Is the Law of Moses good or bad?

[Guyver]

Figure of speech. But your posts Guyver are frustrating because your aren't debating. But rather you're preaching attributes of a God that is not God of the Bible. And certainly it isn't the Christian God. But dude who is in your ear? And where are you getting these things from?

Please forgive me if I offended you. Not my intention.

No forgiveness is needed because you have not offended me KOde. I’m sure I probably do seem crazy to most of the people around here.

Who’s in my ear.....I think the better question is, what’s in between my ears? It’s a marvelous thing, a supercomputer if you will, and you have one to.

 

[Jacob]

Is murder justified because someone gets mad?

No. It is not.

 

[Guyver]

I disagree with your characterization of God as a killer. He would rather that people repent. The point is that God has given the death penalty (human court) and killed (divine intervention or whatever we would call it) as well. If you choose to disobey you may suffer at His hand. But that is not what He wants for you.

It would certainly seem that God should be able to get what he wants....right? I mean, how could he not?

 

[Guyver]

No. It is not.

Right.

 

[Guyver]

You see making false accusations towards the Bible and my Jesus. I'm going to keep you in my prayers. May the God all mighty open your eyes of understanding of his holy scriptures from revelations of Jesus Christ through the holy spirit.

Man talk about backsliding....

Do you know what I don’t understand? I don’t understand how you can consider me making false accusations when I literally post the Bible that confirms my statements. Your argument is really with the facts I provide, and the questions I ask that people here can’t answer, or are afraid to look into.

 

[Jacob]

It would certainly seem that God should be able to get what he wants....right? I mean, how could he not?

That is not my attitude about it. Rather, the wages (earning, payment, what is due) of sin is death.

Right.

 

[k0de]

No forgiveness is needed because you have not offended me KOde. I’m sure I probably do seem crazy to most of the people around here.

Who’s in my ear.....I think the better question is, what’s in between my ears? It’s a marvelous thing, a supercomputer if you will, and you have one to.

But that super computer is foolish to God. Compare: super computer program to an super operating system... ?

You and I are programs. God is the super operating system.

 

[k0de]

Do you know what I don’t understand? I don’t understand how you can consider me making false accusations when I literally post the Bible that confirms my statements. Your argument is really with the facts I provide, and the questions I ask that people here can’t answer, or are afraid to look into.

Guyver it's of no gain to quote scriptures. Satan is very good with that.

Compare to quoting scriptures and having an intement relationship with Christ Jesus. You see. Christ is my husband because I'm of His Church. So no matter what the world say about my husband I will never leave His side.

Is your wife around. Let me ask her if she agree with me that I think you're nuts and you are possessed by an evil Spirit. Of course not. She will throw it right back at me.

 

[JudgeRightly]

False answer. The bible says he did. Galatians 5.

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: [d]adultery, [e]fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, [f]murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

You said you knew God according to his word. So, I asked you a question and you didn't answer it. Would you like to try again?

How is it that God practices wrath, but condemns that practice as a work of the flesh? Or to put it another way.....how can God practice something he despises?

So you're ignoring the context of the two words just prior to the word "wrath?"

It's no wonder you're so confused.

I see a condemnation of "outbursts of wrath", which is perfectly in line with "do not be angry without cause" (Jesus, who is God) and "give place to wrath." (Paul, who was given his message by God.)

So no, no condemnation of wrath.

 

[Guyver]

But that super computer is foolish to God. Compare: super computer program to an super operating system... ?

You and I are programs. God is the super operating system.

It’s amazing to me that people believe that. How can a thing God made not be marvelous and loved by him?

I just don’t understand this kind of thinking. It’s like people believe that God could be a failure. I guess this type of thinking comes from the Bible and religion with their beliefs based upon fear.

But whatever. People are going to believe whatever they want to believe. It’s just that to claim to believe in God but have such a low opinion of him just doesn’t fit me.

So, I’m outside the box and I’m fine with that because I think God great.

 

[Guyver]

So you're ignoring the context of the two words just prior to the word "wrath?"

It's no wonder you're so confused.

I see a condemnation of "outbursts of wrath", which is perfectly in line with "do not be angry without cause" (Jesus, who is God) and "give place to wrath." (Paul, who was given his message by God.)

So no, no condemnation of wrath.

I’m not confused, but it seems you appear to be? An outburst of wrath is the expression of wrath, that’s what wrath is. Wrath is also sometimes used colloquially as some kind of expression of righteous judgement and vengeance, but the actual words mean anger. Anger is condemned in the NT as an immoral behavior, not only in the passage under discussion but other passages also.

So, the point being that God wouldn’t do something he considers a sin. I hope that helps.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I’m not confused, but it seems you appear to be?

"I know you are, but what am I?"

An outburst of wrath is the expression of wrath, that’s what wrath is.

Wrath is not "the expression of wrath."

You can't define words by using the word itself.

Also, the word used in the passage above is not referring to "wrath," as in judgment of the wicked, but rather "fits of rage."

Strong's g2372

- Lexical: θυμός
- Transliteration: thumos
- Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
- Phonetic Spelling: thoo-mos'
- Definition: an outburst of passion, wrath.
- Origin: From thuo; passion (as if breathing hard).
- Usage: fierceness, indignation, wrath. Compare psuche.
- Translated as (count): wrath (6), anger (4), fury (3), fits of rage (1), of rage (1), passion (1), rage (1), with anger (1).

In other words, Paul isn't talking about the wrath of God upon the wicked, but the exact thing Christ warned about, being "angry without cause."

Wrath is also sometimes used colloquially as some kind of expression of righteous judgement and vengeance, but the actual words mean anger. Anger is condemned in the NT as an immoral behavior, not only in the passage under discussion but other passages also.

Blanket statements like this are what's getting you in trouble.

Righteous anger is just that. Righteous. There's nothing wrong with being angry if there's a good reason to be angry.

Hence why Christ said, "do not be angry without cause."

He did NOT say "don't be angry at all," because then he would have been a hypocrite. And God is not a hypocrite.

So, the point being that God wouldn’t do something he considers a sin. I hope that helps.

Good thing he doesn't consider being angry a sin then, eh?

:thumb:

 

[bibleverse2]

Anger is condemned in the NT as an immoral behavior...

Note that there is an anger which is not a sin:

Ephesians 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath...

Also, note that Isaiah 42:14 suggests that God's/Jesus' patience has a limit. Ultimately, He will let loose, at His future, Second Coming. For it is okay to eventually get angry, even for Christians (Ephesians 4:26), made in God's image (Colossians 3:10), which would include God's emotionality. But Christians must not let the sun go down on their anger (Ephesians 4:26). That is, they must never harbor grudges, but speak forth what is bothering them, and find a way of resolving it (Matthew 18:15-17), or letting it go (Matthew 6:14-15), before the day is through. God/Jesus will likewise express His anger against His living enemies in the single day of His future, Second Coming from heaven (Revelation 19:11 to 20:3).

But while God/Jesus has the right to employ violence against His enemies, Christians have no such right. Indeed, they are never to harm anyone, even in self-defense (Matthew 5:39).

 

[JudgeRightly]

But while God/Jesus has the right to employ violence against His enemies, Christians have no such right. Indeed, they are never to harm anyone, even in self-defense (Matthew 5:39).

You were doing excellent up until this point.

So, it's the middle of the night, your wife and three kids are asleep, and you wake up and hear noises coming from your kitchen. Someone has broken in and is in the process of foraging through your house for valuables. Do you get out your gun? Or do you go and have a conversation with the burglar?

 

[Guyver]

You were doing excellent up until this point.

So, it's the middle of the night, your wife and three kids are asleep, and you wake up and hear noises coming from your kitchen. Someone has broken in and is in the process of foraging through your house for valuables. Do you get out your gun? Or do you go and have a conversation with the burglar?

I think he did fine all the way through from a Christian perspective. You don’t because you don’t like what Jesus said about not defending yourself.

It seems right to kill another if they are trying to kill you or your family. But that’s not what Jesus said. So, like so many Christians who claim to believe the Bible, what you really do is pick and choose the parts you like and believe those, but the ones you don’t like you skip.

Would that be a fair assessment in your opinion?

 

[Guyver]

Strong's g2372

- Lexical: θυμός
- Transliteration: thumos
- Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
- Phonetic Spelling: thoo-mos'
- Definition: an outburst of passion, wrath.
- Origin: From thuo; passion (as if breathing hard).
- Usage: fierceness, indignation, wrath. Compare psuche.
- Translated as (count): wrath (6), anger (4), fury (3), fits of rage (1), of rage (1), passion (1), rage (1), with anger (1).

In other words, Paul isn't talking about the wrath of God upon the wicked, but the exact thing Christ warned about, being "angry without cause."

Ok, so we agree that wrath in this passage means anger. Anger can have many levels from mild irritation to fits of uncontrollable rage. But whatever, we can let distinction sit for time being.

Good thing he doesn't consider being angry a sin then, eh?

:thumb:

Pretty clever. Very slyly played. No....I’m not willing to concede that point just yet. I will admit that you could stick in some counter bible to make the opposite point, as you have already begun to do, and as can be done with nearly any bible topic....but no. I will argue my case further.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think he did fine all the way through from a Christian perspective. You don’t because you don’t like what Jesus said about not defending yourself.

Once again, you show your lack of knowledge on the subject.

It seems right to kill another if they are trying to kill you or your family.

There's certainly nothing wrong with it.

But that’s not what Jesus said.

Have you forgotten that Jesus (who is God) is the one who gave Moses the laws written in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy?

Apparently you have.

So, like so many Christians who claim to believe the Bible, what you really do is pick and choose the parts you like and believe those, but the ones you don’t like you skip.

Says the one ignoring what was written in The Law.

:think:

Would that be a fair assessment in your opinion?

:AMR:

Ok, so we agree that wrath in this passage means anger. Anger can have many levels from mild irritation to fits of uncontrollable rage. But whatever, we can let distinction sit for time being.

Considering that the passage is speaking of "fits of rage," and not "God's wrath upon the wicked, it's a necessary distinction to make.

God's wrath is not a "fit of rage." It's righteous judgment upon the wicked.

Pretty clever. Very slyly played. No....I’m not willing to concede that point just yet. I will admit that you could stick in some counter bible to make the opposite point, as you have already begun to do,

Counter Bible? What's that?

and as can be done with nearly any bible topic....but no. I will argue my case further.

Not sure how, considering that the Bible says killing people who should not die and keeping people alive who should not live are both wrong.

 

[Guyver]

Once again, you show your lack of knowledge on the subject.

My knowledge of the Bible is complete.

There's certainly nothing wrong with it.

Not unless disobeying Jesus is problematic. Which, apparently is commonly done among Christian type believers.

Have you forgotten that Jesus (who is God) is the one who gave Moses the laws written in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy?

Apparently you have.

I don't think he did. In Jeremiah, we find that lying scribes wrote some of the bible. Professional bible scholars have demonstrated that the OT has been edited by unnamed editors and this can be easily verified by anyone willing to do a little research.

Jesus disagreed with the Laws of Moses in several places, claiming that it wasn't to be done by Christians. Firstly, Jesus said divorce was wrong and shouldn't be done.

Secondly, he said Christians are supposed to be meek and peacemakers. He said it is the peacemakers who are the sons of God.

"Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God."

He said an eye for an eye was BS. And that should be embraced by everyone as I have already shown that the "eye for an eye" was taken directly from the Code of Hammurabi which is the oldest or one of oldest of all known laws, and it was written by the Babylonians. But, do you accept that it was Hammurabi and not God who wrote that one?

Matthew 5 Again.

"“You have heard that it was said to those [d]of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother [e]without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."

"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away."

Says the one ignoring what was written in The Law.

No, I'm actually highlighting what was written in the Law in this thread.

Considering that the passage is speaking of "fits of rage," and not "God's wrath upon the wicked, it's a necessary distinction to make.

God's wrath is not a "fit of rage." It's righteous judgment upon the wicked.

I've already agreed with you on the first point, and I disagree on the second point.

Counter Bible? What's that?

The topic of another thread? This thread is about the Law of Moses, and whether it be good or bad.

If I decide to make the thread, based on this conversation; what I will demonstrate clearly, and without controversy, is that for any given bible doctrine, the opposite or contradictory position can be offered. In other words, the bible itself says different things about the same things, almost all the time. I can show it, and there would be no reasonable arguments with respect to this fact as the bible exists currently.

 

[Jacob]

Jesus disagreed with the Laws of Moses in several places, claiming that it wasn't to be done by Christians. Firstly, Jesus said divorce was wrong and shouldn't be done.

I can tell you that Jesus did not disagree with the Law, though He may have disagreed with people's interpretation of it. It is my belief that Jesus observed and taught the Law. As for divorce he said that it is wrong except for the reason of sexual immorality, because it makes people commit adultery.

 

[Guyver]

I can tell you that Jesus did not disagree with the Law, though He may have disagreed with people's interpretation of it. It is my belief that Jesus observed and taught the Law. As for divorce he said that it is wrong except for the reason of sexual immorality, because it makes people commit adultery.

Did Jesus allow his disciples to pick food and eat it on the Sabbath?

Did Jesus himself state that it was lawful to violate the Sabbath in order to save an animal?