endure more light. (Hint: what does Jesus state in the text?)

Jhn 16:12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

(Hint: you do not read "I am saying many things, but ye cannot bear them now". Can you see the difference?)

I am in awe of your ability to keep turning aside from the point of the post.

I did not say that Jesus was fire hosing them with all truth and lots of it was simply falling off of their plate.

Rather I point out that Jesus is NOT telling them things that they simply are not able to understand at the moment. Thus MORE truth is coming as they can take it -- and it comes via the Spirit of Truth - just as it always did.

Hint: Peter said that "Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from God"

this is the role the Holy Spirit has always had.

And as we see in Matt 16 - Jesus affirms that God Himself is instructing Peter.

The problem in John 16 is not with the instructor "arbitrarily witholding truth" as you sometimes like to imagine.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Why do you ignore my questions?
How would this law be obeyed by the Israelites? (Deu. 22:11)
How would this law be obeyed today if applied in a practical way?

I already answered this with 4 or 5 Bible translations all showing the same thing.

As already posted here

11"You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.

YLT
11`Thou dost not put on a mixed cloth, wool and linen together.

NASB
11"You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.

NIV
11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.




Holman
11 Do not wear clothes made of both wool and linen.

Darby
11Thou shalt not wear a garment of mixed material, [woven] of wool and linen together.

So today it is common for us to have 100% wool suits and sweaters that are 100% wool. And many people also have shirts and pants that are a mix of cotton and polyester. This is really not as hard as you like to pretend.

But it is in fact all misdirection on your part - as you appear to be making an argument of the form -- "if God's Law is inconvenient then you don't need to pay attention to it".

That or you are arguing -- "if you want to get by with not keeping Deut 22 - then you need to figure out a way to eat mice and to ignore Lev 19:18..."

You have yet to show anything like a sound Biblical argument for where you are going.

Wild factless accusations against me on your part - may be entertaining to some degree, but for the purpose of this study - they are pointless.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

......Rather I point out that Jesus is NOT telling them things that they simply are not able to understand at the moment. Thus MORE truth is coming as they can take it -- and it comes via the Spirit of Truth - just as it always did.


The problem in John 16 is not with the instructor "arbitrarily witholding truth" as you sometimes like to imagine.

in Christ,

Bob

Bolding mine. If you cannot see the contradiction in your statements then there is no hope for you ever understanding the truth in this life.

:jesus:

 

[billwald]

>So today it is common for us to have 100% wool suits and sweaters that are 100% wool. And many people also have shirts and pants that are a mix of cotton and polyester.

Immaterial because some people are not regenerate. Is it lawful for regenerate people to wear cloth that is a mix?

 

[BobRyan]

Are you asking about Lev 11 and Deut 22 because you want to know if they are still in the Bible -- or if that part of the Bible is still valid?

My Bible has 66 books.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

I already answered this with 4 or 5 Bible translations all showing the same thing.

As already posted here



So today it is common for us to have 100% wool suits and sweaters that are 100% wool. And many people also have shirts and pants that are a mix of cotton and polyester. This is really not as hard as you like to pretend.

But it is in fact all misdirection on your part - as you appear to be making an argument of the form -- "if God's Law is inconvenient then you don't need to pay attention to it".

That or you are arguing -- "if you want to get by with not keeping Deut 22 - then you need to figure out a way to eat mice and to ignore Lev 19:18..."

You have yet to show anything like a sound Biblical argument for where you are going.

Wild factless accusations against me on your part - may be entertaining to some degree, but for the purpose of this study - they are pointless.

in Christ,

Bob

I have asked a question. You still fail to answer it, even in all your above verbiage and quotes of different Scripture you fail to answer a simple question (actually two questions). You say that I am making accusations, arguments, etc. I am not. I am simply asking a question. Care to give an answer this time?

How would this law be obeyed by the Israelites? (Deu. 22:11)
How would this law be obeyed today if applied in a practical way?

 

[DHK]

So today it is common for us to have 100% wool suits and sweaters that are 100% wool. And many people also have shirts and pants that are a mix of cotton and polyester. This is really not as hard as you like to pretend.

It seems hard for you to understand. Here are the facts:
1. I quoted John Gill to you. He doesn't agree with your interpretation, neither with the way mv's give the translation.
2. Nevertheless, disregarding Gill, and giving the mv's the benefit of the doubt you still have a problem. The verse still teaches you must have one type of clothing, even if it is woven clothing (linen woven with wool). You don't seem to get that.
3. As you say it is common for us to have 100% wool suits. I wore one today. But my underwear and socks were not wool, and that was the command. All clothing had to be of one cloth. Do you keep that command?
4. You say many have shirts and pants that are a mix of cotton and polyester. That may be true. However, in application the verse would be teaching that each piece of clothing: shirt, socks, underwear, pants, or entire suit would have to be made up of that same mix of polyester and cotton. Do you keep that command? Do you apply it in that way? Are you clothed in only one type of cloth, even if that cloth is a mixture or a weave. Are you wearing just one type of cloth from top to bottom.

But it is in fact all misdirection on your part - as you appear to be making an argument of the form -- "if God's Law is inconvenient then you don't need to pay attention to it".

This is your practice. Unless you can demonstrate your obedience to the command of Deu.22:11 I would have to conclude that you have no regard whatsoever for the commands written in Deuteronomy. They are just not convenient for you to obey.
The law is the law.
Whosoever shall in offend in one point is guilty of breaking all the law of God.
This law in Deu.22:11 is just as important as the dietary laws of Lev.11. Why do you discriminate against one and not the other?

That or you are arguing -- "if you want to get by with not keeping Deut 22 - then you need to figure out a way to eat mice and to ignore Lev 19:18..."

Science is science. You live in a land of superstition.
I have demonstrated this to you all ready.
Pork is one of the safest and healthiest meats on the market. It is far better for you than the red meat found in any hamburger. It is far safer for you than ground beef which is prone to E.Coli., a dreadful bacteria that causes a horrible sickness in a small percentage of the American population every year. That sickness is far greater than any sickness caused by pork. You can live in your land of superstition, but pork, in this nation, is safer than beef.
That in itself renders the dietary laws of Lev.11 of no value in today's society if your argument is for health reasons.

You have yet to show anything like a sound Biblical argument for where you are going.

The sound Biblical argument is in the Scripture that you ignore, don't post, don't read, and don't want to consider.
Here it is:

Leviticus 11:1-2 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
--Which tribe of Israel do you belong to Bob?
This Scripture was never addressed to the Gentile, or the believer in Christ. It was addressed to the Jew only.

Wild factless accusations against me on your part - may be entertaining to some degree, but for the purpose of this study - they are pointless.

in Christ,

Bob

What is pointless is you not answering the questions and points raised for you.

 

[BobRyan]

Why do you ignore my questions?
How would this law be obeyed by the Israelites? (Deu. 22:11)
How would this law be obeyed today if applied in a practical way?

I already answered this with 4 or 5 Bible translations all showing the same thing.

As already posted here

Deut22:11"You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.

YLT
11`Thou dost not put on a mixed cloth, wool and linen together.

NASB
11"You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.

NIV
11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.




Holman
11 Do not wear clothes made of both wool and linen.

Darby
11Thou shalt not wear a garment of mixed material, [woven] of wool and linen together.

========================

So today it is common for us to have 100% wool suits and sweaters that are 100% wool. And many people also have shirts and pants that are a mix of cotton and polyester. This is really not as hard as you like to pretend.

But it is in fact all misdirection on your part - as you appear to be making an argument of the form -- "if God's Law is inconvenient then you don't need to pay attention to it".

That or you are arguing -- "if you want to get by with not keeping Deut 22 - then you need to figure out a way to eat mice and to ignore Lev 19:18..."

You have yet to show anything like a sound Biblical argument for where you are going.

Wild factless accusations against me on your part - may be entertaining to some degree, but for the purpose of this study - they are pointless.

I have asked a question. You still fail to answer it, even in all your above verbiage and quotes of different Scripture you fail to answer

1. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to see if my quote of Deut 22:11 above is "a different scripture" from Deut 22:11. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to note that the subject of this thread is not "linen and wool" from Deut 22 - but is in fact Lev 11 no eating rats, cats, dogs, bats, diseased flesh and certain types of bacon -- THUS WHO is actually turning this thread aside to "another text" with his "lets look at Deut 22 instead" argument?

2. You appear to be trying to spin the very non-biblical argument of the form "IF you want to ignore the Deut 22 part of God's Word -- you need to find a way to eat mice and also ignore Lev 11. It is ok to pay attention to Lev 19:18 -- but not Deut 22 and not Lev 11".

As nonsensical as such a position is -- you appear to want to make that your "NON sola scriptura" case for deleting whole sections of the Word of God.

Facinating!

a simple question (actually two questions). You say that I am making accusations, arguments, etc. I am not. I am simply asking a question. Care to give an answer this time?

As for your second question - I never claimed that your every post is in the form of an accusation - but you have quite a raft of condemning accusatory posts on this thread already - and I often just let them slip waiting for some kind of actual Bible based argument on your part.

(Bible students are funny that way -- )

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

Bob, DHK is not asking for more argument from Scripture.

He is asking if you personally keep Deut 22:11

If so - how?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
So today it is common for us to have 100% wool suits and sweaters that are 100% wool. And many people also have shirts and pants that are a mix of cotton and polyester. This is really not as hard as you like to pretend.

It seems hard for you to understand. Here are the facts:
1. I quoted John Gill to you. He doesn't agree with your interpretation, neither with the way mv's give the translation.
2. Nevertheless, disregarding Gill, and giving the mv's the benefit of the doubt you still have a problem. The verse still teaches you must have one type of clothing, even if it is woven clothing (linen woven with wool). You don't seem to get that.
3. As you say it is common for us to have 100% wool suits. I wore one today. But my underwear and socks were not wool, and that was the command. All clothing had to be of one cloth. Do you keep that command?

1. John Gill is regarded as the man who published the first BAPTIST Bible commentary. As much as I like what he has written - I never claimed to agree with Baptists at the 100% level - so it is not as "objective" as you might imagine to quote Baptist commentary to an Adventist as if the Adventists are known for believing whatever Baptist's say.

On the other hand - my quoting John Gill to you is a great example of objectivity - in those cases where I do quote him - because there I show that even your own commentary is in agreement with my position.

If your effort here is to engage in a level of objectivity "in kind" -- then you have to do better than quoting another Baptist.

2. As I already pointed out - the garments of the high priest included linen outer wear and wool underwear (loin cloth -- inner tunic). We seldom ever wear "wool underwear" -- usually it is cotton. And never wear "linen underwear" as it turns out. So in your example of COTTON underwear and WOOL suits - there is no "linen wool" WOVEN together at all. Not sure why you think this is making any case at all for you.

3. Secondly - as I keep pointing out - the form of your argument EVEN if we were all wearing LINEN underwear instead of cotton - and EVEN if the text did not reference linen-wool WOVEN intogether in a single garment -- and EVEN if we did not have the Biblical example of wearing WOOL undergaments with LINEN outergarments - (so your argument has many huge mountains debunking it from the start) -- your BEST result is still of the form "SO the Bible is inconvenient to follow - don't follow it" AS IF that is a "Sola scriptura" basis for doctrine!!!

Hint Billwald, Steaver and DHK - that is nothing like a sola scriptura argument for a doctrinal position.

Why is this so difficult for Baptists?

I would have thought this would be the easy part!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, DHK is not asking for more argument from Scripture.

He is asking if you personally keep Deut 22:11

Indeed - he is not making any kind of Bible argument for a position on God's Word.

Which is why I keeping asking how in the world someone who claims to believe in "sola scriptura" basis for doctrine can keep going down the road of "don't you find God's Word inconvenient to follow - so why follow it?" kind of arguments.

I find that kind of logic to be illusive given the "sola-scriptura" prinicple that Baptists "claim" to follow when they debate with Catholics on this part of the BB.

Everyone keeps ignoring this not-so-subtle question as if "yes - but nobody will notice that we are doing that - but you" is their not-so-effective defense.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You have yet to show anything like a sound Biblical argument for where you are going.

The sound Biblical argument is in the Scripture that you ignore, don't post, don't read, and don't want to consider.
Here it is:

Leviticus 11:1-2 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
--Which tribe of Israel do you belong to Bob?
This Scripture was never addressed to the Gentile, or the believer in Christ. It was addressed to the Jew only.

Turns out - Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" was also spoken "to Israel" and affirmed pre-cross by Christ Matt 22 speaking to Jews - and post Cross by James - James 2.

Turns out - Deut 6:5 - "Love God with all your heart" was also spoken by Moses TO Israel at the end of the 40 years in the wilderness - and also spoken BY Christ pre-cross Matt 22 speaking to Jews, and also by James and by Paul.

Turns out - Lev 17 - forbidding the eating of blood - is CONTINUED in affirmation in Acts 15 as a command to gentiles.

Turns out the Deut 8 statement about the lesson of manna stated to TEACH ISRAEL that "you shall not live by bread alone - but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God" was quoted by Christ in John 6 - PRE-CROSS and never again in the NT - but is STILL true to they very day.

Turns out that Acts 17:11 "they studied the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO" is the "sola scriptura method" of the NT saints - and is a DIRECT REFERENCE to the continue use of the OT by NT saints --

Turns out that 2Tim 3:16 says "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is profitable for DOCTRINE" KJV21 - is a DIRECT reference to the continued authority of "scripture" that you are so anxious to toss under the bus.

Turns out Peter's statement on the same point affirms the continued authority of "SCRIPTURE" -- "NO prophecy of SCRIPTURE is a matter of one person's interpretation ...for Holy men of old MOVED by the Holy Spirit SPOKE from GOD" 2Peter 1:20-21.

Christ affirmed that "the scriptures cannot be broken"

Christ argues that those who teach others that the scriptures are deleted or abolished in any way are making a huge mistake. Matt 5:17-19

The OT text is quoted quite often in the NT as having authority and Paul's statement in the book of Acts is "I state NOTHING BUT WHAT the Prophets and Moses SAID was going to take place" Acts 26:22 "Believing EVERYTHING that is IN ACCORDANCE with the Law and the Prophets" Acts 24:14.

By contrast your argument limits itself to "how much scripture can we toss out the window"??!!

And what "line has been crossed" here that you feel compelled to ditch the Word of God?? -- well the Lev 11 prohibition against eating rats, cats, dogs, bats and diseased animals that die of themselves even if they are among the "clean animals" that God said is "for food" and that God had go into the Ark "by SEVENS" in Gen 7 long before the first Jew ever breathed his/her first breath.

Unbelievable!!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

Indeed - he is not making any kind of Bible argument for a position on God's Word.

Which is why I keeping asking how in the world someone who claims to believe in "sola scriptura" basis for doctrine can keep going down the road of "don't you find God's Word inconvenient to follow - so why follow it?" kind of arguments.

I find that kind of logic to be illusive given the "sola-scriptura" prinicple that Baptists "claim" to follow when they debate with Catholics on this part of the BB.

Everyone keeps ignoring this not-so-subtle question as if "yes - but nobody will notice that we are doing that - but you" is their not-so-effective defense.

in Christ,

Bob

That may or may not be true - but his question still remains...

Do you personally keep Deut 22:11 ?

If so - how?

 

[steaver]

That may or may not be true - but his question still remains...

Do you personally keep Deut 22:11 ?

If so - how?

Why can't you answer Bob?

You don't have any problem telling us that you keep Lev 11 and how you do this by following what is good for food and what is not. You even give us examples not listed by name in the text like cats, rats and bats.

But when it comes to answering about how you apply the clothing law found in scripture to your personal life you claim it is irrelevant to the debate.

It is appearing to me and probably to all watching this debate that you might not be applying the clothing law to your own life.

Are you? If so, tell us how.

You like to teach us don't you? Teach us how we should apply the OT material code to ourselves as Christians. How do you apply this law in your own life?

:jesus: