When we speak of the new covenant we are speaking of the covenant Jeremiah spoke of which came in Jesus.
The Law of Moses is associated with the covenant God made with the nation of Israel.
Your opinion on God’s Law.
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
When we speak of the new covenant we are speaking of the covenant Jeremiah spoke of which came in Jesus.
The Law of Moses is associated with the covenant God made with the nation of Israel.
He couldn't, Jesus had no right to stone the woman. The Mosaic law is based on a presumption of innocence. There were no witnesses to testify about her guilt so the charge of adultery had to be dismissed.
RevTestament
New member
That is because it is called interpreting friend. Yes, I interpret the scriptures as do you.
Case in point your interpretation that the Mosaic Law is a covenant, which I find to be completely unsupported by scripture.
Further, your interpretation that we are still somehow supposed to follow the Mosaic law of animal sacrifices and temporal punishments.
Perhaps you need to review the sermon on the mount in which Jesus reviews several principles in the Mosaic law and then says "but I tell you....."
In other words Jesus is doing away with the Mosaic law and replacing it with His law....
RevTestament
New member
Jesus was an infallible witness, and knew her guilt. He didn't need any other witnesses. Yet, he came to replace the old temporal punishments and took them upon Himself.
P.S. BTW hi there again Jamie
Each person must do their own interpretation, but we are not to have different interpretation at the same time. What I need to say to you is that you should accept what the scriptures say not explain that they say something they do not.
She was caught in the very act, and Jesus was not the witness.
Now we just need to know if if He was a witness He would have been involved in stoning her. No one should die on the testimony of one witness alone, according to the Law. Now we have talked about what the Law says. Was Jesus acting according to the Law? Nothing I know of can say He was not (even in not condemning her).
RevTestament
New member
Well I gave scripture justifying my interpretation. You have yet to provide even one scripture to justify your interpretations - so pot meet kettle...
I don't understand people who use scripture to justify their position. We are supposed to derive our opinion from scripture or accept it from scripture by dictate.
RevTestament
New member
You just don't get it. Jesus was a proper witness, and knew her guilt, yet did not condemn her which was His obligation under the Mosaic law. Jesus came to replace this law as her judge - not the judges under the Mosaic law. He said so - He said He had power to forgive sins... thus, He replaced the Mosaic judges of guilt. He replaced the outward Mosaic punishments for violating the law with His law with Himself acting as judge...
RevTestament
New member
Now you are playing semantics. Yes, I did this. I derived my opinion from scripture.
Now, I have asked you more than 3 times to show me some scripture on which you "derive" your opinion. Do you have any? or are you just stalling?
Jesus observed and taught the Law. He may have been a witness without being an eyewitness, but that may cause difficulty. He certainly was infallible in all He was a witness to. Why do you say He forgave her? I know Jesus is the judge God has appointed.
No, you produced a similar situation to the first which was an example of the same thing. Go back to the verses you began with. They do not say what you say they say.
RevTestament
New member
I am not trying to be a jerk, although it may seem like I am.
I am just trying to give you a little kick to help you consider that perhaps you have been wrong...
Just prayerfully consider the scriptures we have discussed, and perhaps more importantly the Sermon on the Mount.
Perhaps I will return...I haven't been visiting this site as of late.
Shalom Jacob
I am just trying to give you a little kick to help you consider that perhaps you have been wrong...
Just prayerfully consider the scriptures we have discussed, and perhaps more importantly the Sermon on the Mount.
Perhaps I will return...I haven't been visiting this site as of late.
Shalom Jacob
I have only seen you with your own opinions and saying that the Law has been done away with. If as an individual I am not to be a judge of the law, and the Law has not been abolished (even in Jesus) then we just need to know if we understand the new covenant correctly. It is the Sermon on the Mount as you call it that says Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.
I see no problem with sharing our opinions on the Law. I thought this would be more about the Law than it has become in trying to talk against the Law. But what I want to point out is that it digressed away from opinions about the Law.
However, subjects such as forgiveness and the new covenant and what each of these are and if they work together are important.
However, subjects such as forgiveness and the new covenant and what each of these are and if they work together are important.
Jesus wrote something on the ground. It's not recorded what he wrote nor do I think it needed to be recorded. I think we can connect the dots. I suspect Jesus wrote: "Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses, he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness."
Then Jesus wrote again. I suspect he wrote: "The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 17:6-7)
The men left, evidently no one was willing to throw the first stone.
He said Jesus was a witness. That is interesting to me. I should maybe consider this more. Your scriptures are on point.
What is our take-away from Jesus though?
Jesus came to fulfill the law not to do away with it. His fulfillment was to make the law spiritual, to make it complete, to make it full.
The Mosaic law was binding on unbelievers, which is who he was addressing.
I believe that Jesus observed and taught the Law.
What do you mean by binding? Should both believers and unbelievers observe the Law?
In John 4, He related that Samaritan woman's personally scandalous life to her. She recognized Him as a Prophet; as a result, and went off to tell others of how He had been able to read the very thoughts and intents of her heart...
And there are other examples wherein He rightly reads another's thoughts and past deeds or misdeeds to them.
I suspect He did something similar with those men about to stone that other woman; that He wrote down a list before them comprised of just one word descriptions of some personal sin the more rabid among them was personally guilty of; for He was no ordinary Prophet.
John 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! 1:48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
And there are other examples wherein He rightly reads another's thoughts and past deeds or misdeeds to them.
I suspect He did something similar with those men about to stone that other woman; that He wrote down a list before them comprised of just one word descriptions of some personal sin the more rabid among them was personally guilty of; for He was no ordinary Prophet.
John 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! 1:48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.