Has the Church Replaced Israel ?

[CabinetMaker]

It's impossible to have a discussion with someone as dishonest and dumb as you.

And this is meant to sway me how? You cal me dishonest. Show me where I have been dishonest. You say I am dumb. Show me where I have been dumb. Please note, me not agreeing with your interpretation of theology. If that is your standard then I can say the same as you because you disagree with my theology.

 

[Right Divider]

And this is meant to sway me how?

It's not. It's just the truth.

You cal me dishonest.

Yes, you are.

Show me where I have been dishonest.

See the post that I quoted.

You say I am dumb.

Yes, you are.

Show me where I have been dumb.

See your post that I quoted.

Please note, me not agreeing with your interpretation of theology.

That is an incomplete sentence. Try again.

If that is your standard then I can say the same as you because you disagree with my theology.

You are confused and illogical. That has a very negative impact on "your theology".

 

[Right Divider]

Do you ever support your theology from the New Testament?

You don't even know that the "new testament" is.

I look at the woman in at the well. She was an adulteress and deserved stoning under the law.

The law required TWO or THREE WITNESSES.
Jesus and her are the only ones mentioned at the well in the passage.

Now, many people like to say that she couldn't be stoned because the law requires that she and her partner be stoned together and Jesus didn't know her her partner was. So much for omnipotence.

The law required TWO or THREE WITNESSES.

Frankly, I am pretty sure Jesus knew who her partners were se He could have asked for them to be brought forward. I also believe that their was a reason Jesus did not condemn her. In fact, He did not tell the crowd they could not stone her. Instead, He used the opportunity to provide teaching on judgement John 8:7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Deut 17:4-7 (AKJV/PCE)
(17:4) And it be told thee, and thou hast heard [of it], and inquired diligently, and, behold, [it be] true, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought in Israel: (17:5) Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, [even] that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (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. (17:7) 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.

The law required that the witnesses be the FIRST to begin the stoning. Perhaps they were not actually witnesses at all.

 

[CabinetMaker]

It's not. It's just the truth.

Yes, you are.

See the post that I quoted.

Yes, you are.

See your post that I quoted.

That is an incomplete sentence. Try again.

You are confused and illogical. That has a very negative impact on "your theology".

Sadly, this is pretty much what I expected from you. Your claim that nobody could judge David under the law logically translates to David not being accountable to the law except of his own free will. We see much the same in today's legal system. Styx had a great line in one of their songs, "Justice for money, what more can we say," and that sure seems to ring true. If you have enough money/power/influence you can almost always avoid conviction. So what good is the law to somebody who cannot be judged by that law?

 

[CabinetMaker]

You don't even know that the "new testament" is.

The law required TWO or THREE WITNESSES.
Jesus and her are the only ones mentioned at the well in the passage.

The law required TWO or THREE WITNESSES.

Deut 17:4-7 (AKJV/PCE)
(17:4) And it be told thee, and thou hast heard [of it], and inquired diligently, and, behold, [it be] true, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought in Israel: (17:5) Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, [even] that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (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. (17:7) 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.

The law required that the witnesses be the FIRST to begin the stoning. Perhaps they were not actually witnesses at all.

A whole mod came out to bear witness against her and what did Jesus say?

 

[Right Divider]

Sadly, this is pretty much what I expected from you.

Of course it's sad for you to have someone tell you the truth about yourself.

Your claim that nobody could judge David under the law logically translates to David not being accountable to the law except of his own free will. We see much the same in today's legal system. Styx had a great line in one of their songs, "Justice for money, what more can we say," and that sure seems to ring true. If you have enough money/power/influence you can almost always avoid conviction. So what good is the law to somebody who cannot be judged by that law?

Sounds like you are thinking of @JudgeRightly

 

[Right Divider]

A whole mod came out to bear witness against her and what did Jesus say?

The "woman by the well" was alone with Jesus according John 4.

The "woman caught in adultery" had NO witnesses.

John 8:10-11 (AKJV/PCE)
(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? (8:11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

No witnesses... no death penalty per the law.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, God's laws don't apply to the rich and powerful. Got it.

So you don't even bother considering the points other people make, preferring to straw man. Got it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Do you ever support your theology from the New Testament?

I support my theology from the entire Bible.

I look at the woman in at the well. She was an adulteress and deserved stoning under the law. Now, many people like to say that she couldn't be stoned because the law requires that she and her partner be stoned together

It also demands that there be two or three witnesses to establish guilt.

and Jesus didn't know her her partner was. So much for omnipotence.

Omnipotence is power. Did you mean omniscience?

Frankly, I am pretty sure Jesus knew who her partners were se He could have asked for them to be brought forward. I also believe that their was a reason Jesus did not condemn her. In fact, He did not tell the crowd they could not stone her. Instead, He used the opportunity to provide teaching on judgement John 8:7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

You seem to have confused two different instances in scripture.

The woman at the well Jesus encountered is not the same woman (afaik) that the Jews brought before Him trying to trick him.

Care to try again?

Now, I am certainly not sinless. I still struggle a bit with looking at a woman with lust in my eyes. (Matthew 5:28) I am not perfect, but I am forgiven.

So what?

 

[Right Divider]

So you don't even bother considering the points other people make, preferring to straw man. Got it.

And the poor guy couldn't understand why I called him dishonest.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sadly, this is pretty much what I expected from you.

Your straw-manning of me is definitely dishonest, and RD called you out on it.

Your claim

No, it was my claim, and it was also the claim of the site I linked to when I initially stated it, and it was one of Bob Enyart's beliefs, and I imagine one of the premises for the proposed constitution.

that nobody could judge David under the law

Would you like to try to explain how David could have been held accountable to anyone under the law, when he was the highest authority in the land, apart from God?

logically translates to David not being accountable to the law except of his own free will.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

God, when He gave the law to Moses, LONG before Solon of Athens, gave a requirement for the king to keep a copy of the law with him.

The king was under the law.

What I have not said is that he is not accountable to the law.

What I have said is that there is no one above him (apart from God) who is under the law who could enforce the law against him.

And God did not enforce the Mosaic law against David. But David was still punished.

We see much the same in today's legal system. Styx had a great line in one of their songs, "Justice for money, what more can we say," and that sure seems to ring true. If you have enough money/power/influence you can almost always avoid conviction.

That's because we have a broken system (I refuse to call it a justice system, because it's no longer a justice system, now it's just a system) for punishing criminals. If a judge happens to pass down a just system, it's a random occurrence in a mindless system.

So what good is the law to somebody who cannot be judged by that law?

David, the king, while not accountable to anyone on earth, was held accountable by God, the source of justice.

Man was not made for the law, but the law made for man.

A whole mo(b) came out to bear witness against her and what did Jesus say?

As RD said, the woman caught in adultery is NOT the woman at the well.

You're confusing the two.

The woman at the well was indeed guilty, but she was not under trial for her crimes. No charges had been brought against her.

As for the woman caught in adultery, 1) they didn't bring the man she was committing adultery with, which made them guilty of violating the law (which stated they needed to) and 2) after Jesus was done writing on the ground, there were ZERO witnesses to testify against her. That's why Jesus said "he who is without sin cast the first stone," because NONE of them were without sin, since they had violated the law in not bringing the man she was allegedly committing adultery with. And thus they left, and so she could not have been found guilty of anything, because there were no witnesses left after they did, where TWO or THREE are required to establish guilt.

 

[Clete]

Don't you have a relationship with Christ?

Care to explain what point you're making?

 

[Clete]

Well, since I am not under the Old Covenant, I do not follow Mosaic law.

Neither do I.

That has nothing to do with it.

I learned long ago that I am incapable of following the law to the perfection required for salvation under the law hence my need for a savior. Jesus taught me that.

Irrelevant.

You literally don't know what you're talking about.

I watched Alice Coopers testimony yesterday, purely by chance. It was interesting to hear him say that he came back to his faith because of fear of judgement. So now I know of people who come through fear and others who come through hope.

People who are not believers very much should fear judgment. Condemnation is the ministry of the law, even to this day.

I believe that each of us has a unique way to share our faith.

Some are biblical, most are not.

I believe that God uses all of us for His purpose so me telling you that you are wrong in your approach is as wrong as you telling me I am wrong in my approach.

You actually do believe that such things are matters of opinion, don't you?

No one cares what "you believe", CM. Make an argument and keep your personal opinions to yourself.

Both approaches are useful to God.

Satan is useful to God, CM. By your reckoning, Satan is just as good a means to God's ends as any other.

I do know that one cannot continue in a grossly sinful life style and claim salvation as well. Paul was clear about this.

Saying it doesn't make it so, CM. Paul was not a legalist.

And if I can have a civil conversation with a homosexual I explain this to them, that their life style is mutually exclusive to a saving relationship with Christ.

You're a fool!

You are literally a fool!

Would you consent to have a "civil conversation" with a rapist? Would you explain to the child molester that his "life style" is mutually exclusive to a saving relationship with Christ?

They must choose.

They've made their choice! Justice (i.e. criminal justice) which you would ignore and, more than that, relegate to an irrelevant "Old Testament" would be, by far and away, the most effective means to not only prevent the vast majority from ever making such a choice to begin with but engender the repentance of at least some of those who do make such a decisions in spite of "the great teacher" (i.e. the law).

Ironically, I have had to have this conversation with good Christians. They taught bible study, faithfully attended service, volunteered in all sorts of activities, and saw nothing wrong with the affair they were having because, after all, they loved each other. Eventually, they were asked to leave the church as is proper.

I have a very difficult time believing you.

If what you said here is even partially true, you should count yourself lucky because there's a very high likelihood that the homo was there teaching Sunday school looking for children to have have sex with. You see, homosexuals are not "born that way". They are created when a young boy's first sexual encounters are with men. An adult homo molests them as children between the ages of 5-8 years of age and thereby screw up their normal development. Homos literally reproduce by molesting children. Those kids then grow up thinking they were born that way because they've never been attracted sexually to anyone other than men. They then perpetuate the cycle by molesting kids themselves and the problem grows and grows and undermines the fabric (i.e. the moral fabric) of the entire civil society of a nation even to the point that fools who think they're following Christ, tolerate such destructive fiends and instead of shunning and ridiculing them, they instead shun and ridicule people like me who advocate for the justice that God Himself places so clearly in His word for everyone to read.

THIS IS THE REASON THAT GOD MADE IT A CAPITAL CRIME!!!!

Their perversion corrodes the morality of everyone and everything they touch and there is no fixing it. The good news is that, while the overwhelming majority of homos (male homosexuals) were molested as children, the vast majority of kids who are molested do not end up becoming homos and so the fix is simply to execute anyone found guilty of the crime of homosexual behavior and/or child molestation. You pass that one single law and before you know it, you'll not only not have hardly any perverts in your society but virtually no child molestation at all. And that's not to even mention of positive effects it would have on the moral stature of the whole society, which would have countless benefits in every aspect of everyone's life!

Sounds pretty merciful to me.

God is MUCH wiser and more merciful than you're willing to give Him credit for. Being nicer than God is the endeavor of fools.

 

[Clete]

David was King UNDER the law, he was not above the law. It is a bad point. No man under the Old Covenant was above the law.

Unresponsive.

The law, which David was king under, had (has) no provision for even bringing the king to court to convict him of a crime, never mind executing him for it. The king, under the Mosaic Law, answered to God, the Law Giver, not to any judge or court.

This worked because God was directly and actively working with the nation of Israel. A privilege that cannot be said of any nation today, by the way. As a result, a full adoption of Mosaic form of government could not be made to work today because the king would indeed be above the law. This, however, does not undo right and wrong or the principles of criminal justice. The death penalty is taught as just punishment by God in both the Old and New Testaments for several crimes, including murder, rape, child molestation, Sodomy, kidnapping, adultery and a few other crimes. The degree to which any criminal justice system does not enforce the death penalty for such crimes is the degree to which that system is unjust and the degree to which that society undermines itself.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Hmmmm. Didn't I see you saying you despised most Christians and why? How is it that Jesus told the adultress, Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more? And why did He cast seven demons out of the prostitute Mary Magdalene. That strongly implies He cast a demon out of her seven different times. Why didn't He just cast her aside and condemn her after the first time?

Didn't Paul say to be followers of him just as he was a follower of Jesus Christ? Is that what you're doing with all your condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you? Paul was stoned, beaten, tossed in jail, and finally beheaded because he wanted to give those who disagreed with him a chance to be saved.

I'm trying really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt here. This is reminiscent of the sort of "judge not" attitudes Christians had back in the 70s, 80s and 90s. We, as a group, have come a long way down the road from this sort of thinking. Most Christians today understand that Jesus didn't undo the law against adultery in John chapter 8 and that Mary Magdalene was NOT a prostitute!

The portrayal of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute began in 591, when Pope Gregory I conflated Mary Magdalene, who was introduced in Luke 8:2, with Mary of Bethany (Luke 10:39) and the unnamed "sinful woman" who anointed Jesus's feet in Luke 7:36-50.

As for the woman caught in adultery. You simply don't understand what was happening there. You need to read this....

What Does the Bible Say About the Death Penalty​

It directly deals with and explains what was going on in John 8:1-11.


And I do not condemn people because they disagree with me! I condemn people for being self-righteous hypocrites who have no idea what they're even talking about but feel justified in condemning me for advocating justice!

Clete

 

[CabinetMaker]

Unresponsive.

The law, which David was king under, had (has) no provision for even bringing the king to court to convict him of a crime, never mind executing him for it. The king, under the Mosaic Law, answered to God, the Law Giver, not to any judge or court.

This worked because God was directly and actively working with the nation of Israel. A privilege that cannot be said of any nation today, by the way. As a result, a full adoption of Mosaic form of government could not be made to work today because the king would indeed be above the law. This, however, does not undo right and wrong or the principles of criminal justice. The death penalty is taught as just punishment by God in both the Old and New Testaments for several crimes, including murder, rape, child molestation, Sodomy, kidnapping, adultery and a few other crimes. The degree to which any criminal justice system does not enforce the death penalty for such crimes is the degree to which that system is unjust and the degree to which that society undermines itself.

Clete

Sorry, not buying this line of reasoning. Had God wanted David brought to justice under the law it would have happened. I believe God had other intentions for David and mercy from the law was warranted.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I support my theology from the entire Bible.



It also demands that there be two or three witnesses to establish guilt.



Omnipotence is power. Did you mean omniscience?



You seem to have confused two different instances in scripture.

The woman at the well Jesus encountered is not the same woman (afaik) that the Jews brought before Him trying to trick him.

Care to try again?



So what?

Yes, you are absolutely correct. I conflated the "title" of John 4 with the events of John 8. Doesn't really effect my point.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, you are absolutely correct. I conflated the "title" of John 4 with the events of John 8. Doesn't really effect my point.

You had a point?

 

[CabinetMaker]

You had a point?

If it is important to you, you can go back and reread what I originally said.

 

[Right Divider]

If it is important to you, you can go back and reread what I originally said.

You've listened to nothing that we've said regarding the two passages that you are so confused about.