Bio not provided
@Kevin Craig @VaughnOhlman >> even though the text itself does not say "This is a seed law," that's what it is, I believe this is called 'begging the question'.Yes, the text appeals to a man's name in Israel. Other, moral laws, also appeal to the name of Israel.Scripture does not speak merely of Israel building a house, nation, tribe, etc. The terms are also used for the Gentile nations. Why would God suddenly destroy one of the features of the family jurisdiction at the advent of Christ?>>No OT text requiring blood sacrifice says "This is a ceremonial law -- use caution after AD70."You are quite right. They don't. Nor is there any NT text which says this. Indeed AD 70 is not mentioned in Scripture at all. Your point?
1 month, 2 weeks ago on Who won the Theonomy Debate? That’s an easy question: . . .
@Kevin Craig @VaughnOhlman Yes, I've read that. My question has to do with the text. Where does it say anything like that in the text?
Deu 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
Deu 25:6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
Deu 25:7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
Deu 25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
Deu 25:9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
Deu 25:10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed. Ironically this law comes immediately after a law that was used by Paul in the NT!
I have never understood why people believe that the levirate law was particular. I understand, say, the division of the land into tribes, but nothing in the levirate law gives any 'particular to the land of Israel' explanations.
HB 87 is also interesting:(a) An individual may engage in an occupation not prohibited by law without being subject to a state agency rule, policy, or practice that regulates the occupation if the rule, policy, or practice is: (1) substantially burdensome; and (2) unnecessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the statute authorizing the regulation of the occupation. (b) A state agency rule, policy, or practice may substantially burden an individual's right to engage in an occupation only if the agency demonstrates that the rule, policy, or practice is necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the statute authorizing the regulation of the occupation. Sec. 94.003. DEFENSE AND RELIEF. (a) An individual may assert as a defense in any administrative or judicial proceeding to enforce a state agency rule, policy, or practice that the standard required by Section 94.002(b) has not been met. (b) An individual may bring an action for declaratory judgment or injunctive or other equitable relief for a violation of Section 94.002. (c) An individual who brings an action or asserts a defense under this section must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the state agency rule, policy, or practice substantially burdens the individual's right to engage in an occupation not prohibited by law.
2 years, 5 months ago on Will Texas Nullify Both NDAA and TSA?