[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

How so?


How so?

Because the abominable acts which Smith claims are the ones that are here to stay, suddenly are not. Showing an inconsistency in the theory that "all the sins we are told are abominable in Leviticus should be kept as sins, and the others not".

The Bible doesn't SAY this, so to claim it is to put a twist on the text, because there is a clear anomaly in shell fish.

And I can just picture you lot sitting there in some kind of private room saying "lets bombard falso's thread with rubbish to spoil the discussion". If so, stop it. It is working annoyingly well.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Because the abominable acts which Smith claims are the ones that are here to stay, suddenly are not. Showing an inconsistency in the theory that "all the sins we are told are abominable in Leviticus should be kept as sins, and the others not".

The Bible doesn't SAY this, so to claim it is to put a twist on the text, because there is a clear anomaly in shell fish.

You know pal, one of your central problems is that you are unsaved scum, and therefore incapable of truly comprehending the Word of God.

John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

This explains why false Christians, atheists, and an army of God mockers have spent the last 2,000 years attempting to tear apart and niggardly nit-pick every single verse of the Holy Bible, all to no avail.

Jesus always wins.

[Juliette]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Because the abominable acts which Smith claims are the ones that are here to stay, suddenly are not. Showing an inconsistency in the theory that "all the sins we are told are abominable in Leviticus should be kept as sins, and the others not".

The Bible doesn't SAY this, so to claim it is to put a twist on the text, because there is a clear anomaly in shell fish.

You're retarded boy?

You start some smartass bible-topic to challenge our church. And next you fail to get back to the pastor who made your theory shrink back to what's probably the size of your scrotum. Next you ignore that fault, hope that no one has noticed, and are willing to get back to the point in debate you prefer. Away from your failure that is.

Get back HERE.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

You know pal, one of your central problems is that you are unsaved scum, and therefore incapable of truly comprehending the Word of God.

John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

This explains why false Christians, atheists, and an army of God mockers have spent the last 2,000 years attempting to tear apart and niggardly nit-pick every single verse of the Holy Bible, all to no avail.

Jesus always wins.

Can't a man just work out if he should be eating shellfish and stoning people who work on sundays to death or not without being called trash?

Gosh.

And Jules, I long ago ditched the idea that people can't be clean shaven, Billy Reuben did well there, but there are still plenty of other rules in Leviticus, including the "don't mar your edges" one, that in theory might still be active today.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Because the abominable acts which Smith claims are the ones that are here to stay, suddenly are not. Showing an inconsistency in the theory that "all the sins we are told are abominable in Leviticus should be kept as sins, and the others not".

Are you trying to put limits on what Jesus can do? If Jesus wants to make it OK for us to eat shellfish nowadays, and says so in His Word, who are you to say, "naw-aw, you can't do that Jesus, because shell fish is an abomination". That's what the Pharasiees tried to do.

The Bible doesn't SAY this, so to claim it is to put a twist on the text, because there is a clear anomaly in shell fish.

I don't understand what you are referring to here. What are you claiming that the Bible doesn't say?

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Are you trying to put limits on what Jesus can do? If Jesus wants to make it OK for us to eat shellfish nowadays, and says so in His Word, who are you to say, "naw-aw, you can't do that Jesus, because shell fish is an abomination". That's what the Pharasiees tried to do.

Ah William, you attribute the error of Smith to Jesus there! It was Smith who came up with the theory and Smith's logic that doesn't hold up, not Jesus's

I don't understand what you are referring to here. What are you claiming that the Bible doesn't say?

Pastor Billy-Reuben

You mention here that you don't understand what I just explained, fair enough. As you now know, i meant the Bible does not say specifically that the abominable acts should be used now-er-days and the others not.

[Nobar King]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

you are hundred percent correct he look like big dummy who is try to vogue like Madonna.

only is look cool when I do it

The vogue is still cool!

[Juliette]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

And Jules, I long ago ditched the idea that people can't be clean shaven, Billy Reuben did well there, but there are still plenty of other rules in Leviticus, including the "don't mar your edges" one, that in theory might still be active today.

Your smarttalk will not be of any help.

Whenever someone showes you evidence of your own faults you're suddenly somewhere else or ignoring everything.

Do you think I'm stupid?

Pastor Billy-Reuben proved you wrong sister. On your very own questions.

And unless you come up with something that looks like a proper answer on that matter you're opinion on whatever is to me as valuable as that of my mothers dog.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

This is a progressive thread darling, I'm appreciating William's input. Read the thread in its entirety to catch up with what we are discussing at the moment.

[Juliette]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

This is a progressive thread darling, I'm appreciating William's input. Read the thread in its entirety to catch up with what we are discussing at the moment.

Once again saying nothing.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

OK, lets settle this nonsense once and for all.

You mention here that you don't understand what I just explained, fair enough. As you now know, i meant the Bible does not say specifically that the abominable acts should be used now-er-days and the others not.

I didn't get that from your previous post, but I will address it now.

To answer your question, if something is an abomination, that means it is in the worst class of sin. Jesus can do anything, because He and God are one and the same. If Jesus wants to change the rules so that something that He once considered to be an abomination is now A-OK, there is nothing to prevent Him from doing that.

Jesus told us many times that the Old Testament law still applies (Matt 5:19, 7:12, 19:17; Luke 16:17). However, the New Testament also specifically mentions some laws and says that they no longer apply. The only sane way to make sense of this is to believe that the OT laws still apply unless the New Testament specifically abrogates them.

Dispensationalists love to take a few out-of-context verses from Colossians and Galatians and claim that none of the Old Testament laws apply. We don't have to obey the law, they'll say, because we are no longer under the schoolmaster. They are right in that obeying the law is not enough to save you, but they miss the point that the law tells us what is and what is not sin.

Most damningly, these heretics believe that God completely rewrites His whole Plan of Salvation every 2150 years or so. This is in stark contrast with scripture that tells us that God does not change (Mal 3:6; Heb 13:8).

A skeptic, on the hand, will contrast the verses stating that all of the Old Testament Laws will apply forever, the verses stating that certain specific laws no longer apply, the verses that when taken out of context make it sound like none of the OT laws still apply, and the verses that say that God is unchanging, and try to claim that the Bible is full of contradictions.

The skeptic reads the Bible with cold legalistic analytical eyes rather than reading with the eyes of faith. They ask the kinds of questions that you ask, Falso. A person of faith reads the Bible with an open mind, and believes that it all makes sense whether or not they understand it.

We know that the Bible has no contradictions, because it is God's Word. God will not allow His Word to become corrupted with contradictions because He promise otherwise (Ps. 12:6-7). We are guaranteed to have a reliable way to know His Will.

Friend, if you would just admit that you are a worthless sinner, repent of your sins, and accept Jesus' free give of salvation, rather than trying to loophole your way into some sort of Pharisaic legalese salvation, everything would become clear to you. Faith is what it takes.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

We are waiting for Mr Smith to reply.... Even if I concede the beard thing, unless Smith can defend himself sufficiently, all the other things like touching pigs etc. comes back into play.

Mr. Smith, unfortunately, is not at your beck and call as a spiritual adviser, since he has a very busy calendar, what with attending law school, teaching Sunday school, and performing video espionage on various Barak Obama campaign staffers. He will, however, eventually get around to answering any question you pose as his schedule permits, if for no other reason than you seem to want the Lord to be a part of your life, even if your interpretations are often questionable. It's a shame that we can't offer you more guidance as you unravel the mysteries of God, so Mr. Smith will do what he can.

I hardly think that a failure of my rhetorical skills would trump God's clear statement of whether something is or is not sinful. Happily, however, in this case, I can defend God and myself more than sufficiently.

You're focusing on the metaphysics here, and ignoring the plain truth of the matter. Jesus told us that some laws no longer apply. He didn't tell us that others no longer apply. So it is not hard to determine which rules still apply and which rules didn't. An Old Testament sin remains a sin today unless Jesus told us otherwise, and nothing that I say or don't say can change that simple fact.

Still, I'll admit that the metaphysics is fascinating, and there is more to the Bible than just the laws--it is the living Word. I stand 100% by my statement that Jesus could not (and did not) change any abomination into an unsinful act.

Leviticus 11:10

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

How come this abomination is apparently overturned by the new testament then?

Excellent question Falso, and, may I say, it is a pleasure debating with you! We have to delve deep into the Word to refute your clever (though superficial) arguments. So, let me say from the outset, you are absolutely right, the creepy crawlys mentioned in Leviticus were abominations, and abominations they remain. They will be abominations forever. Nobody could seriously argue otherwise.

However, you still seem to be clinging to the false doctrine that every law in Leviticus has to have the same status as every other law, regardless of what the God said the purpose of each set of laws was. You need to put Leviticus 11:10 into its proper context.

Just as God had a purpose for separating the Leviticus 18 rules from the Leviticus 19 rules, so too did he have a reason for separating out the dietary laws into their own chapter, Leviticus 11. The purpose of Leviticus 11 was not to decide which animals were abominations, although certainly it did that. The purpose of Leviticus 11 was to decide which animals were clean and which were unclean to eat, as is clearly stated in Leviticus 11:46-47:

This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

In Mark 7, Jesus did not change the status of these animals as abominable. Mark 7 doesn't mention abomination at all. What Jesus did in Mark 7 was change the rule that said that eating an abominable animal makes you unclean:

And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.Mark 7:18-20

So the animal remains abominable, but eating an abominal animal is no longer sinful because, since the time of Jesus, eating an abominable animal no longer renders you unclean. Cleanliness of your heart, not of your bowels, is now the operative standard, so the abomination of these animals is still in force, but it is simply no longer relevant.

If some Landoverites found your question puzzling, I suspect it's because we all understand this to be the way the Word of God works, and sometimes we forget that other Christians (which I hope and think you are) do not have the benefit of the wise counsel of the Landover Pastors on issues such as this.

And I can just picture you lot sitting there in some kind of private room saying "lets bombard falso's thread with rubbish to spoil the discussion". If so, stop it. It is working annoyingly well.

You'd be surprised how little we strategize, and by how little of the time we spend when we do is devoted to you. Mostly, we just go where the Spirit leads us.

[Brother V]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Overnight I've done some research on Jewish shaving laws.

Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

All one needs to do is look at a picture of Yul Brynner in the Ten Commandments (staring Charlton Heston) to find out what that verse is talking about (for rounding the corners of the heads).



He's got a rounded head.

Now, as to what marring the corners of the beard means. Look at this picture of King Tut's mask thingy.



He has a long goatee. He has a beard; but the corners of it have been removed. He has marred the corners. This is a commandment against having an evil goatee.

The prohibitions against rounding the head and shaving the beard into a goatee is to prevent the Israelites from looking Egyptian.

Remember, the people had just left Egypt (under unpleasant circumstances) and were looking to build an identity.

Leviticus 18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

So to sum up. Having a goatee is bad. Having the shaved rope hairstyle is also bad.

YIC
V

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Thanks for settling this matter, Brother V. If you don't mind, I will copy Falso's question and your answer to Day 36. Leviticus 19-21 in the Bible in a Year forum, so it will make it into the daily devotional.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Thank you for your post Smith. Still one thing I am not entirely convinced by. The rules in Lev. 19 flow freely on from chapter 18, there is no real seperation that suggests the rules in 18 are to be taken any less seriously from the rules in 19. Granted the rules in 18 seem more important and 19 more trivial, but that is just a viwers perspective opinion.