tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post7399173808375134730..comments2024-03-28T02:33:58.130-05:00Comments on Marshal Art's: Those Traitorous Bastards!!!Marshal Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comBlogger202125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-69534861282939973712009-07-19T17:48:25.802-05:002009-07-19T17:48:25.802-05:00You love Mormonism, too?You love Mormonism, too?Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-25315275411672507072009-07-19T17:23:15.965-05:002009-07-19T17:23:15.965-05:00No such insecurities on this end, Feo-boy. But it...No such insecurities on this end, Feo-boy. But it was a nice try to play that card and then try to turn it around on your opponent. Leave it to you to make some connection between attitudes toward Catholics and attitudes toward blacks. Can you come up with even less relevant crap in your lame attempt to make a coherent point? <br /><br />If there's anyone side stepping issues here, it's you. You do realize what the point of this thread was, don't you?<br /><br /><i>"I love how you defend a thing that in any other frame of reference would be under the harshest of your judgments."</i> <br /><br />The things you think you know...Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-20145066221559605812009-07-19T16:26:48.774-05:002009-07-19T16:26:48.774-05:00Now your just showing your insecurities. This isn&...Now your just showing your insecurities. This isn't the race card, it's a simple analogy.<br /><br />Catholics got a break in the great migration.<br /><br />Mormons get a break in the great gay marriage game.<br /><br />But, of course, you don't want to deal with the issues at hand, you prefer to keep side-stepping and mud throwing. <br /><br />Just like you always do.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-12006257150406533902009-07-19T11:43:39.541-05:002009-07-19T11:43:39.541-05:00Can't help playing the race card, can you, Feo...Can't help playing the race card, can you, Feodor? Is your wife aware of your insecurities?Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-37039742804964564792009-07-19T10:37:17.626-05:002009-07-19T10:37:17.626-05:00Perhaps you and I mean something different when it...Perhaps you and I mean something different when it comes to "fruitful ministry." Atheists do a tremendous amount of world changing good. But I wouldn't call it fruitful ministry in the Christian sense.<br /><br />If you do, then it seems to me the category has lost any real definition.<br />______________<br /><br />You know, the best thing to happen to Catholics in this country was when black folks moved north in huge numbers.<br /><br />All of sudden there were worse people to hate than papists.<br /><br />I love how you defend a thing that in any other frame of reference would be under the harshest of your judgments.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-18526103957522130232009-07-18T15:59:40.614-05:002009-07-18T15:59:40.614-05:00Wait just a minute, there, Feodor...
Are you sugg...Wait just a minute, there, Feodor...<br /><br />Are you suggesting that there are no good things done by the few remaining polygamous sects of the Mormon church?<br /><br />Have they ministered to no one at all, ever, in any way?<br /><br />(I'll bet if you asked them, they would tell you that they have.)<br /><br />And Mormons, if you ask them, will tell you that they are christians.<br /><br />They certianly claim to believe in Christ Jesus, so under the guidelines set by Marty and the "John 3:16 doctrine", they qualify.<br /><br />But their doctrines and beliefs are not Biblical, same as your's are not.<br /><br />And just judging by your comments over at American Descent, apparently God has not yet wondrously increased the size of your small heart to the point that you can support the idea of Mormon christians, no matter how fruitful their ministry may be either.<br /><br /><i>You've</i> lied to sound better, and to avoid having to answer my point and expose the stupidity of your argument.<br /><br />Ain't gonna work, Feodor.<br /><br />You can't pick a sin from a list of sins and declare that it is no longer sinful without throwing out the whole list.tugboatcapnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751281215697965077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-48259993070851373352009-07-17T06:57:09.268-05:002009-07-17T06:57:09.268-05:00Marshall, I have no idea what you are suggesting h...Marshall, I have no idea what you are suggesting here. There are too many variable assumptions for me to track down your main thought.<br /><br />Perhaps, after some sleep, you can help me piece it together.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-78156245906320453942009-07-16T23:10:00.143-05:002009-07-16T23:10:00.143-05:00Ah! So ministry HAS to mean ordination by some ch...Ah! So ministry HAS to mean ordination by some church of a recognized polygamist, just as the heretical churches ordain admitted homosexuals. Hmmm. Keep that in mind, Tug. All things must be by Feo's definition.<br /><br />Seems to me, though, that anyone who preaches the Word is ministering. Wouldn't you say so?Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-90007993232098915902009-07-16T21:54:53.048-05:002009-07-16T21:54:53.048-05:00"But apparently God has not yet wondrously in..."But apparently God has not yet wondrously increased the size of his small heart to the point that he can support marriage between polygamous christians, no matter how fruitful their ministry may be."<br /><br />Tug, in your enjoyment of your writing, you slip in a test by which your point fails and evidence supporting mine is lifted: no Christian church I am aware of has born witness to any fruitful ministry by polygamists. Unless you count the mounting numbers of their arrests.<br /><br />You have only sought to attack my position by making up a "truth" that is not true and placing it on my scale of the work of the Spirit.<br /><br />You've lied to sound better, but you had to bury that lie in a fast running assumption so no reader would notice.<br /><br />Alas, you've failed in that, too!Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-135690416983463132009-07-01T20:56:42.711-05:002009-07-01T20:56:42.711-05:00Well, Feodor does not support polygamy.
In his ow...Well, Feodor does not support polygamy.<br /><br />In his own words:<br /><br />"<i>The Bible is an inspired text of our expanding experience of God’s love. We are just like biblical Israel and the early church, again, in Paul’s words: “ever growing in our knowledge and love of God.” The Bible does not close off that growth, it aids it, when read with love in one’s heart and in one’s mouth and on one’s tongue. This is its authority: its ability to increase our understanding of love.)<br /><br />Welcome our gay brothers and sister, gentlemen and mom2: God has wondrously increased the size of our own small hearts."</i><br /><br />But apparently God has not yet wondrously increased the size of his small heart to the point that he can support marriage between polygamous christians, no matter how fruitful their ministry may be.<br /><br />God has stopped the wondrous expansion of Feodor's own small heart somewhere between Homosexuality, and polygamy and bestiality. (That is, including Homosexuality and the use of racial slurs, but not quite extending to polygamy or sheep-bothering.)<br /><br />(Even if the christian in question is in a loving, committed relationship with his sheep - or herd of sheep, should the christian in question be a believer in both practices.)<br /><br />But bear with him.<br /><br />He is obviously a work in progress.<br /><br />I know. I asked him point-blank.tugboatcapnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751281215697965077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-71617905586613196422009-06-03T13:58:16.925-05:002009-06-03T13:58:16.925-05:00I think one wife is too many.I think one wife is too many.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-68246593735667635802009-06-03T13:47:35.176-05:002009-06-03T13:47:35.176-05:00I knew you would.I knew you would.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-91961861368212599662009-06-03T13:13:17.812-05:002009-06-03T13:13:17.812-05:00I support polygamy.I support polygamy.Lesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-247020936033776302009-06-03T09:03:13.445-05:002009-06-03T09:03:13.445-05:00You made a good point there when you said, just an...You made a good point there when you said, just another heretic looking for validation. That is what they are all wanting, because they KNOW they are wrong but don't want to have to acknowledge their error. Our carnal nature is that way, but God's ways are perfect. mom2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-82033423273551000522009-06-03T01:05:43.273-05:002009-06-03T01:05:43.273-05:00"So, you're down to pointing out typos, h...<i>"So, you're down to pointing out typos, huh? The definition of not knowing when the game's over."</i> <br /><br />The sad thing is that the twit's not kidding. The game's been over for him long ago. The typos are an indication of his finally getting it, as his frustration prevents calm typing. Poor sap.<br /><br /><i>"It is not good for a marshall to be alone."</i> <br /><br />Neither my Bibles nor your own offering said "a" man. The unnecessary debate was over simply "not good for man" vs "not good for THE man". So with that in mind, it would be exactly the same for someone speaking of Marshall Dillon to say, "not good for the marshall" or "not good for Marshall". Each would speak of the exact same person. Thanks for backing my point. Twit.<br /><br /><i>"Nothing in Exodus mandates one man, one woman."</i> <br /><br />Didn't say that, did I? No. I didn't. I said (in not so many words) that the commandment in Exodus supports the intent of one man, one woman against the possibility of polygamy. No one here has stated that marriage is mandated at all, though, like the twit you are, you are trying to force me to say such in order to make the rest of your buffoonish argument float. So what's that say? It says you are desperate and a loser.<br /><br /><i>"I no longer have the time to grade your papers."</i> <br /><br />Yeah. Right. You haven't the intelligence, authority or proper Biblical training (as you've demonstrated) to grade anything. What you DO have is an incredible need for continuing education. <br /><br />So you can pretend that you're not getting through. You can pretend that there's just no talking to me. But the truth is you've pee'd all over yourself. The truth is that you are a fool with nowhere to go on this topic. You're just another heretic looking for validation of your heresies. Anglican fraud.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-30825966824829649092009-06-02T21:45:20.730-05:002009-06-02T21:45:20.730-05:00So, you're down to pointing out typos, huh? Th...So, you're down to pointing out typos, huh? The definition of not knowing when the game's over.<br /><br />Do you know what your name means when not used as a name? <br /><br />It is not good for a marshall to be alone.<br /><br />It is not good for Marshall to be alone.<br /><br />Pretty different.<br /><br /><br />Nothing in Exodus mandates one man, one woman. It's just not there. Yet you see it. What's that say?<br /><br />"Don't have sex with someone not your wife" is not the same as "have only one wife."<br /><br />Elementary logic.<br /><br />_______<br /><br />But let's just say you win, Marshall. You get the lolly pop. Say, "wooo hooo," and go on to other posts.<br /><br />I no longer have the time to grade your papers. With or without spell check.<br /><br />Bye, simp.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-10792660850347308632009-06-02T00:19:04.020-05:002009-06-02T00:19:04.020-05:00Boy, someone's got his manboob in wringer. Look a...Boy, someone's got his manboob in wringer. Look at all those typos! <br /><br />If you look at any of those 380 translations, do any of them say anything like, "I will make a helper for <I><B>them</B></I>? Does not "Adam" mean "man"? So in the translation you're hoping makes your case, could not "man" be capitalized, meaning, "It is not right for Adam to be alone"?<br /><br />And yet again, even if it means all men ever to be born, you still haven't shown anything like a command in those verses. So there is no command to marry, but as we see in Exodus, there is a command that supports the one man/one woman intent in the commandment against adultery. Later, we see that divorce and remarrying is akin to adultery in most cases. One man, one woman, one flesh and let not man put asunder what God hath joined.<br /><br />Try as you might, Anglican chucklehead, but there is no mandate that all men should marry, no mandate or acceptance of polygamy (tolerance is NOT acceptance), and no tolerance, mandate, acceptance or blessing for homosexual marriages or unions of any kind. All that education, all those books, all a complete and utter waste. A complete and utter waste. That's pretty much you in a nutshell, Feo. Perhaps that's the definition of "feodor".Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-85709142251723349052009-06-01T20:45:44.480-05:002009-06-01T20:45:44.480-05:00False Christian,
I'd bet you my week's pa...False Christian,<br /><br />I'd bet you my week's pay that not on of your handsome Bibles are in Hebrew? While you check out the ratio of four of three hundred and eighty translations, one only has to check the Hebrew to knot that what is being referred to is Adam as the representative Man. <br /><br />Otherwise, blown bulb, God would have said it was not good for ADAM to be alone.<br /><br />"yet you still, without substance and proof, insist that He has "changed his mind" on the subject of marriage being between one man and one woman..."<br /><br />And if you want to admit that the following is absolutely what God is doing, I wont stop you:<br /><br />"We've shown how His intent has been ignored in the OT and how He has tolerated those occasions..."<br /><br />I'll just suggest that since God is also tolerating gay and lesbian faithful, then who the hell are you to say God can't?<br /><br />By your own stumblebum and very interpretive lights, you've given reason to yourself to calm your hate and be more tolerant.<br /><br />I don't; the rules laid down by your scholars do, if but you could understand your own grade school experts. You cant' even do that.<br /><br />After all these months, you still can't get that the idiotic conclusions I draw, I'm drawing from your system of reasoning? Or that of your whirlybird scholars?<br /><br />You're just pure, man. Too, too pure to get mad at, really.<br /><br />"If you can't understand the the reasons for the purity laws were washed away by the blood of Christ..."<br /><br />I'm not the one who is having this problem; again, and yet again, please read your own blogger/blader scholars.<br /><br />It's there problem. I'm just trying to get the penny to drop in that wee leetle noodle got for a mind:<br /><br />Messrs Olliff and Hodges: "what God has commanded we must assume to have continuing force until such time as God Himself says, in effect, "you no longer have to obey this commandment." Some hermeneutical schemes insist that God must repeat in the New Testament all the commands to which He still holds us. Those who so insist are trying to impose a man-made rule on a Sovereign God! Let us understand that Paul did not affirm a democratically chosen ethical code of a now extinct culture. He affirmed the continuing force of God's law..."<br /><br />(Man, I'm getting tired of this remedial repetition; read your own guys!, Christian hater.)Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-77733776515878536752009-05-31T23:55:44.336-05:002009-05-31T23:55:44.336-05:00False priest,
Funny how you continue to believe y...False priest,<br /><br />Funny how you continue to believe you have any say in the direction of these blogs. It's also funny how you expect me to be sitting and waiting to respond to your incessant drivel, as if my life revolves around anything YOU might have to say. <br /><br />So now I've got a little time and so I'll respond to your laughable nonsense.<br /><br />First. Three out of four of the Bibles in my house say "it's not good for THE man to be alone", while the fourth says, "for MAN to be alone". This indicates the some translations show that God is referring to Adam and Adam only in the verse on which you comically think you've made your point. So even for the latter, you assume that God is speaking of "all men who will ever be born" rather than the only man that is then created. But if we assume, as you have, that He means, "all men who will ever be born", you've got nothing that indicates that it's a mandate that every man MUST have a partner. That's because it ISN'T a mandate of any kind, especially since He's referring to Adam. Adam can't realize his full humanity without a wife with whom he can procreate. <br /><br />We've responded to your ridiculous polygamy arguments and still you insist that there's some acceptance or mandate from God rather than a tolerance of the practice. We've shown how His intent has been ignored in the OT and how He has tolerated those occasions, yet you still, without substance and proof, insist that He has "changed his mind" on the subject of marriage being between one man and one woman. It's clear you simply WANT Scripture to say something it doesn't.<br /><br />Furthermore, to insist Bubba is ducking some incredible deal-breaking point of yours regarding monogamy is the most laughable of all. Gen 2:24 shows where God states His intentions regarding marriage, but it's not until Exodus when He backs it with a Commandment against adultery. What was that, some sort of trick question? <br /><br />As to purity laws, I don't know what more can be said that would make better sense to a mental midget such as yourself. You need these laws to be in effect or none of Leviticus to be in effect in order to justify your desire to please the world that is so obviously stronger in you than your desire to please God, know matter how it might hurt to do so. If you can't understand the the reasons for the purity laws were washed away by the blood of Christ, as the laws of atonement were, then there's not much more hope for you. As I said, it's obvious you have a greater desire to please homosexuals than you do God. What a coward. What a fraud. What an incredible waste of time trying to explain the simple to such a simpleton who thinks an ivy league school and a vast library has given him intelligence. What a geek you must be to say, "Boola boola". And you dare call anyone else a fool.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-18202186741840238262009-05-31T13:10:40.712-05:002009-05-31T13:10:40.712-05:00And just for fun, maybe you could step in and solv...And just for fun, maybe you could step in and solve Bubba's problem: where in Genesis is monogamy put into law?Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-2086884566667049772009-05-31T13:09:21.275-05:002009-05-31T13:09:21.275-05:00I don't see you answering questions.
Genesis or M...I don't see you answering questions.<br /><br />Genesis or Matthew? Is singlehood in God's plan or not?<br /><br />Where is the law changing what you consider monogamy in Genesis to the accepted and managed practice of polygamy in Leviticus and where is the law changing back to monogamy, and what are God's clear, unconfused reasons with each change?<br /><br />Are the laws stipulated in the chapters in Leviticus still in effect as Hodges and Olliff would assert by virtue of their rules?<br /><br />Or do you depart from your blogger and blader scholars?<br /><br />Answer these, biblical Christian.<br /><br />If you have an argument that holds water, let's see it. Iron out these apparent inconsistencies and extra-biblical interpretations.<br /><br />And then we will take up sexual orientation. <br /><br />Boola Boola, fool.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-80127741799770101862009-05-30T12:17:57.572-05:002009-05-30T12:17:57.572-05:00So, Marshall, you and your scholars claim that all...So, Marshall, you and your scholars claim that all the above are medically sound and we “must assume to have continuing force until such time as God Himself says, in effect, "you no longer have to obey this commandment." I hope you adhere to these laws in your own life. Let me know of the church community that does, please, because I have never heard of them. Mr. Hodges says he’s a Presbyterian now, but I don’t believe him because no Presbyterian of any stripe does these things. I hope he is not a liar. And I thought you were UCC, but that can’t be true, because the UCC does not believe what you do AT ALL.<br /><br />Or, if your claim is that God has clearly commanded new laws, please direct us to the appropriate texts of these new laws on the cleanliness of birth and the needless differential days between whether the child is male or female (but why that is still medically sound… or does that change, too?); please direct us to the new law on boils complete with new medically sound reason; the new law overturning the need to bring two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop when one is cured and where the birds have to be killed over fresh water in a clay pot; the new law where a man who had a nocturnal emission can now spit on anyone he likes without it being unclean or medically unsound; and the new law on sleeping with a slave girl and planting fruit trees in a new land.<br /><br />Surely Peter’s vision in the Book of Acts cannot cover the overturning of all these laws and yet maintain some kind of medically sound consistency if all these things are changed?<br /><br />And in all the ways you construct your answers in your head (I don’t expect you to answer me, since your scholars and you now have been thoroughly embarrassed), don’t forget that you also have to construct your answers in a way that make sense of God writing all this down in clear, unmistakable law giving. God wrote the Bible, after all.<br /><br />I say this only for your own psychic health. I have no idea what would happen to you if your hermetic trust in a literal approach to the text cracks. Maybe your soul could emerge, cleansed of rigid, lifeless rules, reborn in spiritual honor. But I worry for your psyche.<br /><br />Boola Boola, fool.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-78346397284527912502009-05-30T12:17:17.865-05:002009-05-30T12:17:17.865-05:00Leviticus 12: “A woman who becomes pregnant and gi...Leviticus 12: “A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.”<br /><br /><br />Or Leviticus 13: “When someone has a boil on his skin and it heals, and in the place where the boil was, a white swelling or reddish-white spot appears, he must present himself to the priest. The priest is to examine it, and if it appears to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has turned white, the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is an infectious skin disease that has broken out where the boil was. But if, when the priest examines it, there is no white hair in it and it is not more than skin deep and has faded, then the priest is to put him in isolation for seven days. If it is spreading in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is infectious. But if the spot is unchanged and has not spread, it is only a scar from the boil, and the priest shall pronounce him clean.”<br /><br />Or Leviticus 14: “These are the regulations for the diseased person at the time of his ceremonial cleansing, when he is brought to the priest: The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him. If the person has been healed of his infectious skin disease, the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the one to be cleansed. Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the infectious disease and pronounce him clean. Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields.”<br /><br />Or Leviticus 15: “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any man has a bodily discharge, the discharge is unclean. Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean. This is how his discharge will bring about uncleanness: Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be unclean, and anything he sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches his bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever sits on anything that the man with a discharge sat on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches the man who has a discharge must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. If the man with the discharge spits on someone who is clean, that person must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.”<br /><br />And then, let’s jump ahead to Leviticus 19: “If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for a guilt offering to the LORD. With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the LORD for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.”<br /><br />[Which oddly continues immediately with this:} “When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. For three years you are to consider it forbidden; it must not be eaten. In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the LORD. 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the LORD your God.”Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-87948698180106338212009-05-30T12:16:33.902-05:002009-05-30T12:16:33.902-05:00And finally, from just two of all my books, two wh...And finally, from just two of all my books, two which we have been talking about here, at some length:<br /><br />Leviticus 11: The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud. There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. ... You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest.”<br /><br />Of course it goes on an on, but obviously your treatment of this part of Leviticus is appropriately handled in your reference to Peter’s experience in the Book of Acts. And it seems that, in this, you’ve been given good guidance by your scholar’s Oliff and Hodges who clearly and unmistakably take the following position:<br /><br />1. “Has God ever been medically ignorant?” They say, of course not.<br />2. “In addition it should be emphasized, in no uncertain terms, that neither Peter nor the early Christian Church rejected one word of God's law. God told them via revelation to Christ's Apostles that certain parts of the law prefigured Christ's sacrifice and had therefore been abrogated by the cross (Acts 10:9 - 16, 28; Hebrews 7:11 - 10:14, etc.). This illustrates a fundamental biblical principle: what God has commanded we must assume to have continuing force until such time as God Himself says, in effect, "you no longer have to obey this commandment." Some hermeneutical schemes insist that God must repeat in the New Testament all the commands to which He still holds us. Those who so insist are trying to impose a man-made rule on a Sovereign God! Let us understand that Paul did not affirm a democratically chosen ethical code of a now extinct culture. He affirmed the continuing force of God's law.”<br /><br />But what then can you make of other passages from God in Leviticus that, according to Olliff and Hodges (“has God ever been medically ignorant” and “what God has commanded we must assume to have continuing force until…”) should still be in effect?:Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-29281773509162805322009-05-30T12:15:20.002-05:002009-05-30T12:15:20.002-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.com