[Ezekiel Bathfire]

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.

I have read this thread from the beginning and find that Pastor Billy-Reuben, Brother V and Brother Smith have given answers of text-book clarity. I must admit to having been educated by them myself.

There is the question of the dietary laws (Lev. 11 and elsewhere) that I think has been more than adequately covered, so I assume that Lev. 18 and 19, save where diet is concerned, is the area that is bothering you, despite Brother Smith’s memorable and lucid explanation.

I think it might be helpful if you wrote down a list of those that you think are justifiable to you via KJV1611 and those that you think are not.

If these could then be subdivided into heading as to why, in general terms, you think that there is error or contradictions (broad categories only) then I feel that the Brothers and Sister could progress with addressing your intellectual problems.

I say this in all kindness, for I now cannot help but see your name on posts and immediately associate it with the word, "Quibbling". And your, “Yes, but I don’t quite see…” answers are, if you will forgive my candor, entirely tedious.

You earlier described something along the lines of your posts being a developing argument (or some such). We here are simple True Christians™ and thus will, to the best of our ability, give you the same answer whether we go around the houses or take the direct path.

In many cases, such posters as yourself merely take us via the scenic route to the same well-trodden spot and present us with the same apparent flaw.

We then show the same perfect explanation, by reference to KJV, as we always do.

So, to the chase:
If, by not answering questions yourself, yet continuing to pose them, you are attempting to emulate Socrates by trying to drag something out of LBC by the Socratic Method of interrogative reasoning, I will tell you now that all that there is already open and on show.

Socrates never asked anyone, as far as I am aware, “Does that shop sell cabbages?” when in front of both of them were cabbages and a “These cabbages for sale by this shop” notice.

So Lad, spit it out, be concise, what’s your point?

PS
I feel that even the Lord’s patience will be sorely tried if you ever progress to Wittgenstein, I know mine will be.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

You pretty much nailed one of my units in my degree this year which starts at Socrates and ends with Wittgenstein, hehe. I'll be covering him just after Easter.

But seriously I am just asking questions to make sure I can understand the logical system of the true Christian belief. Right now these Leviticus laws are looking pretty shifty in my eyes. That should not be as God surely did not intend it that way, I have to right my fault, I thought you LBC people might be the right people to come to - if at any point you want to refute that thought, tell me.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

You pretty much nailed one of my units in my degree this year which starts at Socrates and ends with Wittgenstein, hehe. I'll be covering him just after Easter.

But seriously I am just asking questions to make sure I can understand the logical system of the true Christian belief. Right now these Leviticus laws are looking pretty shifty in my eyes. That should not be as God surely did not intend it that way, I have to right my fault, I thought you LBC people might be the right people to come to - if at any point you want to refute that thought, tell me.

I'll tell you now, Wittgenstein, despite a lot of words, can be summed up well in his own words and succinctly, but I'm not about to do any essays for you...

Looking at Leviticus 17, we have various rules for public hygiene and sacrifice

Looking at Leviticus 18, to v19 we have uncovering and to v24 we have adultery and unnatural acts. Verses 26 to end concerns keeping the Lord’s word.

Looking at Leviticus 19 to v 18, we have a set of rules for keeping the law, worshiping, sacrificing, charity, public hygiene, public and private conduct.

Then we have Le:19:19: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

V20 on, we have employment law, agricultural advice, words against superstition, treating the elderly well, hospitality, etc.

What’s not to like or not understand?

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

I'll tell you now, Wittgenstein, despite a lot of words, can be summed up well in his own words and succinctly, but I'm not about to do any essays for you...

Looking at Leviticus 17, we have various rules for public hygiene and sacrifice

Looking at Leviticus 18, to v19 we have uncovering and to v24 we have adultery and unnatural acts. Verses 26 to end concerns keeping the Lord’s word.

Looking at Leviticus 19 to v 18, we have a set of rules for keeping the law, worshiping, sacrificing, charity, public hygiene, public and private conduct.

Then we have Le:19:19: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

V20 on, we have employment law, agricultural advice, words against superstition, treating the elderly well, hospitality, etc.

What’s not to like or not understand?

Why because some of these rules we don't live by whatsoever and some we do. Yet when reading it, it doesn't say "in 2000 years forget this part"..... I get that Jesus said what he said about the food, but there is still a lot of other stuff many people don't do.

One interpretation was to say well whatever is abominable is something we should keep on not doing.. I get it but it still seems guilty of interpreting rather then just plain old reading it like we should be doing.

[Nobar King]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

OK, let's get back to what is a sin and what isn't.

The original question: Is it a sin to shave one's beard?

Let's assume that you are enslaved by the Pharoah. The Pharoah commands all of his slaves (the Jews) to be shaven, to test their faith and embarass them in front of their peers and their God.

Have you then committed a sin? Do you see the paradox? There are often times when rules are changed or re-interpreted depending on historical necessity. That's not to say that you can just change ANY law you like. These things take time.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

I'll tell you now, Wittgenstein, despite a lot of words, can be summed up well in his own words and succinctly, but I'm not about to do any essays for you...
...

Praise Brother Bathfire, we certainly would not like to contribute to the rising trend of cheating in these exalted institutions, but I can make a suggestion that may move falso to the head of his class. Prepare a paper on the following:

Compare and contrast the philosophical approach to aesthetics between Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein in developing criticism to the emergence of 20th century music from the Austro-Hungarian composers.

[Nobar King]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

I hope his professors don't google his paper on Unity, God, and Music and find his material here.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

I don't really understand what you said in reply to my last post Nobar. Explain more please?

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

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.

First, let me clear up one mistake I made (yes, I do admit it when I make mistakes). I spent some time with Pastor Dr. Georges at LCU Law School (the chair of the Biblical Law Department), and he said that Jesus could change even an abomination law, but he simply won't. So any place where I said Jesus could not change a law, please substitute the words "would not." Not that this has any practical significance, but it's of theoretical interest.

Leviticus 18 covers laws regarding sexual acts that you cannot commit (except for the particularly odious crime of burning your children as a sacrifice to Moloch). Leviticus 19 discusses crimes of nonsexual relationships between you and either other people or God. That's why there is an intermingling of rules against idolatry (including the beard rules that you seem to like so much, which prohibit wearing one's beard in the way that pagans do).

Now, you might say that Leviticus 19:20, which says that if you sleep with a slave who is betrothed, you and she are not to be put to death, but she is to be whipped, is a sex rule, but it really is a matter of property law in relation to the slave's fiancee, i.e., a slave's fiancee has no right to have you put to death, though you do have to offer up a sacrifice to get right with God. Of course, the harlot should be punished for inducing you to sleep with her when she knew that she was betrothed to another, and thus the scourging.

Similarly, the prohibition against prostituting your daughter, in Leviticus 19:29, relates to your relationship with your daughter, not to a sex act that you commit, and also is for the purpose of limiting the spread of prostitution generally.

I wouldn't say that any sin is to be taken lightly or less seriously than another. An abomination is something that is especially hateful to God. While not observing the sabbath, or asking a psychic for advice are serious sins, God does not loathe these things in the same way that he abhors gay sex or asking your wife to diddle her sister for your amusement. Nevertheless, you can be put to death for visiting a psychic or for working on the sabbath. So please don't misunderstand me, unless God has very specifically said that a particular act is no longer sinful, the statute of God applying that law remains in full force.

You pretty much nailed one of my units in my degree this year which starts at Socrates and ends with Wittgenstein, hehe. I'll be covering him just after Easter.

You have my sympathy. Reading the anti-Christian garbage that passes for philosophy is quite tedious.

But seriously I am just asking questions to make sure I can understand the logical system of the true Christian belief. Right now these Leviticus laws are looking pretty shifty in my eyes.

We're happy to answer your questions.

Why because some of these rules we don't live by whatsoever and some we do. Yet when reading it, it doesn't say "in 2000 years forget this part"..... I get that Jesus said what he said about the food, but there is still a lot of other stuff many people don't do.

Every legal system has to adapt to the times. The beauty is that the changes that Jesus was a fulfillment of, rather than an amendment to or abrogation of, the law. Consider:

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalm 119:160

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-19

The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]: since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached. Luke 16:16

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Romans 7:4

I agree that there are many laws that Jesus did not discuss. Those laws remain in force, and the persons who commit those prohibited acts are sinners. We can only control what we here at Landover do, so you can hardly hold us to blame for the sins of others who label themselves as Christians, but do not love God enough to follow his commandments.

One interpretation was to say well whatever is abominable is something we should keep on not doing.. I get it but it still seems guilty of interpreting rather then just plain old reading it like we should be doing.

God's interpretation is that you should not do anything that violates the law. You don't get a free pass just because a sin is not an abomination. The purpose of studying the underlying reason for why God put some laws in Leviticus 11 versus others in Leviticus 18 or 19 (or elsewhere in the Bible) is to understand the Lord better. It is NOT to decide which sins are OK to commit, because the answer to that question is "none of them."

Let me make this perfectly clear: if God prohibited something in the Old Testament, you cannot do it unless, in the New Testament, Jesus specifically and unambiguously said that the thing is no longer prohibitied.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Thanks for the excellent post Smith.

So Romans 4:7 comes in to play here and unties us from some of these laws... but obviously not the abominations?

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

So Romans 4:7 comes in to play here and unties us from some of these laws... but obviously not the abominations?

I'm not sure if this was a typo. Romans 4:7 addresses the remission of sin throught the sacrifice of Christ Jesus, and not the abominability of individual sins. Romans 7 is an exposition on the statement in Romans 6:14 that, once you are alive in the Word of God, "sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." The saved no longer need the law, because they are incapable of sin.

Maybe an analogy will help: if you are lost in the woods at night, a flashlight can be indispensible to prevent you from stumbling. However, it serves no purpose when the Sun is shining. So, too, when you are illuminated with the light of the Son, you do not need the flashlight of the law to keep your feet upon the path that leads to salvation.

One way or another, though, you still need a light to guide you, and, regardless of which source of illumination you use, the rocks and roots upon which you might stumble are the same. The law is useful, therefore, for those who have not been saved to know what is and what is not sinful.

You still seem to be taking the concept of sins that are not abominations as somehow less sinful than other sins. Please understand that that is NOT correct. A sin is still a sin whether God loathes it or merely dislikes it, and it will get you Hellbound just as easily. As Paul wrote:

...now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Sorry I meant 7:4.

If it means something like this:

"When Christ died he took that entire rule-dominated way of life down with him and left it in the tomb, leaving you free to "marry" a resurrection life and bear "offspring" of faith for God. For as long as we lived that old way of life, doing whatever we felt we could get away with, sin was calling most of the shots as the old law code hemmed us in. And this made us all the more rebellious. In the end, all we had to show for it was miscarriages and stillbirths. But now that we're no longer shackled to that domineering mate of sin, and out from under all those oppressive regulations and fine print, we're free to live a new life in the freedom of God."

then my previous post makes sense

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Sorry I meant 7:4.

If it means something like this:

"When Christ died he took that entire rule-dominated way of life down with him and left it in the tomb, leaving you free to "marry" a resurrection life and bear "offspring" of faith for God. For as long as we lived that old way of life, doing whatever we felt we could get away with, sin was calling most of the shots as the old law code hemmed us in. And this made us all the more rebellious. In the end, all we had to show for it was miscarriages and stillbirths. But now that we're no longer shackled to that domineering mate of sin, and out from under all those oppressive regulations and fine print, we're free to live a new life in the freedom of God."

then my previous post makes sense

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/answers2...5122834AAV4FGv

Here's how bits of chapter 7 read in 'The Message' by Eugene H. Peterson:

When Christ died he took that entire rule-dominated way of life down with him and left it in the tomb, leaving you free to 'marry' a resurrection life and bear 'offspring' of faith for God. For as long as we lived that old way of life, doing whatever we felt we could get away with, sin was calling most of the shots as the old law code [Mosaic Law in the Old Testament] hemmed us in. And this made us all the more rebellious. In the end, all we had to show for it was miscarriages and stillbirths. But now that we're no longer shackled to that domineering mate of sin, and out from under all those oppressive regulations and fine print, we're free to live a new life in the freedom of God.'

http://www.navpress.com/Home/AuthorI...on/A10226.html

EUGENE H. PETERSON is a writer, poet, and retired pastor. He has authored more than 34 books (not including The Message) and is a contributing editor for Leadership. He is Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia. Eugene also founded Christ Our King Presbyterian Church in Bel Air, Maryland, where he ministered for 29 years. He lives with his wife, Jan, in Montana.

Do I answer you or the professor?

You get no points for copy and paste off the internet.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Do I answer you or the professor?

LOL. Who would have guessed that unfalsifiable would actually be falsified? Seems he's putting the bull in unfalsifiable.

UF, it's OK to cite your sources, even in fields with lax standards of scholarship such as philosophy. In fact, philosophy journals are overflowing with articles that are well footnoted but contain no original thoughts at all. You'll notice that we True Christians™ constantly cite the Bible--that's because we wouldn't want to take credit for God's work.

As for Matthew 7:4, no problem with the typo, it happens. In all the hundreds of millions of books published since the Earth was created, only one is completely free from errors, so don’t sweat making an occasional mistake.

I disagree nearly completely with Professor Peterson’s interpretation. Sin is still sin after Christ died and after a person is saved. It’s simply a matter of there being no need for a law that prohibits someone from committing a crime that he would never commit anyway. Under Petersons’ interpretation, the 10 Commandments would no longer apply! That’s surely not something that I believe.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

If it means something like this:
...
then my previous post makes sense

There's a reason we use the KJV rather than The Message. Dr. Peterson took way too many liberties with the text as he translated. His Bible is more of a commentary than a Bible in it's own right. In this case, he missed about half of the point of the passage.

He got the part that people were chafing under the law, and were following the letter rather than the spirit of the law. People saw the law as a bright red line, and they walked as close to it as they could without crossing it.

He also got the part that Jesus freed us from the rigid system of punishments and curses of the law. God no longer instantly smites us with plagues, flying fiery serpents, or ground that swallows us whole every time we rub him the wrong way. We also no longer have to adhere to a rigid animal sacrifice schedule.

What disappoints me about Dr. Peterson's translation is that he ignores the fact that, although we are free from the letter of the law, we are still bound to the spirit of the law. Just because God doesn't still descend from the sky in a pillar of fire to instantly kill us every time we question His wisdom, don't delude yourself into thinking you aren't making Him absolutely livid every time you sin. God will roast your hiney in Hell for all of eternity if you die as an unrepentant sinner.

Compare this bit between The Message and the KJV:
The Message: Romans 7:6 But now that we're no longer shackled to that domineering mate of sin, and out from under all those oppressive regulations and fine print, we're free to live a new life in the freedom of God.

KJV: Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

As bad a translation as the NIV is, it even gets this part right.

Being freed from the bondage of the law doesn't mean we have free reign to indulge in sin and lust. It means that when we are Saved, we are filled with the Spirit of Jesus Christ, and He guides us and helps us to walk in the Lord's ways.

Pastor Billy-Reuben