Question about some of the OT killings

[jbearnolimits]

Yes, and I have seen your reasoning many, many times. It is by those who are carnal Christians still governed by law. They are too weak to live by faith and so are still governed by the schoolmaster. They are children or babes that still see sin as an action. As if it were something outside themselves. Never realizing that they are sinners to their very core and all their good works are as filthy rags.

p.s. I said love will sometimes break the carnal commandments. I never said that love will sin. You misquoted me because of your faulty legal definition of sin.

Ok, "love will sometimes break the commandments", breaking the commandments is sin, and whether it is only sometimes or not, you still said love WILL sin. So no, I didn't misquote you.

Now as for your thoughts as to my reasoning, I really don't care if you think I am weak or strong. In fact, you can call me weak in faith all you want. My care is that you are trying to redirect the issue so that you don't have to deal with it. Trying to bait me into defending myself to you would remove the light from shining on you.

So lets get back to the real issue. Show me scripture that says the law is not perfect. Not scripture that shows that we could not follow it. Because that only proves we are imperfect and it is perfect.

If you can not then you must submit to scripture, or deny it (thus denying Christ).

 

[jbearnolimits]

By the way, here is a little bit of information on the subject of grace or the law: Grace Or The Law - What Are We Under

 

[fozzy]

Ok, "love will sometimes break the commandments", breaking the commandments is sin, and whether it is only sometimes or not, you still said love WILL sin. So no, I didn't misquote you.

Now as for your thoughts as to my reasoning, I really don't care if you think I am weak or strong. In fact, you can call me weak in faith all you want. My care is that you are trying to redirect the issue so that you don't have to deal with it. Trying to bait me into defending myself to you would remove the light from shining on you.

So lets get back to the real issue. Show me scripture that says the law is not perfect. Not scripture that shows that we could not follow it. Because that only proves we are imperfect and it is perfect.

If you can not then you must submit to scripture, or deny it (thus denying Christ).

The NT is filled with examples of people of faith who broke the commandments.

- Jesus used the example of David and his men who ate the showbread from the temple which was unlawful and were innocent,

- Paul and James used Rahab as an example of someone who lied to protect the spies. Some may say that Rahab was a Gentile and not under law but I am sure that she knew that lying and deception were wrong

- Paul puts forth Sampson as an example of faith who with the power of the Holy Spirit killed the Philistines by committing suicide. Do not tell the Catholics this because it rebukes their beliefs on suicide.

- I will not go into the many examples of killing, rape and theft that were documented when Joshua and the Israelites went into the promised land because it is too disturbing for most Christians.

One scripture that shows the ten commandments themselves were imperfect is found in 2Cor. 3:6-8

'Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?'

Here the law that was engraven on stone is spoken of as a ministry of death. Not the glowing perfection that you and others constantly put forth.

 

[jbearnolimits]

One scripture that shows the ten commandments themselves were imperfect is found in 2Cor. 3:6-8

'Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?'

Here the law that was engraven on stone is spoken of as a ministry of death. Not the glowing perfection that you and others constantly put forth.

Hmm...it seems to me that the "glowing perfection" of that law which ministered death was clearly seen in so much that they couldn't even look at the face of Moses (which glowed by the way).

Again, this scripture does not say that it was not perfect, only that it resulted in death for those who did not obey. Which again makes the law perfect in leading us to Christ.

So yes, you have yet again given a scripture without it showing that the law was not perfect, only that we were not able to look at it because of how perfect it was.

Now as to your examples:

I would like to give you a set of scriptures that explains these.

Matthew 12:2-13

2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. 9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: 10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. 11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? 12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. 13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.

In these scriptures we see Jesus answer the issue. He said it was actually lawful for these things to be done! In verse 7 He says that if they understood then they would not have condemned the guiltless.

So your examples are not of the guilty, but of the innocent. Because as Jesus said "It is lawful to do well."

Jesus makes the statement a few times which is a quote from Hosea 6:6. He said go and learn what this means, "I would have mercy and not sacrifice."

Then again He says it in these verses and claims these people are innocent of breaking the law. Please be sure to note that He is speaking of the same law of Moses.

As time goes on they still don't get it. So He basically lays it out for them.

Matthew 23:16-24

16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

If the law of Moses was less than the law of grace, then those who say it is not perfect have strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. Because the law of mercy and grace is greater.

It seems people can swallow the thought of forgiveness, but not repentance. So then they are the ones who appear right on the outside. Because they say "we are free from the law". But on the inside they are dead without having repentance.

Note that Jesus said you should have mercy, judgment, and faith, but not leave the rest undone.

The law and the prophets hang on two laws. Love God, and love man.

Every law must be seen in light of those two.

Like the gift and the alter. The alter is greater than the gift.

Now here is the issue...we are all guilty of breaking the law. But when we repent and turn to Jesus we are found innocent. Because the law was for the purpose of bringing us to Him. It was perfect, and we are not. So we needed a savior.

Romans 3:31

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Here is the proper use of the law. It is not to be justified by doing what is written in it. It is to be justified through having to acknowledge our sin and turn to Jesus.

After we do so, the law is not void, it is established. Once we come to faith, we will do the things contained in the law.

Here is a quote from the link I gave:

"1 Timothy 1:8-10

"8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

"Notice the last verse said that the law is for anything other than sound doctrine? That means if the Bible says something is a sin then we should not teach otherwise. If we do teach otherwise then we are guilty as Jesus said.

"We are not supposed to simply throw out all solid teachings on what is right and wrong. We are supposed to fulfill those things through walking in love. So yes, we should follow the law of God."

 

[fozzy]

Hmm...it seems to me that the "glowing perfection" of that law which ministered death was clearly seen in so much that they couldn't even look at the face of Moses (which glowed by the way).

Again, this scripture does not say that it was not perfect, only that it resulted in death for those who did not obey. Which again makes the law perfect in leading us to Christ.

So yes, you have yet again given a scripture without it showing that the law was not perfect, only that we were not able to look at it because of how perfect it was.

The verses stated clearly that the law written on stone was a ministry of death and would pass away! How could anything perfect be associated with death and pass away? The answer is that it could not. The law in stone has passed away to the law which is written in the heart. Love is the new law now and it has none of the imperfections that the carnal commandments had.

Now as to your examples:

I would like to give you a set of scriptures that explains these.

Matthew 12:2-13

2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. 9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: 10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. 11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? 12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. 13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.

In these scriptures we see Jesus answer the issue. He said it was actually lawful for these things to be done! In verse 7 He says that if they understood then they would not have condemned the guiltless.

So your examples are not of the guilty, but of the innocent. Because as Jesus said "It is lawful to do well."

Jesus makes the statement a few times which is a quote from Hosea 6:6. He said go and learn what this means, "I would have mercy and not sacrifice."

Then again He says it in these verses and claims these people are innocent of breaking the law. Please be sure to note that He is speaking of the same law of Moses.

As time goes on they still don't get it. So He basically lays it out for them.

The scribes and Pharisees were correct on this one. According to Jewish law all the preparation for the sabbath had to done the day before so no extra work was done on the sabbath. All the cooking and baking was to be finished prior so it was obvious that the disciples had not prepared and were left to scramble thru the fields for food. In the OT the man who picked up sticks on the sabbath had not prepared and was stoned to death for his error.

Jesus was basically stepping out from under the law with his justification of the disciples actions. Jesus walked a fine line in his ministry prior to the cross because he was still technically under the old covenant but there were occasions where he clearly rejected it. So your example here of Jesus upholding the law is actually one showing his disdain for it.

Romans 3:31

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Here is the proper use of the law. It is not to be justified by doing what is written in it. It is to be justified through having to acknowledge our sin and turn to Jesus.

After we do so, the law is not void, it is established. Once we come to faith, we will do the things contained in the law.

Here is a quote from the link I gave:

"1 Timothy 1:8-10

"8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

"Notice the last verse said that the law is for anything other than sound doctrine? That means if the Bible says something is a sin then we should not teach otherwise. If we do teach otherwise then we are guilty as Jesus said.

"We are not supposed to simply throw out all solid teachings on what is right and wrong. We are supposed to fulfill those things through walking in love. So yes, we should follow the law of God."

You refuse to see the two aspects of the law -

the letter and the spirit
the law written in stone and the law written on the heart
the ten commandments and God's agape Love.

Those who establish the law have the Spirit or the new covenant or God's love. You have the doctrine of the Judaizers who tried to marry the law with the gospel and were condemned in the harshest terms by Peter and Paul. Those who have begun in the Spirit and then turn back to the Law have left their first love and will receive the curse that is attached to the law. Jesus tasted that curse so that we will never have to. I'm not interested in the law, it has no appeal for me.

 

[jbearnolimits]

You refuse to see the two aspects of the law -

the letter and the spirit
the law written in stone and the law written on the heart
the ten commandments and God's agape Love.

Those who establish the law have the Spirit or the new covenant or God's love. You have the doctrine of the Judaizers who tried to marry the law with the gospel and were condemned in the harshest terms by Peter and Paul. Those who have begun in the Spirit and then turn back to the Law have left their first love and will receive the curse that is attached to the law. Jesus tasted that curse so that we will never have to.

In case you have somehow mistaken me for someone that believes it is through following the law we are saved I would like to remind you of some of my previous posts in this same thread:

"We are supposed to fulfill those things through walking in love."

"Here is the proper use of the law. It is not to be justified by doing what is written in it. It is to be justified through having to acknowledge our sin and turn to Jesus."

"The bondage of the law (fear and death) is removed from those who walk in faith. But for those who do not, the law is still very much active."

"Note that these verses show that the law could not make us perfect."

There is a balance in my reasoning.

Romans 7:3-6

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For
they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Because we could not follow the law in our flesh we need Jesus. Once we have Jesus we are born again and are able to fulfill the righteousness of the law. This isn't done through our flesh though.

Romans 7:11-14

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

We can not please God in our flesh. But we can bring our flesh under submission to the Spirit. If we mind the things of the flesh (sin) then we shall die. If we mind the things of the Spirit we will live. The Spirit gives us the power to do what the flesh could not.

Now of course this is not to say that we are always walking in the Spirit. We walk in the flesh a lot. Because there is a war in our members. But if the just shall walk by faith, do you not think that our faith should have works? And the works of love, are they not clear in the law? Thou shalt not kill, steal, and so on?

Now I have some hard things to say, please know that as I show these things it is not to hurt you, it is to heal you. Sometimes the surgery has pain but it removes the illness.

Here are some quotes from you followed by my answer:

The verses stated clearly that the law written on stone was
a ministry of death and would pass away! How could anything
perfect be associated with death and pass away?

The Bible is the word of God, is it not? It is given by God. If nothing else you should be able to see that the law is given by God. It is His word.

Is the word of God anything less than perfect? If so, aren't you saying God is not perfect? If God created Hell, and will allow people to go there and die the second death, then is God imperfect for this? I remind you that it is the new testament which has the book of Revelation where God will judge men by the things contained in His word.

And as for the law passing away...Jesus Himself said not one jot would pass away. It isn't removed from man, it is however removed from those who enter into the new testament with God through following Jesus.

But again, I caution you to have balance, which is what I spoke of at first in this post.

Love is the new law now and it has none of the imperfections that the carnal commandments had.

You forget that the law was not carnal.

Romans 7:14

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

"And yes, love does sometimes break the commandments."

"Jesus was basically stepping out from under the law with his justification of the disciples actions. Jesus walked a fine line in his ministry prior to the cross because he was still technically under the old covenant but there were occasions where he clearly rejected it."

This is twice that you have called God a sinner. Because I have already shown that God is love, and here in the last quote you say that Jesus was rejecting the law and teaching others to do the same.

Matthew 5:17-19

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

In this you have called Jesus a sinner, and in so doing removed His ability to save us. Because in breaking or even teaching to break the law, He would be guilty of the same death that we are.

So your example here of Jesus upholding the law is actually
one showing his disdain for it.

Here you say that Jesus hates His own word. How can a house divided stand? Again, this is also sin. So that makes 3 times you have accused Jesus of sin. Because the law says LOVE thy God. To hate His word is to hate Him.

I'm not interested in the law, it has no appeal for me.

Then you have no interest in the word of God.

I have quoted you and said all of this for a purpose. It is not to hurt you or anyone else. It is to shine the light so that you could see what lurks in the dark.

It is my hope that your eyes will be open and you will be able to submit to scripture by saying the teaching I have shared here is true. It will help you to understand so much more about our God when you accept this.

You now have a choice. The line is drawn in the sand. Will you accept this, or will you deny the word of God, which was made flesh and dwelt among us? Please choose wisely. Take your time if you are struggling within yourself over this. But you must make the choice.

 

[fozzy]

I never said that Jesus was a sinner. You constantly misquote me because I have shown that your beliefs are fleshly and carnal.

Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass away until all was fulfilled. Everything concerning the Law was fulfilled at the cross so afterwards it was no longer binding forever. After the cross the Spirit was poured out and the gospel commission was given.

Satan's best strategy is to pervert the gospel with law worship. He has done this from the beginning and is still doing it today.

 

[jbearnolimits]

I never said that Jesus was a sinner. You constantly misquote me because I have shown that your beliefs are fleshly and carnal.

Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass away until all was fulfilled. Everything concerning the Law was fulfilled at the cross so afterwards it was no longer binding forever. After the cross the Spirit was poured out and the gospel commission was given.

Satan's best strategy is to pervert the gospel with law worship. He has done this from the beginning and is still doing it today.

I quoted your exact words and told you what the implications were. And by the way, you forget one part of that verse about everything being fulfilled. It included "Till heaven and earth pass"

Satan has always questioned the word of God and said it is wrong. You are right in your thought on that (I am not quoting you, just agreeing with what you are probably thinking). But which of our views has been perverted? I still haven't seen scripture used properly in your view. Things are left out and you do not seem to acknowledge some scriptures.

So how does Satan pervert the word of God? Normally through leaving things out, and not acknowledging things. I am pleading with you to acknowledge scripture! Is that so hard?

 

[dcalling]

Sorry this thread is still going on. From my Jewish friend their answer is, that is God and God is right. I think that is a good answer, since the Jews at the time did it under the direct command of God, and God must have a good reason for that.

When Jesus come, he re-confirmed the law of God, which is to love your neighbor as yourself, don't hate your enemy, pray for them. He let the sinner go, and we should not judge.

And that is what we should follow. We are not Jewish high priests with a direct line to God any more, we should follow the teachings of Jesus and let the holy spirit inspire us to do the right things.

 

[Sammy-San]

No, I didn't say that. I said that if US courts used the same rules of evidence, US prisons would be nearly empty.

I suspect, though, that the Israelites condemned far fewer people per capita to death than the US does.



In most cases, conviction requred two or three eye witnesses to the crime. In a few specific cases, circumstantial evidence was admissible, but only where specified and, interestingly, evidence for positive defense was usually easily fabricated.

Also, the penaties for perjury were as severe as that of the alleged crime, and perjury by the act itself produced sufficient evidence for immediate conviction. A trial might end with the accusers being excuted rather than the accused.

There is in the Apocrypha, btw, one trial record in the story of "Daniel and Susanna." It's the first recorded case of examining witnesses separately and resulted in the successful defense of the accused.

But how do you know for sure that the harsh legal penalties of the Mosaic Law regarding prostitution, homosexuality, fornication, etc, were actually implemented and were part of the everyday legal system of ancient Israel? Some evidence suggests that they werent. What's your response to this?

There is some question as to whether the death penalty was invariably or even usually implemented in ancient Israel, or whether this was even the intention of the Tanakh (Torah) (c.f. Numbers 35:31). "It must be noted that the death penalty might also indicate the seriousness of the crime without calling for the actual implementation of it in every case. In fact, there is little evidence that many of these sanctions were ever actually carried out in ancient Israel. Only in the case of premeditated murder was there the added stricture of 'Do not accept a ransom for the life of the murderer who deserves to die' (Num 35:31). . . . Traditional wisdom, both in the Jewish and Christian communities, interpreted this verse in Numbers 35:31 to mean that out of the almost twenty cases calling for capital punishment in the Old Testament, every one of them could have the sanction commuted by an appropriate substitute of money or anything that showed the seriousness of the crime, but in the case of what we today call first-degree murder, there was never to be offered or accepted any substitute or bargaining of any kind: the offender had to pay with his or her life"

Crime and punishment in the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[fozzy]

I quoted your exact words and told you what the implications were. And by the way, you forget one part of that verse about everything being fulfilled. It included "Till heaven and earth pass"

Satan has always questioned the word of God and said it is wrong. You are right in your thought on that (I am not quoting you, just agreeing with what you are probably thinking). But which of our views has been perverted? I still haven't seen scripture used properly in your view. Things are left out and you do not seem to acknowledge some scriptures.

So how does Satan pervert the word of God? Normally through leaving things out, and not acknowledging things. I am pleading with you to acknowledge scripture! Is that so hard?

So are you really saying that Jesus did not fulfill every aspect of the old covenant ceremonial system? He was the lamb, he was the high priest, he was the Passover, he was the manna and so and so on.

You do realize the implications of what you are saying. That the church has been wrong for 2000 years and your grand revelation of law-keeping is the answer to all our problems. The old covenant system has been tried and was in place for thousands of years and it was a failure. To go back to it again would be sin.

And which laws should we keep? There were 613 commandments in the old covenant, should I just keep some or all of them? Should I eat kosher food and keep the sabbath and the feast days? When I sin do I need to confess my sin over an animal and then kill it on the altar? I don't think PITA would like that. Oh wait a second, there's no temple anymore, guess I can't keep that one.

You would think that Christians would defend the gospel but no now they defend the law. Faith and Love are not good enough now we have work our way to heaven like good legalists do!

 

[fozzy]

Sorry this thread is still going on. From my Jewish friend their answer is, that is God and God is right. I think that is a good answer, since the Jews at the time did it under the direct command of God, and God must have a good reason for that.

When Jesus come, he re-confirmed the law of God, which is to love your neighbor as yourself, don't hate your enemy, pray for them. He let the sinner go, and we should not judge.

And that is what we should follow. We are not Jewish high priests with a direct line to God any more, we should follow the teachings of Jesus and let the holy spirit inspire us to do the right things.

I am sorry that your thread got derailed. I was going to open a new one on this topic but I never got around to it. It is important to address the ideas that this particular poster is presenting, however. There are many young Christians who are new to the faith that can be taken in by these ideas.

I have met Christians like this poster before and they try to pit the words of Jesus against the words of Paul and the apostles never realizing that Jesus was not speaking to Christians. He was speaking to Torah observant Jews and he was reminding them of their obligation because the old covenant was still binding prior to the cross.

After the cross, this was not the case and actually this exact same question was brought before the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Some of the Jews who believed in Christ were trying to make the Gentiles keep the law. Peter rose up and said - why put ye a yoke on the disciples that we nor our fathers were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. This should have been the end of the matter but it never is.

The gentiles were not required to keep the law. The converted Jews were not required to keep the law but many still did. This was a transition period and after the temple was destroyed it was obvious that the old covenant died with it.

 

[jbearnolimits]

My apologies dcalling, I thought the topic was relevant to this thread. I have made a new thread here on this subject. http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=66330718#post66330718

 

[Sammy-San]

There are a couple things to remember here. First, God gave the Cannanite populations 400 years to repent. If you remember, In Genesis, when God is talking to Abraham he says that the iniquity of those people is not yet complete. So there was mercy, God was very long-suffering with these people.

Second, and this is crucial, there was some genetic manipulation going on. If you read Deuteronomy, as I have been recently, you will come across this word "Rephaim" quite a bit. This is a reference to "giants", much like the "giants" in Genesis 6. You know, when the "sons of God" came in to the daughters of man and had children by them and the same became the mighty men of Old? This happened, apparently, both before and after the flood. There are some good reasons to think that the Rephaim are the post-flood version of the Nephalim. Nephalim/Rephaim were basically demonic/human hybrids which were the result of the interbreeding of fallen angels and human women.

Note that only within that Cannanite land does God command extermination, outside of that area the rules are much different. Then add to that the ubiquitous presence of these hybrids/giants within those Cananite tribes and you have a good answer as to why God would command this. The gene-pool of these populations was corrupted and the image of God in these human beings was marred and subverted genetically by demonic infiltration. The whole populations had to be wiped out to rid the earth of this genetic abomination, which was worked by fallen angels to subvert the image of God in man.

This all sounds crazy I know, but if you take the time to do a serious study of Genesis 6 and the Rephaim in Deuteronomy, you should come to very similar conclusions. Chuck Missler has an excellent presentation on this topic available on YouTube, that's a good place to start.

Needless to say these episodes took place within a very specific and peculiar historical context, and none of what happened has any bearing whatsoever on how Christians are to behave today. Unlike the Koran I might add...

1-In Numbers 25, Moses killed many Israelites and Midianite men and even women, just for worshipping different gods and committing sexual sin.. How does the fact that his actions happened thousands of years ago in a very limited historical circumstance have anything to do with justifying the morality of his actions? God's moral nature never changes. Hebrews 13 8 directly states that. Read that verse.

Mohammad did things very similar Moses did (in the Koran he was very harsh with pagan polytheists and apostates) and Christians and non christians alike criticize what he did and use that to criticize Islam. But how were Moses actions any different from Mohammad's harsh actions towards pagans and apostates?

2-Why are Christians to behave differently today, than they behaved thousands of years ago in ancient Israel? That directly contradicts what Hebrews 13 8 says. If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, his standards of what is good and evil, moral or not, are the same today as they were when Moses was alive.

 

[dcalling]

I am sorry that your thread got derailed. I was going to open a new one on this topic but I never got around to it. It is important to address the ideas that this particular poster is presenting, however. There are many young Christians who are new to the faith that can be taken in by these ideas.

I have met Christians like this poster before and they try to pit the words of Jesus against the words of Paul and the apostles never realizing that Jesus was not speaking to Christians. He was speaking to Torah observant Jews and he was reminding them of their obligation because the old covenant was still binding prior to the cross.

After the cross, this was not the case and actually this exact same question was brought before the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Some of the Jews who believed in Christ were trying to make the Gentiles keep the law. Peter rose up and said - why put ye a yoke on the disciples that we nor our fathers were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. This should have been the end of the matter but it never is.

The gentiles were not required to keep the law. The converted Jews were not required to keep the law but many still did. This was a transition period and after the temple was destroyed it was obvious that the old covenant died with it.

Don't worry, I was worried about you guys spend too much energy on this, the information you provided are very helpful.

 

[Sammy-San]

There are a couple things to remember here. First, God gave the Cannanite populations 400 years to repent. If you remember, In Genesis, when God is talking to Abraham he says that the iniquity of those people is not yet complete. So there was mercy, God was very long-suffering with these people.

Second, and this is crucial, there was some genetic manipulation going on. If you read Deuteronomy, as I have been recently, you will come across this word "Rephaim" quite a bit. This is a reference to "giants", much like the "giants" in Genesis 6. You know, when the "sons of God" came in to the daughters of man and had children by them and the same became the mighty men of Old? This happened, apparently, both before and after the flood. There are some good reasons to think that the Rephaim are the post-flood version of the Nephalim. Nephalim/Rephaim were basically demonic/human hybrids which were the result of the interbreeding of fallen angels and human women.

Note that only within that Cannanite land does God command extermination, outside of that area the rules are much different. Then add to that the ubiquitous presence of these hybrids/giants within those Cananite tribes and you have a good answer as to why God would command this. The gene-pool of these populations was corrupted and the image of God in these human beings was marred and subverted genetically by demonic infiltration. The whole populations had to be wiped out to rid the earth of this genetic abomination, which was worked by fallen angels to subvert the image of God in man.

This all sounds crazy I know, but if you take the time to do a serious study of Genesis 6 and the Rephaim in Deuteronomy, you should come to very similar conclusions. Chuck Missler has an excellent presentation on this topic available on YouTube, that's a good place to start.

Needless to say these episodes took place within a very specific and peculiar historical context, and none of what happened has any bearing whatsoever on how Christians are to behave today. Unlike the Koran I might add...

If the Caananites were nephilim (human demon hybrids) why did God say that he was giving them the opportunity to repent? The Bible said that God waited 400 years for them to repent of their wickedness, and that they were aware of the power of God. God even allowed Rahab to repent. If she was a Nephilim, I think she wouldve been too wicked to repent and go to heaven.

The reason God wiped out humans during Noah's day (which you mentioned) was because most of them were human demon hybrids, and human demon hybrids, were ireedeemable. Jesus died for the sins of Adam's descendants, not to save human demon hybrids.

 

[fozzy]

If the Caananites were nephilim (human demon hybrids) why did God say that he was giving them the opportunity to repent? The Bible said that God waited 400 years for them to repent of their wickedness, and that they were aware of the power of God. God even allowed Rahab to repent. If she was a Nephilim, I think she wouldve been too wicked to repent and go to heaven.

The reason God wiped out humans during Noah's day (which you mentioned) was because most of them were human demon hybrids, and human demon hybrids, were ireedeemable. Jesus died for the sins of Adam's descendants, not to save human demon hybrids.

The Canaanites were human beings just like us. There were some who were bigger or giants but they were not some angel/human offspring.

This idea is becoming popular today, they are even making movies about it. If the world is into it that should be a cue that it's a big fat lie.

Jesus said that we would not marry in heaven but would be like the angels implying that they do not procreate.

 

[Sammy-San]

The Canaanites were human beings just like us. There were some who were bigger or giants but they were not some angel/human offspring.

This idea is becoming popular today, they are even making movies about it. If the world is into it that should be a cue that it's a big fat lie.

Jesus said that we would not marry in heaven but would be like the angels implying that they do not procreate.

In Genesis, it's written that the Sons Of God had offspring with the daughters of men. Here's the proof that the "Sons of God" refers to fallen angels, and not humans.

First of all, the Hebrew words for the “sons of God” is B’nai Ha Elohim, which would means these are Heavenly beings, giving credence to them being fallen angels. And then we see the children of these sons of God and daughters of men were “mighty men” and of “renown.” They were also “giants.” Something in their genetics made them super-sized people. And it was their fallen angelic parentage.
But again, we must keep searching the Bible to make certain of meaning. The Bible is self-confirming and one passage of Scripture can always be confirmed by another. We see the term “sons of God” next used in the book of Job. Job 2:1 states: Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

The Nephilim -- Giants in the Bible | Beginning And End

 

[fozzy]

In Genesis, it's written that the Sons Of God had offspring with the daughters of men. Here's the proof that the "Sons of God" refers to fallen angels, and not humans.

The sons of God here are most likely the Godly offspring of Seth intermarrying with the wicked offspring of Cain. And yes I am familiar with the sons of God in Job presenting themselves in heaven but I am also familiar with what Jesus said that the angels do not procreate.

I cannot completely rule out that the sons of God are not angels but I put more weight on the words of Jesus.

 

[toLiJC]

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I am talking with some of our Muslim friends in the out reach section (the thread understanding Islam).

So there are some violent verses in Quran, and even though there are some openness in the verses (i.e. kill them, but if the repent, you can let them go), I pointed to some hadith and history to show Muhammad actually interpreted it much more like ISIS in Iraq and Syria (just not as bad).

However OT do have some verses that commands the killing of all people in a city. Even though there are many passage in OT that prevents revenge, many good rules, that one incident is hard to explain.

I even asked some of our Jewish friends on the forum, but all the answer I got is they are not sure, only God knows.

So do we have some experts on this that can have a proper explanation?

Thanks

in principle the infliction of evil is not the solution, because is there a human being who will prefer to suffer from anything unpleasant or at least insufferable to it, especially for a long time?!, but you maybe understand how even every daredevil will begin to regret and want to be saved from the affliction, that is why the infliction of evil, albeit in the form of justice, is an insanity in the faith (and even out of the faith), for that reason the Lord Jesus Christ never caused evil to any human, but He even preferred to suffer than be a cause of evil

Romans 12:18-21 "Recompense(i.e. render) to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men(i.e. that are good for all humans). If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath(i.e. leave the judgment in the hands of the true Lord God): for it is written, Vengeance(i.e. the visitation) is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head(i.e. because you will so show it how much better the good is, and it will have a better opportunity to be(come) good in its turn). Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."

Blessings