Oddly, Jesus never stated anything about a new covenant that would mean the end of the obligation to follow Mosaic Law
Yes He did. Matthew 9:14-17, Mark 2:18-22, and Luke 5:33-39 all speak of Jesus' parable about this very topic.
Matthew 5:17-48 is a passage dealing more specifically with the differences between the old and new convenants.
(past, present, and future),
...of course that makes a mess of the rest of your argument.
I don't see how at all. Can you tell me exactly how that messes up the rest of the argument?
He let them know that the sabbath was not meant to be a burden on man.
So the writers of the Old Testament got it all wrong and God omitted to correct it for hundreds of years causing untold numbers of unjust deaths?
No. The Pharisees got it all wrong when they started adding frivolous rules and regulations that made keeping the Sabbath a conscious effort, instead of simply resting from work to spend time with God. The Holy Spirit never intended that these insane regulations would come about when He inspired the writers of the Old Testament (that's not to say He didn't know it would happen, just that it wasn't His will).
You have carefully avoided answering the questions. I wonder if that is deliberate.
I assure you, if I have neglected to fully clarify my answers, there was no intention of evading the question.
The first question is not whether it is necessary to follow the law but whether it is OK to carry out the prescribed punishments.
No. I honestly thought I had made that answer clear in my previous explanation, but apparently I haven't. Since Jesus would pay the penalty for our sins and forgive us of them, He commanded us to do the same. No man can condemn one whom God does not condemn. "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." (John 8:34).
The second question is addressing your claim "But still, what God said was wrong then is still wrong now." which you have now contradicted and admitted that some formerly wrong things are no-longer wrong.
I don't believe I did any such thing. What did I say was wrong and isn't wrong anymore?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't think that's always the case, though I'm sure it's often so. And it brings up an excellent point: I've heard many a Christian say that prayed for the strength to forgive another who had wronged them and, as you say, part of that prayer was for the other to "see the error of their ways" and stop whatever actions were applicable. This is hardly a perfect scenario for the commandment in the Lord's Prayer, but it's certainly better than revenge or seething in a cauldron of grudge, right?
And at the heart of 'forgiving' ones enemies is the implicit claim that ones enemy is 'wrong' and a refusal to admit ones own failings.
Originally posted by PinkFloydI am not sure where you got 'forgive your enemy' from. I thought that Jesus taught that one should love ones neighbor (and possibly love ones enemy - I am not sure if he taught that).
I don't think that's always the case, though I'm sure it's often so. And it brings up an excellent point: I've heard many a Christian say that prayed for the strength to forgive another who had wronged them and, as you say, part of that prayer was for the other to "see the error of their ways" and stop whatever actions were applicable. This is hardly a ...[text shortened]... yer, but it's certainly better than revenge or seething in a cauldron of grudge, right?
But you mentioned the Lords prayer which I always thought said "as we forgive them that trespass against us". Just because someone trespasses against you it doesn't make them your enemy. In fact forgiveness of their trespasses should help to resolve your differences. And as mentioned earlier your enemies have not necessarily trespassed against you.
I certainly don't know where you got "see the error of their ways" from.
Originally posted by JirakonMatthew 9;14-17 is pretty ambiguous and says nothing about overthrowing Mosaic Law. In general, fasting does not seem to be required by any Mosaic Law that I know of. It is odd that Jesus personally followed the requirements of Mosaic Law if he thought that it should be tossed aside.
Oddly, Jesus never stated anything about a new covenant that would mean the end of the obligation to follow Mosaic Law
Yes He did. Matthew 9:14-17, Mark 2:18-22, and Luke 5:33-39 all speak of Jesus' parable about this very topic.
Matthew 5:17-48 is a passage dealing more specifically with the differences between the old and new convenants.
[ ...[text shortened]... on't believe I did any such thing. What did I say was wrong and isn't wrong anymore?
I find nothing in Matthew 5:17-48 that says the Commandments are no longer in force; if anything Jesus is making their application even stricter.
Originally posted by JirakonI must save that for next time there is a discussion of Omnipotence / Omniscience etc.
The Holy Spirit never intended that these insane regulations would come about when He inspired the writers of the Old Testament (that's not to say He didn't know it would happen, just that it wasn't His will).
Gods powers of inspiration are clearly not all they are made out to be.
Now I wonder what he really intended when he inspired the gospel writers.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo--if someone is your enemy, then in some way thay have "tresspassed against you." They might have libeled you, hit you, insulted your family name, or cut you off in traffic. But tresspass is an all-encompassing word.
I am not sure where you got 'forgive your enemy' from. I thought that Jesus taught that one should love ones neighbor (and possibly love ones enemy - I am not sure if he taught that).
But you mentioned the Lords prayer which I always thought said "as we forgive them that trespass against us". Just because someone trespasses against you it doesn't make th ...[text shortened]... d against you.
I certainly don't know where you got "see the error of their ways" from.
Originally posted by PinkFloydOnly if you take trespass to include 'have what I covet'.
No--if someone is your enemy, then in some way thay have "tresspassed against you." They might have libeled you, hit you, insulted your family name, or cut you off in traffic. But tresspass is an all-encompassing word.
If you see someone with something you want and you decide to take it by force, he is your enemy even before he has committed any action of any kind.
In other words enemies can be created by your own trespass as well as theirs or even by simple misunderstanding or prejudice.
For example a racist might see any black person as 'the enemy'. Should a racist Christian then forgive the person for being black?
Also as I said before, someone who trespasses against you is not immediately accurately described as your enemy. Is your brother/sister your enemy? Your spouse?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI would say the racist first beeds God's forgiveness for being racist; THEN he can see clearly if indeed the black man is his enemy, or if it was his own sin blinding him. I think that's why Christ has us ask for the Father for forgiveness FIRST in the Lord's Prayer.
Only if you take trespass to include 'have what I covet'.
If you see someone with something you want and you decide to take it by force, he is your enemy even before he has committed any action of any kind.
In other words enemies can be created by your own trespass as well as theirs or even by simple misunderstanding or prejudice.
For example a ra ...[text shortened]... ediately accurately described as your enemy. Is your brother/sister your enemy? Your spouse?
Again, your ptayer to be forgiven first supercedes your prayer of forgiving others. Once God opens your eyes to conetness, you can see the man is not your enemy--unless some other dynamic is in play.
All of those people can be your enemy at some point--mine has for certain. And I pray the same way--for God to forgive me and to open my eyes to the truth; and then for strength to forgive them, and open their eyes as well.
Originally posted by PinkFloydSo now there are 'True enemies' and 'imagined enemies' who are not really your enemy but you just think they are. Also I just don't really understand why you insist on calling anyone who trespasses against you your enemy. The Lords prayer I learnt said nothing about enemies but said "forgive those who trespass against you".
I would say the racist first beeds God's forgiveness for being racist; THEN he can see clearly if indeed the black man is his enemy, or if it was his own sin blinding him. I think that's why Christ has us ask for the Father for forgiveness FIRST in the Lord's Prayer.
Again, your ptayer to be forgiven first supercedes your prayer of forgiving others. ...[text shortened]... pen my eyes to the truth; and then for strength to forgive them, and open their eyes as well.
Do you have a different version?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI would think our versions are the same; our discernment and understanding of the passage(s) are what differs. But that's okay; Christians differ on doctrinal points all the time. It doesn't mean one is going to heaven and the other hell. A wise preacher once told me that we are saved by grace, not "by grace and perfect doctrine". Since I am a fallable human being who does NOT know all the nuances and every tenet of the faith, no matter how obscure, I take great comfort in that.
So now there are 'True enemies' and 'imagined enemies' who are not really your enemy but you just think they are. Also I just don't really understand why you insist on calling anyone who trespasses against you your enemy. The Lords prayer I learnt said nothing about enemies but said "forgive those who trespass against you".
Do you have a different version?