Leviticus 11:7,8 say not to eat pork. Leviticus 11:9 says you can't eat crab / lobster. Jesus says it doesn't matter what you eat. Matthew 15:10,11 NIV: ***Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”*** My question is, what is the logic in scripture for this? Why is God explicitly saying we shouldn't eat these things and then Jesus is saying it's not a sin to eat these things really, like I'm really confused on the correlation. Is Jesus suggesting that we *can* eat these things but we *shouldn't*?

Leviticus 23 introduces several appointed festivals/holy convocations. The chapter starts with: > The Lord said to Moses, > > 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘These are my **appointed festivals**, the appointed festivals of the Lord, which you are to proclaim as **sacred assemblies**. - Lev 23:1-2 (NIV) Then the festivals / holy convocations are enumerated: 1. **The weekly Sabbath** (Lev 23:3) 2. The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:4-8) 3. Offering the Firstfruits (Lev 23:9-14) 4. The Festival of Weeks (Lev 23:15-22) 5. The Festival of Trumpets (Lev 23:23-25) 6. The Day of Atonement (Lev 23:26-32) 7. The Festival of Tabernacles (Lev 23:33-44) Similarly, in Numbers 28 and 29 we find a similar list: 1. Daily Offerings (Num 28:1-8) 2. **Sabbath Offerings** (Num 28:9-10) 3. Monthly Offerings (a.k.a. New Moons) (Num 28:11-15) 4. The Passover (Num 28:16-25) 5. The Festival of Weeks (Num 28:26-31) 6. The Festival of Trumpets (Num 29:1-6) 7. The Day of Atonement (Num 29:7-11) 8. The Festival of Tabernacles (Num 29:12-40) It's not rare to come across Christians who claim that the weekly sabbath (Lev 23:3, Num 28:9-10) is still in effect, while all the other festivals and holy convocations are not (e.g. (https://sdarm.org/publications/periodicals/sbl/en/2009/1/11) , (https://naturesanswer.com/topic/colossians-2%3A16-sabbath-2283ef) , (https://www.the-ten-commandments.org/isthesabbathaceremoniallawormorallaw.html) , (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q16.htm)) . What is the biblical basis for that claim? ________________________________ As requested in the comments, I'll briefly summarize the core ideas presented by some of these sites: 1. This [site](https://www.the-ten-commandments.org/isthesabbathaceremoniallawormorallaw.html) (and this follow-up [publication](https://www.the-ten-commandments.org/wasthesabbathabolished.html) on the same site) basically claims that the weekly sabbath belongs to the moral law, whereas the remaining feasts and holy convocations belong to the ceremonial law, and therefore they conclude that the weekly sabbath still stands but the others are abolished because they were "shadows". 2. This [site](http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q16.htm) essentially says the same thing: it talks about the concepts of "ceremonial law" and "moral law", claims that the weekly sabbath in particular is "moral" rather than "ceremonial", and, thus, concludes that the weekly sabbath is still in effect.

We read in Lev 6:12-13 (NIV) : > The fire on the altar must be kept burning; it must not go out. Every morning the priest is to add firewood and arrange the burnt offering on the fire and burn the fat of the fellowship offerings on it. The fire must be kept burning on the altar continuously; it must not go out. The churches of Catholic denomination which have the Holy Eucharist present in the Tabernacle, have the tradition of keeping the altar lamp on 24x7. It is not clear if the practice owes its origin to Lev 6. If that be so, the altar lamp should be kept on even if the Holy Eucharist is not present, say, in small parishes where Holy Mass is said by a visiting priest only on Sundays. Similarly, churches of non-Catholic denominations where the Holy Eucharist is not kept, can also have the lamp burning provided there is an altar .My question therefore is: Does any non-Catholic denomination maintain Altar Lamp, following Lev 6:12-13 ?

Why does God allow monetary restitution (20 shekels of silver) for Sin Offering? I thought that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of the blood.

>If you cannot afford two doves or two pigeons, you shall bring **two pounds of flour** as a sin offering. You shall not put any olive oil or any incense on it, because it is a sin offering, not a grain offering. You shall bring it to the priest, who will take a handful of it as a token that it has all been offered to the Lord, and he will burn it on the altar as a food offering. **It is an offering to take away sin.** In this way the priest shall offer the sacrifice for your sin, ***and you will be forgiven***. The rest of the flour belongs to the priest, just as in the case of a grain offering. — Leviticus 5:11‭–‬13 GNT If flour can be accepted, why did Jesus have to die for the wicked?

We read in Lev 10:8-10 (NRSVCE): > And the Lord spoke to Aaron: Drink no wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons, when you enter the tent of meeting, that you may not die; it is a statute forever throughout your generations. You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean We see the Lord categorizing the objects to be used for worship into holy/common and clean/unclean. The definitive instructions were preceded by the punishment imposed on Aaron's sons for violating them: > Now Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his censer, put fire in it, and laid incense on it; and they offered unholy fire before the Lord, such as he had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord (Lev 10:1-2) Now, see St Paul writing to Corinthians in 1 Cor 7:14: > For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. Read with Lev 10, St Paul's mention of referring to 'unclean children' appears out of place. Is it that the Church considered children born out of marriages between two non-believers, as unclean? Going by Lev 10, they could at the most be called 'not-yet-holy'. **My question therefore is**: What is the significance of St Paul referring to 'unclean children' in 1 Cor 7:14 *vis a vis* God's instructions in Lev 10:8-10? Inputs from any denominations are welcome.

**My background**: 4 years undergraduate in Catholic university including 3 unit Theology course on sex, love and marriage with M Scott Peck readings. Recently been following Brene Brown who says 'We can only love others as much as we love ourselves '. Example: If a socially struggling parent wants to love a socially struggling child, then the parent needs to love himself/herself by accepting his/her social struggles. **Question 1**: Which part of my understanding or assumptions below is wrong, and why? 1. It's an alternative interpretation to Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18) . 2. The usual interpretation is > Humans generally don't have difficulties loving themselves, and their task is to love others to the level they love themselves. (2) 3. Brene Brown discovers > Humans love others almost as much as themselves. Thus, they must love themselves more to love others more. (3) 4. Brene Brown calls self-love 'vulnerability' and loving others 'empathy'. [Edit: Alternatively, 'empathy' is one way to love others. I guess others would be generousity, hard work, etc] 5. Brene Brown says in order to have more empathy we need to have more vulnerability. 6. M Scott Peck does not say anything similar. 7. There is something in Catholic teaching that contradicts what Brene Brown said. --> **If this is true, please cite from the Bible or Catholic teaching.** 8. The Catholic Church agrees with (2) and disagrees with (3). **Question 2**: (If there is a disagreement) What specifically is the practical implication, if any? I really don't see how Brene Brown's interpretation of Lev 19:18 might make one a worse Catholic. For example, Headspace on Generousity has a similar idea and it seems to complement the Prayer for Generousity . But if Headspace and Brene Brown are so dangerously contradicting the , I hope to know right away so I can be unbrainwashed.

Leviticus 26: > 21 And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I > will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. > > 22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your > children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and > your high ways shall be desolate. In the curses and blessings for Israel in Leviticus 26:22, it states that wild beasts shall kill many children of the Israelites and destroy their cattle. I know this happened already but when did something like this occur in Israel, and can it be shown through scripture or other sources?

I was at a conference today and got to hear the pretty awesome Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers. He was explaining something I'd never heard before, and I'm probably butchering it, that holiness makes you unclean according to the Jewish understanding. He said something to the effect that it was out of reverence, more or less, for the fact that women bleed and do not die, that the period for holiness (a time to leave women to be with God) was necessary and that touching something holy was what made one unclean. This is why when Jesus said "Drink my blood" it was a big deal and also why He had to say eat My Body and drink My Blood. Because this would be life reconstituted (a mini sign of the resurrection). Leviticus 17 forbid the eating of blood and Jesus didn't come to destroy the Law, but to complete it, which is why we - Consume the Blood of Christ - Are washed clean in the Blood of Christ. And I think his whole argument made sense with respect to women, who Chesterton in the Everlasting Man argues suffer more at the hands of historians than they ever did at the hands of their husbands. But could that idea apply to leprosy as well? Basically, what the deacon said sounded great when applied to femininity, but entirely didn't make sense if applied to leprosy - as I understand the disease, it involves a lot of bleeding, not a lot of pain, and eventual death, maybe this is the distinction? Am I comparing apples with oranges here? Or is there something hidden in Leviticus that saw a holiness in leprosy? Looking for Catholic exegesis, but anything scholarly will do.

The Old Testament is clear on male homosexual activity. From Leviticus 20:13: >If a man lies down with a male as one lies down with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. Leviticus is part of the Old Testament. In the New Testament Jesus changes some of the rules. He is allowed to because he is the Messiah. If earlier scripture says something, and Jesus says the opposite, then we give Jesus priority. That is what makes it Christianity. This is used for example to justify why Christians do not keep Kosher or circumcise their children. For rules not mentioned by Jesus, some say the rules remain the same. Others say the rules are no longer valid, as Jesus' death and resurrection fulfilled the old covenant between man and god. The Old Covenant is gone, and the new one is what Jesus said. But the New Testament is not just the life and teachings of Jesus. There are loads of stuff after the resurrection about the establishment of the Church. Some of that says homosexuality is bad. For example Romans 1:26, 27: >God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Or 1 Corinthians 6:9 >do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men These were written by Paul years after the resurrection. Perhaps the above reflects some teachings of Jesus that were not included in the earlier gospels. Without justification, however, we can only believe the above is Paul's personal view. Suppose one was interested in living life only according to what Jesus said and did. Not the scripture and prophets that came before. Not the saints and missionaries that came after. In that case are there any rules on homosexuality? Is it good bad or neutral?

- To the half-billion plus Charismatic Christians in the world, what message does this “term” send? - What is the Biblical basis for the calling of the Charismatic movement as Strange Fire? (Audio/transcript Strange Fire by John MacArthur) The first "**Strange fire Conference**" launched in October 2013 with stated purpose: to evaluates the doctrines, claims, and practices of the modern charismatic movement, and affirms the true Person and ministry of the Holy Spirit. This conference was coincided with the release of the "**STRANGE FIRE**, **The Danger of Offending The Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship**" by the best selling author, John MacArthur. It is obvious that **the choice of the term** - "**Strange Fire**" for the conference and book was **by design** out of his conviction about Charismatic movement is "Strange Fire" (Leviticus 10:1).

Given that Enoch is well respected by the authors of the Bible, do you believe that the Book should be included in modern Bibles? I believe it should because it is scripture based and backs up and makes sense of text in the Old Testament and New Testament. If you believe that Enoch should not be included and was right to be left out of the Bible, please state the objects with supporting evidence, please. Thank you. As an example, I post information on Azazel who is Lucifer and is mentioned in Enoch and Leviticus. Source: [Was Azazel Lucifer (Quora)](https://www.quora.com/Was-Azazel-Lucifer) Azazel wasn’t Lucifer… he IS Lucifer. “And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azâzêl: to him ascribe all sin.” Book of Enoch, Chapter 10 Verse 9 If you do a degree of research into this subject, you will come to learn some startling things. Example, in the original oral tradition of the Quran, Iblis, the Arabic name for Lucifer, was originally known as Azazel. The name means “The Left Hand of God” as he is the counter-part of the “Right Hand of God” (Yeshuah aka Jesus Christ). In some translations of the Book of Leviticus, it speaks of Aaron sacrificing two goats. One is to Jehovah and the other is to Azazel. The modern translations change Azazel to “scapegoat”. The Templar Knights secretly worshiped a goat-headed demon known as Baphomet - this is yet another name for Azazel. He is known by many names such as, Samyaza, Samael, Asrael, Moloch, Satan, Lucifer, etc. Now for the Old Testament. Specifically, Leviticus 16 using the Complete Jewish Bible translation. Leviticus 16 Complete Jewish Bible Parashah 29: Acharei Mot (After the death) 16:1–18:30 [In regular years read with Parashah 30, in leap years read separately] 16 Adonai spoke with Moshe after the death of Aharon’s two sons, when they tried to sacrifice before Adonai and died; 2 Adonai said to Moshe, “Tell your brother Aharon not to come at just any time into the Holy Place beyond the curtain, in front of the ark-cover which is on the ark, so that he will not die; because I appear in the cloud over the ark-cover. 3 “Here is how Aharon is to enter the Holy Place: with a young bull as a sin offering and a ram as a burnt offering. 4 He is to put on the holy linen tunic, have the linen shorts next to his bare flesh, have the linen sash wrapped around him, and be wearing the linen turban — they are the holy garments. He is to bathe his body in water and put them on. 5 “He is to take from the community of the people of Isra’el two male goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering. 6 Aharon is to present the bull for the sin offering which is for himself and make atonement for himself and his household. 7 He is to take the two goats and place them before Adonai at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 8 Then Aharon is to cast lots for the two goats, one lot for Adonai and the other for ‘Az’azel. 9 Aharon is to present the goat whose lot fell to Adonai and offer it as a sin offering. 10 But the goat whose lot fell to ‘Az’azel is to be presented alive to Adonai to be used for making atonement over it by sending it away into the desert for ‘Az’azel. 11 “Aharon is to present the bull of the sin offering for himself; he will make atonement for himself and his household; he is to slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself. 12 He is to take a censer full of burning coals from the altar before Adonai and, with his hands full of ground, fragrant incense, bring it inside the curtain. 13 He is to put the incense on the fire before Adonai, so that the cloud from the incense will cover the ark-cover which is over the testimony, in order that he not die. 14 He is to take some of the bull’s blood and sprinkle it with his finger on the ark-cover toward the east; and in front of the ark-cover he is to sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times. 15 “Next, he is to slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, bring its blood inside the curtain and do with its blood as he did with the bull’s blood, sprinkling it on the ark-cover and in front of the ark-cover. 16 He will make atonement for the Holy Place because of the uncleannesses of the people of Isra’el and because of their transgressions — all their sins; and he is to do the same for the tent of meeting which is there with them right in the middle of their uncleannesses. 17 No one is to be present in the tent of meeting from the time he enters the Holy Place to make atonement until the time he comes out, having made atonement for himself, for his household and for the entire community of Isra’el. (LY: ii) 18 Then he is to go out to the altar that is before Adonai and make atonement for it; he is to take some of the bull’s blood and some of the goat’s blood and put it on all the horns of the altar. 19 He is to sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, thus purifying it and setting it apart from the uncleannesses of the people of Isra’el. 20 “When he has finished atoning for the Holy Place, the tent of meeting and the altar, he is to present the live goat. 21 Aharon is to lay both his hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the transgressions, crimes and sins of the people of Isra’el; he is to put them on the head of the goat and then send it away into the desert with a man appointed for the purpose. 22 The goat will bear all their transgressions away to some isolated place, and he is to let the goat go in the desert. 23 “Aharon is to go back into the tent of meeting, where he is to remove the linen garments he put on when he entered the Holy Place, and he is to leave them there. 24 Then he is to bathe his body in water in a holy place, put on his other clothes, come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, thus making atonement for himself and for the people. (RY: ii, LY: iii) 25 He is to make the fat of the sin offering go up in smoke on the altar. 26 “The man who let go the goat for ‘Az’azel is to wash his clothes and bathe his body in water; afterwards, he may return to the camp. 27 “The bull for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place, is to be carried outside the camp; there they are to burn up completely their hides, meat and dung. 28 The person burning them is to wash his clothes and bathe his body in water; afterwards, he may return to the camp. 29 “It is to be a permanent regulation for you that on the tenth day of the seventh month you are to deny yourselves and not do any kind of work, both the citizen and the foreigner living with you. 30 For on this day, atonement will be made for you to purify you; you will be clean before Adonai from all your sins. 31 It is a Shabbat of complete rest for you, and you are to deny yourselves. “This is a permanent regulation. 32 The cohen anointed and consecrated to be cohen in his father’s place will make the atonement; he will put on the linen garments, the holy garments; 33 he will make atonement for the Especially Holy Place; he will make atonement for the tent of meeting and the altar; and he will make atonement for the cohanim and for all the people of the community. 34 This is a permanent regulation for you, to make atonement for the people of Isra’el because of all their sins once a year.” Moshe did as Adonai had ordered him. Source: https://www.christianity.com/wiki/angels-and-demons/who-was-azazel.html What Do We Know about Azazel from the Apocrypha? In the Apocrypha, Azazel is a leader of rebellious angels, as seen in the Book of Enoch. He leads the pre-Flood civilizations of men, giants (perhaps Nephilim), in all matters of warfare and witchcraft. Once beautiful, and now a fallen serpent or carrion bird, Azazel, according to Hebraic literature, tried to corrupt humanity. Most Jewish literature describes him as having a red appearance, like a demon, with yellow eyes and wearing goat skulls. It also appears that, according to Jewish mythology, Azazel led the charge in having sexual relations with mortal women and having half-divine, half-human children known as the Nephilim. What’s interesting about Azazel is that he has corrupted humanity so much that Jewish literature encourages readers and listeners to ascribe all sin onto him. In other words, scapegoat him. Place your sins on him, as you did with the goat before driving it out into the desert. So, the next question is "What does the Bible say about the Nephilim? Genesis 6:1-6 Complete Jewish Bible 6 In time, when men began to multiply on earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were attractive; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Adonai said, “My Spirit will not live in human beings forever, for they too are flesh; therefore their life span is to be 120 years.” 4 The N’filim were on the earth in those days, and also afterwards, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; these were the ancient heroes, men of renown. (Maftir) 5 Adonai saw that the people on earth were very wicked, that all the imaginings of their hearts were always of evil only. 6 Adonai regretted that he had made humankind on the earth; it grieved his heart. And, also: Numbers 13:33 Complete Jewish Bible 33 We saw the N’filim, the descendants of ‘Anak, who was from the N’filim; to ourselves we looked like grasshoppers by comparison, and we looked that way to them too!” Thus, we can see that The Book of Enoch should have been included in the Bible, as it contains missing information that backs up Bible scripture and helps us to have more understanding of those scriptures, and the origins of our advances and also our sins.

A member by the name Jas 3.1 in his list of false doctrines against the Book of Enoch in "Why is the Book of Enoch not regarded as canonical?" stated: "Ascribes all the sin of the fallen angels to one named Azazel - not scriptural" From a commentary on the Book of Enoch in a Wordpress blog article by the name Piper Michael, he mentioned that this doctrine with the name Azazel as scapegoat was mentioned in Leviticus chapter 16. So, I went to pull out the chapter from the BLB that mentioned about sacrificial offerings of two goats (Lev 16:7) in which " one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat." (Lev 16:8) Then from the same BDB I clicked on for the Masoretic text and here's what I found: > **16:8 וְנָתַן אַהֲרֹן עַל־שְׁנֵי הַשְּׂעִירִם גֹּורָלֹות גֹּורָל אֶחָד לַיהוָה וְגֹורָל אֶחָד לַעֲזָאזֵֽל׃** Reading from right to left as the way of Hebrew language, the last word (just before the colon looking sign) is **לַעֲזָאזֵֽל**, which reads la-`aza'zel. The prefix **לַ** is a preposition "for" and the "a" vowel is the definite article "the". Therefore the prefix "la" means "for the". The main word here is a masculine noun **זָאזֵֽל** `aza'zel *Strong's H5799 which according to Strong's Concordance means: > 1. entire removal, scapegoat > 2. refers to the goat used for sacrifice for the sins of the people So, **זָאזֵֽל** `aza'zel or Azazel as mentioned in the Book of Enoch for the fallen angel Azazel simply means a sacrificial scapegoat for the sins of the people. In the Book of Enoch, the fallen angel Azazel was a scapegoat for the sins of the rest of the fallen angels. Leviticus 16:10 also mentioned that the scapegoat "shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. After completing the sacrificial ritual as commanded by Elohim, Lev 16:21 then stated: > "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, > and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and > all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head > of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the > wilderness:" It seems to me that the doctrine of ascribing all the sin of the fallen angels to one named Azazel as mentioned in the Book of Enoch has a corresponding basis in the Bible. So, how is this particular doctrine in the Book of Enoch not scriptural?

As Christians are we allowed to believe in immigration control or want control as to who enters the country? If yes, then how do you interrupt verses such as these, which seem to support the concept of no borders?: > The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among > you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the > land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. **Leviticus 19:34** Love the sojourner therefore; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. **Deuteronomy 10:19** > Cursed be he who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the > fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen. **Deuteronomy 27:19**

In one of Ellen G White's comments in KJV Bible on Galatians 2 she concurred with the elders in Jerusalem that the Gentiles are free from the obligations of the ceremonial law >But the three leading apostles, against whom no such prejudice existed, having themselves been won to the true position, brought the matter before the council, and won from all a concurrence in the decision to **leave the Gentiles free from the obligations of the ceremonial law.** >(Sketches from the life of Paul , 192-193)-6BC 1108,4) According to the book of Leviticus animals food mentioned in the text rendered one ceremonially unclean when consumed or touched. It stands to reason that food was classified under the ceremonial law which E G White concurred that Gentiles were not obliged to keep or observe Leviticus 11:4 NIV > The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ***ceremonially unclean*** for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. The book of Hebrews further reiterate that food and drink were ceremonial laws until the time of reformation(new order) Hebrews 9:8 NIV >The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 ***They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order*** Having said that why then do the SDA still maintain that this prohibition concerning these foods is still binding?

By Feast Days / Appointed Festivals / Holy Convocations I mean: 1. The weekly Sabbath (Lev 23:3) 2. The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:4-8) 3. Offering the Firstfruits (Lev 23:9-14) 4. The Festival of Weeks (Lev 23:15-22) 5. The Festival of Trumpets (Lev 23:23-25) 6. The Day of Atonement (Lev 23:26-32) 7. The Festival of Tabernacles (Lev 23:33-44) A parallel list is also found in Numbers 28 & 29: 1. Daily Offerings (Num 28:1-8) 2. Sabbath Offerings (Num 28:9-10) 3. Monthly Offerings (a.k.a. New Moons) (Num 28:11-15) 4. The Passover (Num 28:16-25) 5. The Festival of Weeks (Num 28:26-31) 6. The Festival of Trumpets (Num 29:1-6) 7. The Day of Atonement (Num 29:7-11) 8. The Festival of Tabernacles (Num 29:12-40) What is the biblical basis for believing that all (or most) of the holy convocations listed above are **NOT** morally binding for Christians today? *Note: the counterpart question is available at [What is the biblical basis for believing that the Feast Days / Appointed Festivals / Holy Convocations are still morally binding for Christians today?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84625/50422)* _________________ Similar questions: - [What is the biblical basis for NOT keeping a literal physical Sabbath rest every seventh day?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/82507/50422) - [What is the biblical basis for NOT tithing?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80717/50422)

By Feast Days / Appointed Festivals / Holy Convocations I mean: 1. The weekly Sabbath (Lev 23:3) 2. The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:4-8) 3. Offering the Firstfruits (Lev 23:9-14) 4. The Festival of Weeks (Lev 23:15-22) 5. The Festival of Trumpets (Lev 23:23-25) 6. The Day of Atonement (Lev 23:26-32) 7. The Festival of Tabernacles (Lev 23:33-44) A parallel list is also found in Numbers 28 & 29: 1. Daily Offerings (Num 28:1-8) 2. Sabbath Offerings (Num 28:9-10) 3. Monthly Offerings (a.k.a. New Moons) (Num 28:11-15) 4. The Passover (Num 28:16-25) 5. The Festival of Weeks (Num 28:26-31) 6. The Festival of Trumpets (Num 29:1-6) 7. The Day of Atonement (Num 29:7-11) 8. The Festival of Tabernacles (Num 29:12-40) What is the biblical basis for believing that all (or most) of the holy convocations listed above are still morally binding for Christians today? *Note: the counterpart question is available at [What is the biblical basis for believing that the Feast Days / Appointed Festivals / Holy Convocations are NOT morally binding for Christians today?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84626/50422)*

Today's OT Reading for CoE Common Worship was Exodus 32:15-34. Although to the modern ear it appears indiscriminate no doubt it wasn't. Please could someone explain why the Levites as the Priestly tribe were the only ones told to run about with swords slaughtering their brothers, friends and neighbours? Was this somehow an act of atonement through the shedding of blood? Also how does by so doing ordain them for the LORD's service? Best I can fathom is that, 1. That judgement had to be dispensed on the people for their stubborn idolatry. 1. That as the Priestly tribe the Levites having had the greater responsibility for leading the other tribes in righteousness, were required to dispense the judgement both as a punishment for having failed to lead the people, as well as priests conducting a redeeming blood sacrifice of atonement. However if that is the case then why would the LORD further punish the people at a later date? How are two punishments just?

> **Leviticus 11:7-8** > > And the pig, though it has a split hood completely divided, does not > chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or > touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. > **Leviticus 11:11-12** > > And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat ad you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you. > **Leviticus 11:19** > > Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. I haven't come across many Christians that campaign against the eating of bacon, the eating of lobsters/squid or that refuse to wear clothes made of mixtures of cotton and wool. If a believer doesn't follow every instruction, how do they decide which to follow? *Note: I must credit the excellent book "The Philosophy Gym" by Stephen Law, from which these examples are taken*

I have heard some progressive Christians claim that Leviticus 18:22 was only condemning homosexual activities for idolatrous rituals. I know that 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 was using the word "arsenokoitai" which came from Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. In Leviticus 18:2-3 it says: *“Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes."* There are some people who say that because of these verses, it was condemning the idolatrous practices in Egypt and Canaan which included homosexual sex. Therefore, in this context, it is only referring to homosexual activity that has idolatrous rituals involved. God was only prohibiting the rituals they did in Egypt and Canaan. We also see in Leviticus 18:21, the verse before, it says: *"You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord."* Some have suggested that because of the context, Leviticus 18:22 is not prohibiting loving same-sex relationships but only ones that relate to pagan rituals. Is this true? If not, why?