He's probably talking about the rotten thigh part. A lot of speculation about what that means. So here's one that's more clear:
Hosea 9:16
You can still be anti-choice with that one though.
Upvote
0
He's probably talking about the rotten thigh part. A lot of speculation about what that means. So here's one that's more clear:
He's probably talking about the rotten thigh part. A lot of speculation about what that means. So here's one that's more clear:
Hosea 9:16
You can still be anti-choice with that one though.
Rape in violence against the women. Rape is non consentual sex. Thats violence whether you see it or not. Ask the woman who was raped. But even if it is not violent according to your standards it is still wrong according to scripture. So far I have answered your questions as to why the law does not apply to Christians and how we do not cherry pick. Do you have anything else to discuss about that subject? Hopefully now you accept that we do not cherry pick based upon random ideas but based upon things rooted in scripture. If not please specify and ask specific questions about cherry picking. As I have shown you, we follow what is written in the New Covenant and sometimes those things do overlap with the Old, but not all of them.Rape can be nonviolent. And you completely ignored the issue of slavery. Am I to assume that you see nothing wrong with slavery, or did you just miss that part of my post?
Rape in violence against the women. Rape is non consentual sex. Thats violence whether you see it or not. Ask the woman who was raped.
But even if it is not violent according to your standards it is still wrong according to scripture.
So far I have answered your questions as to why the law does not apply to Christians and how we do not cherry pick. Do you have anything else to discuss about that subject?
Hopefully now you accept that we do not cherry pick based upon random ideas but based upon things rooted in scripture.
If not please specify and ask specific questions about cherry picking.
As I have shown you, we follow what is written in the New Covenant and sometimes those things do overlap with the Old, but not all of them.
Hmmmmm.....something about that it is not what goes into a mans mouth that makes him unclean but what comes out of his mouth because it is from the heart.......But I would not expect a non-believer to understand something like that......Is it because Paul says that everything is clean and yet he also abhors homosexuality?
That's one of my favorite Bible contradictions too! Notice how Jesus doesn't say, "I've made all food clean now" or "God has made all food clean now". He talks to the folks as if they were stupid for not realizing that no food you eat can defile you, yet He says that not one jot of the OT Law should go unfollowed...Hmmmmm.....something about that it is not what goes into a mans mouth that makes him unclean but what comes out of his mouth because it is from the heart.......But I would not expect a non-believer to understand something like that......
You do realize they were still under OT law at that point?...so no contradiction.That's one of my favorite Bible contradictions too! Notice how Jesus doesn't say, "I've made all food clean now" or "God has made all food clean now". He talks to the folks as if they were stupid for not realizing that no food you eat can defile you, yet He says that not one jot of the OT Law should go unfollowed...
No, that's the point. Jesus contradicted the OT Law. Here's what the Law says:You do realize they were still under OT law at that point?...so no contradiction.
He was speaking in a spritual sense; you did not bother to finish out the chapter:No, that's the point. Jesus contradicted the OT Law. Here's what the Law says:
...to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten. Leviticus 11:47
That whole chapter goes into detail of what is "unclean" and "detestable".
But Jesus says:
There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him. Mark 7:15
And you used this as proof that Jesus told us we can eat shellfish and it wasn't just Paul.
So Jesus says we can eat what we want, the OT says things should be detestable to us.
There is no mention in the Bible I've ever seen that says animals became dirty and then they became clean again since everything was free game before Leviticus. Jesus was just saying that the OT Law was wrong and his audience should have realized that. "Don't you see?"
But we aren't talking about the evil deeds that actually defile you. Those things never changed. We're talking about the food that used to be clean, then it was dirty, then it turned out to be clean all along.He was speaking in a spritual sense; you did not bother to finish out the chapter:
Mark 7
18 He asked them, “Are you so ignorant? Don’t you know that nothing that goes into a person from the outside can make him unclean?
19 Because it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then into the sewer, thereby expelling all foods.”
20 Then he continued, “It’s what comes out of a person that makes a person unclean,
21 because it’s from within, from the human heart, that evil thoughts come, as well as sexual immorality, stealing, murder,
22 adultery, greed, wickedness, cheating, shameless lust, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness.
23 All these things come from inside and make a person unclean.”
I am sorry you don't understand it; it is very straight forward.....maybe 1 Corinthians 2:14 comes into play here...But we aren't talking about the evil deeds that actually defile you. Those things never changed. We're talking about the food that used to be clean, then it was dirty, then it turned out to be clean all along.
And it wasn't all spiritual. Again, the spiritual part of what defiles never changed. The mundane, non-spiritual part of what goes in did change. You used it to show that Jesus talked about food (not spiritual matters) in the first place.
So you didn't use that reference to show that Paul wasn't the only one to say we can eat what we want? What did you use that reference to do then?I am sorry you don't understand it; it is very straight forward.....maybe 1 Corinthians 2:14 comes into play here...
Peter had a vision in Acts 10 that precedes Paul's statement about dietary laws.......I don't recall Paul having a similar experience so I would assume it came from Peter's vision.So you didn't use that reference to show that Paul wasn't the only one to say we can eat what we want? What did you use that reference to do then?
I focused on the pertinent part. We were talking about whether we can eat what we want. Genesis says yes. Then Leviticus says no. Then Jesus says yes, sort of. He says both, that it won't defile us, but that we're not supposed to eat what we want (because that would ignore that jot). Were the animals ever unclean? Were we ever really not supposed to eat them? Why shouldn't we have eaten them in the second place (since it was okay in the first place)? His apostles were "ignorant" for not realizing it on their own.You focused on the physical sense of the verse I was referencing the spiritural meaning. Even his disciples did not understand it; Jesus asked if they were ignorant. They also focused on the physical not the spiritual meaning and He had to explain it to them.
Where does it say that?Genesis says yes.
Genesis 9:3-4Where does it say that?
I'm not even going to open that can of worms & confirmation bias.A general rule of thumb (maybe you have already heard it)
The “Golden Rule of Interpretation”
Posted on March 30, 2014
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”
p style=”text-align: right;” – Dr. David L. Cooper, founder of
a href=”http://www.biblicalresearch.info” target=”_blank”The Biblical Research Society/a/p
This has often been shortened to “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.”
http://www.bibletruths.org/the-golden-rule-of-interpretation/
So if you see a "contradiction" in scripture there is a deeper spiritual truth that is there.....unfortunately if one is a non-believer without the Holy Spirit that truth can be difficult/impossible to understand even if explained.
So your mind is made up and closed.....then why are you here?I'm not even going to open that can of worms & confirmation bias.
He's probably talking about the rotten thigh part. A lot of speculation about what that means. So here's one that's more clear:
Hosea 9:16
You can still be anti-choice with that one though.
I take it you don't follow college sports. There is such a thing as copulation with an unconscious person. That is rape. It is also nonviolent. That's just one example you have not considered.
Assertion of the point in question.
Suppose a man wants sex from his wife, but she has the dreaded "headache." He waits until she falls into her deep sleep, and then he has gentle sex with her so as to not wake her. Please explain to me how this is ethical or else show me where the Bible condemns this.
You haven't actually answered a single thing. Also I've pretty much lost all hope of you discussing slavery. I was looking forward to seeing some Olympic-quality gymnastics.
What a bizarre thing to say. You haven't quoted any scripture. You haven't even paraphrased scripture. In fact you haven't even vaguely alluded to any identifiable idea in the Bible at all in this post.
Cherry picking? Well, homosexuality is described in the same way as shellfish: an abomination. Why do you cherry pick homosexuality laws and not dietary laws? Is it because Paul says that everything is clean and yet he also abhors homosexuality? If this is all because of Paul, then I assume your stance on slavery is that you are in favor of it. That would explain your reluctance to discuss the topic.
Slaves, obey your masters.
Actually, it is just willful ignorance on his part......If you cant, see that then I guess we are at an impasse on that point.
And he will continue to deny and ignore everything you post.....I have given you scriptures. I gave you scriptures to support why we are not under the law didn't I?