- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In the laws contained in the first 5 books of the bible, it is mentioned at certain intervals that people must be put to death for committing particular sins.
There are also examples of characters in the scripture killing transgressors and God giving the heavenly thumbs up to their actions.
However, whenever people talk about mandatory commandments to follow - stoning people with stones or putting people to death is not regarded as a command.
I think this is an example of how the whole law cannot be practiced today.
However, for discussion kindly advise why that is. Why is mandatory law observance when being preached, is the death penalty associated not also explained as mandatory? This phrasing is part of the commands, so an answer for this has eluded me.
I read the post, but it doesn't explain why half the commandments are being ignored and the other half insisted on being followed. It's a selective reading, lording it over others. I am not impressed.According to the scriptures already posted the death penalty for openly and publically breaking anyone of God's 10 commandments was for everyone of God's 10 commandments under the old covenant laws and not restricted solely to God's 4th commandment "seventh day" Sabbath like you were claiming earlier. This was to teach God's people that the wages of sin is death just the same as it is under the new covenant to those who reject the gift of God's dear son and count the blood of the covenant and unholy thing doing despite to the Spirit of God's grace *see Romans 6:23; Hebrews 10:26-31.
What Jesus actually said was....Matthew 5:17-20 [17], Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. [18], For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one pronunciation mark shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19], Whoever 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 whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20], For I say to you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
According to the scriptures in the old covenant the Scribes and the Pharisees reason for bringing the women caught into adultery was to find an excuse to kill him *John 8:2-6 because if Jesus answered do not stone her these religious teachers would have accused him of breaking Roman law as Israel was occupied by Roman authority and law. If Jesus answered don't stone here these religious teachers would have accused Jesus of breaking the law of Moses and forsaking old covenant law. According to the scriptures the Scribes and Pharisees, brought to him the woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the middle, they say to him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. For someone to be put to death under the old covenant laws there needed to be two or three witnesses *Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15. They went on speaking to Jesus and said "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what say you? After Jesus spent some time writing in the sand He said to them.. He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. Then they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the oldest, even to the last *John 8:2-9.
According to the scriptures as shown above, Jesus in His response was upholding the law not breaking the law. Keep in mind at that time that was old covenant law given to the nation of Israel not new covenant law given to God's true Israel born of the Spirit into God's new covenant promise by faith that works by love. According to the scriptures, and as shown by Jesus in Matthew 22:36-40; Paul in Romans 13:8-10; James in James 2:8-12 and John in 1 John 5:2-3 love is not separate from Gods' law it is expressed in obedience to Gods' law. This is Gods' new covenant promise in all those who have been born again *see Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-36 and Ezekiel 36:24-27. Sin is defined in the scriptures as breaking anyone of Gods 10 commandments *Romans 7:7; James 2:10-11; 1 John 3:4 and not believing and following Gods Word *Romans 14:23 and those who are born again into God's new covenant promise to not practice sin (breaking Gods' law) *1 John 3:6-9. John says that sin (breaking God's commandments) is the difference between the children of God and the children of the devil in 1 John 3:6-10; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 14:12; Revelation 22:14.
Take Care.
This is more of a question for people who claim none of the laws have been repealed.All the inferior laws have been repealed.
What Does the Bible Say About Others?
It literally says what it says. James says something similar in regards to breaking one commandment and being guilty of the whole law.It is not saying that everyone is under a curse because men can't follow the laws for woman and women can't follow the laws for men.
It is not picking and choosing to have a legitimate reason for not following a law, such as that it can't be followed,
The new covenant writings speak about sabbath being any day you choose for it to be, similar freedoms are made regarding the dietary laws. It is an international covenant, so this was necessary. That people rest is important, when they rest is not.but rather picking and choosing is referring to illegitimate reasons for someone choosing which laws to follow based upon whether or not they want to follow them, such as someone choosing to follow 9/10 of the Ten Commandments, but not following the Sabbath because they don't want to follow it.
It literally says what it says. James says something similar in regards to breaking one commandment and being guilty of the whole law.
But surely nothing is impossible with God. Following the whole law is impossible for anyone but Jesus, so based on the above reasoning there's no point in trying to follow the obsolete law.
The new covenant writings speak about sabbath being any day you choose for it to be, similar freedoms are made regarding the dietary laws. It is an international covenant, so this was necessary. That people rest is important, when they rest is not.
Well, it at least explains why you believe that way. However, the inconsistency is obvious to anyone who believes different.It is your interpretation of that verse that it is speaking about needing to have perfect obedience even though the law itself came with instructions for what to do when the people didn't have perfect obedience. Furthermore, you need address the implication of your interpretation and the verses that are contrary to it. If the law cursed all men for not following laws only women can follow and vice versa, then God is an unloving Father who intentionally gave the law with the goal of cursing His children when in reality God said that it was given for our own good in order to bless us (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13). In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, obedience to God's law is presented as a possibility and as a choice, not as something that is impossible to obey. Likewise, in 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commandments, which are not burdensome. In addition, we have example of people who lived in obedience to God's law, such as in Joshua 22:1-3 and Luke 1:5-6. We also have the recorded reality that not everyone was under a curse, but only those who refuse to submit to God's law.
In James 2:1-11, he was speaking to people who had already sinned by showing favoritism, so he was not telling them that they needed to have perfect obedience because that would have already been too late, and he was not discouraging them from obeying God's law, but rather he was encouraging them to repent and to do a better job of obeying the law more consistently. If we break any law and become guilty of breaking the whole law, then we need to repent and to return to obedience, which is again precisely what James was encouraging them to do. He said nothing about them being curse or needing to have perfect obedience.
The title of your thread was to show an example of how the law can't be practiced today, so make up your mind about whether practicing the law is possible or impossible with God. Again, not even Jesus followed the laws that only women could follow, but that was not a sin because there is nothing wrong with him not following laws that were only for women. Jesus expressed the nature of God through living in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is a core part of his identity, and he did not hypocritically command anything that was not in accordance with what the Father commanded as if he were not one with the Father.
Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, including keeping the Sabbath on the 7th day, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22). Furthermore, Jesus did not establish the New Covenant in order to undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33). Nothing in the New Covenant states that the Sabbath is any day that we choose, nor is there a single example of someone making switches to which day they want to keep the Sabbath. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from any laws, but in order to free us from all lawlessness, so the freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to do what God has revealed through His law to be sin.
In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes keeping God's Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3) and refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45). The way that we live testifies what we believe about the nature of who God is, so when we do good works, we are testifying about the goodness of God, which is why our good works bring glory to the Father (Matthew 5:13-16). Likewise, when we have a holy conduct, we are testifying that God is holy, however, if we refuse to have a holy conduct, then we are denying that God is holy, and are bearing false witness against God by misrepresenting the nature of who He is.
Well, it at least explains why you believe that way. However, the inconsistency is obvious to anyone who believes different.
Jesus and the Father are mentioned. However, it appears the text has replaced the Holy Spirit in application. I cannot agree with this.
It's a decision between following the commands of God or chasing after other gods, not about perfect obedience. Repentance doesn't change the fact that we have already failed to have perfect obedience, so either we need to have perfect obedience and repentance has no value or repentance has value and we don't need to have perfect obedience, and the consistent message throughout the Bible is the call for repentance.
In Acts 5:32, the Spirit is given to those who obey God. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law. In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh, who refuse to submit to the Mosaic Law. In Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are aspects of God's nature that are in accordance with it. The Mosaic Law was given by God and the Spirit is God, so it is the Law of the Spirit and following the Spirit is not an alternative to obeying it.
The point I think that is being brought across by this discrepancy (of the stoning commandments being ignored) is that the commandments Jesus taught were an upgrade of the mosaic law, and thus it is obsolete as the writer of Hebrews says.
The actual teachings are more difficult, but we have an upgrade by being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
The commandments of Moses, and the Commandments of Jesus are two separate things.
Jesus expressed the nature of God by healing the sick, the lame, the blind, and raising the dead.Jesus expressed the nature of God by setting a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is a core part of his identity and the reject the Mosaic Law is to reject the identity of Jesus.
And that is in a righteousness from God through faith (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Romans 9:30; Philippians 3:9), not through law keeping.Jesus did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6).
I read the post, but it doesn't explain why half the commandments are being ignored and the other half insisted on being followed. It's a selective reading, lording it over others. I am not impressed.
You take care also.
The imperative to stone people is part of the commandment, but it is being ignored, so what does this mean?
In the laws contained in the first 5 books of the bible, it is mentioned at certain intervals that people must be put to death for committing particular sins. .
My question however, is when someone is preaching that Christians are obligated to observe the sabbath day (for example), they do not also preach that we must stone with stones anyone who doesn't. The imperative to stone people is part of the commandment, but it is being ignored, so what does this mean?
It's rather obvious we don't live under a theocracy.
Jesus expressed the nature of God by healing the sick, the lame and the blind, and raising the dead.
And that is in a righteousness from God through faith (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Romans 9:30; Philippians 3:9), not through law keeping.
Just as Abraham's righteousness was from God, credited to him by faith (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3), not by law keeping,
The law was not given to make righteous "because righeousness is by faith" (Galatians 3:11).
The law was given to reveal sin (Romans 3:20, 5:20, 7:7).
You err because you do not know the NT word of God in the God-breathed Scriptures regarding righteousness from God (Mark 12:24).
Go and learn what they mean (Matthew 9:13).
Go and learn orthodox Chritianity from the NT.
Yep. Jesus summed up the whole Law in, "Love God, and love your neighbor". Loving God covers the first 4 Commandments, and loving our neighbor covers the rest. So Jesus clearly pointed out that if we conduct ourselves with love, we will keep all of the Commandments.It is written in Deuteronomy that anyone who does not follow the whole law is cursed, this makes it quite evident that attempting to observe any of the law is a fool hardy endeavor.
Best to follow what Jesus said instead.
And that is in a righteousness from God through faith (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Romans 9:30; Philippians 3:9), not through law keeping.Jesus expressed the righteousness of God through setting an perfect example
And that is in a righteousness from God through faith (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Romans 9:30; Philippians 3:9), not through law keeping.
Just as Abraham's righteousness was from God, credited to him by faith (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3), not by law keeping,
The law was not given to make righteous "because righeousness is by faith" (Galatians 3:11).
The law was given to reveal sin (Romans 3:20, 5:20, 7:7).
You err because you do not know the NT word of God in the God-breathed Scriptures regarding righteousness from God by faith, not by law keeping.
Now why didn't your post #29 sound like the above?You are conflating too issues in that the way that a person become righteous is not the same as the way that a righteous person lives. For example, God's law reveals that it is righteous to help the poor, but no amount of helping the poor will ever cause someone to become righteous as though it were earned as a wage (Romans 4:4-5), but expressing God's righteousness through helping the poor is nevertheless still part of the way that a righteous person lives. Abraham was declared righteous through faith and he lived in obedience to God's law through the same faith, but he did not earn his righteousness through his obedience to God's law. I have never once claimed that righteousness is earned by law keeping, so please address what I've stated instead of burning a straw man.
Yep. Jesus summed up the whole Law in, "Love God, and love your neighbor". Loving God covers the first 4 Commandments, and loving our neighbor covers the rest. So Jesus clearly pointed out that if we conduct ourselves with love, we will keep all of the Commandments.
Now why didn't your post #29 sound like the above?
I did not find that disctinction to be clear in post #29, nor did I find a reference to righteusnesss from God by faith, nor an explanation of what you mean by the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses covers a lot of territory. To which territory are you referring?
In the future, when you post on righteousness, it would be helpful if it were as clear as the above. Post #29 sounds like cut and paste.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?