A Brute Fact ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. I want you to explain how you know which assembly is being referred to. Right now, you seem to be just guessing - or making it up. The quote says nothing whatsoever about the Jewish community. You are being illogical.

No. I want you to explain how you know which assembly is being referred to. Right now, you seem to be just guessing - or making it up.

I am guessing, but you know. Every Bible scholar is guessing but you know. And you don't have an ego problem?

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/24-16.htm

"which is to be inflicted upon the criminal by the Jewish community."

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I am guessing, but you know. Every Bible scholar is guessing but you know. And you don't have an ego problem?

Are you having trouble explaining it? What does my 'ego problem' have to do with your failure to explain it? What does 'every Bible scholar' have to do with your failure to explain it? If you are not guessing, then where does it come from. It is not in the quote I gave. Where is it?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Since we disagree on who the 'assembly' in this case is shall we call in a neutral 3rd party to help resolve the issue? 😵

'Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.'
(Numbers 15:35-36)

Are you also not part of the congregation?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you having trouble explaining it? What does my 'ego problem' have to do with your failure to explain it? What does 'every Bible scholar' have to do with your failure to explain it? If you are not guessing, then where does it come from. It is not in the quote I gave. Where is it?

Trouble explaining what? I told you that I don't see myself being part of the Jewish community. The instruction you quoted was aimed at the Jewish community in Leviticus. Do you deny that? If so on what basis?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Trouble explaining what? I told you that I don't see myself being part of the Jewish community.

But you haven't explained why you think being part of the Jewish community has anything to do with it. The instruction I quoted says nothing whatsoever about the Jewish community.

The instruction you quoted was aimed at the Jewish community in Leviticus. Do you deny that? If so on what basis?
I deny it on the basis that nothing to that effect is mentioned in the text I quoted. Earlier in the thread you made a claim about a statement - regardless of context -suggesting that context does not change the meaning of statements. You must either admit that you were wrong, and context does matter, or you must give your answer - regardless of context.

[edit]
In addition, you also said "I am not not going to waste any more time on you.". That you are still posting is in direct contradiction to that statement you made. Clearly you have contradicted yourself in this thread. Will you admit that you contradicted yourself?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you haven't explained why you think being part of the Jewish community has anything to do with it. The instruction I quoted says nothing whatsoever about the Jewish community.

[b]The instruction you quoted was aimed at the Jewish community in Leviticus. Do you deny that? If so on what basis?
I deny it on the basis that nothing to that effect i ...[text shortened]... ly you have contradicted yourself in this thread. Will you admit that you contradicted yourself?[/b]

The English name is from the Latin Leviticus, taken in turn from Greek and a reference to the Levites, the tribe of Aaron, from whom the Kohanim "priests" descended. The book, however, addresses all the people of Israel (1:2) though some passages address the priests specifically (6:8). Most of its chapters (1–7, 11–27) consist of God's speeches to Moses which he is commanded to repeat to the Israelites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus

Do you disagree with wikipedia?

I am not an Israelite. I should know. 😵

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The book, however, addresses all the people of Israel (1:2)

What are you doing referencing material outside my quote? What does that have to do with it? Or do you think context matters?
If context does matter, do you recall what the context was in which I originally quoted the verse?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke

'Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.'
(Numbers 15:35-36)

The man was worthy of death. Especially since such a one had most likely been an eyewitness of the acts of God in His deliverance from Egypt. The generation to see God's divine deliverance in the ten plagues and opening of the Red Sea really had little excuse to disbelieve God.

So the penalty to that congregation was stringent. Of course to the Hebrews were also instituted various offerings and sacrifices for sins, like the sin offering, the trespass offering, the peace offering. It is hard for me to see that these ordained offerings for offenses could never be appealed to for sins which were worthy of sore punishment.

These various ordained offerings mostly were symbols pointing to the all-encompassing redemption of Christ to take place for all sinners.

So the man was worthy of death and i too am worthy of death according to the New Testament for things I have done too. You too. Here the Apostle Paul gives a representative (not exhaustive) list of sins which make us worthy of death:

" ... God them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things which are not fitting,

Being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, slanderers, hateful to God, insolent, arrogant, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, senseless, faithless, affectionless, merciless;

Who though fully knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but also have fellow delight in those who practice them." (Romans 1:28b-32)

This is a representative list of sins which renders sinners like you and I "worthy of death".

Sin is an abomination to God. And we do not take it seriously usually. When this passage says "not only do them, but also have fellow delight in those who practice them" I often think of modern entertainment of movies, TV, music, novels, comics. and video games, etc. We "have fellow delight" often in being entertained by portrayals of these abominations.

So Numbers like much of the other books about the theocratic nation of the Hebrews, does reveal the hatred of God for sin. But upon this backround all the more we should appreciate the atoning redemptive act of Jesus the Son of God, in His love to save all sinners.

I suppose perhaps you want to know why there is not a First Church of Stoning somewhere in your town where Sabbath breakers are executed by present day Christians. It should be noticed that Jesus went out of His way to do things on the Sabbath that manifested His Father's glory. Something MORE and something DEEPER God wanted to reveal.

My Bible doesn't end with the book of Numbers in the progressive revelation of God's heart and His will to accomplish His eternal purpose.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What are you doing referencing material outside my quote? What does that have to do with it? Or do you think context matters?
If context does matter, do you recall what the context was in which I originally quoted the verse?

Context matters for relevance, yes. How was this supposed to prove that facts are not true?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Context matters for relevance, yes. How was this supposed to prove that facts are not true?

The only reason I brought up that verse - as you well know - is because you refused to look at context and claimed that something you said was so - regardless of context.
So are you admitting that you were wrong?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The only reason I brought up that verse - as you well know - is because you refused to look at context and claimed that something you said was so - regardless of context.
So are you admitting that you were wrong?

A fact is something that is true, that is what I said. Context may change the relevance but it is still true. This does not in anyway support your claim that a fact that is true in one context may be 'not true' in a different context. It may change the relevance but the true element is still there.

Are you going to give me a factual (true) example of a fact that is not true? I guess not.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
A fact is something that is true, that is what I said.

But the context in which the Bible quote came up was not about what you said, it was about what I said, and you claimed I had contradicted myself but refused to take into account the context in which I said things. You even ignored the fact that I was quoting a dictionary and instead claimed I had made the statement which was in the dictionary quote.

So, are you going to admit you were wrong?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Are you going to give me a factual (true) example of a fact that is not true? I guess not.

When you have to load questions, you know you have lost. 🙂

Have you yet been able to convince sonship that he isn't true?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But the context in which the Bible quote came up was not about what you said, it was about what I said, and you claimed I had contradicted myself but refused to take into account the context in which I said things. You even ignored the fact that I was quoting a dictionary and instead claimed I had made the statement which was in the dictionary quote.

So, are you going to admit you were wrong?

You said "facts are not true". The context was you were replying to my comment where I said "facts are known to be true." I quoted a text to support my argument. You said my source "sucked" and quoted your own source to try and support your argument. In that context you were wrong because your text supported my argument and not yours.

Originally posted by twhitehead
When you have to load questions, you know you have lost. 🙂

Have you yet been able to convince sonship that he isn't true?

His existence is a fact and it is true. This supports my argument that facts are true. Not yours that facts are not true.