He is explicitly told to obtain one pair of unclean animals and seven pair of clean. "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." Gen. 6:2
See above, and Genesis 6. Note also that the word in the Hebrew refers to animals that are "filthy, polluted". There is nothing in scripture to indicate that God condones the consumption of filth or pollution. If so, where?
Back up to verse 19 and read from there. No reiteration of the dietary laws is given to the church.
Not so, as pointed out above.
Refraining from eating things strangled and refraing frim eating blood are the only new testament food resriction placed upon the church.
Again, There is nothing in that passage about food laws ... you finished now?
So the judge had a truly marvellous demonstration of this proposition which this thread is too narrow to contain.
Again, Gen 9:3 refutes your claim that unclean animals were always unclean. In 9:3, all animals are clean for humans to eat. It is not until God gives dietary laws to Israel that the distinction between clean and unclean animals is made.
See below.
Addressed and refuted. We're still waiting for an actual response.
They're taken directly from the Mosaic law dude. smh.
Given that you can't refute or even address the facts presented, my work is done.
False. Here it is again:
No. you seem to think that the church fathers are morons or something. Why else would they mention some infraction or violation of the law when it wasn't something that was occurring to begin with? They receive letters notifying them of problems so they address them. There is no reason to belabor the point, or address some law that isn't being transgressed. That's just idiotic. Moreover, just because it isn't mentioned, it doesn't then follow that they're free to transgress those laws. If that's the case, then Christians are free to engage in cannibalism. In fact, the dietary laws are the only laws that preclude that from happening. Without them, there is nothing stopping them from eating each other. If so, where do the church elders prohibit it?
I'm quoting you. Project much? Yep. Contradicting yourself is also one of your greatest strengths, at least for providing us with entertainment.Gibberish, much?
I just quoted Genesis. What more do you want? You do know that Genesis is the first book of Moses, right? You do know that it's the first book of the Old Testament, no?
There is nothing anywhere to indicate otherwise. If so, where??? Genesis 6, and 9 both prove my point which is that filthy animals were always filthy from the day they were created. God tells Noah to gather one pair of unclean animals and seven pair of clean . Nowhere does he claim that they are now clean and unclean. They were always clean and unclean.
Glad to see a moment of clarity is possible for you.
I'm not going to repeat myself. Read it for yourself. It's plainly stated in Genesis. Ignoring what was posted doesn't refute what was posted. FAIL.
Genesis 6. I already quoted it for your edification. Why are you ignoring what was already posted?
Read the chapter from v1. The point of the chapter is the recognition of the apistles of inability to be saved by keeping the law (v10). The apostles assert that Jews are saved in the same way gentiles -- by grace (v11).
Matthew 5, and just about anywhere in the synoptics where Jesus talks about the subject.
Mt 5:48 implicitly puts the kibosh on anyone being saved by the law, Romans 1:20 does so explicitly.
Which was what side?
Whilst we cant prove to you that God exists, you cant prove God doesnt exist, yet you are posturing as though God doesnt exist.
I need correct Rom 1:20 to 3:20 for seekers. Hardcore atheists can ignore this post.
And logically possible that God does exist
So, food laws are not moral laws, because food laws change. That leaves my point about marriage laws, which also changed. Abraham, David and Solomon had multiple wives while today God says that men can only have one wife. Is this another of God's laws that is not a 'moral law'? It is certainly not a food law. You claim that laws on sexual behaviour have not changed, yet this is an obvious example of such a law that has changed, or do Fundamentalist LDS churches have this one right?