Seventh-Day Adventists

[BobRyan]

The reaction we are getting to this "eat what Lev 11 says is NOT FOOD" is coming from the fact that God's Word about NOT eating Rats, cats, dogs and bats is SOOO intuitive - SO reasonable, SO obviously correct - that rejecting His Word on that point "takes some doing".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Claudia_T]

I would hope that "what some people find offensive" would not be what we use to decide what doctrine we will hold to. That must be decided by what the Bible has to say.

I find eating fried worm larvae in swine meat to be offensive but what does that have to do with anything?

I even find this idea that because we are Christians that now means that we can do whatever we feel like doing, to be offensive, but again, what does that have to do with anything?

I mean, in some cultures... people like to shrink people's heads and put them on a stick but what does that have to do with anything?

If the Bible says dont do that, then dont do it.

 

[bound]

I would hope that "what some people find offensive" would not be what we use to decide what doctrine we will hold to. That must be decided by what the Bible has to say.

I find eating fried worm larvae in swine meat to be offensive but what does that have to do with anything?

Hi Claudia_T,

If you knew what can be found in most canned goods you would probably be offended too. The point isn't offense, it's the fact that you are trying to establish for us our offense. The New Covenant of the Children of Promise is one established by conscience through the Holy Spirit 'not by Mosaic Law'. We have the liberty to worship God as our conscience through the Holy Spirit guides 'not by Mosaic Law'.

It is clear to me that you can't even say 'ham' or 'pork' and as far I am, personally, concerned 'that is okay' because I don't make a living selling ham and pork products.

If I went out to dinner with a group of Adventists, I clearly wouldn't order a meal with pork in it because we as Christians should always exercise our liberity in Charity but I would espect the same from you. The fact that you are here, on a Baptist Forum, pushing your Adventist Exegesis could be considered offensive to us but you know what? You're still welcome to debate your point. I'm not going to slander you because it wouldn't be proper. I, of course, don't agree with your Adventist Exegesis but that is to be expressed in kindness as the Bible exhorts us.

I even find this idea that because we are Christians that now means that we can do whatever we feel like doing, to be offensive, but again, what does that have to do with anything?

I mean, in some cultures... people like to shrink people's heads and put them on a stick but what does that have to do with anything?

If the Bible says dont do that, then dont do it.

The Bible also says to understand the Law more completely through the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles and you appear to deny their teachings, which to us is 'very' offensive. It's frankly scary.

All the rhetoric aside, you Adventists haven't honestly made your point that Christ didn't sublate the Law to a deeper and more compete understanding. Our Apostle Paul was clear:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17)

This to me to very clear that we, as Christians, are not to let you adventist judge concerning these matters. They were the shadow to guide us to the coming of our Lord and Saviour. We even have the Bible offering 'reasonable' proof that the early Church met on Sundays (the first day of the week) and you Adventists infer that they were 'still gathered the next day'. It's unfortunate that isn't what the verse said.

"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." (Acts 20:7)

Upon the first day of the week [Sunday], when the disciples came together to break bread [Lord's Supper], Paul preached [Sermon]... It's all there yet you desire to ignore it because it doesn't met with you imposed interpretation. I find that chilling.

What version of the Scriptures does your congregation use? What does your Bible say? I have been using the KJV but I am not KJV-only.

Cool the rhetoric and let's crack open those Bibles and lets see exactly what it says...

Be well.

 

[Amy.G]

I point out that EVEN in Act 10 where you are pointing this conversation Peter gives the dream's interpretation three times and NEVER (not even ONCE) says "SO EAT MORE RATS to show that you are a Christian". When Paul confronts Peter for eating with Gentiles and then withdrawing from Gentiles when Jewish leaders come around Peter DOES NOT proudly retort "OH NO Paul I have NEVER ceased to be duplicitous on this point". Because he is being directed to a point of failure. But when GOD points out the command to eat rats Peter DOES insist in ALL ACCOUNTS "OH NO Lord for nothing unclean HAS EVER been eaten by me" KNOWING that HONOR for the Word of God is ALWAYS the right course. And so when Peter EXPLAINS the vision those THREE TIMES - he ALWAYS points the reader to the LESSON as "Call no MAN unclean" AND NEVER points the reader to "EAT Rats cats and dogs to show you really understand the Gospel". No - not even ONCE.

This is a gross misinterpretation of scripture, or should I say twisting of scripture. Peter's vision was solely about clean and unclean FOODS not MAN. In the vision God tells Peter "kill and eat". Kill and eat what? The animals on the sheet in the vision. Peter says "no, nothing unclean has ever entered my mouth". Implying that there were unclean animals on the sheet which God had just told him to eat. Then God says that He has cleansed them and they're not unclean anymore. Why is this so hard for you to understand? It's so plain. Why did God give Peter this vision? Because He was sending him to a gentiles' house and Jews were not even allowed to cross the threshold of a gentile home because it would make them unclean. God is telling him he's now not only permitted to go
into the home, but also eat the food. Peter argues with God and God tells him plainly that he's not allowed to call something unclean that God Himself has cleansed. If God cleansed it, it's cleansed indeed. God was bringing Jew and Genitle together during this time to make one man out of two through Christ.
All that being said, you are free to NOT eat pork, I am free TO eat it without guilt.

 

[DHK]

Is it Thou shalt not kill?

Is that the commandment you can break?

Can someone please explain to me what is the difference between what is said in 1John 3:15 which was said AFTER the Cross of Christ and what is said in Matthew 5:17-22 which was said BEFORE the Cross of Christ?


1Jn:3:15: Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Ha! And is your implication that the killing of sheep, such as God ordered the Israelites to do in the OT murder, or the killing of mosquitoes that carry both malaria and the Dengue various (which could be fatal) is murder, and all the chlorine we put in water to kill all those innocent living micro-oranisms (still animals) murder--you drink them anyway and by drinking them kill them. This is murder by your implied definition.
You have defeated your own argument. :BangHead:

 

[DHK]

I never claimed that Lev 11 was given by God as a way of "pleasing the traditions of men who seek to eat rats".

Your comment is that by simply admitting to and honoring the part of God's Word that declares "rats are not food for people" - that this is offensive to those rat-and-cat eating groups around the world.

I do not argue against that statement of your. I don't doubt that there are those that would prefer that God not infringe on their liberty to eat those rats cats and puppies.

If it is their God-given liberty then it is your too. If it is yours also, then it is the liberty of all the SDA's and this whole argument is moot.

Bound was kind enough to point out that though we are not comfortable with that form of gross abuse of the human system - others are and we should simply turn a blind eye to Lev 11 EVEN when God's command "seems to make sense" to us westerners.

Now you have changed your tune. Sounds a bit illogical to me. I never pointed out any kind of abuse to the human system--not once. I pointed out to you those things that don't appeal to you. So you are appalled. They don't appeal to you. You don't like cat, dog and rats for a diet. That is your choice. You don't have to eat them if you don't want to. Not everyone has the choice that you do. Not everyone lives in comfortable western civilized nations. You are making unwarranted assumptions that are not only unbiblical but anti-biblical.
Your arguments are based on the OT law, not on NT directives. We do not live under the law. You negate the NT with the OT. That is hardly good hermeneutics. Leviticus 11 doesn't apply here; has nothing to do with these commands of Scripture; is totally out of the picture. The question is: What does the New Testament say (not the OT)?

Acts 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

1 Corinthians 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

1 Corinthians 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

Here are all the NT Scriptures that you conveniently ignore in favor of the OT Scriptures contained in the which Jesus did away with on the cross. They were but a shadow of that which was to come (Christ himself).

As I asked before, How long will you reject the plain teaching of the Word of God and remain in a state of unbelief. Even the rat is declared by God to be "good, and not be refused if it be received with thanksgiving." Are you willing to be thankful for ALL of God's creatures.

 

[DHK]

Your argument a that rats dogs and kittens are "good to eat" has been my point all along. People are whining about Lev 11 telling us that these are "not food" - and they feel that God is too restrictive if we let Him tell us "THESE ARE NOT FOOD" for humans.

Your argument is from emotionalism. Lev 11 has nothing to do with NT commands where God says that all creatures are good and nothing to be refused. Again, according to you the OT law supercedes NT teaching.

I point out that Isaiah 66 points to the burning judgment awaiting those who "eat mice and destible things".

Pick and choose, pick and choose. Come to me with Isaih 66 when you are willing to talk about the context in which it is written and not before then. Its context is the Millennial Kingdom and has nothing to do with today.

Isaiah 66:10 Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:
--Written to the Jews of the Millennial Kingdom; not to Gentile Christians of this day and age. Again--very poor hermeneutics.

Your argument is that we should NOT listen to God on this point because as Christians we are free to transgress His Commands.

I said no such thing. Quote me, or don't falsely accuse me. I said to keep things in their context which you don't do. I also gave you a challenge on numerous occasions which has never been asnwered.
"Show me one verse in the NT after the cross and before the Coming of Christ where any NT believer is commanded to keep the Sabbath Day. There has never been any SDA that has been able to take up that challenge. The Sabbath is not for today; and that holds true for the other OT laws that you are trying to impose on people.
[quote[I simply point out - that I don't agree with that position.[/quote]
You don't have any Biblical support for your own either.

I point out that those who complain about being restricted from eating more rats and cats - are taking a limited view of the Gospel that does not stand up to the test of scripture. The Creator is telling mankind to eat beef steak lamb and deer - but not rats, cats dogs and bats. You argue that He is wrong to declare that those rats "are not FOOD" for us. I simply point out that no text of[ scripture supports your view.

Where can you support that from the Bible? You cannot. It is purely your opinion--totally unsubstantiated. You have to pull Scripture out of context; use OT Scripture that is over-ruled by the NT. The Bible doesn't contradict itself but you contradict the Bible. Since your arguments do not line up with the Bible one can only assume that they are made from purely an emotional stand point--I don't like the idea therefore I won't accept it. Even rats are perferctly acceptable as creatures that are good and nothing to be refused in God's sight. Eat whatever is set before you, asking no questions before you--including rats. Eat unclean meats as Peter was commanded. You deny all this evidence. Why?

I point out that EVEN in Act 10 where you are pointing this conversation Peter gives the dream's interpretation three times and NEVER (not even ONCE) says "SO EAT MORE RATS to show that you are a Christian".

No, eat rats and other unclean animals (pork) to show that you are not restricted to a kosher diet, and can be accepted by the Gentiles and a Gentile diet. Keep things in their context.

When Paul confronts Peter for eating with Gentiles and then withdrawing from Gentiles when Jewish leaders come around Peter DOES NOT proudly retort "OH NO Paul I have NEVER ceased to be duplicitous on this point". Because he is being directed to a point of failure. But when GOD points out the command to eat rats Peter DOES insist in ALL ACCOUNTS "OH NO Lord for nothing unclean HAS EVER been eaten by me"

And God shows him that he is wrong. Paul also showed Peter that he was wrong to go back to the Jews and side with them, and not with the Gentiles. Keep things in their proper perspective.

KNOWING that HONOR for the Word of God is ALWAYS the right course. And so when Peter EXPLAINS the vision those THREE TIMES - he ALWAYS points the reader to the LESSON as "Call no MAN unclean" AND NEVER points the reader to "EAT Rats cats and dogs to show you really understand the Gospel". No - not even ONCE.

God explained it to Peter, and it wasn't your convoluted explanation. Rise and eat doesn't mean rise and visit. It means exactly what it says. He was commanded to eat unclean meat. Certainly it was an object lesson, but he was commanded to eat unclean meat, and he was told in no uncertain terms that that unclean meat was not anymore unclean, but clean. It was now "kosher" to eat. So, yes--you can obey the Bible and eat your cats, dogs, rats, etc, if you so desire. But no one is forcing you to do so. It is a matter of choice that all Bible-believing Christians have. And I am sure that many are thankful that they have the choice in the matter.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Claudia_T,

If you knew what can be found in most canned goods you would probably be offended too. The point isn't offense, it's the fact that you are trying to establish for us our offense.

The New Covenant of the Children of Promise is one established by conscience through the Holy Spirit 'not by Mosaic Law'. We have the liberty to worship God as our conscience through the Holy Spirit guides 'not by Mosaic Law'.

Here it is "again" an attempt to divide God against His Word. HE is the Author of scripture not "jews". But by pretending that "Jews are the author of scripture" you then have a basis for dividing God the Holy Spirit against His own Word

By Contrast - God said "Holy Men of old MOVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT spoke from God" 2Peter 1.

I keep pointing this out - and you keep turning a blind eye to it.

You need to adopt the ONE Bible, ONE Gospel model where God is not divided against His OWN Word.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It is clear to me that you can't even say 'ham' or 'pork' and as far I am, personally, concerned 'that is okay' because I don't make a living selling ham and pork products.

If I went out to dinner with a group of Adventists, I clearly wouldn't order a meal with pork in it because we as Christians should always exercise our liberity in Charity but I would espect the same from you.

#1. You are the one that brought the issue of "ham" into this thread - not SDAs.

#2. SDAs eat in public venues where people eat ham - every day. It has never been a problem.

#3. Lev 11 does not "abolish itself" simply because you want to divide that part of God's inspired Word against other parts. Isaiah 66 speaks to the subject of "ALL MANKIND" and also speaks to the subject of "eating mice and detestible things".

It is left as an exercise for the reader to conclude whether to turn a blind eye to that part of God's Word.

The fact that you are here, on a Baptist Forum, pushing your Adventist Exegesis could be considered offensive

I find it facinating that you not only divide God's Word against itself - but now you appear to post in opposition to exegesis itself.

How "instructive" for the reader. I do not mean this in an arbitrary or offensive manner. It is simply an observation about the methods you are using and the approach you are taking.

I think it is very logical of you to do it - since this is the path that your argument would naturally support.

It is consistent if nothing else.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible also says to understand the Law more completely through the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles and you appear to deny their teachings

On the Contrary Jesus said "IF you Love Me KEEP My COMMANDMENTS" John 14:15. You have consistently argued that IF we Love Jesus we should show it by having no regard at all for God's Commandments.

The contrast in teaching could not be more apparent.

, which to us is 'very' offensive. It's frankly scary.

Hmm - we seem to be in sync on taking that position

All the rhetoric aside, you Adventists haven't honestly made your point that Christ didn't sublate the Law

On the contrary "Do we than ABOLISH the LAW of God by our faith?? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of God" Rom 3:31.

It could not be more OBVIOUS.

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17)

This to me to very clear that we, as Christians, are not to let you adventist judge

Wrong again.

in Matt 7 Christ stated PRECROSS that Judging others was wrong. In Col 2 that SAME PRECROSS principle is repeated.

concerning these matters. They were the shadow to guide us to the coming of our Lord and Saviour. We even have the Bible offering 'reasonable' proof that the early Church met on Sundays (the first day of the week) and you Adventists infer that they were 'still gathered the next day'.

#1. Saturday is not "the day after Sunday"
#2. No text refers to a "Sunday after Sunday" sequence of meeting for Bible study or worship.

#3. Acts 13 AND Acts 17 show "Sabbath after Sabbath" services for Bible study and worship in the NT.

#4. Acts 15 states that Christians were hearing the Word of God in the synagogues every Sabbath.

BTW - "opening the Bible to see what IT SAYS" rather than reading into "man made tradition" is the heart soul and essence of exegesis.

We have no "standard translation" used in all of our local churches - we have people with everything from KJV to NIV NASB etc.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Claudia_T]

Ha! And is your implication that the killing of sheep, such as God ordered the Israelites to do in the OT murder, or the killing of mosquitoes that carry both malaria and the Dengue various (which could be fatal) is murder, and all the chlorine we put in water to kill all those innocent living micro-oranisms (still animals) murder--you drink them anyway and by drinking them kill them. This is murder by your implied definition.
You have defeated your own argument. :BangHead:

what in the world? LOL!

 

[BobRyan]

I said no such thing. Quote me, or don't falsely accuse me.


I said to keep things in their context which you don't do. I also gave you a challenge on numerous occasions which has never been asnwered.
"Show me one verse in the NT after the cross and before the Coming of Christ where any NT believer is commanded to keep the Sabbath Day.

Show me one text after Rev 19 and After Rev 20 where anyone is commanded to Love God and Love their neighbor!!

(Like that is some kind of Bible principle as in "whatever is not constantly repeated get's deleted).

BTW - you request above appears to explicitly reject the Word of Christ in the Gospels - do you have a point in doing such a thing?

in the mean time we obviously have Heb 4 "THERE REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" --

But I "suppose" there is a way to turn a blind eye to that text as well... Let me know when you have it.

There has never been any SDA that has been able to take up that challenge. The Sabbath is not for today;

NOT ONLY for "today" as we see in Heb 4 "THE REMAINS" that same Sabbath rest today - but also as we see in Is 66 that EVEN in the future ETERNITY "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship". Is 66

(The same place God declares fire and brimstone awaits those who "eat mice and destible things")

Glaringly obvious - and yet you keep claiming to turn a blind eye to it.

and that holds true for the other OT laws

BY CONTRAST Paul quotes the OT LAWS in Romans 7 and Romans 13.

Christ quotes them in the Gospels.

James quotes them in James 2.

Paul quotes from the Ten Commandments in Eph 6:1-3.

And you insist that we all should turn a blind eye to these facts??

how odd.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK
No, eat rats and other unclean animals (pork) to show that you are not restricted to a kosher diet...

Now THAT was priceless!!!

May I just say that you have stated the logical conclusion to your opposition to Lev 11 perfectly, consistently and with absolutely clarity!

Outstanding DHK!!

That quote is for the files sir.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
I point out that EVEN in Act 10 where you are pointing this conversation Peter gives the dream's interpretation three times and NEVER (not even ONCE) says "SO EAT MORE RATS to show that you are a Christian".

DHK said
No, eat rats and other unclean animals (pork) to show that you are not restricted to a kosher diet, and can be accepted by the Gentiles and a Gentile diet.

err - umm - yeah! That is what I meant to say that Peter "never said once in Acts 10 and 11".

"what you said"

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

This is a gross misinterpretation of scripture, or should I say twisting of scripture. Peter's vision was solely about clean and unclean FOODS not MAN. In the vision God tells Peter "kill and eat". Kill and eat what? The animals on the sheet in the vision.

True - the vision is about rats cats dogs and bats - and the fact that Peter asserts 3 times that he is holding to the Word of God in Lev 11 in not eating them.

THEN PETER HIMSELF interprets the vision FOR US -- THREE times!!

Each time HE SAYS the "meaning" is "call no MAN UNCLEAN".

Not ONCE does HE say "the meaning was -- try to eat more rats, cats and dogs and ALSO while you are doing that consider taking the Gospel to the gentiles".

this means that after the debate over WHEAT in Mark 7 and Matt 15 Peter did not start eating rats. And in Acts 10 we see AGAIN that Peter STILL was not down to the point of "eating rats".

Even after the vision - he STILL makes not argument in the form "God was showing me that I should not eat beef steak ONLY from now on -- but I should mix in some rats and puppies along with the steak -- oh yeah and ALSO I should seek to evangelize gentiles".

That is NOT the form that HIS OWN interpretation of the dream takes.

Peter CONTINUES to stand up for Lev 11 EVEN in the dream - THREE TIMES -- not stepping back ONCE on that point. He takes it as a point of honor JUST as DHK says we should proudly start eating rats to show just how much we accept the Gospel etc. Neither Peter nor DHK make these statements in the form "Well I am really trying to give this idea up but I just have not been about to find the courage yet".

This aspect to Acts 10 is glaringly obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

1 Corinthians 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

1 Corinthians 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

Here are all the NT Scriptures that you conveniently ignore in favor of the OT Scriptures contained in the which Jesus did away with on the cross. They were but a shadow of that which was to come (Christ himself).

I have already shown that 1Cor 8, 1Cor 10 and Rom 14:1 are ALL about "eating meat offerred to idols" -- the VERY thing that Acts 15 condemns.

THEY ARE NOT about telling Christians to eat rats and cats as you have supposed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:Bob said
In Gen 6-8 we see the unclean animals (rats, cats, dogs and bats) go into the ark by TWOs and the CLEAN animals (sheept, cows, goats, deer...) go into the ark by sevens. It is supposed by some that there was a Jew standing at the door of Noah's ark telling him which ones to call clean.

DHK said
Bob, dear Bob, the so-called clean animals before the law, were for the purpose of sacrifice and had nothing to do whether they were edible or not. They took seven of each kind so that they would have animals to sacrifice when they reached land. It was not necessary to sacrifice a rat or bat. They would sacrifice as God commanded them to do. God communicated those instructions to Adam and then to Abel. But Cain refused to follow those instructions and was judged by God for it. It had nothing to do with dietary instructions.

Moses is the author of Genesis 6-9 AND Moses is the Author of Lev 11.

ALL scholars agree that the definition of the term for "clean and unclean" meats is given in Lev 11. That is the ONLY place that you find it.

I am grateful that you freely admit your need to "invent another defintion and purpose" for them - but that does not get you anything in this case since admitting that you "need" the insertion merely exposes the flaw in your position.

The point remains - Moses' readers would ALL have access to BOTH Gen 6 through 9 AND Lev 11. They would have seen the point "clearly then" just as we can today. Prior to ANY reference to the "Sacrifice of ALL CLEAN animals" comes the reference to "clean and unclean animals" in Gen 6. The "distinction" was known LONG before there was a Jew - known even pre-flood!

As much as you are arguing in favor of eating rats to show just how much we reject the Word of God in Lev 11 - we find "by contrast" that God predicts a FUTURE judgment of fire and brimstone on those who "eat mice and destible things" Isaiah 66. More texts to be ignored under the model you are suggesting.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Amy.G]

Acts 11:2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, "You went in to uncircumcised men and ATE with them!"
They were angry with Peter for :
1. Going to a gentile's home...unclean
2. Eating gentile food... unclean

He explained in verses 4-12 the vision in which God had made these things clean which were previously unclean.

 

[BobRyan]

DHK, Bound, and others.


Go anywhere on the Inter-Net, and you will not find anyone who agrees with the SDA, except the SDA. Some of the excerpts I poster by others may presuppose to their opinions, but it is easy to see how they do it.
When you read the SDA creeds you can come out with many presupposed opinions, because the inferences are there to cause them.

And now -- for some fact to go with this post.

#1. The SDAs were introduced to the concept of NT keeping of Christ the Creator's Sabbath- by the Seventh-day Baptists. It is just silly to argue that SDAs are the ONLY ones that know and accept the Word of God regarding things like Christ's Holy Memorial of Creation. One has to get "very used to turning a blind eye" to the facts about him to claim that.

#2. As I have pointed out repeatedly when you admit to "INFERRING" your own ideas INTO what you are reading - you speak of yourself - not the text you are reading. INFERENCE is the act of the reader sir.

And now HERE is a question for the reader - why am I and just a few others left with the job of pointing out even the most basic facts in a case like this??

That one has me puzzled.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Amy.G]

I will say that this thread has given me a renewed appreciation for the freedoms I have in Christ. I can worship where and when I want on the day I want because I worship in spirit and truth. I gather with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ on Sundays because that's what the early church did without guilt of not observing the Sabbath. I can eat what I want because I'm not under law but grace. Christ is my righteousness because I can't keep the law. Thank you Jesus. I am clean and free!
:wavey: