Regardless, they are enemies of Israel.
At least get it right, the 12 Tribes turned out to be an enemy to God, that is what the exile into Neb's Babylon was all about.
By your logic you are stating that this behavior was condoned and acceptable.
Are you not?
If you're not, then bye bye point.
It certainlt happened before the flood and after sisters and brothers would have been getting married and at least one wife was a 6 fingered woman.
That's talking about something completely different. Again, a great demonstration of your understanding of context.
None the less that is when they were punished and the reason given is quite different from what you said it was, Where is your reference because the verses below put your whole proposal at risk of being false (at the very least).
De:2:9:
And the LORD said unto me,
Distress not the Moabites,
neither contend with them in battle:
for I will not give thee of their land for a possession;
because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession.
De:2:19:
And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon,
distress them not,
nor meddle with them:
for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession;
because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession.
So what were the "Statutes, judgments, and ordinances" that Abraham obeyed, and why did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean?
Since God brought them to the Ark (same as for Adam to do the naming) I guess the head count would solve which was which.
Ge:2:19:
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,
and every fowl of the air;
and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:
and whatsoever Adam called every living creature,
that was the name thereof.
Right. You're ignoring that aspect.
No, as it doesn't say they went on to have many children and the fact they had to get him drunk show it was not promoted as being 'proper with God'.
You haven't actually CONDEMNED what Lot's daughters did to him while he was drunk. So you're saying it's tolerated.
Were they stoned to death for it> Exile was Cain's punishment, I don't recall any updates to that until the stoning to death became the 'solution' even if they fully expected the ones being killed to also be resurrected later.
Thus, you're saying that marrying your sisters is tolerated.
Are you saying it never happened during the time that 8 people repopulated the world?
Peter was nervous about eating with gentiles because Jews were apparently forbidden from eating with gentiles regardless what they ate, perhaps due to Oral Torah.
And teaching them, the ones at that meeting clued in and accepted it, obviously not the same crowd that murdered Stephen.
The end of the passage is often the best part, you seem to have trouble referencing the whole passage.
Adultery and fornication are not the same thing. Adultery only applies to fornication with a married woman.
Adultery is sex outside of marriage, fornication is an act you can do with your wife and no punishment is warrented.
M't:5:32:
But I say unto you,
That whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery:
and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Didn't I already explain to you that the handwashing thing was an example of the Unscriptural rulings of the Pharisees that Jesus opposed because it wasn't in the actual Law?
Do you really want to cover all the laws that mention washing clothes as well as parts of the body)
With that said, there is absolutely nothing in the scripture which remotely indicates that the Laws were only in place "until the Cross".
Da:8:11:
Yea,
he magnified himself even to the prince of the host,
and by him
the daily sacrifice was taken away,
and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
Da:9:27:
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:
and in the midst of the week
he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,
and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,
even until the consummation,
and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
After the cross any temple sacrifice was part of this verse, again the Jews failed to update the changes made.
Isa:66:3:
He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man;
he that sacrificeth a lamb,
as if he cut off a dog's neck;
he that offereth an oblation,
as if he offered swine's blood;
he that burneth incense,
as if he blessed an idol.
Yea,
they have chosen their own ways,
and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
Isa:1:11:
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?
saith the LORD:
I am full of the burnt offerings of rams,
and the fat of fed beasts;
and I delight not in the blood of bullocks,
or of lambs,
or of he goats.
Isa:1:14:
Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth:
they are a trouble unto me;
I am weary to bear them.
Isa:1:15:
And when ye spread forth your hands,
I will hide mine eyes from you:
yea,
when ye make many prayers,
I will not hear:
your hands are full of blood.
Isa:1:16:
Wash you,
make you clean;
put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes;
cease to do evil;
And from that, you'll have to take the position that James (brother of Jesus) and the Jeruaslem Church were outright mistaken in their accusation of Paul in Acts 21. (And again, verse 25 is most likely an interpolation to match the likely edits in Acts 15).
You mean James brother of John.
M't:17:1:
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter,
James,
and John his brother,
and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
M'r:5:37:
And he suffered no man to follow him,
save Peter,
and James,
and John the brother of James.
Would you like to 1x1 on Acts 21 as well?
You haven't fulfilled your first thread to do just that about some reference. You a blowhard or what?
Pegg got on my bad side for outright distorting what I said, ignoring my counter arguments and acting as if I never rebutted her points. I appreciate your total insult. Many people do get on my bad side when they resort to shady non-arguments, insults, dismissals without actually rebutting, refusing to back their claims with sources, insisting that their views are right without backing them, making personal comments, etc. But I'm sure I could get quite a few posters to tell you that I have a good side to. It's just that my bad side is reserved for intellectually dishonest people, and there's no dearth of them. No dearth at all.
I assume that is a shortened list, basically anybody who has a different POV. Was she insulting you, I can do it quite deliberately but it serves no real purpose other that to let you vent as once the inner anger has resided you would be good for a few intelligent posts. There are ways to let all that slide off into the muck where it belongs without taking you into it to some extent. Not a real big deal but you repeat what others have said umpteenth time, try something original or better yet park it.
.
I've already responded to your total distortion of Acts 10, with many links and sources, and you simply called them in error and wrong. You also don't seem to understand the concept of disagreeing on how to interpret a verse, you're under the idea that you can read anything you want into it.
No, each reference has some verse that support it, you call them irreverent when you reply is that part. Those were just a few of what you called 'many errors' you got a different batch.
With that said, I don't see what verse I'd have to post to disprove your total distortion of Acts 11. It's like asking me to post a verse that debunks a view that one can't dance the hokey pokey on Tuesday nights. You obviously have no clue what disproving a negative means. All I can do is tell you that you're reading something into the text that's not there. You might as well read into the text that the sky is polka dot pink and ask me to get a verse to disprove that.
Peter was the one rehearsing what he was going to tell the other Apostles. The man's place he went to already knew some things about the one true God so the Gentiles would the brand new 'clients' would they not.
Show me some actual verses where they declined to eat the food on the blanket, that would certainly convince me, course I also know you will never find one.
You missed replying to the one that says nothing that a man eats can defile him btw.
