Bacon eaters! Do you see?

[BobRyan]

In the "derail to Deut 22" program - Bible arguments like the one below for upholding the authority of "all scripture given by inspiration from God" - is completely ignored!!

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!!

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob:
Targus, Steaver, myself, and others have asked you the above question many times. You simply avoid it.

Again - the evidence on this thread does not support your wild claims.

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

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.

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 - (thus it is clearly seen that your argument has many huge mountains debunking it from the start) -- your BEST result is still of the anti-bible 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!

you appear to make the wild argument that is of the form "surely you do not want to obey this part of God's Word - so if you don't want to obey this part of scripture - why not also violate the Lev 11 text of scripture as well?" -- AS IF that is some kind of "exegesis" of something.

How sad.

Also how odd that you think that not wearing a garment mixed with wool and linen is such a trial, especially given the fact that when preserved in whole cloth - the one abosrbs moisture while the other repels.

The limits you place on God's word appear to be aligned with what you consider convenience and custom.

Thus in my answer I AFFIRMED the text of Deut 22 and ask you why you quote it as if it is some great burden and we should not obey it because God is too severe.

THIS you take as some kind of "proof" that texts of scripture can be tossed under the bus just because you don't like them?? What in the world are you thinking??

Deut 22:11 text speaks strictly to the point of mixing wool and linen into a single garment.

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.

Thus not only did I affirm Deut 22 - I showed how it is kept.

Originally Posted by Bob
We both agree that all makind are sinners in their lost condition.

Having said that --

Paul argues the opposite point. In 1Cor 7:19 Paul argues that "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

Just when you wanted Paul's council to the saints to be "what matters is not paying attention to the Word of God if you find commandments of God there".

Originally Posted by DHK

He stresses the importance of the law.

Indeed. Thus your "ignore God's Law" argument seems to have failed.

How is it then that Deut 22 could in any way help you make an actual Bible argument to the contrary?

--Bob dismisses it altogether as not being important for the Greatest Commandment of love is more important.

In Matt 22 Christ quotes Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 as being the foundation for all of God's Word - all of the Law and the prophets.

You appear to claim that all of scripture was deleted and replaced by Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 so that the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method seen in practice "Studying the scrptures to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so" is made void.

Why go after the sola-scriptura method just now DHK after you have upheld it in previous discussions?





In 1Cor 6 Paul said that your body is the temple of God - and God would destroy those who destroy that temple.

Thus God's command not to eat rats, cats and mice -- which you claim is a doctrine of a demon - cannot be "bent" the way you appear to hope.

Have you considered that point - so far?

At that point the "derail to Deut 22" program hit a dead stop. No answer.


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

Here "again" I continue to affirm the keeping of Deut 22 on a cloth that is mixed with both linen and wool.

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.

There "again" I show how this is kept not only by me - but by a lot of people simply because the wool-linen problem is not a common one to find in stores for most of us. The paucity in logic that tries to delete Lev 11 with Deut 22 while clinging to Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor" in a truly "pick-and-choose" anti-Bible methodology - remains glaringly obvious to the objective unbiased reader.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

One can make a case for almost position with "sola scriptura." An inerrant text is not inerrantly useful without an inerrant interpretation. How many Baptist denominations are there? 100? Every one believes the Bible is inerrant.

 

[DHK]

Posted by Bob Ryan
There "again" I show how this is kept not only by me - but by a lot of people simply because the wool-linen problem is not a common one to find in stores for most of us. The paucity in logic that tries to delete Lev 11 with Deut 22 while clinging to Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor" in a truly "pick-and-choose" anti-Bible methodology - remains glaringly obvious to the objective unbiased reader.

So this is your answer. This is the end all--the summary of it all. "The wool-linen problem is not a common one to find in stores for most of us," therefore the Lord allows us to disobey his commands and his law becomes irrelevant. This is all because of the "inconvenience of "wool and linen." Thus when the commands of the Lord become inconvenient to Bob, he just dispenses with them. I know many people who do that--most of them unsaved. It is a very convenient "theology." You don't even need a Bible. In fact most of your Bible keeps getting "cut out" until nothing remains of it.

 

[steaver]

There "again" I show how this is kept not only by me - but by a lot of people simply because the wool-linen problem is not a common one to find in stores for most of us. The paucity in logic that tries to delete Lev 11 with Deut 22 while clinging to Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor" in a truly "pick-and-choose" anti-Bible methodology - remains glaringly obvious to the objective unbiased reader.

in Christ,

Bob

So your answer to Deut 22 is in the form "I don't worry about it". I pray this is the end of your Lev 11 speaches then. Since pork has been made very safe for human consumption and posses no threat you should not "worry about it" anymore.

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

So your answer to Deut 22 is in the form "I don't worry about it". I pray this is the end of your Lev 11 speaches then.

A. I never said that the solution for God's Word is "don't worry about it" -- no not even in the case of Deut 22. Perhaps you would do better to actually read my post.

B. I never claim that Deut 22 is a funny-kind-of-way to talk about Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" Nor do I claim that Deut 22 is a funny-kind-of-way to talk about the Lev 11 restriction on eating diseased flesh, rats and cats.

Feel free at any time to come up with an actual "Bible position" on the topic - instead of simply toying around.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Posted by Bob Ryan
There "again" I show how this is kept not only by me - but by a lot of people simply because the wool-linen problem is not a common one to find in stores for most of us. The paucity in logic that tries to delete Lev 11 with Deut 22 while clinging to Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor" in a truly "pick-and-choose" anti-Bible methodology - remains glaringly obvious to the objective unbiased reader.

So this is your answer. This is the end all--the summary of it all. "The wool-linen problem is not a common one to find in stores for most of us," therefore the Lord allows us to disobey...

Observing the extreme paucity in logic that says "keeping this Law is not a problem so the lord allows us to disobey" is left as a trivial exercise for the reader.

Thus when the commands of the Lord become inconvenient to Bob, he just dispenses with them.

Actually that is your argument. Maybe you forgot.

However if your "new argument" is to invent the wild idea that the positions you have been taking - are magically "my position" - it will be easy to debunk - since I only say the words above as a reference to the argument you keep trying to make - as I continually debunk your solution.

I know many people who do that--most of them unsaved. It is a very convenient "theology." You don't even need a Bible. In fact most of your Bible keeps getting "cut out" until nothing remains of it.

Yes that has been what I claim you are doing -

I on the other hand choose to honor God's Word -- yes all of it.

My Bible has 66 books.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Feel free at any time to come up with an actual "Bible position" on the topic - instead of simply toying around.

in Christ,

Bob

Calling the kettle black are you?
Where are we at? Is it page 16 or 17? I first asked you to "come up with an actual "Bible position" on this topic (Deu.22:11) on page 3, post #29, which you have ignored all these pages. When can we expect an answer, Bob?
Give us a direct example how you would apply Deu.22:11 in your life today.
Or, if as you have already posted, it is not convenient to keep that particular command in this day, then admit that nor is it convenient or important to keep the Levitical dietary laws in this day and age. It is one or the other Bob. At least be consistent in your theology.

 

[DHK]

Yes that has been what I claim you are doing -

I on the other hand choose to honor God's Word -- yes all of it.

My Bible has 66 books.

All except Deut. 22:11! (And how much more of the Levitical law or ceremonial of the OT)? Bob is not that honest when it comes to keeping all that is written in those 66 books as he infers.

 

[BobRyan]

I on the other hand choose to honor God's Word -- yes all of it.

My Bible has 66 books.

All except Deut. 22:11!

1. That is a happy little fiction you like to make up to see how many of your fellow posters on this thread will ignore what I have posted and just "take your imagination" as if it were some kind of proof of something. Well DHK imagined it -- so it must be true.

I find that aspect to your solution more than a little entertaining.:applause:

2. You have lept off the cliff of an extremely anti-Bible solution - that is of the form "I hate to keep the commandment about honoring parents - so all I have to do is nit pick someone else so as to imagine them tripping up in obeying the command not to covet and PRESTO! Any flaw in their coveting means I do not have to honor my parents!!"

You then "pretend" that nobody notices how that logic is a massive extreme in anti-sola-scriptura, non-Bible storytelling of a type even our Catholic friends have not fallen to in their arguments against Protestant views! (Hello! Anyone awake over there??).

And yet the idea here is to pretend that not one single Baptist will step up to the plate to say "that is just wrong" and to then insist on an actual Bible solution for opposing my views - instead of just "making stuff up" that has nothing at all to do with valid Bible exegesis.

I have the Baptist Faith and Message - and there you find no reference at all to the supposed DHK form of "Doctrine" that "If Bob is flawed in any way in keeping a given command of scripture -- then Baptists may pick and choose from any other command of scripture and reject that command based on the "Bob slipped up one day" on some unrelated command in God's Word excuse".

So far - not even "one" willing to stand up among the Baptist and insist that an actual Bible solution be found to support DHK's position - such that the Bible is viewed as being more substantive than simply "making stuff up"??

You cannot argue anything about Lev 19:19 or Lev 11 based on "I don't want to keep Deut 22" UNLESS you can provide a Biblically sound argument for "ignore whatever part of the Bible you like" -- something you have not even attempted so far.

What is up with that?

That has been incredibly "informative" for me - because I never would have thought that this board would go to such an extreme.

Live and Learn.:jesus:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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

He is asking if you personally keep Deut 22:11

If so - how?

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" principle 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.

Again the only solution DHK gives for that is "pretend not to notice the problem" in his own argument as well as pretending not to notice that he has yet to even FIND a flaw in his derail-offtrack-Deu22-instead-of-Lev-11 rant.

How "instructive".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Again the only solution DHK gives for that is "pretend not to notice the problem" in his own argument as well as pretending not to notice that he has yet to even FIND a flaw in his derail-offtrack-Deu22-instead-of-Lev-11 rant.

How "instructive".

in Christ,

Bob

IT is instructive Bob. It is instructive to all that read this board. Steaver has pointed it out. So has Targus. So have I. So have others. Let me quote it again, in the simple way that Targus put it above:

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

He is asking if you personally keep Deut 22:11

If so - how?

But through 17+ pages you have avoided this question. The reason? It condemns your position on sola scripture. It condemns your position as an SDA. It demonstrates that the SDA picks and chooses which parts of the law: keeping the Sabbath, keeping the dietary laws, they want to take heed to, all the while choosing what parts of the law they don't want to take heed to such as this clothing law. It makes you and the SDA hypocrites. And all that read this thread can clearly see that.

Otherwise it would be very easy for you to answer such a simple question:
How do you personally keep the command given in Deu.22:11?

The answer is that you don't. It is not convenient for you to keep it, is it?
It seems to be convenient to attempt to keep dietary laws for some strange reason that you try to attribute to sola scripture but cannot. For the Bible works against you. The law has been abolished, nailed to the cross, as the Scriptures clearly teach:

Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;


There it is clear. Don't doubt it or deny it again.

Here is your position, and here is why:
Bob believes that the Sabbath must be kept, not because of sola scriptura, but because of the command of Ellen G. White.

Bob believes that the Dietary laws must be kept, not because of sola scriptura, but because of the command of EGW.

Bob believes that the Clothing law doesn't have to be kept, not because of sola scriptura, but because EGW never stipulated that it had to be kept.

If Bob was honest then he would admit to these facts. Since EGW never stipulated that Bob had to keep the clothing law, then Bob doesn't have to keep it, or even give an answer for not keeping it. Thus far he hasn't given a reason for not keeping it. All of SDAism would be condemned if would answer it. They would be condemned for their hypocrisy. Thus the stifling silence remains from Bob to the eternal question of this thread:

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

He is asking if you personally keep Deut 22:11

If so - how?

 

[BobRyan]

But through 17+ pages you have avoided this question. The reason? It condemns your position on sola scripture.

Wrong again.

1. I pointed out that your derailing side-issue non-Bible argument was answered intriplicate - and then gave a summary post of those answers "again" - located here
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1543056&postcount=162

2. You can't actually condemn a sola-scriptura argument without actually having one of your own to propose. So far the best you have is a totally non-Bible argument of the form "if I don't like what Bob does - I can ignore any part of God's Word I feel like ignoring".

It condemns your position as an SDA. It demonstrates that the SDA picks and chooses which parts of the law:

You keep quoting my statements saying that I affirm the text in question and then innexplicably commenting AS IF I had said "I join you in rejecting that portion of scripture".

How long are we to be entertained by that exercise in fiction on your part?

Otherwise it would be very easy for you to answer such a simple question:
How do you personally keep the command given in Deu.22:11?

The answer is that you don't.

You continue to offer what you "make up" as "the answer".

Try reading my posts to see what my answer is "instead".

You can always show some Bible argument as to why you choose not to join me in my answer regarding scripture and the fact that I support it instead of tossing it out the window... but your constant efforts to make stuff up as to what my answer has been - instead of actually reading the posts -- is not as compelling to non-Baptists as you might have at first imagined.

It is not convenient for you to keep it, is it?

On the contrary - I have repeatedly pointed out that it is no inconvenience.

I also point out that your implied rule "keep whatever part of God's Word that you find convenient" is NOT a Bible position - no not even remotely.

It seems to be convenient to attempt to keep dietary laws for some strange reason

Hmm - you need to think that one through, because it would wreck your "I only keep what I find to be convenient" solution that you have got going here.

Since the remainder of your post actually tries to come up with a Bible position as an answer - I will treat it on its one merrits in a sep response.

(And it is about time we got something like "a Bible" idea from the baptist opposition to my position!!):thumbs:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK trying out a Bible solution - so giving it a dedicated post here --

For the Bible works against you. The law has been abolished, nailed to the cross, as the Scriptures clearly teach:

Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Eph 2 addresses the issue of the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile and also between the Gentile and God.

Hint: it does NOT argue that the God needed to make murder and adultery "ok" so Gentiles could be saved.

Eph 2
11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "" Uncircumcision' ' by the so-called "" Circumcision,'' which is performed in the flesh by human hands
12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world

The work of Christ was to bring all men back to God - including those far away - thus abolishing the hostility between lost man and God
AND abolishing the hostility between the two groups - those in the one True Religion - the Hebrew Nation Church, and those in the Pagan religions.


Eph 2
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,


We see above that BOTH solutions are mentioned - bringing them NEAR to God and ALSO drawing the two groups of people into ONE body of Christ. No longer TWO divided groups – Jews vs Gentiles!.





Romans 6
1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so thatwe would no longer be slaves to sin;
7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.


10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives , He lives to God.
11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness ; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead,
13 -and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.


14 For sin shall not be master over you , for you are not under law but under grace.
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
17But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin , you
became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness .
[/quote]




1Cor 7:19
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Yes that is right DHK = they are still there!

My Bible has 66 books!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Christ abolishes the HOSTILITY in the LAW - but does not void/annul/abolish His Law that declares Him to hate evil and that Calls man to Love God Deut 6:5 and Love
his fellow man - Lev 19:18.

a.He pays the debt that the Law demands (preserving the LAW while removing/abolishing the hostility it requires) and
b. TRANSFORMS the human that is BY NATURE a child of WRATH - into a child of God. One who LOVES his fellow man and loves God.

TWO groups “BOTH reconciled into on body TO God THROUGH the Cross” the TWO groups are stated in Eph 2 to be Jew vs Gentile! God is not “ONE man with us” rather Jews and Gentiles are now ONE that is reconciled TO GOD! So the commands/ordinances are those that SEPARATE Jews from Gentiles by Law. For example “the Court of the Gentiles” in the temple

Eph 2
15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances , so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man , thus establishing peace,
16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross , by it having put to death the enmity.
17 AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR ;
18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

Thus as Christ said in John 4 – “The time is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem”:

John 4
19"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet.
20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."
21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
24God is spirit, and His worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."


Acts 10
28 And he said to them, ""You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.
29 ""That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me.''
30 Cornelius said, "" Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour; and behold, a man stood before me in shining garments,
31 and he said, "Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God.
32 "Therefore send to Joppa and invite Simon, who is also called Peter, to come to you; he is staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea.'
33 ""So I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.''
34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: ""I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,
35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.
36 ""The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)
37 you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed.
38 "" You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
39 ""We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross.
40 "" God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible,
41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.
42 ""And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.
43 ""Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His nameeveryone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.''

1Cor 7:19
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Yes that is right DHK = they are still there!

Eph 2
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints , and are of God's household ,
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. [/quote]


The OT remains affirmed in Eph 2.


My Bible has 66 books!

 

[BobRyan]

BTW some credit goes to DHK on this - after 18 pages - he is turning his argument toward an actual Bible position.

 

[DHK]

Here is your problem Bob.
One is a misinterpretation of Eph.3:14 which definitely states that Christ abolished the law. You don't accept this.

Second. A verse you continue to use in defense of your position is this:

1Cor 7:19
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Third, you have just used a verse that stresses "the keeping of the commandments of God," and yet at the same time you dismiss the commandment of Deut.22:11, a commandment that you are unable (using concrete examples) to explain how you would keep today. In fact I believe you alluded to the fact that you would not keep this command today. Is that correct?
You mentioned the priests garments were of different types, inferring that they disobeyed the commands of God. You know that they didn't. Thus the passage has a different meaning. Priests, as you know were in a different position, serving in a different function. Their clothing also had symbolic importance. That answer is just another rabbit trail, or is not germane to the true interpretation of Deu.22:11 which you have failed to answer these 18 pages. You gave a good attempt in the link you provided but still failed at the basic question of "how you would keep this law in this day and age, in comparison to how the average Jew kept the law in their day and age?
Or perhaps you don't know the answer to either??

 

[BobRyan]

Here is your problem Bob.
One is a misinterpretation of Eph.3:14 which definitely states that Christ abolished the law.

It speaks only of "ending emnity" the "middle wall of separation" as contained in the law of "ordinances" - (rites) observed in the temple and identifying the Jews as "A Holy Nation, a Royal Priesthood" -- with the gentiles reduced to second-class saints.

But in the new order after the cross - BOTH Jew and Gentile are considered to be the "Holy Nation" and the "Royal Priesthood" if they are saved Christians.

Holy Priesthood – royal nation status now only applies to Christians – Jew and Gentiles.
1Pet 2
9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.
11 Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.
12 Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.


Thus the enmity between Jew and Gentile is removed and they are made into ONE new man.

11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "" Uncircumcision' ' by the so-called "" Circumcision,'' which is performed in the flesh by human hands
12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,

Eph 2

15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances , so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man , thus establishing peace,
16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross , by it having put to death the enmity.
17 AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR ;
18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

This has nothing to do with "eating rats" as it turns out.



Apparently "You don't accept this".

Second. A verse you continue to use in defense of your position is this:

1Cor 7:19
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

True - I keep reminding you that the Commandments of God that define sin - still remain in effect.

And I also remind you of Romans 6 telling us that we as born again saints are to be obedient to that law - instead of engaging in open rebellion against it.

Third, you have just used a verse that stresses "the keeping of the commandments of God," and yet at the same time you dismiss the commandment of Deut.22:11

Sadly for your empty accusation - you have not one quote from me claiming that I "dismiss the commandment of Deut 22:11".

You continue to gloss over that not-so-subtle detail so central to your accusation above.

. In fact I believe you alluded to the fact that you would not keep this command today. Is that correct?

No - in fact I stated that it is much easier to keep that command than you seem to imagine.

You mentioned the priests garments were of different types, inferring that they disobeyed the commands of God.

Exactly wrong.

I stated that the Priests did NOT wear a single garment WOVEN of both linen and wool - but they did not layered garments - some linen and others wool. The text does not forbid the layering of garments - only the mixed weave. I gave 5 translations making that same point.

I keep quoting them - and you keep skipping past them and missing the point. Going on 19 pages.

But what is worse for your own argument in that regard is that there is no such thing as a Bible argument that is of the form "Joe Smith covets - therefore I get to dishonor my parents".

As Christians we never could use such an argument to determine our view of scripture -- so even if all of your disproven accusations had been true - you would have been left with a failed argument "anyway".

A point I keep bringing up and a point that one or two posters like to pretend they do not understand.

Which is ok with me - don't get me wrong. If that is where opposition to my position gets itself stuck - I am more than happy to draw the lines there and point to it as the last step they were able to take on that path.

But now that you are turning to some Bible arguments - I think the discussion as some life left in it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

No - in fact I stated that it is much easier to keep that command than you seem to imagine.

You must have an odd way of expressing yourself Bob. In 19 pages I have not read a coherent response from you as to the simple questions:

1. In Deut.22:11--How did the Israelites keep this command.

2. How do you keep this command in this day and age? Can you give some practical examples.

I have not seen any simple answer to this question. Without going down various rabbit trails, can you just give a simple answer.

 

[targus]

Bob, you can end the discussion simply by offering practical concrete examples of how you personally keep Deut 22:11 in your day to day life.

I don't understand why you fail to do so in the face of repeated requests for the same.