Was Peter’S Vision About Food Or About Men?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

bud02

New Member
Aug 14, 2010
727
12
0
Jesus didn't care about them eating with dirty hands, this is correct. And this is what that topic of conversation is about....eating with dirty hands.

"...but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."

At what point did Jesus ever say anything about His dietary laws? At what point did Jesus say anything about 'clean' or 'unclean' foods?

Let me ask you.......

Who do you think it was that gave His dietary laws to man in the beginning?
Do you know who it was that gave ALL of man ALL of His laws?

Do you not know that the same one that came and died, shed His blood and will be your judge is in fact the same one that spoke and then wrote His laws on stone and gave them to Moses?



.

Just where on those stones does it speak of eating?
Like I pointed out the law of Moses and the law on stone do not share the same place in the temple.
Never were the Laws of Moses put inside the ark with the ten commandments. If you don't understand that concept its pointless to continue.
 

bud02

New Member
Aug 14, 2010
727
12
0
Just thought of something that is true to this you spoke Bud02,
Your quote; I went threw this with him. Trying to point out the 10 commandments and the law of Moses are not the same.

Remember when Jesus was speaking about divorce and... have to write this to have the words the Lord spoke to you ring true.

Matthew 19:8
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Mark 10:5
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
Jesus, right back to the beginning! Praise the King of Kings!

Very nice, so one man sharpens another.
That is very compelling evidence that the law Moses gave was temporal, "until the promise was fulfilled" That he would replace the heart of stone with one of flesh.

Ezk 36-[sup]26[/sup] I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. [sup]27[/sup] I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Gal 3 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. [sup]22[/sup] But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. [sup]23[/sup] But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. [sup]24[/sup] Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. [sup]25[/sup] But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
 

Eccl.12:13

New Member
Aug 28, 2010
558
10
0
Let me ask you bud02:

Who do you think it was that gave His dietary laws to man in the beginning?
Do you know who it was that gave ALL of man ALL of His laws?

Do you not know that the same one that came and died, shed His blood and will be your judge is in fact the same one that spoke and then wrote His laws on stone and gave them to Moses?

Do you think the Lord will allow unclean foods to be eaten during HIs 1000yr rule here on earth?


.

[sup]
[sup][/sup]24[/sup] Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. [sup]25[/sup] But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Do you know what law it was that was their schoolmaster?

.
 

bud02

New Member
Aug 14, 2010
727
12
0
Let me ask you bud02:

Who do you think it was that gave His dietary laws to man in the beginning?
Do you know who it was that gave ALL of man ALL of His laws?

Do you not know that the same one that came and died, shed His blood and will be your judge is in fact the same one that spoke and then wrote His laws on stone and gave them to Moses?


Do you think the Lord will allow unclean foods to be eaten during HIs 1000yr rule here on earth?

24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. [sup]25[/sup] But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.


Do you know what law it was that was their schoolmaster?

.

You just can't distinguish the difference between the 10 commandments and the book of law can you?
Where in "on" His laws on stone dose it mention unclean food?

Do you know what law it was that was their schoolmaster?
Paul made it clear. In the beginning of the teaching he clearly says, the book of the law, not the 10 commandments.

[sup]10[/sup] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.



I should ask you, is there now a need for a tutor "law" after the completed work of Jesus?
But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor

Have you been keeping track of how many verses you have deny to hold your position of interpretation?
[sup]21[/sup] Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? [sup]22[/sup] For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. [sup]23[/sup] But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, [sup]24[/sup] which things are symbolic. For these are the[sup][d][/sup] two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— [sup]25[/sup] for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— [sup]26[/sup] but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. [sup]27[/sup] For it is written:


“ Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”[sup][e][/sup]

[sup]28[/sup] Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. [sup]29[/sup] But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. [sup]30[/sup] Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.”[sup][f][/sup] [sup]31[/sup] So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.
 

Eccl.12:13

New Member
Aug 28, 2010
558
10
0
You just can't distinguish the difference between the 10 commandments and the book of law can you?
Where in "on" His laws on stone dose it mention unclean food?

What I do not understand is what difference does it make whether or not the book of the law was in the ark or not!

When God gave a commandment it is to be obeyed...whether it was a law that was in the ark or outside of the ark....they ALL are to be kept by all!

God commanded that we are not to have repect of persons! It is a law!

James 2
[9] But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

But is it part of the 10? No! But we are still to keep it!

So even though this 'law' is not with the 10 that were in the ark, even today we are to still keep it!


.



 

bud02

New Member
Aug 14, 2010
727
12
0
What I do not understand is what difference does it make whether or not the book of the law was in the ark or not!

When God gave a commandment it is to be obeyed...whether it was a law that was in the ark or outside of the ark....they ALL are to be kept by all!

God commanded that we are not to have repect of persons! It is a law!

James 2
[9] But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

But is it part of the 10? No! But we are still to keep it!

So even though this 'law' is not with the 10 that were in the ark, even today we are to still keep it!

Thats where you make your mistake they are not the same and were never intended to be treated the same. That why Moses instructed them to be set beside the ark.
This is the law of the Old Covenant. The Covenant that was fulfilled, now we are under the New Covenant. Thats why it called the New testament.
If the law of Moses was to be as the 10 commandments then why didn't Moses have them placed in the ark with the 10. Its because they were never intended to endure the coming of the new covenant. Where as the 10 commandments are still valid today as they were the day they were given. Which leads us back to Moses words about them, that they shall be a witness against you, WHO? the Israelites during the old covenant. Those Israelites today that still practice them deny the Lord Jesus and the whole of the new testament, which echos the words Moses spoke, a witness against them, to this very day.

Both yours and xanders understanding of the concept of the New Covenant "Testament " is severely flawed.
Jesus fulfilled the old covenant "contract " just as a contract exist today, like the mortgage on your home after you have fulfilled the contract this entitles you engage or write a new contract, "covenant "
This new contract does not include the conditions of the old " the law of Moses " or the "Levitical law" they are one in the same.Paul details this in Hebrews as he presents this fact to the Jews of his time. The new covenant is based on faith in Christ, not the law. If it were still based on the law no one could meet the conditions and no one would be saved. The new law is based on the condition of your heart, not the mastering of the flesh. After the heart is right before God He fills you with the Spirit, the deposit the mark or guarantee, this then causes you to be Christ like, in all of our imperfections its the reality and the beginning of a work that will be completed when Jesus returns for us. We know right from wrong yet we struggle with the weakness of our cursed imperfect flesh to bring it into obedience. We do not wrestle with the flesh to bring ourselves as something presentable to God. Isaiah said, all mens righteousness is as of filthy rages before God, so good luck with making yourself an exceptable vessel before God by observing the law.
.
 

Xanderoc

New Member
Sep 10, 2010
125
1
0
Thats where you make your mistake they are not the same and were never intended to be treated the same. That why Moses instructed them to be set beside the ark.
This is the law of the Old Covenant. The Covenant that was fulfilled, now we are under the New Covenant. Thats why it called the New testament.
If the law of Moses was to be as the 10 commandments then why didn't Moses have them placed in the ark with the 10. Its because they were never intended to endure the coming of the new covenant. Where as the 10 commandments are still valid today as they were the day they were given. Which leads us back to Moses words about them, that they shall be a witness against you, WHO? the Israelites during the old covenant. Those Israelites today that still practice them deny the Lord Jesus and the whole of then new testament, which echos the words Moses spoke, a witness against them, to this very day.

Both yours and xanders understanding of the concept of the New Covenant "Testament " is severely flawed.
Jesus fulfilled the old covenant "contract " just as a contract exist today, like the mortgage on your home after you have fulfilled entitles you engage in a new contract, "covenant "
This new contract does not include the conditions of the old " the law of Moses " or the "Levitical law" they are one in the same.Paul details this in Hebrews as he presents this fact to the Jews of his time. The new covenant is based on faith in Christ, not the law. If it were still based on the law no one could meet the conditions and no one would be saved. The new law is based on the condition of your heart, not the mastering of the flesh.
.

Then answer why is it wrong to have a respect of persons? Does your church collect tithes? That was part of old covenant. No, my understanding isn't flawed. You just pick and choose what you will or will not follow. The New Covenant is still base on the same laws. Not including the sacrificial system.
 

Eccl.12:13

New Member
Aug 28, 2010
558
10
0
Bud02:

Just as xander noticed, you did not answer the question about having a respect of persons!

It is NOT part of the (10), which means it was left OUTSIDE of the ark! But James says if we do not keep this law we sin!

So again....what difference does it make whether a law was "in" or "out" of the ark?

Unless you beleive it is OK to have respect of persons! Is that what you beleive?

Let me ask you bud02, where did the fault lie? Was it with the nation of Israel or was it with God's laws?



.
.
 

bud02

New Member
Aug 14, 2010
727
12
0
Then answer why is it wrong to have a respect of persons? Does your church collect tithes? That was part of old covenant. No, my understanding isn't flawed. You just pick and choose what you will or will not follow. The New Covenant is still base on the same laws. Not including the sacrificial system.

You have no ZERO evidence of that, and much has been present to you to support my statement.
There is no recording of the early Church ever receiving or collecting tithes in the New Testament.
Show me the NT teaching requiring 10%

Bud02:

Just as xander noticed, you did not answer the question about having a respect of persons!

It is NOT part of the (10), which means it was left OUTSIDE of the ark! But James says if we do not keep this law we sin!

So again....what difference does it make whether a law was "in" or "out" of the ark?

Unless you beleive it is OK to have respect of persons! Is that what you beleive?

Let me ask you bud02, where did the fault lie? Was it with the nation of Israel or was it with God's laws?



.
.

Just what is yours and his definition of respect of persons!
The reasion I didn't answer is because he just said it, and I still don't understand the question.
 

bud02

New Member
Aug 14, 2010
727
12
0
Bud02:

Let me ask you bud02, where did the fault lie? Was it with the nation of Israel or was it with God's laws?
.

If salvation could be obtained by observing the law then just what was the point in Jesus?

For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, . . . (Galatians 3:21-22a)

Since "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and "there is none righteous, no not one" (Romans 3:10), no one can be saved through keeping the law. Men are too sinful. (Romans 7:14-24). For if righteousness came through the law, then Christ died in vain (Galatians 2:21). But, Christ did not die in vain. Because,

now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. (Romans 3:21-22)

 

Eccl.12:13

New Member
Aug 28, 2010
558
10
0
If salvation could be obtained by observing the law then just what was the point in Jesus?

For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, . . . (Galatians 3:21-22a)

Since "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and "there is none righteous, no not one" (Romans 3:10), no one can be saved through keeping the law. Men are too sinful. (Romans 7:14-24). For if righteousness came through the law, then Christ died in vain (Galatians 2:21). But, Christ did not die in vain. Because,

now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. (Romans 3:21-22)



Which law could not make the people perfect? Which law could not give life? Which law did God never like? Paul tells us! Do you not know of which law Paul speaks?

Do you not know which law required works/deeds?

Rom.3
[27] Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
[28] Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

This is why you do not understand. Paul speak of TWO different laws!

One set of laws required work/deeds.....and the others did not!

.
 

bud02

New Member
Aug 14, 2010
727
12
0
Which law could not make the people perfect? Which law could not give life? Which law did God never like? Paul tells us! Do you not know of which law Paul speaks?

Do you not know which law required works/deeds?

Rom.3
[27] Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
[28] Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

This is why you do not understand. Paul speak of TWO different laws!

One set of laws required work/deeds.....and the others did not!


.

\What you said right there I can respect and agree with. Now If you wish to obstain from certain foods and follow certain precepts of the old covenant then by all means do so.
But don't come here telling me that I will be killed or found out of Gods favor for not doing so or for eating certain foods. If you have received the Spirit you did not receive it by following the law ( including the 10 commandments), nor is following the Levitical law necessary for staying with in the Lords will, (but the 10 commandments are) but its still an impossibility for men to keep the 10 commandments. Thus leaving us orphaned from the Father, so it is threw grace we are saved and that not of ourselves, so no man may boast of his works.

Heres the evidence of those two conflicts.

Romans 7 [sup]22[/sup] For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. [sup]23[/sup] But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. [sup]24[/sup] O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? [sup]25[/sup] I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
 

Eccl.12:13

New Member
Aug 28, 2010
558
10
0
You have no ZERO evidence of that, and much has been present to you to support my statement.
There is no recording of the early Church ever receiving or collecting tithes in the New Testament.
Show me the NT teaching requiring 10%



Just what is yours and his definition of respect of persons!
The reasion I didn't answer is because he just said it, and I still don't understand the question.


It is not about my definition....it is about God's. I get mine the same place James got his.....from God's word. Let's read it,,,,

Lev. 1
[15] Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Now that we have GOD'S definition the question remains.

James says we sin if we have respect of persons. This was NOT in the (10) commandments, thus it was NOT in the ark, but we still must not break this law.

You say we must only keep the (10), those that were in the ark!

So which is it? Do we keep this law of God or not?

.



.
 

bud02

New Member
Aug 14, 2010
727
12
0
It is not about my definition....it is about God's. I get mine the same place James got his.....from God's word. Let's read it,,,,

Lev. 1
[15] Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Now that we have GOD'S definition the question remains.

James says we sin if we have respect of persons. This was NOT in the (10) commandments, thus it was NOT in the ark, but we still must not break this law.

You say we must only keep the (10), those that were in the ark!

So which is it? Do we keep this law of God or not?


.

Its Lev 19:15 not 1:15 im posting the NKJ
[quote[sup]9[/sup] ‘When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. [sup]10[/sup] And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
[sup]11[/sup] ‘You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. [sup]12[/sup] And you shall not swear by My name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
[sup]13[/sup] ‘You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of him who is hired shall not remain with you all night until morning. [sup]14[/sup] You shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind, but shall fear your God: I am the LORD.
[sup]15[/sup] ‘You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor. [sup]16[/sup] You shall not go about as a talebearer among your people; nor shall you take a stand against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD.
[sup]17[/sup] ‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. [sup]18[/sup] You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. ][/quote]

So just what is so unusual about this verse or the context its found in, it looks very much like Jesus teaching from the new testament. Have no other God but the father in heaven and to love your neighbor as yourself, upon these hang all the laws and the prophets. The verse you two have quoted is simply not to give favoritism to a man based on whether he be rich or poor but treat both and judge them fairly and equally in righteousness. This is the commands to the Levis on how to govern the people. There is nothing special in this revelation, the problem is in mens hearts, unfortunately men don't have the Spirit, they have to have a law to govern every aspect of life. For example from the verse above its clear that men with vineyards would harvest every single grape and ignore the needs of those less fortunate, so now here is the plain language telling them to not do it, why so the poor can glean the fields after the harvest to survive. Had they been loving one another as themselves there would never have been the need to tell them such a thing. Just look at the evolution of laws in the US, the library of congress to keep every crook and snake oil sales men in check, why because the don't keep the basic laws and principles of God. Men are always looking for the loop hole in the law and using it to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Its the same with Christians that don't accept basic principles of the NT they need it spelled out in plain English because they don't know or have the Spirit of truth to practice fairness, equality and compassion for their neighbor, understanding the heart of God.

To end I don't see the relevance in this related to the topic we have have been talking about. If your loving one another as yourself do you still need to be told to not give the favored seat in the assembly to the man wearing a gold ring, simply because hes rich? Or to not bear false witness against another because he wronged you at a point in the past. Unfortunately many do need just that, simply because they are still without ears to hear and eyes to see.
 

Eccl.12:13

New Member
Aug 28, 2010
558
10
0
Its Lev 19:15 not 1:15 im posting the NKJ


So just what is so unusual about this verse or the context its found in, it looks very much like Jesus teaching from the new testament. Have no other God but the father in heaven and to love your neighbor as yourself, upon these hang all the laws and the prophets. The verse you two have quoted is simply not to give favoritism to a man based on whether he be rich or poor but treat both and judge them fairly and equally in righteousness. This is the commands to the Levis on how to govern the people. There is nothing special in this revelation, the problem is in mens hearts, unfortunately men don't have the Spirit, they have to have a law to govern every aspect of life. For example from the verse above its clear that men with vineyards would harvest every single grape and ignore the needs of those less fortunate, so now here is the plain language telling them to not do it, why so the poor can glean the fields after the harvest to survive. Had they been loving one another as themselves there would never have been the need to tell them such a thing. Just look at the evolution of laws in the US, the library of congress to keep every crook and snake oil sales men in check, why because the don't keep the basic laws and principles of God. Men are always looking for the loop hole in the law and using it to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Its the same with Christians that don't accept basic principles of the NT they need it spelled out in plain English because they don't know or have the Spirit of truth to practice fairness, equality and compassion for their neighbor, understanding the heart of God.

To end I don't see the relevance in this related to the topic we have have been talking about. If your loving one another as yourself do you still need to be told to not give the favored seat in the assembly to the man wearing a gold ring, simply because hes rich? Or to not bear false witness against another because he wronged you at a point in the past. Unfortunately many do need just that, simply because they are still without ears to hear and eyes to see.


Bud02.....this is a pretty simple question;

Are men, ALL men, to keep this law of God or not?





.
 

Surf Rider

New Member
Dec 17, 2009
126
8
0
in the kingdom of heaven right now
It was about both food and men --- if you're a cannibal!

[/size]
Are men, ALL men, to keep this law of God or not?


I object, Your Honor! The prosecution is badgering the witness with a leading question that assumes guilt before it has been determined. That is an impossibly endless loop in which the truth cannot be reached. I request that the question be recinded, or at the very least restated in a non-self compromising way that isn't based upon an assumption.
 

Eccl.12:13

New Member
Aug 28, 2010
558
10
0
I object, Your Honor! The prosecution is badgering the witness with a leading question that assumes guilt before it has been determined. That is an impossibly endless loop in which the truth cannot be reached. I request that the question be recinded, or at the very least restated in a non-self compromising way that isn't based upon an assumption.


Are we, or, are we not to have respect of persons?

James.2
[9] But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

Again....a pretty simple question!




.


 

Xanderoc

New Member
Sep 10, 2010
125
1
0
If salvation could be obtained by observing the law then just what was the point in Jesus?

For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, . . . (Galatians 3:21-22a)


Again you mentioned a scripture which is speaking of the sacrificial law. Read Romans 7:[sup]10[/sup]And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. Paul said the commandments were ordained to life. This is what He told the Romans. The law Paul was speaking to the Galatians about was the sacrificial law. If you read and understand vs 22 [sup]22[/sup]But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. The promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe in what? The promise is to the people that have faith in Jesus Christ sacrifice, Not those old sacrifices they continued to do year after year. This is the message of Galatians 3...

Since "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and "there is none righteous, no not one" (Romans 3:10), no one can be saved through keeping the law. Men are too sinful. (Romans 7:14-24). For if righteousness came through the law, then Christ died in vain (Galatians 2:21). But, Christ did not die in vain. Because,
You continue to quote scripture the clearly speak of the sacrificial law. Gal. 2:[sup]21[/sup]I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Paul saying for if righteousness come by the sacrificial law, then Christ is dead in vain. Because Christ was our final sacrifice, righteousness could not come from the sacrificial law.
now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. (Romans 3:21-22)

(Romans 3:21-22)
Righteousness of God apart from what law is revealed? The sacrificial law!! bud02 you can't see two laws spoken about here in this verse? "being witness by the Law( commandments) and the Prophets", even the righteousness of God, through faith in(what ?) Jesus Christ (sacrifice !), to all and on all who believe. Who believe in what? Jesus Christ sacrifice.
 

Eccl.12:13

New Member
Aug 28, 2010
558
10
0
OK Bud02;

It seems you are having a slight problem answering the following.....

Are we, or, are we not to have respect of persons?

James.2
[9] But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

Again....a pretty simple question!



So how about this one......

Should we seek out those that are sorcerers? Is this a law that we do not have to keep because it was NOT part of the (10) and not in the ark?