Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[expos4ever]

Galatians 3:19 Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. God gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people.

You appear to be using the New Living Translation. From wikipedia:

It has been suggested that this "thought-for-thought" methodology, while making the translation easier to understand, is less accurate than a literal (formal equivalence) method, and thus the New Living Translation may not be suitable for those wishing to undertake detailed study of the Bible

I am not saying the NLT is necessarily wrong, but this, combined with the fact that I could find no other translation that has anything like "to show people their sins", makes me wonder if the translation does not mislead in this particular verse. For reasons I have touched lightly on in other posts, I believe that the NLT is out of touch with Paul's thinking in this verse. However I agree these other translations, below, do not make it at all clear what Paul is saying re the reason for giving the Law. Almost all other versions have "because of transgressions" or "on account of transgressions". While that wording is clearly ambiguous, it certainly does not require us to conclude the intended meaning is as rendered in the NLT.

The NASB has:

Why the Law then? It was added on account of the violations, having been ordered through angels at the hand of a [b]mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

...and the Young's Literal has:

Why, then, the law? on account of the transgressions it was added, till the seed might come to which the promise hath been made, having been set in order through messengers in the hand of a mediator --

 

[Leaf473]

That which is clean could become common (impure, defiled) by touching that which was unclean.

Lev 5:3 or should touch of the uncleanness of a man, of any of his uncleanness -- what ever touching he should be defiled, and he be unaware of it, but after this he should know even he should have trespassed.

As to answer your question no. Peter seen a difference in what he saw in the vision. He seen common animals and unclean ones. The common animals where made so by mingling in with the unclean ones. If there was not a difference he would have not noted one.

And let's not forget God never mentions cleansing the unclean. He only mentions the common being cleansed.

Couple that with the fact that the vision wasn't even about animals but about people.

Hi HIM, thanks for getting back to me

But I'm not following what you're saying here. Using chicken, a clean food, as an example,

That sounds like chicken could become common by mishandling; for example, by touching something unclean.

But chicken could never be made common? Please explain, if you wish

to know wisdom and instruction;
to discern the words of understanding
Proverbs 1

Unless you're saying that chicken can become common, but not unclean.

Am I understanding it now?

Peace be with you, my man

 

[Leaf473]

I'm hoping you will set aside your pride for just a minute and listen to what the Scriptures actually say.

When someone see something different in the scripture then we do, we tend to assume it's the other person who isn't seeing clearly, don't we.

(Not directed at anyone in particular)
It isn’t good to have zeal without knowledge,
nor being hasty with one’s feet and missing the way.
Proverbs 19

 

[Cornelius8L]

Not true at all. A complete fabrication. This philosophy is founded on this world's religious doctrine that the Pharisees were obeying and promoting God's Laws, and that Paul was teaching against them. But this is a lie according to the Scriptures I showed you for our review and discussion. Many of which you pretty much refused to even acknowledge.

Your obvious error is that you don't follow the sacrificial law, which is part of both the OT laws that came before and after Moses, but you still try to convince people to keep the OT laws. You don't practice what you preach, and your version of the law doesn't belong here or there.

I will sum up all of your long posts into one and reply (Posts#613, #616, #618, #619). You seem to be fixated on the idea that Pharisees had their own law, as though you've unearthed some major secret in the Bible, but this discovery is irrelevant, as we were already aware of what the Pharisees were doing. Like someone who says, "I've found a new commandment outside of the TEN," but is just repeating what was already taught as a whole. But saying "Pharisee's law" and then equating it to "Religious philosophy of men" doesn't do anything but confuse the reader, just like how you misunderstood NT passages like Phil 3:5 and Gal 1:13–14. When Pharisses adds to or takes away from the law, it doesn't mean that they have a law other than the Mosaic Law, just like when you take the sacrificial law out of the OT, it doesn't mean that you have a law other than the OT law.

Also, if someone had a wrong general idea of how God acts, he wouldn't understand the commandments, traditions, or righteousness that God gave. So, let me ask you, did God ever lie in the Bible, which says that God never lies? God has lied in the past, but you won't understand why because you don't know enough.

So, you didn't make your case clear; instead, you provided a distraction. Your clear denial of what Jesus said in Matthew 12:4-5 about David breaking the law and the priest breaking the commandment showed that you don't follow Jesus. Even a young child can understand what Jesus was saying in Matthew 12:4-5. It would be an understatement to say that your explanation to cover up your confusion was "shameless."

Paul's words in 1 Timothy 1:3–11 say everything there is to say about you, who use wrongly linked genealogies to promote the “law of the Pharisees.”

1 Timothy 1:3–11​

“...certain men not to teach false doctrines or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith.​

​

The goal of our instruction is the love that comes from a pure heart, a clear conscience, and a sincere faith. Some have strayed from these ways and turned aside to empty talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not understand what they are saying or that which they so confidently assert.​

​

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful,... ..., and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching that agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”​

 

[expos4ever]

Scripture presents us with a narrative - an ongoing story that we are participants in. It is vital to know where the story "is" at any particular point in time.

Excerpt from The Symbolism of the Ark of the Covenant:

The Ark was the most significant object in Old Covenant worship. The mercy seat covered the box. Two cherubim, facing one another, overshadowed the mercy seat. When God came down, His glory resred above the mercy seat—between the cherubim. What did this elaborate picture portray? The Ark was a picture of the Person and saving work of Christ.
....
When Mary Magdalene came to the tomb seeking the body of Jesus, she found two angels–one at the head, and the other at the feet—where the body of Jesus had been.

And remember, the Ark contained the 10 commandments.

The compelling parallel here does not prove anything. But, in the context of the evolving narrative that is Scripture, it is at least suggestive that, as of the resurrection, the story has, yes, moved on.

 

[Studyman]

I was actually wondering why the post is so long. Then I realized that you chose a sentence of mine out of context just to disapprove with me. An action you say those "Religious philosophy of men" would take based on what you said about them.

Lev 20:10 says that the adulteress should be stoned. Don't use your long post-added-words reasoning to change what the Bible says. You talk about obeying the OT law, but you didn't accept Lev 20:10 in the given event.

Lev. 20: 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Where is the Adulterer, that she was "Caught in the very Act" with? Where is your call for him to be stoned, since they caught her in the act, they surely knew who the man was. It seems in your zeal to make Jesus a transgressor of God Laws, you are ignoring God's Laws.

Here is what we know from scriptures.

#1. Her accusers, who Jesus knew were trying to set Him up, didn't stand behind their accusations when it was time to carry out punishment. Why is that? For me. I would like to find the Truth. I'm not interested in proving the entire Bible is a lie regarding Jesus' Sinless Lifestyle.

#2. Neither Jesus nor His Father judged her as worthy of being Stoned according to their own Law. Why is that?

So there are a couple of assumptions a man can make.

#1. Your assumption, which is that both God and Jesus transgressed their own Laws, proving to be a "Respecter of persons" and to not have equal or just judgment for all people, basically making them hypocrites like the men who brought her in the first place. You make this judgment against Jesus and His Father without considering where the man was, who was equally guilty according to the LAW YOU quoted. A man these same liars knew, and was probably there with them, although this can't be proved for sure.

#1. Or a man can make an assumption based on the Biblical fact that God, and His Son Jesus, are perfect and Just in judgment, as they were when Jesus was the Rock of Israel who brought these Laws to Moses in the first place. That they knew this woman and her circumstance perfectly, while you do not. And given that they knew her perfectly, including the truth about her acts, they both judged her as worthy of Mercy, and therefore didn't condemn her to death. The same thing God did for Israel over and over again. The same exact judgment she would have received from Moses if liars and deceivers had brought her to trip him up.

So you have your mission, and I can see will not be persuaded otherwise. But I'm not going to assume Jesus was a transgressor based on this story.

You are free to do so though.

We are talking about what the Bible says Jesus did. Don't put your own ideas in places where the Bible doesn't say anything.

I am replying to your posts because you are adding your own bias and disrespect for God's Judgments that you freely reject.

You don't even know if the woman was guilty. All you know about her is that known children of the devil, known liars and murderers, brought this woman to Jesus, not for honest Judgment, but to trip Jesus up so they could accuse HIM of Transgressing God's Commandments.

It seems they were successful in convincing you, but I have no reason to assume Jesus transgressed His Father's commandments here, based on the available evidence. Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true.

Also, when you quote Leviticus 19:17–18, it would be helpful if you could find the part that says, “anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell.”

It wouldn't matter what Scriptures I showed you. You are here to promote the popular religious philosophy that Jesus Father and my Father was an inept, unjust and unperfect God. A God who wasn't smart enough to create just Laws for the people of this world. So your version of Jesus had to come and correct His Father, fix His Father's faulty Laws, expose His Father as being against His own People, and Triumphing over His Father on the Cross.

I know this is a false narrative. Jesus didn't nail His Father's Laws to the cross, HE didn't rebel against His Father's Laws, and HE didn't make a show of His Father openly on the Cross.

But you are free to promote any religion you want.

Again, you're just mixing up the ideas of Zechariah and a Pharisee when it comes to waiting for Christ to cause confusion. First of all, has it ever been written that Zecharias met Jesus as an adult?

What matter does that make? I asked you to consider the difference in the way the Bible defines these two men. I pointed out that the Pharisees also knew Jesus as a young boy but didn't believe in Him and know HIM like Zacharias did. I pointed out that Zacharias believed in the Christ before HE was even born and did so until his death. While the Pharisees knew all of the Christ's Works, and did know HIM as an adult, but still didn't believe.

But again, you can't use these truths to promote your religious philosophy, so you ignore them.

It's OK, you are free to do as you please. But I look at Scriptures differently because I'm interested in what they teach, not simply using some of them to justify lawlessness.

Even though John the Baptist acknowledged Jesus, did he not later doubt Jesus (Matthew 11:3)? Then, shall I ask in this post a random question that has nothing to do with circumcision (we touched earlier): What is the difference between John the Baptist and a Pharisee when it comes to doubting?

You mean what's the difference between a child of the devil that doubts, and a child of God that doubts?

Well, this is enough for me.

Thank you for the enlightening and revealing discussion.

 

[expos4ever]

About the woman caught in adultery: As with some other texts, I find the arguments that Jesus is not effectively undermining the Law to quite contrived and awkward.

For example, the fact that the accusers were "known to be liars" coupled with the fact that Jesus knew the woman's circumstances and may have determined that, on this basis, she should be spared. How is it not obvious that Jesus's answer to the accusers, and even more importantly what He then says to the woman - "go and sin no more", implying He knew she was guilty - both render this explanation entirely implausible. Jesus' response is simply "let him without sin cast the first stone". No criticism of the accuser for being liars, not even a whiff of a claim of innocence or "extenuating circumstances" on behalf of the woman.

And then we get the argument that the law called for both the adulterer and the adulteress to be stoned. So? Again, not even a hint that Jesus is objecting to the stoning due to the absence of the male party.

We need to listen to what Jesus says, and not provide groundless, and sometimes illogical, alternative explanations. Jesus' answer - "let him without sin....." demonstrates a more uncomfortable fact - the Law was never enforceable in the first place since no man qualifies to cast a stone. From Greg Boyd:

Displaying his signature genius, Jesus found a way to affirm the Torah in principle while undermining it in practice. “Let anyone who is without sin cast the first stone,” he said (vs. 7). In agreement with the Torah, Jesus affirmed that sinners like this woman deserve to be executed. Yet, he added, only a sinless person would be justified in carrying out this sentence. Since none of the woman’s accusers were sinless, they ended up dropping their stones and walking away.

Since all people are sinners, it seems to me that Jesus’ teaching in this episode applies not just to this particular accused sinner and to this group of sinful accusers, but to all accused sinners and to all sinful accusers. And if you think it through consistently, this entails that none of the Old Testament’s commands to carry out capital punishment should ever be acted on! Indeed, for followers of Jesus, it entails that no command to carry out capital punishment should ever be obeyed, regardless of where it is found or who it comes from.

A final note about a pattern we see from those who affirm the Law remains in force: As in Mark 7 where they use an rather contrived context argument to take the word "nothing" out of Jesus's mouth and replace it with "nothing except A, B, C, and D" we see here, again, a tacit refusal to take Jesus's words seriously. He tells us why He excused the woman. And it was not because the accusers were liars, or that she was innocent and that there were extenuating circumstances, or that the male co-assused was not hand.

He was effectively saying, to quote Greg Boyd again, " while the command itself may be just, but unless you are without sin, you’re not justified putting it into practice".

And a law that cannot be enforced is to be understandably challenged as a prescriptive law. Again, I agree with Boyd that Jesus affirms the principles of Torah but undermines its practice.

 

[ralliann]

About the woman caught in adultery: As with some other texts, I find the arguments that Jesus is not effectively undermining the Law to quite contrived and awkward.

For example, the fact that the accusers were "known to be liars" coupled with the fact that Jesus knew the woman's circumstances and may have determined that, on this basis, she should be spared. How is it not obvious that Jesus's answer to the accusers, and even more importantly what He then says to the woman - "go and sin no more", implying He knew she was guilty - both render this explanation entirely implausible. Jesus' response is simply "let him without sin cast the first stone". No criticism of the accuser for being liars, not even a whiff of a claim of innocence or "extenuating circumstances" on behalf of the woman.

And then we get the argument that the law called for both the adulterer and the adulteress to be stoned. So? Again, not even a hint that Jesus is objecting to the stoning due to the absence of the male party.

We need to listen to what Jesus says, and not provide groundless, and sometimes illogical, alternative explanations. Jesus' answer - "let him without sin....." demonstrates a more uncomfortable fact - the Law was never enforceable in the first place since no man qualifies to cast a stone. From Greg Boyd:

Displaying his signature genius, Jesus found a way to affirm the Torah in principle while undermining it in practice. “Let anyone who is without sin cast the first stone,” he said (vs. 7). In agreement with the Torah, Jesus affirmed that sinners like this woman deserve to be executed. Yet, he added, only a sinless person would be justified in carrying out this sentence. Since none of the woman’s accusers were sinless, they ended up dropping their stones and walking away.

Since all people are sinners, it seems to me that Jesus’ teaching in this episode applies not just to this particular accused sinner and to this group of sinful accusers, but to all accused sinners and to all sinful accusers. And if you think it through consistently, this entails that none of the Old Testament’s commands to carry out capital punishment should ever be acted on! Indeed, for followers of Jesus, it entails that no command to carry out capital punishment should ever be obeyed, regardless of where it is found or who it comes from.

A final note about a pattern we see from those who affirm the Law remains in force: As in Mark 7 where they use an rather contrived context argument to take the word "nothing" out of Jesus's mouth and replace it with "nothing except A, B, C, and D" we see here, again, a tacit refusal to take Jesus's words seriously. He tells us why He excused the woman. And it was not because the accusers were liars, or that she was innocent and that there were extenuating circumstances, or that the male co-assused was not hand.

He was effectively saying, to quote Greg Boyd again, " while the command itself may be just, but unless you are without sin, you’re not justified putting it into practice".

And a law that cannot be enforced is to be understandably challenged as a prescriptive law. Again, I agree with Boyd that Jesus affirms the principles of Torah but undermines its practice.

Actually ....Here is what seems to have happened.....
Jesus was under no obligation to testitfy against her, those who were witnesses were.
They asked him what should they do. They were tempting him as a messenger of forgiveness of sin.
So......He told them go ahead and carry out their condemnation ae witnesses But.......
1. First warned them as witnesses against the woman. To not falsely testify. Such a witnesses upon examination, might be subject to the same penalty they caused their victim....
De. 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; {that … : or, falling away }
17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

2. Jesus told them as witnesses to cast the first stone.
Deu 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

Then he told her to sin no more. called her to repentance, as his ministry was.....
Mr 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

3. Jesus did not come to condemn but to forgiveness through repentance.

Jn. 8-10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

 

[Studyman]

When someone see something different in the scripture then we do, we tend to assume it's the other person who isn't seeing clearly, don't we.

(Not directed at anyone in particular)
It isn’t good to have zeal without knowledge,
nor being hasty with one’s feet and missing the way.
Proverbs 19

Admitting your issues is helpful and necessary, but without change, what good is this knowledge?

Prov. 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

 

[Studyman]

About the woman caught in adultery: As with some other texts, I find the arguments that Jesus is not effectively undermining the Law to quite contrived and awkward.

Yes, the Pharisees, the mainstream preachers of Christ's Time, were also convinced Jesus was undermining God's instruction in righteousness. Paul said it was because they were "Ignorant of God's Righteousness" and had gone about establishing their own righteousness. That when they "knew God", they didn't Glorify Him "as God", nor were they thankful for the perfect instruction God created beforehand, that they should walk in them. I'm sure the same thing applies to those who would accuse Jesus of undermining His fathers Laws today.

For example, the fact that the accusers were "known to be liars" coupled with the fact that Jesus knew the woman's circumstances and may have determined that, on this basis, she should be spared. How is it not obvious that Jesus's answer to the accusers, and even more importantly what He then says to the woman - "go and sin no more", implying He knew she was guilty - both render this explanation entirely implausible.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" This was true for Israel as well, and the woman too. But not true for Jesus, as the Scriptures teach. You seem somehow convinced that God showing Mercy, is "Lawlessness"! This is because you are ignorant on God's Righteousness, and have, as did the Pharisees, "omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith".

I would suggest you follow the instruction of the Jesus of the Bible, and Go and learn what Jesus' Father meant when HE declared " I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" If you understood what this meant, you would not be accusing the only man who never transgressed God's Commandments, of transgressing God's Commandments.

Jesus' response is simply "let him without sin cast the first stone". No criticism of the accuser for being liars, not even a whiff of a claim of innocence or "extenuating circumstances" on behalf of the woman.

Your agenda is to convince as many as you can that Jesus was a Transgressor of His Father's Laws. I don't believe the Scriptures bear out this religious philosophy you are promoting. I am asking, "what do we know about the woman, and what do we know about those who accused her."

Would this knowledge not be essential to consider before judging someone to death? It appears Jesus thought so.

Surely Annanias and Saphira were guilt of sins worthy of death. But this woman was not guilty of sins worthy of death.

Maybe Jesus isn't the one who is ignorant of God's Righteousness. Maybe it's the religious philosophers of this world you have adopted, who are ignorant, and not Jesus at all. Should a man not at least consider such things before judging their God? The Pharisees didn't, and neither are you, but for those others reading along, do we Judge God, or submit to Him?

And then we get the argument that the law called for both the adulterer and the adulteress to be stoned. So? Again, not even a hint that Jesus is objecting to the stoning due to the absence of the male party.

I simply posted the Law you are using to convince as many as possible that Jesus undermined and transgressed His OWN Father's Commandments. I asked the question, "If it was judgment these Pharisees truly wanted, and they caught her "In the very act", where is the other guilty party, since they most certainly caught him "in the very act" as well, unless they were lying about the entire event. Since Lying is a known Sin, and Jesus said to them "he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone", how do you know they didn't walk away because they Lied about the whole thing?

The TRUTH is, you don't know.

You have an agenda, to convince men Jesus undermined and transgressed His Father's Commandments. And you are twisting this story to promote your agenda. Since I don't believe Jesus undermined His Father's Instruction in Righteousness, nor Transgressed His Commandments, based on study of the actual scriptures, I don't see the promotion of your agenda in this story.

We need to listen to what Jesus says, and not provide groundless, and sometimes illogical, alternative explanations. Jesus' answer - "let him without sin....." demonstrates a more uncomfortable fact - the Law was never enforceable in the first place since no man qualifies to cast a stone. From Greg Boyd:

Displaying his signature genius, Jesus found a way to affirm the Torah in principle while undermining it in practice. “Let anyone who is without sin cast the first stone,” he said (vs. 7). In agreement with the Torah, Jesus affirmed that sinners like this woman deserve to be executed. Yet, he added, only a sinless person would be justified in carrying out this sentence. Since none of the woman’s accusers were sinless, they ended up dropping their stones and walking away.

Since all people are sinners, it seems to me that Jesus’ teaching in this episode applies not just to this particular accused sinner and to this group of sinful accusers, but to all accused sinners and to all sinful accusers. And if you think it through consistently, this entails that none of the Old Testament’s commands to carry out capital punishment should ever be acted on! Indeed, for followers of Jesus, it entails that no command to carry out capital punishment should ever be obeyed, regardless of where it is found or who it comes from.

You are free to adopt and promote the religious theories and doctrines of this world's religious philosophers if you like. LOL, your posts are so contradictory. You say "We need to Listen to Jesus", then you quote the sermons of the product of this world's Yale Divinity School and Princeton Theological Seminary with their PhD.

I don't agree with Mr. Boyd 's religious philosophies. But I will say that religion has been very good for him, and his education has paid off very nicely in the sales of his books alone.

A final note about a pattern we see from those who affirm the Law remains in force: As in Mark 7 where they use an rather contrived context argument to take the word "nothing" out of Jesus's mouth and replace it with "nothing except A, B, C, and D" we see here, again, a tacit refusal to take Jesus's words seriously. He tells us why He excused the woman. And it was not because the accusers were liars, or that she was innocent and that there were extenuating circumstances, or that the male co-assused was not hand.

He was effectively saying, to quote Greg Boyd again, " while the command itself may be just, but unless you are without sin, you’re not justified putting it into practice".

I don't believe Mr. Boyd can take away my sins, nor was he the Rock of Israel. So you are free to worship him or pattern your life after his religious theories, but for me, I'm sticking with the Jesus of the Bible.

You and Mr. Boyd are free to refuse to accept who brought the woman, nor consider why they brought her in the first place. Of course, this knowledge can't help either one of you promote your religious theory that Jesus undermined His Father's Commandments, and broke them, so you must ignore or demean that part of the reality of this story.

This is just more furtherance of the insidious lie and deception that God didn't know what HE was doing, when HE had the Law and Prophets written for our admonition, so your version of Jesus had to come and correct God, and Fix God's Law.

The Jesus of the Bible never did any such thing. And another lie that is being promoted by you, is that a man cannot repent and "Go and sin no more". And this coupled with another popular lie adopted by the religious men of this world, that the Pharisees were "Experts" on God's Law, and were trying to earn God's Favor, by obeying it.

I can show you the Scriptures that confirm these lies, but I can't persuade you believe them. The Jesus of the Bible said so.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

And a law that cannot be enforced is to be understandably challenged as a prescriptive law. Again, I agree with Boyd that Jesus affirms the principles of Torah but undermines its practice.

You are free to adopt and promote the beliefs of one of the many students of this world's religious schools if you like. Paul certainly did, learning at the feet of Gamaliel, another famous worldly religious philosopher. But to say we can't "Enforce" God's Laws in the domain God gave us, is simply ignorant. As Jesus Himself teaches you, if you could only believe.

"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."

Perhaps if you and Boyd, and the Pope and Calvin and Gamaliel had all Glorified God "as God" when you knew HIM, you would all be one with Jesus, as Jesus was ONE with His Father. And you wouldn't be on this forum trying to undermine the relationship between the Father and HIS Son.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Lev. 20: 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Where is the Adulterer, that she was "Caught in the very Act" with? Where is your call for him to be stoned, since they caught her in the act, they surely knew who the man was. It seems in your zeal to make Jesus a transgressor of God Laws, you are ignoring God's Laws.

Here is what we know from scriptures.

#1. Her accusers, who Jesus knew were trying to set Him up, didn't stand behind their accusations when it was time to carry out punishment. Why is that? For me. I would like to find the Truth. I'm not interested in proving the entire Bible is a lie regarding Jesus' Sinless Lifestyle.

#2. Neither Jesus nor His Father judged her as worthy of being Stoned according to their own Law. Why is that?

So there are a couple of assumptions a man can make.

#1. Your assumption, which is that both God and Jesus transgressed their own Laws, proving to be a "Respecter of persons" and to not have equal or just judgment for all people, basically making them hypocrites like the men who brought her in the first place. You make this judgment against Jesus and His Father without considering where the man was, who was equally guilty according to the LAW YOU quoted. A man these same liars knew, and was probably there with them, although this can't be proved for sure.

#1. Or a man can make an assumption based on the Biblical fact that God, and His Son Jesus, are perfect and Just in judgment, as they were when Jesus was the Rock of Israel who brought these Laws to Moses in the first place. That they knew this woman and her circumstance perfectly, while you do not. And given that they knew her perfectly, including the truth about her acts, they both judged her as worthy of Mercy, and therefore didn't condemn her to death. The same thing God did for Israel over and over again. The same exact judgment she would have received from Moses if liars and deceivers had brought her to trip him up.

So you have your mission, and I can see will not be persuaded otherwise. But I'm not going to assume Jesus was a transgressor based on this story.

You are free to do so though.




I am replying to your posts because you are adding your own bias and disrespect for God's Judgments that you freely reject.

You don't even know if the woman was guilty. All you know about her is that known children of the devil, known liars and murderers, brought this woman to Jesus, not for honest Judgment, but to trip Jesus up so they could accuse HIM of Transgressing God's Commandments.

It seems they were successful in convincing you, but I have no reason to assume Jesus transgressed His Father's commandments here, based on the available evidence. Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true.




It wouldn't matter what Scriptures I showed you. You are here to promote the popular religious philosophy that Jesus Father and my Father was an inept, unjust and unperfect God. A God who wasn't smart enough to create just Laws for the people of this world. So your version of Jesus had to come and correct His Father, fix His Father's faulty Laws, expose His Father as being against His own People, and Triumphing over His Father on the Cross.

I know this is a false narrative. Jesus didn't nail His Father's Laws to the cross, HE didn't rebel against His Father's Laws, and HE didn't make a show of His Father openly on the Cross.

But you are free to promote any religion you want.



What matter does that make? I asked you to consider the difference in the way the Bible defines these two men. I pointed out that the Pharisees also knew Jesus as a young boy but didn't believe in Him and know HIM like Zacharias did. I pointed out that Zacharias believed in the Christ before HE was even born and did so until his death. While the Pharisees knew all of the Christ's Works, and did know HIM as an adult, but still didn't believe.

But again, you can't use these truths to promote your religious philosophy, so you ignore them.

It's OK, you are free to do as you please. But I look at Scriptures differently because I'm interested in what they teach, not simply using some of them to justify lawlessness.




You mean what's the difference between a child of the devil that doubts, and a child of God that doubts?

Well, this is enough for me.

Thank you for the enlightening and revealing discussion.

Didn't you say the Pharisees were dishonest, and the Bible says they love money? Couldn't the adulterer buy himself out? You said you believe what the Bible says, but you don't believe the records of the apostle John or the God-breathed Scripture.

Jesus knew it was a trap because the Romans don't let Jews put each other to death. We know this is why the Pharisees used the Roman judge's authority to put Jesus to death. If Jesus says to kill her, they can take Him to the Romans and have him killed. Is this common sense about how society works hard to understand? Do you have to come up with an explanation that doesn't make sense? Why doesn't that woman defend herself if she was wrongly accused? Is she stupid? After what Jesus said, no one is daring enough to throw a stone because the Roman government forbids it.

Your mission is to tell people that "Pharisees have a law," even though they don't. When you don't understand what we're trying to say, you use your sense of self-righteousness to judge us. And, to be honest, you might think you're trying to defend Jesus, but He says very clearly that He doesn't need human's testimonies (John 5:34). We can talk plainly about what He did.

 

[LW97Nils]

The problem is that people fail to rightly divide and think Old Covenant = Old Testament. Not so! In fact, the Old Covenant did continue until Christ's death.

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. Hebrews 9:16

And the Old Covenant began in 1,500 BC with Moses. As for the food laws in pre-Mosaic times:
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. Genesis 9:3-4

Prior to that, animals had only been for sacrifices, not food. And only the clean ones.

 

[Leaf473]

Admitting your issues is helpful and necessary, but without change, what good is this knowledge?

Prov. 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

That's right, change is the goal!

What I was getting at is
that feeling that most of us have,
that we have set aside our preconceived notions and dealt with what the scriptures actually say...
well, that's just it, pretty much everyone here has that sensation.

And that's why I like to take things slowly, one step at a time. It's easier to see where things don't match up with the scriptures.

So if there's something you think we see differently that you'd like to take one step at a time, I'm interested

"My beloved brothers, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger; for the anger of man doesn’t produce the righteousness of God."
-James

 

[expos4ever]

Yes, the Pharisees, the mainstream preachers of Christ's Time, were also convinced Jesus was undermining God's instruction in righteousness. Paul said it was because they were "Ignorant of God's Righteousness" and had gone about establishing their own righteousness. That when they "knew God", they didn't Glorify Him "as God", nor were they thankful for the perfect instruction God created beforehand, that they should walk in them. I'm sure the same thing applies to those who would accuse Jesus of undermining His fathers Laws today.

Ad hominem.

You seem somehow convinced that God showing Mercy, is "Lawlessness"!

Nonsense. I have never said any such thing, or said anything that would logically entail believing such a thing.

This is because you are ignorant on God's Righteousness, and have, as did the Pharisees, "omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith".

This is just a word salad. You are jumbling in a range of claims that are so vague as to be meaningless.

I would suggest you follow the instruction of the Jesus of the Bible, and Go and learn what Jesus' Father meant when HE declared " I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" If you understood what this meant, you would not be accusing the only man who never transgressed God's Commandments, of transgressing God's Commandments.

Well since you are so much more studied than me, perhaps you can explain precisely how my following your suggestion would magically change the fact that in saying "go and sin no more" Jesus clearly demonstrates that He knows the the woman to be guilty, thereby undercutting your suggestion that she may have been innocent:

You don't even know if the woman was guilty.

You are in a very difficult quandary - Jesus's words drive us inexorably to conclude that since no one is in a position to cast a stone, the Law of stoning adulterers is effectively unenforceable in any circumstance, and therefore effectively meaningless, at least in terms of enforcing the "letter". As would any of the prescriptions of the Law of Moses that call for a death sentence.

It seems to me that you are try to divert attention from this challenge to your view by vague references to "mercy" and "faith".

 

[BobRyan]

The problem is that people fail to rightly divide and think Old Covenant = Old Testament. Not so! In fact, the Old Covenant did continue until Christ's death.

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. Hebrews 9:16

And the Old Covenant began in 1,500 BC with Moses. As for the food laws in pre-Mosaic times:
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. Genesis 9:3-4

Prior to that, animals had only been for sacrifices, not food. And only the clean ones.

Lev 11 says only the clean animals are for food.

Gen 1 and 2 say only plants are for food.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus knew it was a trap because the Romans don't let Jews put each other to death. We know this is why the Pharisees used the Roman judge's authority to put Jesus to death. If Jesus says to kill her, they can take Him to the Romans and have him killed. Is this common sense about how society works hard to understand? Do you have to come up with an explanation that doesn't make sense?

They killed Stephen without a Roman authority

 

[expos4ever]

Your agenda is to convince as many as you can that Jesus was a Transgressor of His Father's Laws.

As others who have been following this thread will know, as I am sure you know, this is a patent misrepresentation of my position.

I don't believe the Scriptures bear out this religious philosophy you are promoting. I am asking, "what do we know about the woman, and what do we know about those who accused her."

We know that the woman was indeed guilty inasmuch as Jesus tells her "go and sin no more". What sin, if not adultery, do you think He was referring to in this scenario of her imminent stoning for allegedly committing adultery? The sin of shoplifting?

And, again, Jesus's response to the accusers - a response whose logical implications you have to evade - shows that the issue here is not the particular status of the accusers, which is something you are suggesting as a possibility, but instead the fundamental unenforceability, and hence non-viability, of this element of the Law.

And, prithee tell us: in what way are you any less guilty of "promoting a religious philosophy"? What does this even mean? Do you really think readers are going to say this to themselves: Expos has made case for Jesus challenging the Law but I am going to ignore that argument, regardless of its Scriptural or other merits because I have been just informed that he is promoting a "religious philosophy"

Would this knowledge not be essential to consider before judging someone to death? It appears Jesus thought so.

Really? On precisely what grounds do you say this? My Bible has only these words falling from the lips of Jesus:

“He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

“Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?”

“I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on do not sin any longer.”

Please enlighten us: how do any of these statements hint that Jesus knows something about either her or her accusers that merit her reprieve?

But this woman was not guilty of sins worthy of death.

How do you know this? Where is there even a smidge of evidence that Jesus believes she was not guilty and hence worthy of death per the prescription of the Law? His reason for letting her "off the hook" has to do with the fundamental un-enforceability of the Law, independent of whether she was guilty. And by Jesus saying "go and sin no more", we basically know she was, in fact, guilty.

You appear to believe that Jesus could not possibly be challenging the Law itself since you are a staunch advocate for the continued applicability of said Law. This forces you to come up with reasons why Jesus does not enforce the Law. But you give us no evidence, just vague suggestions about the woman's possible innocence (despite Jesus's strong implication of her guilt) as well as suggestions that the dubious character of these particular accusers is somehow a consideration. But surely you must know that the logic of what Jesus says renders the sin status of these particular accusers entirely irrelevant - no one is qualified to implement the Law.

 

[expos4ever]

I simply posted the Law you are using to convince as many as possible that Jesus undermined and transgressed His OWN Father's Commandments.

This is, of course, spin. You surely must know that my argument is that Jesus is announcing the honorable retirement of a good law that has served its purpose and is now obsolete as a new covenantal era is about to dawn. You, of course, cynically spin this as me suggesting that Jesus is, for no good reason, transgresses his own father's Commandments.

I asked the question, "If it was judgment these Pharisees truly wanted, and they caught her "In the very act", where is the other guilty party, since they most certainly caught him "in the very act" as well, unless they were lying about the entire event.

But this is an obvious diversion, similar to the handwashing diversion in relation to Mark7. Let us be clear: in both cases, the logic of what Jesus actually says undermines your position. Here, again, Jesus does not raise the issue of the absence of the other guilty party. No, He clearly demonstrates that the law is unenforceable regardless of the status all the male participant in the adultery.

Since Lying is a known Sin, and Jesus said to them "he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone", how do you know they didn't walk away because they Lied about the whole thing?

Because that does great violence to the logic of the passage. How can you not possibly know that even if they were not lying, Jesus's reasoning would still mandate letting the woman go? You know this, surely. The issue is not whether the Pharisees are lying, the issue is the universal status of humankind as sinners and how that shows that the law is unenforceable.

You have an agenda, to convince men Jesus undermined and transgressed His Father's Commandments. And you are twisting this story to promote your agenda.

I think we both know that I am making a case based on what Jesus actually says. You, by contrast, are remaining conspicuously silent about the implications of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" regarding the fundamental viability of the Law, and are instead raising diversionary speculative claims about the woman's putative innocence and the particular status of the accusers.

 

[expos4ever]

You are free to adopt and promote the religious theories and doctrines of this world's religious philosophers if you like. LOL, your posts are so contradictory. You say "We need to Listen to Jesus", then you quote the sermons of the product of this world's Yale Divinity School and Princeton Theological Seminary with their PhD.

This is not contradictory and you know it. My argument, and that of Mr. Boyd focus on what Jesus actually says and the implications of that. You, by contrast, dance around the implications of the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" teaching and instead engage in baseless speculations about extenuating circumstances and the particular status of the accusers.

I don't believe Mr. Boyd can take away my sins, nor was he the Rock of Israel. So you are free to worship him or pattern your life after his religious theories, but for me, I'm sticking with the Jesus of the Bible.

Oh please - how is this sermonizing remotely relevant?

This is just more furtherance of the insidious lie and deception that God didn't know what HE was doing, when HE had the Law and Prophets written for our admonition, so your version of Jesus had to come and correct God, and Fix God's Law.

Please explain to us precisely how it is not plausible that God gave the law for a particular purpose that has been fulfilled, and hence the law is now to be retired.

The Jesus of the Bible never did any such thing. And another lie that is being promoted by you, is that a man cannot repent and "Go and sin no more".

How, precisely, has anything I have posted justify the conclusion that I am promoting the belief one cannot repent and "go and sin no more"? Post number please.

And this coupled with another popular lie adopted by the religious men of this world, that the Pharisees were "Experts" on God's Law, and were trying to earn God's Favor, by obeying it.

I believe that most scholars believe the Pharisees were demonstrably experts on the Law even though they added to it and otherwise distorted it. Either way, this is yet another diversion. It certainly appears that your strategy is to toss out as many accusations of lying and religious agendas to divert from the obvious fact that your position does not honour the internal logic of the passage (as was the case when discussing Mark 7). Again: the simple fact is this: Jesus effectively declares the stoning law to be practically unenforceable by the simple ironclad logical implication of these words:

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Who is without sin? No one.

Law unenforceable.

 

[expos4ever]

I believe the Biblical case is clear – the Law of Moses has been retired. In this post, I intend to identify the elements of the argument for the retirement of the Law of Moses. Let me be clear: I am not, in the present post, going to substantially defend the assertions I make; This post is simply a statement of my position. Relevant arguments can be provided later.

Elements of the Case for the Retirement of the Law of Moses:

Jesus arguably challenges the Sabbath​

​

Jesus challenges the Temple laws by declaring that He, not the Temple, is the place where sins are forgiven​

​

Jesus overturns the kosher food laws (Mark 7 and parallel in at least Matthew)​

​

Jesus touches "unclean" people, in contravention of the Law of Moses​

​

Paul clearly declares its abolition in Ephesians 2​

Paul clearly declares its abolition in Galatians 3. In this chapter, Paul declares the law to be a “paidagogos”, a kind of male babysitter whose task comes to an end when supervised child reaches adulthood;​

In Colossians, Paul refers to the law as nailed to the cross;​

In Romans 10, Paul refers to Jesus as the “end of the law”;​

​

In Romans 7, Paul refers to how we no longer serve “in the manner of the written code”;​

The Law of Moses was only ever given to Jews, and a central Pauline theme is that God wants to make it clear that membership in the “true covenant” family is open to all. So, as per Ephesians 3, he argues that the Law has to be done away with precisely it functioned to set the Jew apart from the Gentile. Paul’s theology does not allow for this – there is now no distinction between Jew and Gentile, so there can be no more Law of Moses which was for Jews only;​

Paul believes that God gave the Law of Moses for a specific reason: It caused “sin” to be concentrated and built up in the nation of Israel. Why would God do this? So that this sin could then be passed on to Israel’s representative – Jesus – and dealt with on the cross. Once that goal is achieved, there is no more need for the Law – it has fulfilled its “dark”, but necessary, purpose of making Israel the “place” where the sin of the world get concentrated.​

To extract the essence of the previous two points: The Law of Moses was given by God for a very specific goal. Once that goal has been achieved, the law has been fulfilled. So we can, of course, thinks of the law being “fulfilled” and also retired. This is a key concept. Consider chemotherapy: It has a goal – the curing of the patient. When that goal is achieved, do we keep giving chemotherapy to the patient for the rest of his life? Of course not! It begs the very question at issue to presume that the Law of Moses is a set of timeless truths that last forever. It is clear that Paul does not believe this.​

There may be other points, and / or the above could perhaps be more carefully reworked.