What does it mean to establish it? In argument to prove a point or such that it is and never cannot be?
Is the Law of Moses good or bad?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
What does it mean to establish it? In argument to prove a point or such that it is and never cannot be?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Because what would be the point in their being recorded for modern day audiences and who's to say which parts are only intended for a set people of a set time?
Really? Everything?
The opposite to what you advocate for starters. You'd still have stoning in effect for execution and are mired in laws for a set time.
Exactly, it didn't. The New Testament had more to say including changes.
One that doesn't encourage the likes of the legalism that you still advocate.
Entirely subjective and without any real foundation. I'd sooner read the words as they're said. You'd still have laws that have the former in effect and brush it off with the above.
Well, that's on you.
"The law"? What is that exactly JR?
Quite. Do you think the scribes and Pharisees were venerated by Jesus during His ministry?
What, when someone who advocates that people should be stoned to death in the present for adultery doesn't have the courage of their convictions to answer a simple question a few times on the bounce as to whether Jesus would have condoned it if all conditions for such had been met in the past?
It's annoying in a way but also entirely expected. I didn't for a moment think that you actually would answer the question.
It means we uphold it.
Here's what the word used means:
| Strong's g2476 - Lexical: ἵστημι - Transliteration: histémi - Part of Speech: Verb - Phonetic Spelling: his'-tay-mee - Definition: trans: (a) to make to stand, place, set up, establish, appoint; mid: to place myself, stand, (b) to set in balance, weigh; intrans: (c) to stand, stand by, stand still; met: to stand ready, stand firm, be steadfast. - Origin: A prolonged form of a primary stao stah'-o (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively). - Usage: abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up). Compare tithemi. - Translated as (count): Spoiler
|
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, my reply wasn't even addressed to you anyway and I'm well aware of what you want. Some monarch drawn by lots who could choose not to do any darned thing if he so chose...
Meaning we preach it but we don't apply it or what?
And throwing off a cliff, too, if available.
Rather, I think the law that God gave to Moses is, as a model of what law should look like, 10 million+ times better than anything that man can come up with, and that man's laws should imitate God's law.
Just not where you want them to be, unfortunately for you.
I don't advocate legalism.
Nah, you'd ignore them all the same.
Israel was given three years to repent and turn to her God. She was then given one more year, a final chance, to repent. She didn't, and so God put his plan for her on hold.
A tree. :think:
Don't change the subject.
What did Jesus say about jots and tittles in that passage?
Question for you, Arty:
What did the Mosaic law say about what happens to those who bear false witness in a trial for a capital crime?
It means we use it appropriately.
Which has nothing to do with this discussion at all.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I know we are not to judge, that we are not to judge outsiders, and that judgment begins with the household of God. But believers are not supposed to be sinning or to have sinned since they really became believers. Israel and those grafted in should observe the Law?! but that those who are believers are not under the Law. So who is the Law for? Or, is this misunderstanding something? I would like to say the Law and forgiveness for everyone.
Incorrect.
We are to judge with righteous judgment.
Incorrect.
We are to treat strangers the same as citizens (regarding the law).
That's a cliche, not what Paul said.
Israel was the natural branch that was chopped off, Jacob.
The branches grafted in were grafted onto the Vine, Christ, not Israel.
The Law is for the wicked.
Forgiveness is only for those who repent.
Maybe I am thinking of people who have sinned after they became believers. Because forgiveness.
Grafted into Christ, the root, or Israel? Gentiles. Such were some of you. As or like the Gentiles walk. Grafted back in?
1 Corinthians 5:12 NASB - For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within [the church?]
Matthew 7:1 NASB - "Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
Luke 6:37 NASB - "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You advocate that as well?
Including throwing people off cliffs?
Why would it be unfortunate for me JR? Do clarify.
Sure you do. If you're a proponent of enacting laws that would stone people to death for homosexuality and adultery along with enforced marriages for fornication with no possibility for divorce then you absolutely do. I'm surprised you shy away from it really.
Unsubstantive response.
Has nothing to do with Jesus Himself giving instruction on how to act in regards to former laws.
Of knowledge? Or a birch?
You think that meant that any "law" in society couldn't be subject to change?
Seriously? You lack that much courage of your convictions as to answer whether Jesus would have condoned the bludgeoning to death of a woman with stones if every lawful aspect had been met with a deflecting one of your own, which has already been addressed in past threads as well?
What's the matter JR? Why can't you just answer the question?
Yup.
It's quick (all ya gotta do is push), painful on the way down, and serves it's purpose as a death sentence.
Probably more effective than sedating, anesthetizing, and giving a lethal injection a long time after a crime is committed. Better just to inject them straight up without the sedation or anesthesia. And no need to clean the needle, the criminal's gonna die anyways.
Ol' Sparky would also be effective.
You think the changes happened within the time Jesus was on Earth, and so you've built your worldview on that assumption.
It's unfortunate because it's incorrect, which means your worldview is incorrect.
Arty, an old man gets on a bus, but sees that all the seats are full.
One man stands up and offers the older gentleman a seat.
Was this a good thing or a bad thing to do?
That's not legalism.
That's called justice.
Only because you separated it from the rest of what I said.
Sure it does.
Just because you can't see it (because you don't have the big picture) doesn't mean it isn't relevant.
I think you know.
I think that the people who brought the woman before Christ weren't expecting that He hold so strictly to the law.
This article (although I've never read AG articles before, and don't know their position on everything I believe) seems to have it down pat.
In other words, Jesus would have held the ones who brought the woman before him accountable for not following procedure.
According to you, that would make Jesus a legalist.
glorydaz
Well-known member
We live under the laws of the United States, so what you propose is illegal.
glorydaz
Well-known member
The laws JR wants enforced have nothing to do with anyone today. They were the Laws of Moses given to the children of Israel, and they were corrupted by the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day. Which is why Jesus was having to correct them. We're seeing modern day Pharisees right here on TOL.
You're talking to a Pharisee, AB. Interesting, isn't it?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Nice. So could you push a helpless woman off a cliff because she was convicted of adultery yourself if you had the authority? Would you be willing to "dispense justice" with your own hands no less if need be?
Oh, I think I'll take my chances and keep the perspective that I've got, one that includes disgust at the prospect of people bludgeoning others to death with stones or shoving them off cliffs for being gay or the like.
I'd give up a seat for an elderly person any day of the week.
No, it's legalism, ran amok.
Um, no.
When a guy has no problems with the concept of pushing people off cliffs as a form of "justice" tells me I don't have a big picture then I'll tell him he has no clue what a canvas is.
A larch?
And yet again you fail to answer a simple question where all the parameters were laid out for you whereby all lawful considerations would have been met and Jesus could have condoned the stoning of an adulterous woman to death.
Yet you don't dare answer it.
Says it all.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
One who doesn't even have the courage of his own convictions to say that Jesus would condone the bludgeoning to death of people in the present as JR advocates for certain "crimes". (Not to mention pushing people off cliffs)
Interesting is certainly one aspect.
So why the double standard? Why are homos subject to the law, but murderers aren't?
If she was sentenced to death because she had committed a capital crime, no, I would not opposed to doing so.
I'll take that as a "yes, it was a good thing for the man to give up his seat."
To which I say, "No it wasn't a good thing.
The man who gave up his seat was the driver of the bus, and the old man hasn't driven a vehicle in several years."
Saying it doesn't make it so.
:liberals:
Guess not.
Rather, I'd let scripture speak for itself.
The men only brought the woman before Jesus, where the Mosaic law said to bring both.
Jesus would have cross examined each of the witnesses, and had their stories not matched, they would have been subject to bearing false witness in a capital case.
And even if the woman had been found guilty, the Jews did not have the authority to put someone to death for adultery
In other words, it's pointless to try to speculate what Jesus would have condoned, because it was never a possibility in the first place.
It just shows that the law is good, even when people attempt to use it against you.
Your problem, Arty, is that you assume I'm under any obligation to you to answer your questions, just as you are under no obligation to answer any of mine.
That being said, I AM answering your question.
It's just not the answer you want to hear.