The post that was quoted here has been removedThis is a typical Islamic belief, they believe heavily in fate. Thus it was fated that the women should survive.
The verse that you cite is not binding on Christians, it was part of the Mosiac law, binding exclusively upon Jews. Many persons, even some Christians don't understand the relationship between the Jewish system of things and how it relates to Christianity. This can be for a number of reasons, a preoccupation with the Greek text at the expense of the Hebrew, a lack of knowledge of both, a rejection of Paul (without Paul we would not know how they relate).
Two excellent books which explore the relationship thoroughly are , 'the life and times of the messiah' and 'temple - its ministry and services', both authored by a Jewish convert to Christianity, Alfred Edersheim
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, he really didn't. He said "cast the first stone", meaning that he left that woman's fate up to those men. Had those men not felt conscience-stricken, that woman would be dead. Nowhere did Jesus ever condemn such OT practices.
That was under the Old Covenant and the law of Moses. Christ Jesus brought a New Covenant and the law of liberty.
http://www.letusreason.org/7thAd16.htm
31 Jan 15
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedWhat was the point of the long post about the IS mentalists? Why not just ask:
As a general question to the Christians here, would you radically change any
of your now deeply held attitudes or practices if you happened to observe
an astonishing event that you construed as evidence of God's will in action?
The IS cleric who intervened was not changing any if his "deeply held beliefs" he was practicing them.
31 Jan 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat is your take on Matthew 5?
This is a typical Islamic belief, they believe heavily in fate. Thus it was fated that the women should survive.
The verse that you cite is not binding on Christians, it was part of the Mosiac law, binding exclusively upon Jews. Many persons, even some Christians don't understand the relationship between the Jewish system of things and how it rel ...[text shortened]... its ministry and services', both authored by a Jewish convert to Christianity, Alfred Edersheim
31 Jan 15
Originally posted by divegeesterI was thinking more about Matthew 5:17-20, which states:
He may have the courage to outright tell you that JWs believe those beatitudes are aimed directly at them and them only.
17 Don't suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning. 18 Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen.
19 If you reject even the least important command in the Law and teach others to do the same, you will be the least important person in the kingdom of heaven. But if you obey and teach others its commands, you will have an important place in the kingdom. 20 You must obey God's commands better than the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law obey them. If you don't, I promise you that you will never get into the kingdom of heaven.
This appears to be at odds with robbie's suggestion that the Mosaic Law ought no longer to be valid.
31 Jan 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't think so. It is important not to confuse the law with the punishment itself. Under mosaic law we have all transgressed and that never changes, what changes in the new convenant is the sacrifice is now perfect and covers that transgression. I'm not entirely clear on OT though and I don't understand how some sins were covered by animal sacrifice but others demanded the death penalty.
I was thinking more about Matthew 5:17-20, which states:
17 Don't suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning. 18 Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must h ...[text shortened]... appears to be at odds with robbie's suggestion that the Mosaic Law ought no longer to be valid.
As a Christian myself I hold to mercy, love and the redeeming work of Christ. Others here like RJHinds (famously), Grampy bobby, lemon lime, josephw, sonship (famously) et al hold to burning people in an eternal furnace, which kind of makes a mockery of the sacrifice of Christ,
31 Jan 15
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis appears to be at odds with robbie's suggestion that the Mosaic Law ought no longer to be valid
I was thinking more about Matthew 5:17-20, which states:
17 Don't suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning. 18 Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must h ...[text shortened]... appears to be at odds with robbie's suggestion that the Mosaic Law ought no longer to be valid.
Hardly!
When Christ was alive he often instructed others to obey the Law. When he healed a man of leprosy he instructed him to go and present himself to the priests, in accordance with the law.
However when Christ died and offered up his life, the Law was fulfilled because as Paul pointed out, the entire Law itself was simply 'a tutor leading towards the Christ', a mere shadow of heavenly things. All that the law did was prepare an environment conducive to the acceptance of the Christ. It made sins manifest and highlighted the need for sacrifice. However many could not grasp the spiritual significance and their worship was merely an empty ritual and they rejected the Christ.
When Christ died, the Law was fulfilled, Christians had a new high priest, a new arrangement, a heavenly one and as Paul points out, it was not possible for animal sacrifices to make atonement for sin and what had been lost, a perfect human life in the form of Adam, that was why they were being offered year after year.
After the sacrifice of the Christ however, all of that changed. The temple was not earthly it was heavenly, sacrifice was no longer needed, neither was the law because there was a more perfect law in place, the law of the Christ with its basis not on formal ritual, but on conscience.
However while Christ was alive the law was still operative and that is why he directs others to keep it. Thus there is no incongruity with what I have said and the actions of the Christ while he was still alive.