Funny and so true

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"In other words" No that is my thoughts. You are way off base. The Bible is basis for truth and truth is God is love and Jesus died on the cross to show how much God loves.
Physics, chemistry, biology do support an old theism of the Scripture. I pick and choose the Scriptures that support my claim for the love of God.
Is that wrong?
Prove to me using physics that God is force beyond the forces of gravity, wind, earthquakes, tsunamis

---

How about proof by testimony, i.e. firsthand eye-witness? According to the disciples' witness, Jesus calmed the storm with just a verbal command.

Isn't their testimony the very thing upon which you base your whole belief that God, Jesus, and the cross is love?

If you discount their testimony about the storm, why should their testimony about Jesus be believed?

---

Don't go all self righteous on me but I am honestly asking "What do you think is the point of the story of calming the sea?
Why is it told 3 different ways in Mt, Mk, and Luke? Each has a different view and context or setting. Why?
You are usually pretty good about rational. What's your thoughtful response.
Read the 3 stories.
For instance Matthew says "The disciples followed Jesus on to boat? Why? Notice the 2 "follow" stories preceding the calming.
Mark says "They took Jesus just as he was.@. Why?
Matthew says "Little faith" and Mark says "No faith." Why?
Anybody else feel free to chime in.
The answer is not the details Are immaterial. That answer robs the story of its power. MT, Mk and Luke all have different agendas for telling the good news of Jesus Christ.

---

Busy Tarp?

Waco:"The Bible is clear: Moabites are bad. They were not to be allowed to dwell among God's People (Deuteronomy 23). But then comes the story of "Ruth the Moabite," which challenges the prejudice against Moabites."

OK, let's say what the Bible really said. In Deuteronomy 23:3-6, this is written:
"No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim[c] to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live."

Note the reference to "treaty"; this edict was a matter of formal relations between nations, not the course of individuals. Now consider what we see in the book of Ruth, chapter 1, verses 16-17:

" But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me."

This is devotion and love, and in no way selfish or greedy. Note also that Ruth makes clear that the God of Israel is her God, which is much different than the beliefs of the normal Moabites.

Let's go on to the next part:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: People from Uz are evil (Jeremiah 25).
But then comes the story of Job, a man from Uz who was the "most blameless man on earth."

First, keep in mind that most experts believe the Book of Job is one of the earliest books written in the Bible, predating even the Pentateuch which was written during the time after Moses. But consider also that the Book of Jeremiah was a book of judgment and chastisement. The Lord says to all of Judah in Jeremiah 25:11;
"This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

As for the land of Uz, The Lord does not condemn the whole land, but only its wicked kings (verse 20), along with the other kings who rejected God and did evil to His people.

Moving on to the next part from Waco:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: No foreigners or eunuchs allowed (Deuteronomy 23).
But then comes the story of an African eunuch welcomed into the church (Acts 8)."

This is the kind of claim that makes Christians doubt Waco's claim to be a pastor. It is clearly written in Acts 10:15 "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

What does Deuteronomy 23 actually say? Well, it's true that eunuchs are not allowed (verse 1), and one from a 'forbidden marriage' (verse 2), due to their loyalty to religions opposed to Yahweh.

But foreigners in general are not rejected. In fact, verse 7 specifically reminds Israel to welcome Edomites and Egyptians . The only foreign people rejected by Yahweh were the ones known to have tried to kill all the Israelites. Expecting Israel to welcome would-be murderers is like expecting present-day Israel to be cool with Nazis.

So let's go on to the next part:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: God's people hated Samaritans.
But then Jesus tells a story that shows not all Samaritans are bad (Luke 10). "

We all know the story of the Good Samaritan, but where exactly does it say that God or His people hated Samaritans? Waco conveniently fails to provide any scripture reference to such a passage. Maybe because there is no passage in the whole of the Bible where God says He hates Samaritans. Samaria gets mentioned in the Old Testament as part of Israel, and indeed the book of 1 Kings notes that Omri and Ahab ruled and were buried in Samaria (1 Kings 16:28-29), as did Ahaziah (1 Kings 22:51) and Joram (2 Kings 3:1). It seems Waco is falling back on assumptions rather than scholarship.

Yet again.

Here endeth the lesson.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco:"The Bible is clear: Moabites are bad. They were not to be allowed to dwell among God's People (Deuteronomy 23). But then comes the story of "Ruth the Moabite," which challenges the prejudice against Moabites."

OK, let's say what the Bible really said. In Deuteronomy 23:3-6, this is written:
"No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim[c] to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live."

Note the reference to "treaty"; this edict was a matter of formal relations between nations, not the course of individuals. Now consider what we see in the book of Ruth, chapter 1, verses 16-17:

" But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me."

This is devotion and love, and in no way selfish or greedy. Note also that Ruth makes clear that the God of Israel is her God, which is much different than the beliefs of the normal Moabites.

Let's go on to the next part:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: People from Uz are evil (Jeremiah 25).
But then comes the story of Job, a man from Uz who was the "most blameless man on earth."

First, keep in mind that most experts believe the Book of Job is one of the earliest books written in the Bible, predating even the Pentateuch which was written during the time after Moses. But consider also that the Book of Jeremiah was a book of judgment and chastisement. The Lord says to all of Judah in Jeremiah 25:11;
"This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

As for the land of Uz, The Lord does not condemn the whole land, but only its wicked kings (verse 20), along with the other kings who rejected God and did evil to His people.

Moving on to the next part from Waco:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: No foreigners or eunuchs allowed (Deuteronomy 23).
But then comes the story of an African eunuch welcomed into the church (Acts 8)."

This is the kind of claim that makes Christians doubt Waco's claim to be a pastor. It is clearly written in Acts 10:15 "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

What does Deuteronomy 23 actually say? Well, it's true that eunuchs are not allowed (verse 1), and one from a 'forbidden marriage' (verse 2), due to their loyalty to religions opposed to Yahweh.

But foreigners in general are not rejected. In fact, verse 7 specifically reminds Israel to welcome Edomites and Egyptians . The only foreign people rejected by Yahweh were the ones known to have tried to kill all the Israelites. Expecting Israel to welcome would-be murderers is like expecting present-day Israel to be cool with Nazis.

So let's go on to the next part:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: God's people hated Samaritans.
But then Jesus tells a story that shows not all Samaritans are bad (Luke 10). "

We all know the story of the Good Samaritan, but where exactly does it say that God or His people hated Samaritans? Waco conveniently fails to provide any scripture reference to such a passage. Maybe because there is no passage in the whole of the Bible where God says He hates Samaritans. Samaria gets mentioned in the Old Testament as part of Israel, and indeed the book of 1 Kings notes that Omri and Ahab ruled and were buried in Samaria (1 Kings 16:28-29), as did Ahaziah (1 Kings 22:51) and Joram (2 Kings 3:1). It seems Waco is falling back on assumptions rather than scholarship.

Yet again.

Here endeth the lesson.

---

lbdr

translation: Likely blasphemous, didn't read.

FormerFlash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco:"The Bible is clear: Moabites are bad. They were not to be allowed to dwell among God's People (Deuteronomy 23). But then comes the story of "Ruth the Moabite," which challenges the prejudice against Moabites."

OK, let's say what the Bible really said. In Deuteronomy 23:3-6, this is written:
"No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim[c] to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live."

Note the reference to "treaty"; this edict was a matter of formal relations between nations, not the course of individuals. Now consider what we see in the book of Ruth, chapter 1, verses 16-17:

" But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me."

This is devotion and love, and in no way selfish or greedy. Note also that Ruth makes clear that the God of Israel is her God, which is much different than the beliefs of the normal Moabites.

Let's go on to the next part:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: People from Uz are evil (Jeremiah 25).
But then comes the story of Job, a man from Uz who was the "most blameless man on earth."

First, keep in mind that most experts believe the Book of Job is one of the earliest books written in the Bible, predating even the Pentateuch which was written during the time after Moses. But consider also that the Book of Jeremiah was a book of judgment and chastisement. The Lord says to all of Judah in Jeremiah 25:11;
"This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

As for the land of Uz, The Lord does not condemn the whole land, but only its wicked kings (verse 20), along with the other kings who rejected God and did evil to His people.

Moving on to the next part from Waco:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: No foreigners or eunuchs allowed (Deuteronomy 23).
But then comes the story of an African eunuch welcomed into the church (Acts 8)."

This is the kind of claim that makes Christians doubt Waco's claim to be a pastor. It is clearly written in Acts 10:15 "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

What does Deuteronomy 23 actually say? Well, it's true that eunuchs are not allowed (verse 1), and one from a 'forbidden marriage' (verse 2), due to their loyalty to religions opposed to Yahweh.

But foreigners in general are not rejected. In fact, verse 7 specifically reminds Israel to welcome Edomites and Egyptians . The only foreign people rejected by Yahweh were the ones known to have tried to kill all the Israelites. Expecting Israel to welcome would-be murderers is like expecting present-day Israel to be cool with Nazis.

So let's go on to the next part:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: God's people hated Samaritans.
But then Jesus tells a story that shows not all Samaritans are bad (Luke 10). "

We all know the story of the Good Samaritan, but where exactly does it say that God or His people hated Samaritans? Waco conveniently fails to provide any scripture reference to such a passage. Maybe because there is no passage in the whole of the Bible where God says He hates Samaritans. Samaria gets mentioned in the Old Testament as part of Israel, and indeed the book of 1 Kings notes that Omri and Ahab ruled and were buried in Samaria (1 Kings 16:28-29), as did Ahaziah (1 Kings 22:51) and Joram (2 Kings 3:1). It seems Waco is falling back on assumptions rather than scholarship.

Yet again.

Here endeth the lesson.

---

lbdr

translation: Likely blasphemous, didn't read.

---

Did you mean me or Waco?

FormerFlash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco:"The Bible is clear: Moabites are bad. They were not to be allowed to dwell among God's People (Deuteronomy 23). But then comes the story of "Ruth the Moabite," which challenges the prejudice against Moabites."

OK, let's say what the Bible really said. In Deuteronomy 23:3-6, this is written:
"No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim[c] to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live."

Note the reference to "treaty"; this edict was a matter of formal relations between nations, not the course of individuals. Now consider what we see in the book of Ruth, chapter 1, verses 16-17:

" But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me."

This is devotion and love, and in no way selfish or greedy. Note also that Ruth makes clear that the God of Israel is her God, which is much different than the beliefs of the normal Moabites.

Let's go on to the next part:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: People from Uz are evil (Jeremiah 25).
But then comes the story of Job, a man from Uz who was the "most blameless man on earth."

First, keep in mind that most experts believe the Book of Job is one of the earliest books written in the Bible, predating even the Pentateuch which was written during the time after Moses. But consider also that the Book of Jeremiah was a book of judgment and chastisement. The Lord says to all of Judah in Jeremiah 25:11;
"This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

As for the land of Uz, The Lord does not condemn the whole land, but only its wicked kings (verse 20), along with the other kings who rejected God and did evil to His people.

Moving on to the next part from Waco:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: No foreigners or eunuchs allowed (Deuteronomy 23).
But then comes the story of an African eunuch welcomed into the church (Acts 8)."

This is the kind of claim that makes Christians doubt Waco's claim to be a pastor. It is clearly written in Acts 10:15 "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

What does Deuteronomy 23 actually say? Well, it's true that eunuchs are not allowed (verse 1), and one from a 'forbidden marriage' (verse 2), due to their loyalty to religions opposed to Yahweh.

But foreigners in general are not rejected. In fact, verse 7 specifically reminds Israel to welcome Edomites and Egyptians . The only foreign people rejected by Yahweh were the ones known to have tried to kill all the Israelites. Expecting Israel to welcome would-be murderers is like expecting present-day Israel to be cool with Nazis.

So let's go on to the next part:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: God's people hated Samaritans.
But then Jesus tells a story that shows not all Samaritans are bad (Luke 10). "

We all know the story of the Good Samaritan, but where exactly does it say that God or His people hated Samaritans? Waco conveniently fails to provide any scripture reference to such a passage. Maybe because there is no passage in the whole of the Bible where God says He hates Samaritans. Samaria gets mentioned in the Old Testament as part of Israel, and indeed the book of 1 Kings notes that Omri and Ahab ruled and were buried in Samaria (1 Kings 16:28-29), as did Ahaziah (1 Kings 22:51) and Joram (2 Kings 3:1). It seems Waco is falling back on assumptions rather than scholarship.

Yet again.

Here endeth the lesson.

---

lbdr

translation: Likely blasphemous, didn't read.

---

Dummy it is Bible quotes. That's blasphemy? Do tell

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco:"The Bible is clear: Moabites are bad. They were not to be allowed to dwell among God's People (Deuteronomy 23). But then comes the story of "Ruth the Moabite," which challenges the prejudice against Moabites."

OK, let's say what the Bible really said. In Deuteronomy 23:3-6, this is written:
"No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim[c] to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live."

Note the reference to "treaty"; this edict was a matter of formal relations between nations, not the course of individuals. Now consider what we see in the book of Ruth, chapter 1, verses 16-17:

" But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me."

This is devotion and love, and in no way selfish or greedy. Note also that Ruth makes clear that the God of Israel is her God, which is much different than the beliefs of the normal Moabites.
"""""" Treaty? Really oh please. There are hundreds of prohibitions regarding foreigners. """""""""

Let's go on to the next part:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: People from Uz are evil (Jeremiah 25).
But then comes the story of Job, a man from Uz who was the "most blameless man on earth."

First, keep in mind that most experts believe the Book of Job is one of the earliest books written in the Bible, predating even the Pentateuch which was written during the time after Moses. But consider also that the Book of Jeremiah was a book of judgment and chastisement. The Lord says to all of Judah in Jeremiah 25:11;
"This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

As for the land of Uz, The Lord does not condemn the whole land, but only its wicked kings (verse 20), along with the other kings who rejected God and did evil to His people.
"""""""" Job Predates? As one reads the text how does one know that? Plus you ignore contextual history on other subjects such as say 'homosexuality If you yank one scripture out of context then you need to defend all
"' The land of Uz (Hebrew: ) is a location mentioned in the Old Testament, most prominently in the Book of Job, which begins, "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job".[1] Scholarly consensus has not identified any actual country which corresponds to Uz.

According to the War Scroll, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the land of Uz existed beyond the Euphrates, possibly in relation to Aram. In Column 2 verse 11, it is noted, "they shall fight against the rest of the sons of Aramea: Uz, Hul, Togar, and Mesha, who are beyond the Euphrates."

Uz is sometimes identified with the kingdom of Edom, roughly in the area of modern-day southwestern Jordan and southern Israel.[2] Lamentations 4:21 reads: "Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz." Other locations proposed for Uz include more southern Arabia, especially Dhofar, said to be the home of the original Arabs;[3] Bashan in modern-day southern Syria/western Jordan; Arabia east of Petra, Jordan;[4] and even modern-day Uzbekistan.

The name Uz is mentioned several times in the Bible. In Genesis, Uz is the son of Aram, a direct descendant of Shem.[5] In Genesis 36:28 and 1 Chronicles 1:42, Uz is a son of Dishan, and in 1 Chronicles 1:17, Uz is a son of Shem."""""""


Moving on to the next part from Waco:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: No foreigners or eunuchs allowed (Deuteronomy 23).
But then comes the story of an African eunuch welcomed into the church (Acts 8)."

This is the kind of claim that makes Christians doubt Waco's claim to be a pastor. It is clearly written in Acts 10:15 "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

What does Deuteronomy 23 actually say? Well, it's true that eunuchs are not allowed (verse 1), and one from a 'forbidden marriage' (verse 2), due to their loyalty to religions opposed to Yahweh.

But foreigners in general are not rejected. In fact, verse 7 specifically reminds Israel to welcome Edomites and Egyptians . The only foreign people rejected by Yahweh were the ones known to have tried to kill all the Israelites. Expecting Israel to welcome would-be murderers is like expecting present-day Israel to be cool with Nazis.
""""""" Really the Hebrews take a land by force like we did the Indians and they don't oppose their attackers? Geez that's silliness. """"""

So let's go on to the next part:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: God's people hated Samaritans.
But then Jesus tells a story that shows not all Samaritans are bad (Luke 10). "

We all know the story of the Good Samaritan, but where exactly does it say that God or His people hated Samaritans? Waco conveniently fails to provide any scripture reference to such a passage. Maybe because there is no passage in the whole of the Bible where God says He hates Samaritans. Samaria gets mentioned in the Old Testament as part of Israel, and indeed the book of 1 Kings notes that Omri and Ahab ruled and were buried in Samaria (1 Kings 16:28-29), as did Ahaziah (1 Kings 22:51) and Joram (2 Kings 3:1). It seems Waco is falling back on assumptions rather than scholarship.
John 4 Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

21 "Woman," Jesus replied, "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

Yet again.

Here endeth the lesson.

---

Did not realize Waco was allergic to God's word.

Sad, that, but it explains a lot.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco:"The Bible is clear: Moabites are bad. They were not to be allowed to dwell among God's People (Deuteronomy 23). But then comes the story of "Ruth the Moabite," which challenges the prejudice against Moabites."

OK, let's say what the Bible really said. In Deuteronomy 23:3-6, this is written:
"No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim[c] to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live."

Note the reference to "treaty"; this edict was a matter of formal relations between nations, not the course of individuals. Now consider what we see in the book of Ruth, chapter 1, verses 16-17:

" But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me."

This is devotion and love, and in no way selfish or greedy. Note also that Ruth makes clear that the God of Israel is her God, which is much different than the beliefs of the normal Moabites.
"""""" Treaty? Really oh please. There are hundreds of prohibitions regarding foreigners. """""""""

Let's go on to the next part:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: People from Uz are evil (Jeremiah 25).
But then comes the story of Job, a man from Uz who was the "most blameless man on earth."

First, keep in mind that most experts believe the Book of Job is one of the earliest books written in the Bible, predating even the Pentateuch which was written during the time after Moses. But consider also that the Book of Jeremiah was a book of judgment and chastisement. The Lord says to all of Judah in Jeremiah 25:11;
"This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

As for the land of Uz, The Lord does not condemn the whole land, but only its wicked kings (verse 20), along with the other kings who rejected God and did evil to His people.
"""""""" Job Predates? As one reads the text how does one know that? Plus you ignore contextual history on other subjects such as say 'homosexuality If you yank one scripture out of context then you need to defend all
"' The land of Uz (Hebrew: ) is a location mentioned in the Old Testament, most prominently in the Book of Job, which begins, "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job".[1] Scholarly consensus has not identified any actual country which corresponds to Uz.

According to the War Scroll, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the land of Uz existed beyond the Euphrates, possibly in relation to Aram. In Column 2 verse 11, it is noted, "they shall fight against the rest of the sons of Aramea: Uz, Hul, Togar, and Mesha, who are beyond the Euphrates."

Uz is sometimes identified with the kingdom of Edom, roughly in the area of modern-day southwestern Jordan and southern Israel.[2] Lamentations 4:21 reads: "Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz." Other locations proposed for Uz include more southern Arabia, especially Dhofar, said to be the home of the original Arabs;[3] Bashan in modern-day southern Syria/western Jordan; Arabia east of Petra, Jordan;[4] and even modern-day Uzbekistan.

The name Uz is mentioned several times in the Bible. In Genesis, Uz is the son of Aram, a direct descendant of Shem.[5] In Genesis 36:28 and 1 Chronicles 1:42, Uz is a son of Dishan, and in 1 Chronicles 1:17, Uz is a son of Shem."""""""


Moving on to the next part from Waco:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: No foreigners or eunuchs allowed (Deuteronomy 23).
But then comes the story of an African eunuch welcomed into the church (Acts 8)."

This is the kind of claim that makes Christians doubt Waco's claim to be a pastor. It is clearly written in Acts 10:15 "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

What does Deuteronomy 23 actually say? Well, it's true that eunuchs are not allowed (verse 1), and one from a 'forbidden marriage' (verse 2), due to their loyalty to religions opposed to Yahweh.

But foreigners in general are not rejected. In fact, verse 7 specifically reminds Israel to welcome Edomites and Egyptians . The only foreign people rejected by Yahweh were the ones known to have tried to kill all the Israelites. Expecting Israel to welcome would-be murderers is like expecting present-day Israel to be cool with Nazis.
""""""" Really the Hebrews take a land by force like we did the Indians and they don't oppose their attackers? Geez that's silliness. """"""

So let's go on to the next part:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: God's people hated Samaritans.
But then Jesus tells a story that shows not all Samaritans are bad (Luke 10). "

We all know the story of the Good Samaritan, but where exactly does it say that God or His people hated Samaritans? Waco conveniently fails to provide any scripture reference to such a passage. Maybe because there is no passage in the whole of the Bible where God says He hates Samaritans. Samaria gets mentioned in the Old Testament as part of Israel, and indeed the book of 1 Kings notes that Omri and Ahab ruled and were buried in Samaria (1 Kings 16:28-29), as did Ahaziah (1 Kings 22:51) and Joram (2 Kings 3:1). It seems Waco is falling back on assumptions rather than scholarship.
John 4 Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

21 "Woman," Jesus replied, "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

Yet again.

Here endeth the lesson.

---

---

Apparently ob83 prefers silliness to dialogue

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco:"The Bible is clear: Moabites are bad. They were not to be allowed to dwell among God's People (Deuteronomy 23). But then comes the story of "Ruth the Moabite," which challenges the prejudice against Moabites."

OK, let's say what the Bible really said. In Deuteronomy 23:3-6, this is written:
"No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim[c] to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live."

Note the reference to "treaty"; this edict was a matter of formal relations between nations, not the course of individuals. Now consider what we see in the book of Ruth, chapter 1, verses 16-17:

" But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me."

This is devotion and love, and in no way selfish or greedy. Note also that Ruth makes clear that the God of Israel is her God, which is much different than the beliefs of the normal Moabites.
"""""" Treaty? Really oh please. There are hundreds of prohibitions regarding foreigners. """""""""

Let's go on to the next part:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: People from Uz are evil (Jeremiah 25).
But then comes the story of Job, a man from Uz who was the "most blameless man on earth."

First, keep in mind that most experts believe the Book of Job is one of the earliest books written in the Bible, predating even the Pentateuch which was written during the time after Moses. But consider also that the Book of Jeremiah was a book of judgment and chastisement. The Lord says to all of Judah in Jeremiah 25:11;
"This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

As for the land of Uz, The Lord does not condemn the whole land, but only its wicked kings (verse 20), along with the other kings who rejected God and did evil to His people.
"""""""" Job Predates? As one reads the text how does one know that? Plus you ignore contextual history on other subjects such as say 'homosexuality If you yank one scripture out of context then you need to defend all
"' The land of Uz (Hebrew: ) is a location mentioned in the Old Testament, most prominently in the Book of Job, which begins, "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job".[1] Scholarly consensus has not identified any actual country which corresponds to Uz.

According to the War Scroll, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the land of Uz existed beyond the Euphrates, possibly in relation to Aram. In Column 2 verse 11, it is noted, "they shall fight against the rest of the sons of Aramea: Uz, Hul, Togar, and Mesha, who are beyond the Euphrates."

Uz is sometimes identified with the kingdom of Edom, roughly in the area of modern-day southwestern Jordan and southern Israel.[2] Lamentations 4:21 reads: "Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz." Other locations proposed for Uz include more southern Arabia, especially Dhofar, said to be the home of the original Arabs;[3] Bashan in modern-day southern Syria/western Jordan; Arabia east of Petra, Jordan;[4] and even modern-day Uzbekistan.

The name Uz is mentioned several times in the Bible. In Genesis, Uz is the son of Aram, a direct descendant of Shem.[5] In Genesis 36:28 and 1 Chronicles 1:42, Uz is a son of Dishan, and in 1 Chronicles 1:17, Uz is a son of Shem."""""""


Moving on to the next part from Waco:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: No foreigners or eunuchs allowed (Deuteronomy 23).
But then comes the story of an African eunuch welcomed into the church (Acts 8)."

This is the kind of claim that makes Christians doubt Waco's claim to be a pastor. It is clearly written in Acts 10:15 "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

What does Deuteronomy 23 actually say? Well, it's true that eunuchs are not allowed (verse 1), and one from a 'forbidden marriage' (verse 2), due to their loyalty to religions opposed to Yahweh.

But foreigners in general are not rejected. In fact, verse 7 specifically reminds Israel to welcome Edomites and Egyptians . The only foreign people rejected by Yahweh were the ones known to have tried to kill all the Israelites. Expecting Israel to welcome would-be murderers is like expecting present-day Israel to be cool with Nazis.
""""""" Really the Hebrews take a land by force like we did the Indians and they don't oppose their attackers? Geez that's silliness. """"""

So let's go on to the next part:

Waco: "The Bible is clear: God's people hated Samaritans.
But then Jesus tells a story that shows not all Samaritans are bad (Luke 10). "

We all know the story of the Good Samaritan, but where exactly does it say that God or His people hated Samaritans? Waco conveniently fails to provide any scripture reference to such a passage. Maybe because there is no passage in the whole of the Bible where God says He hates Samaritans. Samaria gets mentioned in the Old Testament as part of Israel, and indeed the book of 1 Kings notes that Omri and Ahab ruled and were buried in Samaria (1 Kings 16:28-29), as did Ahaziah (1 Kings 22:51) and Joram (2 Kings 3:1). It seems Waco is falling back on assumptions rather than scholarship.
John 4 Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

21 "Woman," Jesus replied, "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

Yet again.

Here endeth the lesson.

---

---

Apparently ob83 prefers silliness to dialogue

---

Really, Waco?

I wrote a detailed answer, which you have alternately ignored or mocked.

You are not even trying to discuss the points you yourself brought up.

Waco: "According to the War Scroll, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the land of Uz existed beyond the Euphrates, possibly in relation to Aram. In Column 2 verse 11, it is noted, "they shall fight against the rest of the sons of Aramea: Uz, Hul, Togar, and Mesha, who are beyond the Euphrates."

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not canon. They are interesting, in the same context as, say, Billy Graham's thoughts on prayer, but they do not over-rule Scripture.



Waco: "Plus you ignore contextual history on other subjects such as say 'homosexuality If you yank one scripture out of context then you need to defend all "

First, I am not eth one ignoring context. Second, I did not bring up homosexuality in this particular exchange. If you wish to do so, feel free to provide Scripture which supports your position,


Waco: "' The land of Uz (Hebrew: ) is a location mentioned in the Old Testament, most prominently in the Book of Job, which begins, "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job".[1] Scholarly consensus has not identified any actual country which corresponds to Uz"

So? Humans have forgotten a lot of history, and denied as myth places and people later confirmed. Further, 'land of Uz' does not necessarily refer to a sovereign territory, but could have meant a place known colloquially, in perhaps the same way that parts of Houston are referred to by locals as 'Clutch City'.
.
You miss the point in the reference, Waco.


Waco: "John 4 Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

21 "Woman," Jesus replied, "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."


Once again, Waco, you conflate an individual's understanding with direction from Scripture. You said "God's people hated Samaritans", but that's not what your own quote says here.


Consider that Jesus rebuked priests and pharisees for their personal errors in behavior and words, but never contradicted Scripture.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco: "According to the War Scroll, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the land of Uz existed beyond the Euphrates, possibly in relation to Aram. In Column 2 verse 11, it is noted, "they shall fight against the rest of the sons of Aramea: Uz, Hul, Togar, and Mesha, who are beyond the Euphrates."

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not canon. They are interesting, in the same context as, say, Billy Graham's thoughts on prayer, but they do not over-rule Scripture.



Waco: "Plus you ignore contextual history on other subjects such as say 'homosexuality If you yank one scripture out of context then you need to defend all "

First, I am not eth one ignoring context. Second, I did not bring up homosexuality in this particular exchange. If you wish to do so, feel free to provide Scripture which supports your position,


Waco: "' The land of Uz (Hebrew: ) is a location mentioned in the Old Testament, most prominently in the Book of Job, which begins, "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job".[1] Scholarly consensus has not identified any actual country which corresponds to Uz"

So? Humans have forgotten a lot of history, and denied as myth places and people later confirmed. Further, 'land of Uz' does not necessarily refer to a sovereign territory, but could have meant a place known colloquially, in perhaps the same way that parts of Houston are referred to by locals as 'Clutch City'.
.
You miss the point in the reference, Waco.


Waco: "John 4 Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

21 "Woman," Jesus replied, "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."


Once again, Waco, you conflate an individual's understanding with direction from Scripture. You said "God's people hated Samaritans", but that's not what your own quote says here.


Consider that Jesus rebuked priests and pharisees for their personal errors in behavior and words, but never contradicted Scripture.

---

Thete ain't no conflation. It's all plural in the conversation. And the whole village turns out.

0xdeadbeef said:

---

Meladee said:

---

The sins I recall him calling out the most was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. In fact, his only harsh language and actions were towards religious leaders.

But go ahead load up on your stones and keep at it... Jesus was probably joking when he said... he who is without sin cast the first stone... right?

---

He also said that he did not come to bring peace, but the sword, and spoke in exceptionally apocalyptic imagery when he wasn't using farming metaphors.

It's almost as if picking and choosing individual sections of the Bible without understanding the whole of Special Revelation in its proper context leads to contradictions.

---

"Picking and choosing?" You picked and chose that one verse out of the Bible, when it is clear that Jesus came to announce the in-breaking of God's kingdom.
In another verse Jesus shouts, " Put down that sword. Those who live by the sword; die by the sword - Jesus.
Put the sword away.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco: "According to the War Scroll, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the land of Uz existed beyond the Euphrates, possibly in relation to Aram. In Column 2 verse 11, it is noted, "they shall fight against the rest of the sons of Aramea: Uz, Hul, Togar, and Mesha, who are beyond the Euphrates."

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not canon. They are interesting, in the same context as, say, Billy Graham's thoughts on prayer, but they do not over-rule Scripture.



Waco: "Plus you ignore contextual history on other subjects such as say 'homosexuality If you yank one scripture out of context then you need to defend all "

First, I am not eth one ignoring context. Second, I did not bring up homosexuality in this particular exchange. If you wish to do so, feel free to provide Scripture which supports your position,


Waco: "' The land of Uz (Hebrew: ) is a location mentioned in the Old Testament, most prominently in the Book of Job, which begins, "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job".[1] Scholarly consensus has not identified any actual country which corresponds to Uz"

So? Humans have forgotten a lot of history, and denied as myth places and people later confirmed. Further, 'land of Uz' does not necessarily refer to a sovereign territory, but could have meant a place known colloquially, in perhaps the same way that parts of Houston are referred to by locals as 'Clutch City'.
.
You miss the point in the reference, Waco.


Waco: "John 4 Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

21 "Woman," Jesus replied, "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."


Once again, Waco, you conflate an individual's understanding with direction from Scripture. You said "God's people hated Samaritans", but that's not what your own quote says here.


Consider that Jesus rebuked priests and pharisees for their personal errors in behavior and words, but never contradicted Scripture.

---

Thete ain't no conflation. It's all plural in the conversation. And the whole village turns out.

---

Yes it is. Go back to the instructions from God. Those spoke of nations. Even speaking of plural you mean persons not nations.

This would have been made clear your first year of Seminary, Waco. Thus I continue to doubt your claims.

Waco1947 said:

---

0xdeadbeef said:

---

Meladee said:

---

The sins I recall him calling out the most was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. In fact, his only harsh language and actions were towards religious leaders.

But go ahead load up on your stones and keep at it... Jesus was probably joking when he said... he who is without sin cast the first stone... right?

---

He also said that he did not come to bring peace, but the sword, and spoke in exceptionally apocalyptic imagery when he wasn't using farming metaphors.

It's almost as if picking and choosing individual sections of the Bible without understanding the whole of Special Revelation in its proper context leads to contradictions.

---

"Picking and choosing?" You picked and chose that one verse out of the Bible, when it is clear that Jesus came to announce the in-breaking of God's kingdom.
In another verse Jesus shouts, " Put down that sword. Those who live by the sword; die by the sword - Jesus.
Put the sword away.

---

I did not "pick and choose" those verses, Waco: YOU DID,.

I simply noted what was actually said.

The fact is that Jesus, as He promised, did not alter the law one bit. He simply clarified and fulfilled, while for your part you keep trying to replace God's word with humanism and political screeds.

Shame on you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

0xdeadbeef said:

---

Meladee said:

---

The sins I recall him calling out the most was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. In fact, his only harsh language and actions were towards religious leaders.

But go ahead load up on your stones and keep at it... Jesus was probably joking when he said... he who is without sin cast the first stone... right?

---

He also said that he did not come to bring peace, but the sword, and spoke in exceptionally apocalyptic imagery when he wasn't using farming metaphors.

It's almost as if picking and choosing individual sections of the Bible without understanding the whole of Special Revelation in its proper context leads to contradictions.

---

"Picking and choosing?" You picked and chose that one verse out of the Bible, when it is clear that Jesus came to announce the in-breaking of God's kingdom.
In another verse Jesus shouts, " Put down that sword. Those who live by the sword; die by the sword - Jesus.
Put the sword away.

---

I did not "pick and choose" those verses, Waco: YOU DID,.

I simply noted what was actually said.

The fact is that Jesus, as He promised, did not alter the law one bit. He simply clarified and fulfilled, while for your part you keep trying to replace God's word with humanism and political screeds.

Shame on you.

---

You should be happy. At least he quoted Jesus correctly from Matthew. Now we just gotta bring him along with the rest of the Gospel.

"The fact is that Jesus, as He promised, did not alter the law one bit. He simply clarified and fulfilled, while for your part you keep trying to replace God's word with humanism and political screeds.

Shame on you." ob83
How does one fulfill the law in a Jesus way when the law
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter." Leviticus 21

Waco1947 said:

---

"The fact is that Jesus, as He promised, did not alter the law one bit. He simply clarified and fulfilled, while for your part you keep trying to replace God's word with humanism and political screeds.

Shame on you." ob83
How does one fulfill the law in a Jesus way when the law
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter." Leviticus 21

---

As long as you take Scripture out of context, you will never understand, Waco.

So Slavery offends you? It offends me too. I surely do not have to remind you again of my family history on that point.

Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when Slavery was as common as websites are today. Those directions regarding how to handle the matter of a slave are matters of mercy. Surely you recall how Middle Eastern cultures treated women?

This scripture provides protection and dignity for the girl, something not done in other Middle Eastern cultures even today, and if you were paying attention, you would note that Jesus also made sure to show respect and dignity to women.

I find it unfortunate that you still do not understand these things.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"The fact is that Jesus, as He promised, did not alter the law one bit. He simply clarified and fulfilled, while for your part you keep trying to replace God's word with humanism and political screeds.

Shame on you." ob83
How does one fulfill the law in a Jesus way when the law
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter." Leviticus 21

---

As long as you take Scripture out of context, you will never understand, Waco.

So Slavery offends you? It offends me too. I surely do not have to remind you again of my family history on that point.

Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when Slavery was as common as websites are today. Those directions regarding how to handle the matter of a slave are matters of mercy. Surely you recall how Middle Eastern cultures treated women?

This scripture provides protection and dignity for the girl, something not done in other Middle Eastern cultures even today, and if you were paying attention, you would note that Jesus also made sure to show respect and dignity to women.

I find it unfortunate that you still do not understand these things.

---

I find it unfortunate that you declared "as He promised, did not alter the law one bit. " and yet rationalize a clear passage of the law.
Why cannot I not use the same standard for homosexuality?
Here is your justification "Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when Slavery was as common as websites are today. "
Why can I not say ""
So Slavery offends you? It offends me too. I surely do not have to remind you again of my family history on that point.Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when homosexuality was as common as websites are today. "
So out dated understandings of slavery are ok to overturn but outdated notions of homosexuality are not ok to overturn? Why?

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"The fact is that Jesus, as He promised, did not alter the law one bit. He simply clarified and fulfilled, while for your part you keep trying to replace God's word with humanism and political screeds.

Shame on you." ob83
How does one fulfill the law in a Jesus way when the law
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter." Leviticus 21

---

As long as you take Scripture out of context, you will never understand, Waco.

So Slavery offends you? It offends me too. I surely do not have to remind you again of my family history on that point.

Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when Slavery was as common as websites are today. Those directions regarding how to handle the matter of a slave are matters of mercy. Surely you recall how Middle Eastern cultures treated women?

This scripture provides protection and dignity for the girl, something not done in other Middle Eastern cultures even today, and if you were paying attention, you would note that Jesus also made sure to show respect and dignity to women.

I find it unfortunate that you still do not understand these things.

---

I find it unfortunate that you declared "as He promised, did not alter the law one bit. " and yet rationalize a clear passage of the law.
Why cannot I not use the same standard for homosexuality?
Here is your justification "Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when Slavery was as common as websites are today. "
Why can I not say ""
So Slavery offends you? It offends me too. I surely do not have to remind you again of my family history on that point.Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when homosexuality was as common as websites are today. "
So out dated understandings of slavery are ok to overturn but outdated notions of homosexuality are not ok to overturn? Why?

---

Because I showed you how Jesus' actions were consistent with Scripture from the Old Testament.

Please show me your OT verses supporting your position.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"The fact is that Jesus, as He promised, did not alter the law one bit. He simply clarified and fulfilled, while for your part you keep trying to replace God's word with humanism and political screeds.

Shame on you." ob83
How does one fulfill the law in a Jesus way when the law
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter." Leviticus 21

---

As long as you take Scripture out of context, you will never understand, Waco.

So Slavery offends you? It offends me too. I surely do not have to remind you again of my family history on that point.

Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when Slavery was as common as websites are today. Those directions regarding how to handle the matter of a slave are matters of mercy. Surely you recall how Middle Eastern cultures treated women?

This scripture provides protection and dignity for the girl, something not done in other Middle Eastern cultures even today, and if you were paying attention, you would note that Jesus also made sure to show respect and dignity to women.

I find it unfortunate that you still do not understand these things.

---

Quote:

---

As long as you take Scripture out of context, you will never understand, ...

---

I find this statement ironic. The NT is rife with references to the OT taken out of context.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"The fact is that Jesus, as He promised, did not alter the law one bit. He simply clarified and fulfilled, while for your part you keep trying to replace God's word with humanism and political screeds.

Shame on you." ob83
How does one fulfill the law in a Jesus way when the law
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter." Leviticus 21

---

As long as you take Scripture out of context, you will never understand, Waco.

So Slavery offends you? It offends me too. I surely do not have to remind you again of my family history on that point.

Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when Slavery was as common as websites are today. Those directions regarding how to handle the matter of a slave are matters of mercy. Surely you recall how Middle Eastern cultures treated women?

This scripture provides protection and dignity for the girl, something not done in other Middle Eastern cultures even today, and if you were paying attention, you would note that Jesus also made sure to show respect and dignity to women.

I find it unfortunate that you still do not understand these things.

---

I find it unfortunate that you declared "as He promised, did not alter the law one bit. " and yet rationalize a clear passage of the law.
Why cannot I not use the same standard for homosexuality?
Here is your justification "Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when Slavery was as common as websites are today. "
Why can I not say ""
So Slavery offends you? It offends me too. I surely do not have to remind you again of my family history on that point.Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when homosexuality was as common as websites are today. "
So out dated understandings of slavery are ok to overturn but outdated notions of homosexuality are not ok to overturn? Why?

---

Because I showed you how Jesus' actions were consistent with Scripture from the Old Testament.

Please show me your OT verses supporting your position.

---

I did. Here it is
"How does one fulfill the law in a Jesus way when the law
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter." Leviticus 21
How does Jesus "fulfill" this scripture? Cite scripture and verse please from the gospels.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"The fact is that Jesus, as He promised, did not alter the law one bit. He simply clarified and fulfilled, while for your part you keep trying to replace God's word with humanism and political screeds.

Shame on you." ob83
How does one fulfill the law in a Jesus way when the law
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter." Leviticus 21

---

As long as you take Scripture out of context, you will never understand, Waco.

So Slavery offends you? It offends me too. I surely do not have to remind you again of my family history on that point.

Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when Slavery was as common as websites are today. Those directions regarding how to handle the matter of a slave are matters of mercy. Surely you recall how Middle Eastern cultures treated women?

This scripture provides protection and dignity for the girl, something not done in other Middle Eastern cultures even today, and if you were paying attention, you would note that Jesus also made sure to show respect and dignity to women.

I find it unfortunate that you still do not understand these things.

---

I find it unfortunate that you declared "as He promised, did not alter the law one bit. " and yet rationalize a clear passage of the law.
Why cannot I not use the same standard for homosexuality?
Here is your justification "Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when Slavery was as common as websites are today. "
Why can I not say ""
So Slavery offends you? It offends me too. I surely do not have to remind you again of my family history on that point.Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when homosexuality was as common as websites are today. "
So out dated understandings of slavery are ok to overturn but outdated notions of homosexuality are not ok to overturn? Why?

---

Because I showed you how Jesus' actions were consistent with Scripture from the Old Testament.

Please show me your OT verses supporting your position.

---

I did. Here it is
"How does one fulfill the law in a Jesus way when the law
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter." Leviticus 21
How does Jesus "fulfill" this scripture? Cite scripture and verse please from the gospels.

---

You ignored my explanation.

Then simply reposted the exact same words.

That is not a good way for you to gain understanding, Waco.

Let me ask you this, Waco, for your own consideration to open the mind:

Why is the Law presented to Israel in two ways - as the Ten Commandments but also as a series of specific directives?

There is a reason and it speaks to the heart of the matter.

OB83 "Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when Slavery was as common as websites are today. Those directions regarding how to handle the matter of a slave are matters of mercy. Surely you recall how Middle Eastern cultures treated women?

This scripture provides protection and dignity for the girl, something not done in other Middle Eastern cultures even today, and if you were paying attention, you would note that Jesus also made sure to show respect and dignity to women."
"Matters of mercy". Your daughter is in slavery! That's not any kind of mercy.
Indeed Jesus showed respect and dignity to women but your explanation is not even close to those standards.
A "comparative basis" missed the mark as in "other ME cultures beat slaves with 40 lashes but we limited our beatings to 10 lashes."

How about shell fish?
How about wearing two kinds of cloth?
You will end up chasing your tail.

Waco1947 said:

---

OB83 "Leviticus was written thousands of years ago, at a time when Slavery was as common as websites are today. Those directions regarding how to handle the matter of a slave are matters of mercy. Surely you recall how Middle Eastern cultures treated women?

This scripture provides protection and dignity for the girl, something not done in other Middle Eastern cultures even today, and if you were paying attention, you would note that Jesus also made sure to show respect and dignity to women."
"Matters of mercy". Your daughter is in slavery! That's not any kind of mercy.
Indeed Jesus showed respect and dignity to women but your explanation is not even close to those standards.
A "comparative basis" missed the mark as in "other ME cultures beat slaves with 40 lashes but we limited our beatings to 10 lashes."

How about shell fish?
How about wearing two kinds of cloth?
You will end up chasing your tail.

---

Please answer my most recent post, Waco.

Assuming you want to do more than bicker.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

As long as you take Scripture out of context, you will never understand, ...

---

I find this statement ironic. The NT is rife with references to the OT taken out of context.

---

I find it telling that you make broad assumptions on a subject you do not understand.

---

There are numerous examples where NT writers either attribute out of context OT prophecy about the Messiah, or attribute OT prophecy about someone else out of context to Jesus - all for the purpose of advancing the writer's theological agenda. You cannot deny this without being disingenuous.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Meladee said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

ScottS said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

ScottS said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

You do realize that Christ never denounced homosexuality?

Some of the apostles letters mentioned it, and some Old Testament verses cover it.

---

Did Jesus mention any of these? necrophilia, pedophilia, incest, and bestiality?

Now, question...is scripture divine? And, btw, Romans 1:26-28 is in the New Testament?

If God thought homosexuality was ok, why did he allow those verses to be in the bible indicating it wasn't ok? Why did God allow Adam and Eve to be presented in the bible (and not Adam and Steve)? It all just feels like the serpent telling Eve its all ok. Now you have the devil telling churches its all ok.

---

Eyeroll.

The New Testament said to go and love one another as I have loved you, the word of Christ.

God also said not to wear cotton/poly blends or associate with women when they're on their periods.

The Bible says a lot of things.

---

So u don't like the bible

---

Do you not believe that Christ message was one of love and acceptance?

---

Yes, but Christ also called out sin.

---

The sins I recall him calling out the most was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. In fact, his only harsh language and actions were towards religious leaders.

But go ahead load up on your stones and keep at it... Jesus was probably joking when he said... he who is without sin cast the first stone... right?

---

Calling out a sinful action that's inconsistent with God's teaching done in a loving manner is not throwing stones. If you think I am, then you've got some deeper spiritual issues that a message board cannot heal or you've got forgiveness to seek.

---

So you aren't a stone thrower yet on another thread you call out groups participating in Sing as being gay..

"if there is a question...there is no question"

Gold Tron said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Meladee said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

ScottS said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

ScottS said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

You do realize that Christ never denounced homosexuality?

Some of the apostles letters mentioned it, and some Old Testament verses cover it.

---

Did Jesus mention any of these? necrophilia, pedophilia, incest, and bestiality?

Now, question...is scripture divine? And, btw, Romans 1:26-28 is in the New Testament?

If God thought homosexuality was ok, why did he allow those verses to be in the bible indicating it wasn't ok? Why did God allow Adam and Eve to be presented in the bible (and not Adam and Steve)? It all just feels like the serpent telling Eve its all ok. Now you have the devil telling churches its all ok.

---

Eyeroll.

The New Testament said to go and love one another as I have loved you, the word of Christ.

God also said not to wear cotton/poly blends or associate with women when they're on their periods.

The Bible says a lot of things.

---

So u don't like the bible

---

Do you not believe that Christ message was one of love and acceptance?

---

Yes, but Christ also called out sin.

---

The sins I recall him calling out the most was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. In fact, his only harsh language and actions were towards religious leaders.

But go ahead load up on your stones and keep at it... Jesus was probably joking when he said... he who is without sin cast the first stone... right?

---

Calling out a sinful action that's inconsistent with God's teaching done in a loving manner is not throwing stones. If you think I am, then you've got some deeper spiritual issues that a message board cannot heal or you've got forgiveness to seek.

---

So you aren't a stone thrower yet on another thread you call out groups participating in Sing as being gay..

"if there is a question...there is no question"

---

Dude. Lighten up. Nobody cares if you're a KOT anymore.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

As long as you take Scripture out of context, you will never understand, ...

---

I find this statement ironic. The NT is rife with references to the OT taken out of context.

---

I find it telling that you make broad assumptions on a subject you do not understand.

---

There are numerous examples where NT writers either attribute out of context OT prophecy about the Messiah, or attribute OT prophecy about someone else out of context to Jesus - all for the purpose of advancing the writer's theological agenda. You cannot deny this without being disingenuous.

---

Of course I can. For one thing, non-Christians reject prophecy because it gets in the way of their own bias. Also, you did not bother to even cite the scriptures you mean, which leaves your argument hollow and without any logical support.

It's fine if you choose not to believe. It's absurd to argue, as you do here, that your opinion counts as a logical rebuttal, much less as evidence.

(I had some kind of glitch and could not post direct to your thread comment above)

Oldbear83 said:
Also, you did not bother to even cite the scriptures you mean, which leaves your argument hollow and without any logical support.

If you want to understand something, it has to be put in its proper context. A classic example of where NT writers attribute OT prophecy out of context is where the writer of Matthew 1:23 not only mistranslated Isaiah 7:14., but also interprets it out of context. The proper and correct translation Is. 7:14 is "The Lord himself will give you a sign. A young woman (Alma) (Bethulah is the Hebrew for virgin) is with child and she will bear a son etc." When the writer of Matthew quoted the verse he did not quote the original Hebrew, but instead he used a Greek translation of the Hebrew scripture which incorrectly substituted a Greek word (Parthenos) which meant a woman who was a virgin. That wasn't what the original Hebrew meant.

Above and beyond that, the writer of Matthew's context is completely different from the context of Isaiah chapters 7 and 8. From those chapters it is clear the prophet is not predicting the coming of the messiah. Rather, his meaning is clear. The king of Judah is concerned about eminent war with Israel and Syria. Isaiah comes to Ahaz and delivers the prophecy that a young woman who is already with child will give birth to a child, and that before the child is old enough to know good from evil, Israel and Syria will withdraw, leaving Judah safe.

The writer of Matthew completely changed the context to further his own agenda. Everything in Matthew's birth narrative is about the fulfillment of prophecy - born in Bethlehem while from Nazareth, escape to Egypt from Herod, virgin birth. He wanted to show that Jesus' birth was fulfillment of a divine plan through the fulfillment of prophecy.