[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

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

[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.

[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

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.

[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.

[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

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

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

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.