3 edits
Originally posted by @fmfActually it is not that silly of an objection.
Thanks. You did answer in the end. There was no need for the "sea food restaurants" silliness.
Leviticus contains many ordinances and statutes.
The issue is how binding are they on the same Christian who refers to, say, chapter 18 that incest, bestiality, fornication or homosexuality are forbidden by God.
I'll just have to take you word for it that you had nothing up your sleeve in asking about chapter 11. You are being timed and clocked whenever you ask a question of any Christian.
We know you.
Originally posted by @eladarYou can butt in all you want. But you cannot answer questions about what sonship's personal views are. And I didn't ask you what yours are. Sure, you can butt in. Fine by me.
I suppose the next time you butt into a conversation I will blow you off with the same type of reply.
Originally posted by @sonshipNope, my question was about Leviticus 11 and not Leviticus 18. And the issue was not how binding Leviticus 11 is on Christians; what a daft suggestion. I was enquiring after your notion of 'not being with God'. And off you went trying to be like whodey or robbie carrobie. You didn't used to do that.
The issue is how binding are they on the same Christian who refers to, say, chapter 18 that incest, bestiality, fornication or homosexuality are forbidden by God.
Originally posted by @sonshipIf there is something feeble or vulnerable about your views on Leviticus 11 that you imagine might somehow be laid waste to by something someone on a message board had "up their sleeve", it would be more interesting to hear you think aloud about what you feel that weakness is or whatever doubts you have, rather than to go into your hedgehog-with-a-glass-chin mode. Just saying.
I'll just have to take you word for it that you had nothing up your sleeve in asking about chapter 11.
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfEnough suspicion also breeds suspicion. For YEARS here you have been so cocksure that those who announce the good news of Christ have something up their sleeve you wish to expose. ie. "Do they want control? Do they want power over me?"
If there is something feeble or vulnerable about your views on Leviticus 11 that you imagine might somehow be laid waste to by something someone on a message board had "up their sleeve", it would be more interesting to hear you think aloud about what you feel that weakness is or whatever doubts you have, rather than to go into your hedgehog-with-a-glass-chin mode. Just saying.
Let's just say that a somewhat equivalent amount of suspicion has come right back at you. What tricky series of loaded questions is he brewing up now?
Don't waste your breath claiming innocence.
You'll request proof quotes next ??
Originally posted by @sonshipI have never said anything remotely like this to you. You are just making things up.
For YEARS here you have been so cocksure that those who announce the good news of Christ have something up their sleeve you wish to expose. ie. "Do they want money? Do they want power over me?"
Originally posted by @sonshipHere is the question I asked you -- the one that has you deflecting in a most peculiar way:
What tricky series of loaded questions is he brewing up now?
You said: "But there is an evil which is the beginning of all these evils. That is the evil of a man simply not being for God. Being for something else besides God is the underlying cause of all other sins."
I asked: Is that what Leviticus 11, for example, is all about then? Things, if disobeyed, indicating "a man simply not being for God"?
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarits a terrible idea I think. - homosexual "marriage".
It is to make clear that homosexuality in itself is sin. Some claim that homosexual marriage is acceptable before the Lord. I'd say every liberal including yourself believes it to be true. Such beliefs are in total opposition to what the Bible states so I am just making it a point to make it obvious.
And I fear that if God does not judge this nation of America he will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.
But it is also a test to Christians. We who are Christians announcing the gospel will require another life. We will require another Person to live in us and love the sinner in us.
1 edit
There is so much to grasp about that first offering - the burnt offering or consecration offering.
I am not a good teacher. I care too much for what I want to teach.
A few other things about the burnt offering as the foundational offering.
1.) The fire that came to burn it came from heaven.
2,) The fire was never to go out.
3.) It defined the altar. Afterwards the altar was called the altar of consecration.
4.) It was to be offered every day. It was a continual remembrance matter.
5.) None of it was to be eaten by the priests. It implies it was wholly for God's satisfaction.
Check this out. Am I right or wrong about these points?
Sometimes I make an error and no one picks up on it.
I correct them sometimes in latter posts.
4 edits
Originally posted by @fmfI'll think about it.
Here is the question I asked you -- the one that has you deflecting in a most peculiar way:
You said: "But there is an evil which is the beginning of all these evils. That is the evil of a man simply not being for God. Being for something else besides God is the underlying cause of all other sins."
I asked: Is that what Leviticus 11, for example, is all about then? Things, if disobeyed, indicating "a man simply not being for God"?
The matter of man not being for God and needing a Substitute is portrayed in the FIRST of the five offerings in Leviticus.
Chapter 11 about the animals that God said Israel could or could not eat, some of us Bible students take as symbolism about PEOPLE with whom God's people should or should not be in close assocation.
This is a short word. The reason for this is that the various animals were seen in Peter's vision of the sheet being lowered down. That vision was God's way of telling Peter that he should no longer regard the Gentiles as unclean but should consider them candidates for the Gospel as well.
Based on that event in Acts some good teachers go into Leviticus 11 and apply wisdom to ascertain how to allegorize the various creatures as representative of people on the earth.
I think the method is legitimate as long as Christ is exalted and the PLAIN words of Scripture un-symbolically for the most part, say the same thing.
For symbolism in Bible exegesis there should be plain teaching which confirms the same concept.
And example - the creatures with cloven hoof and chew the cud are clean animals to be eaten.
How this has been applied, and I think it is of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is that the cloven hoof refers to discernment in walk. God's people should have close relationship with people who have godly discernment in their walk. We should be careful about associating too closely with people who are not discerning morally, spiritually.
Chewing the cud has to do with digestion of the word of God. We Christians should have associations of closeness with people who regard the word of God in a daily way - to regurgitate it and muse over it.
We Christians should be wary of those who disdain and discard the word of God. Danger is ahead. We may be defiled. Other people who have a good regard for the word of God we can feel freer to associate with.
Or some people do not take the Bible as food for the spiritual life. It is all cold information quickly mastered in an dead and objective way. They don't "chew the cud".
The holy diet is allegorized to mean various kinds of people. I think that is the wisdom embodied for the seeker of truth in Leviticus 11 today. And that is how you may expect me to treat that chapter.
Other students of Leviticus may have a different way to approach and analyze it.