Is the Law of Moses good or bad?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
I would like to see your argument.
Yuuuup.
But He answered and said, [JESUS]“I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”[/JESUS] - Matthew 15:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:24&version=NKJV
Correct.
It's actually as old as the Bible...
Only the parts that were written to Israel.
Because Jesus was correcting people's interpretations of the Law.
Nowhere did he revoke or repeal any of the laws of Moses.
You think a lot of things are obvious. :think:
And?
Sure it is.
You seem to be forgetting the fact that Israel was under Rome's authority at the time, AND that Rome had revoked Israel's authority to put anyone to death.
Pilate then went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?”They answered and said to him, “If He were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you.”Then Pilate said to them, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law.” Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,” - John 18:29-31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John18:29-31&version=NKJV
Right Divider
Body part
Have you ever read Genesis through Malachi?
Yes.
Right Divider
Body part
Then you should very well know what we're talking about.
I don't. That is why I am asking.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So, it's not possible that Jesus personally ministered to a set people but His recorded words were there for all?
Doubtful.
So which parts are pointless to read if they were only aimed at the people of Israel?
Um, the original was pretty clear as was Jesus' new teaching.
I think plenty of things are convoluted as well so your point? It's certainly pretty obvious that those who bore the brunt of Jesus' ire were those full of their own pomp.
Well do the math. What you advocate isn't far or even at all removed from what the legalists of the time were stuck on.
No, it isn't an answer at all to the question I asked:
Had there been sufficient evidence to convict the woman of adultery under the law then do you think He would have condoned the woman being bludgeoned to death with stones?
Now you believe that adultery should be a capital offence and those convicted as guilty should be put to death, right?
So, please just answer the question.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
a facebook friend the other day posted a meme about how Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, thus He must have approved of homosexuality
i gently reminded her that He was equally silent on spousal abuse and child molestation
It's not possible that Jesus lied, no.
None.
No, they had turned into legalists. In fact, so much so, that because it was wrong for them to execute people in the city, they took Stephen out of the city gates and murdered him. But at least they were outside the gates...
Jesus was correcting their legalistic thinking.
Well do the math. What you advocate isn't far or even at all removed from what the legalists of the time were stuck on.[/QUOTE]
So what do you make of Romans 3:31?
By whom?
Supra.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Nobody was saying it was.
:AMR:
In that case there isn't anything in the Bible that isn't applicable to everyone outside of Israel then, is there?
He was doing more than that, He established a whole new perspective.
What of it? You think it supports the stoning of people to death in the present? That's a heck of a tenuous leap.
Grief, it's like trying to get a straight answer from a politician. What, exactly, is preventing you from just giving a straight answer to a very straightforward question? Why are you dancing around it so much? You advocate this stuff remember? So, again, do you think that Jesus would have condoned the bludgeoning of a woman to death with stones if there was sufficient evidence for conviction and there were parties present authorised to carry out that execution?
Just answer the question now will ya?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Then why are you questioning the verse I quoted?
Non-sequitur.
Just because parts of the Bible are addressed to certain groups does not mean that none of it is applicable to people apart from those groups.
And what would that be?
Should we establish the law or not?
Not when you consider that Jesus Himself said:
[JESUS]“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.[/JESUS] - Matthew 5:17-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew5:17-20&version=NKJV
Nothing. I just want more context to your question before I answer it.
Execution by whom?
The Jews?
The Romans?
Jesus Himself?
The people who brought the woman before Him?
I'm not waffling here, Arty.
My answer could vary depending on who it is that would be executing the woman.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I wasn't, I was pointing out that it had a broader range than you seem to think or limit it to. Else, if there's parts of the Bible that were solely for the people of Israel then it wouldn't make much sense.
Well, what do you think I've been arguing?
:AMR:
A "new" way. If the Bible had everything it needed to say in the Old Testament then why bother with the New one? Why do you suppose Jesus said what He did with express regards to an old law and a completely different approach? You can't just waive this off with Israel.
Which ones? Those set for tribes in ancient times that have little to no applicability in the present? Your version of "law" is rooted in the OT.
Well, just take a look at that last bit, the very legalists of the time no less...
Yes, you are waffling and have done everything a politician would do to avoid answering what was a very straightforward question.
You advocate the execution of adulterers in the present, correct? You also advocate stoning as one such method also, correct?
So, do you think Jesus would have condoned the bludgeoning of a woman to death by stones who was caught in adultery with the proof of two to three witnesses and those with authority to carry out said execution?
It's as simple as that JR. All you have to do is answer the question with no further prevarication or bunny trails.
We don't live under the Law or in the Old Testament. But the Torah was given specifically to the nation of Israel. We can learn from it even though it is in the past. Does all of it apply to the life of a believing or unbelieving Gentile?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
We don't, but some would have those laws apply to everyone regardless of whether they were a believer or not. Thankfully, such legalism doesn't hold sway in the "free West".
If you find a commandment in the Law that you think should apply to everyone and not just Jews then you understand a bit of God's Justice for mankind.
God gave us His Law. In Jesus does He intend for it to still be enforced?
Why not?
That everything in the bible is applicable today.
Being... what??
It didn't. The Old Testament is the foundation on which the New Testament is built.
Because it's the second half of the story...
To bring Israel back to Him.
No, that's not what I said.
I said "THE" law.
Do you think that we should establish the law?
Talk about missing the point...
It's pretty annoying, isn't it?
Yup.
Yup.
Who do you think had the authority to carry out such an execution?
:noid:
Straw man. Not what I want.
I have thought about it, and saying we are not living in the Old Testament or we are not in the Old Testament or the Old Testament is a thing of the past, well, in thinking about it now, it sounds like saying the Scripture doesn't matter any more.