Recent Comments

1. 9 months ago on Peanuts

   I could say the same about yours.

2. 9 months ago on Peanuts

   To clarify, I can certainly have a civil discussion with someone I disagree with, especially when it’s over a matter of personal preference or opinion. But it’s a whole separate ballgame when dealing with people who ignore cold hard Bible-based facts, like the fact that we are not under the Law of Moses and that those who ignore the data and preach the opposite are liars.

   Please don’t accuse me of making myself equal with Jesus. If the Lord could speak to the lying Pharisees in such a manner without sinning, then His followers should be able to speak to modern-day liars in a similar fashion. But now that we’ve both said our peace, the situation has become like Mark 6:11 where it is best to shake the dust of my feet and walk away from this thread. Again, have a nice life.

3. 9 months ago on Peanuts

   It’s not possible to have a “civil” discussion with someone who insists that we are still under the Law of Moses and who rips verses out of proper context to make such claims. If you think I’m talking down to you and being insulting, well now you know how the Pharisees felt after Jesus was done with them (Matthew 15:12-14 / 23:15).

   Glad we’ve both decided to stop wasting time on each other. Have a nice life there yourself.

4. 9 months ago on Peanuts

   You say you are unable to take an example from Chad’s article on Christmas, because Booksie prevents people from copying text unless they have an account, which you don’t have. Well then, create an account for yourself there (it’s free) so that you can contact Chad and invite him to a debate where you’d address his questions. No excuse now, bub.

   Regarding the verses of 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, you are attempting to rip the KJV’s version of Romans 7:22-23 out of context to claim that the Corinthian passage is referring to the law of sin and not the Law of Moses. Pathetic. When the New Testament refers to “the law” (period), the writers mean the Law of Moses. If they meant the “law of sin,” they’d have clarified.

   And speaking of the KJV, this version has an extended portion of Acts 15:24 where the Apostles write to the gentiles stating: “we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave NO SUCH COMMANDMENT.” This verse makes it super clear that we are not under the Law of Moses and that those who teach otherwise, like yourself, are deceivers.

   This is the reason I stopped conversing with you before, and why I’m ending this discussion again now. For I never intended to start another round with you in the first place. If you wish to set up a (free) Booksie account and have an early “Christmas with Chad” as it were, I’m sure he’d welcome your challenge since his question-filled article is clearly asking for one. But as for me, I’m done with you. For if you can’t agree with the Apostles, I can’t agree with you (2 Corinthians 6:14).

5. 9 months ago on Peanuts

   Just a few thoughts here:

   I’ll have to give you the benefit of the doubt that you read Chad’s Christmas article during our previous chats, even though you gave no indication of this at the time. Nevertheless, your reason for not wanting to discuss the article with him now is because you disagreed with something else he wrote on a completely different and unrelated topic. I won’t say whether I agree or disagree with you regarding Chad’s take on Leviticus 19:19, but your logic for refusing to address his pro-Christmas article is that if someone misses the mark in one or two other areas, they are automatically wrong about everything else too. If that’s not a sign of close-mindedness, then I don’t know what is.

   And speaking of being close-minded, I noticed you couldn’t defend yourself against the point I made about your law-keeping mindset and the refuting verse of 1 Corinthians 9:20.

6. 9 months ago on Peanuts

   You’re the one wasting my time, bub. For starters, I didn’t send this link to you, but sent it to Sambora1. Aside from that, I’m very doubtful you thoroughly read that entire lengthy article and were able to properly digest and contemplate every argument within the short amount of time between my posting the link and your posted reply above. If you think the questions can be “easily refuted,” then you are perfectly welcome to contact Chad through the Booksie website and give him your thoughts. But I’ve no intension of giving you the time of day myself because our previous encounter proved to me that you are a close-minded person who still thinks the Law of Moses applies to Christians today even though the Apostle Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthians 9:20 that he is not under the law himself.

7. 9 months ago on Peanuts

   Before you continue believing that celebrating Christmas is wrong and that Jesus could not possibly have been born in the winter, I’d like you to review and consider the various points made in the linked article. Thanks.

   https://www.booksie.Com/posting/lt.-colonel-chad/seventy-five-questions-to-ask-anti-christmas-crusaders-428085

8. about 1 year ago on Peanuts

   Thanks for the observation, Captain. Hebrews 7:11-12 states that the Law was received under the Levitical priesthood which Jesus eventually replaced with the Melchizedek priesthood. And when the priesthood changed, so did the Law. Compare this to when governments switch political parties. When the Liberals are in power, they establish and enforce laws that even their Conservative rivals must obey. But when the Conservatives come into power, they often change or completely abolish at least some of those laws. For example, when the U.S. Supreme Court gained a Conservative majority, they overturned Roe vs. Wade – a law which will undoubtedly be reinstated when the Liberals eventually get their majority back.

   Jesus was born a king, but didn’t become High Priest and replace the Levites until after He resurrected and presented Himself to the Father. Prior to that, He had to abide by the old Levitical laws. But afterward, He now had the authority to change the laws whenever He pleased, just like when He abolished the food laws in Acts 10.

   When people like our “Purple” friend claim that the Law has not changed, they deceive themselves and others. I just hope he sees the error of his ways before it’s too late. God bless.

9. about 1 year ago on Peanuts

   Just to clarify, I didn’t say we should only keep the commandments that are repeated in the New Testament and discard all those that aren’t. Rather, I said we should ALSO follow those which clearly applied to a pre-Moses society as well. For example, the Torah says we shouldn’t purposely send a blind man down the wrong path (Deut. 27:18) and we should obviously keep that commandment now because such a rule clearly applies to any religious or secular society, just like those about murder and adultery. The Sabbath and dietary rules however do not apply to other societies outside of Judaism and it’s largely those rules which can prove troublesome and counterproductive if trying to enforce them on new potential converts to Christianity. See my “PART 8” post.

   Regarding your willingness to compose an extensive downloadable essay in MS Word, sending the document that way would indeed be preferable, but would require at least one of us to post our email address here on GoComics where it can potentially be seen by a third party. Do you feel okay posting yours? If so, my suggestion is that you post your address here, then I’ll email a message to say I got it, and then you delete that post as quick as you can to reduce the chance of someone else seeing it.

10. over 1 year ago on Peanuts

    Continued from previous thread…

    In one previous debate I had online, the Law keeper asked the silly question of whether we still need to keep the other nine commandments if the Torah is abolished or if we can now commit murder and adultery. My response was that the only rules from the Old Testament that we need to keep today are the ones that are repeated in the New Testament or which clearly applied to a pre-Moses society. For example, Cain was still punished for killing Abel even though the commandment of “do not kill” was not yet written and Reuben was still punished by losing his birthright when he committed adultery.

    And speaking of birthrights, the Torah states that a firstborn child is to receive a double portion of his father’s inheritance (Deut. 21:15-17). This would mean that if you had three kids, the eldest would have to get 50% of your estate and the other two would only get 25%. I love my son and daughter equally and have already written my will so they each get 50%, and if I had three kids, they’d each get 33.33% with the last little bit going to charity. But by writing my will this way, I’m breaking the Law. Am I going to Hell now? I think not, because those rules only applied to Israel prior to Christ’s resurrection.

    When I gave the above reply to my previous debater, he could not answer and just moved on to another topic.

    Conclusion: The evidence that the Law of Moses and all its ordinances has been abolished is so abundantly clear that I will regrettably struggle with any claims you may make to the contrary. But if you wish to continue debating me, I promise to seriously review any and all arguments you offer. Whether I become convinced that I’m wrong and start keeping the Sabbath or whether I become further convinced that I’ve been right all along (which has been the result of all my previous encounters with Law keepers so far) remains to be seen.

    No hard feelings if you walk away now. All the best.