[Brother V]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

In what way is the prohibition against wearing mixed-fiber clothing less relevant today than it was in Biblical times?

Brother, it seems unflaso is getting the WHAT of the law; which is a good start. You might says he's a "what's man".

Someday, he may be able to get the WHY of the law; then he will be a "why's man" (wise man).

So WHY were the jews commanded to not wear clothes of divers fabrics? (Namely wool and linen)

Some people claim it's because of Cain and Abel. Abel offered sheep; Cain offered fallen fruits, believed to be flax. So they say because of that the flax and wool shouldn't be together.

But let's look deeper and think about jews.


Linen is very expensive and made from flax (imagine how much rarer it would be during a 40 year period when people were wandering around a wilderness). Wool was readily available (remember the people had thousands of sheep with them).

So if I'm wandering around in the desert and I'm going to make a new article of clothing, most likely, it's going to be of wool. If I go to sell that, it's going to be cheap.

Now imagine that I find a source of flax, and I start to make some linen. In order to stretch my linen reserves further, I sneak in about 10% wool into the blend. Most likely the average consumer isn't going to notice that they are getting a blend. But I'm still going to charge full linen price (because I'm a jew).

This is most likely why the jews are prohibited from wearing blends. It cheapens the product by introducing an inferior piece into the mixture.

(You won't find any "rabbinical" sources that say this; but they know it to be true).

YIC
V

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Why did it ever matter?

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

...if you are willing to accept a whole bunch of laws that don't seem to make any sense now-er-days.... it is the laws in Leviticus like, off the top of my head, don't wear clothes with two different materials....

In what way is the prohibition against wearing mixed-fiber clothing less relevant today than it was in Biblical times?

[Brother V]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Well it is the laws in Leviticus like, off the top of my head, don't wear clothes with two different materials. I notice V wears denim dungarees with metal, surely not ok?

Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Levi dungarees are 100% cotton. The tshirt is also 100% cotton (as are the items in the church gift shop).

Wearing 100% cotton today isn't that hard.

You'll note that there is no prohibition on fasteners in Deuteronomy 22:11, just on a blend of fibers.

YIC
V

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Well it is the laws in Leviticus like, off the top of my head, don't wear clothes with two different materials. I notice V wears denim dungarees with metal, surely not ok?

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Well as I say, if you are willing to accept a whole bunch of laws that don't seem to make any sense now-er-days, what you are saying is fine (nothing but "saved people make perfect rule followers).

Since you are a philosophy student, you must know that a false proposition implies any proposition. Thank you for providing a perfect illustration of this Logic 101 concept.

Once you decide that murder and perjury and theft and adultery are harmful to society, then perhaps we can get back to the point at hand. Whatever it is.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Well as I say, if you are willing to accept a whole bunch of laws that don't seem to make any sense now-er-days, what you are saying is fine (nothing but "saved people make perfect rule followers).

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

But Smith, the passage would therefore be saying... nothing new at all.

You don’t think that discussing the spiritual state of Grace in the New Testament was novel? Just because two paths lead to the same destination does not mean that the two paths are identical.

A saved person doesn't need the law because he would never break the law.

Yes, that’s it exactly.

But the law is the same, still there, still breakable.

Sure the law can still be broken—by the unsaved. They do not live in Grace, so they need the law to govern their behavior. That is one reason we quote so much Scripture in our forum.

Whereas the passage certainly seems to say something along the lines of departing from the old law....... what you say means we don't depart from it at all.

Who said “depart?” Rephrasing a Biblical verse just leads to all sorts of linguistic confusions. We “are become dead to the law,” “we are delivered from the law.” Departure implies some conscious act on my part to avoid the law, whereas the truth is that the law became irrelevant to me by an act of the Holy Spirit. And be careful tossing around that word “we.” I am saved. You seem to be eager to be saved, too, but as far as I can tell the law still very much applies to you.

[Brother V]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Here's a better metaphor for this passage: anyone can cook pancakes using a prepared mix, following the recipe on the box cover. A great cook understands the process of preparing pancakes on a much higher level. She takes flour, eggs, milk, sugar, etc. and blends them together from scratch. The result is, inevitably, better than what you'd get from Aunt Jemima. Christianity's approach to sin is like that--you can follow the recipe (i.e., the law), but once you are saved, the state of grace in which you live takes you far beyond the need for the law. A save Christian can no more sin than can an experienced cook prepare bad flapjacks.

I rather enjoy this metaphor. It equates True Christianity(tm) with cooking.

A chef has studied the recipes. A chef doesn't need to reference the recipe every time he makes pancakes. He knows the recipe. If the chef follows what he knows makes perfect pancakes EVERYTIME, then he won't ever have to try to make them differently. Every now and then a chef will go back and re-read some cookbooks; just to make sure that he's doing other things correct.

A True Christian(tm) has studied the laws. A True Christian(tm) doesn't need to reference the law every time he makes a decision; he knows the laws. If the True Christian(tm) follows what he knows is correct EVERYTIME, then he won't ever have to make a wrong decision. Every now and then a True Christian(tm) will go back and read the Bible(kjv1611); just to make sure that he's doing everything correct.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

So the old law as a clear and distinct law becomes invalid?

There is no such thing as "the old law". There is only the old way of abiding by the law.

What is made invalid is the old way of seeing the law as a bright red line that one can safely walk right along the edge of, just so long as one doesn't actually cross it. The old way allowed people to remain in sin by violating the spirit of the law.

Modern Christians are to stay well within the line specified by the law. Violating the spirit of the law is as bad as violating the letter of the law.

Basically, we are now required to stick to the letter of the law, and then some. We are to go above and beyond the letter of the law. That's why Jesus said this:

Matthew 5:40-41 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

To give some modern examples, if a judge orders you to pay alimony and child-support to your ex-wife, you should pay her double the judge's order. If you are sentenced to a year in prison, you should insist on staying for two.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

We are to follow the spirit of the law rather than merely abiding by the letter of the law.

Let's take Deut 25:4 as an example. It says "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."

Someone who follows the letter of the law only, while violating the spirit, might find other ways to prevent his ox from eating the grain while it is being harvested. Or he might use his ass to thresh the grain instead. The law doesn't say I can't muzzle my ass.

In the New Testament (I Cor 9:9-10; I Tim 5:17-18), we learn the full spirit of this law. That is that in general, laborers are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor. For example, a business owner who abides by the spirit of this law will have a profit-sharing plan in place for his employees.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

So the old law as a clear and distinct law becomes invalid?

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

How exactly are we serving the law differently if the law hasn't changed at all?

We are to follow the spirit of the law rather than merely abiding by the letter of the law.

Let's take Deut 25:4 as an example. It says "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."

Someone who follows the letter of the law only, while violating the spirit, might find other ways to prevent his ox from eating the grain while it is being harvested. Or he might use his ass to thresh the grain instead. The law doesn't say I can't muzzle my ass.

In the New Testament (I Cor 9:9-10; I Tim 5:17-18), we learn the full spirit of this law. That is that in general, laborers are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor. For example, a business owner who abides by the spirit of this law will have a profit-sharing plan in place for his employees.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

But Zeke, you only mention laws we still follow (by instinct as you call it) today. What about the laws in Leviticus we do not follow! That is the point.
The law is still there as a monument, but we're breaking the law, with things like sowing fields with 2 seeds, or wearing cotton polyester blended shirts or jeans

No True Christian™ breaks any of those laws. We even have city of Freehold ordinances forbidding the sale of blended fibers. Brother BJ can tell you amazing stories about the undercover work that he and his boys in security do on enforcing Leviticus Laws in Freehold.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

But Zeke, you only mention laws we still follow (by instinct as you call it) today. What about the laws in Leviticus we do not follow! That is the point.
The law is still there as a monument, but we're breaking the law, with things like sowing fields with 2 seeds, or wearing cotton polyester blended shirts or jeans

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

How exactly are we serving the law differently if the law hasn't changed at all?

Firstly, we do not serve the law, we serve God.

God gave the law. He only gave it because he knew that it would be injurious for His people to behave in a certain a way.

He works towards a state of affairs where man will instinctively behave correctly. He does this by revealing his Truth in The Bible (KJV).

Once mankind behaves correctly and instinctively, the law sits there as a monument to a Wise God. No more than that.

It is all a question of motive. Do you forebear from killing an ox, in the camp (Le:17:3), because (i) God’s law say you must not do it, or do you forebear because (ii) you understand why a certain action is wrong and refrain or (iii) you unquestioningly accept that it is the wrong thing to do and it would never cross your mind?

The best course is clear. (The answer is (iii) just in case it wasn’t clear)

If the state is reached whereat no one, for example, uncovers the nakedness of his son's daughter, (Le:18:10), should the law be removed? No, that law is now a monument to the wisdom of the Drafter and the success of the society.



And what would happen if the law were repealed on grounds of redundancy and one evil person did uncovers the nakedness of his son's daughter – there would be no recourse for public safety and mayhem, revenge, and a general bloodbath would break out… which is bad for the people.

There are quite a few man-made laws that have been repealed only to be reintroduced in one form or another. It is clear that mankind, being imperfect (except for True Christians™) requires even obsolete laws, as not every one is Saved and not everyone will answer (iii) above.