If Christ was reborn in 1600

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I see. So, it is correct when witnessing a woman being stoned for adultery to think that it is proper to sit idly by and await consultation?

Were they within the law?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Christ had political ambitions? Now there's a fact that doesn't often come out! 😛

...riddled as it was, not He.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Were they within the law?

Yes. Are we to infer from Jesus' thinking that all laws are correct in virtue of being laws, including a law that holds that an adulteress ought to be stoned to death?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Yes. Are we to infer from Jesus' thinking that all laws are correct in virtue of being laws?

The law from God was not given trivially.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The law from God was not given trivially.

Was that law that an adulteress ought to be stoned to death given from God?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
...riddled as it was, not He.

Ys, but re-read it. "it" could refer to Christ's agenda.

How could he be reborn when he is still alive?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
He stuck up for the adulteress.

You really think he would have let them -- those purporting to be his alleged Rock, acting in his name -- have at Copernicus?

If the Christians are correct and there is a God, then yes he did "let them acting in his name have at Copernicus". Why would he need to be reborn to do something about it? Jesus in his life time (according to the Bible that is) did not attempt to right many "wrongs" here on earth, but rather took that stance that your rewards in heaven would counteract any suffering experienced down here.
This leads us to a major philosophical flaw in Christian theology. If a rightious person suffers and God allows it to happen then there are two possibilities:
1. The suffering is a 'good' thing, either because it will some how benefit the person, or it 'prooves' to God how righteous the person is, or for some other reason.
2. It is a bad thing but God just goes ahead and allows it. (Meaning that he is not as benevolent as some claim.
If 1. is true then why is it then sin for another person to make the righteous suffer? Surely you are actually doing Gods will?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Would he have stuck up for Copernicus and been burnt at the stake?

He would have had to contend with Pharisees then as then.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Was that law that an adulteress ought to be stoned to death given from God?

Was that a trick question?

Leviticus 20:10
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Originally posted by twhitehead
If the Christians are correct and there is a God, then yes he did "let them acting in his name have at Copernicus". Why would he need to be reborn to do something about it? Jesus in his life time (according to the Bible that is) did not attempt to right many "wrongs" here on earth, but rather took that stance that your rewards in heaven would counteract a ...[text shortened]... or another person to make the righteous suffer? Surely you are actually doing Gods will?

This leads us to a major philosophical flaw in Christian theology.
As long as one cannot adjust one's mind to the reality of the co-existence of the will of man with the sovereignty of God, the equation breaks down right out of the gate.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As long as one cannot adjust one's mind to the reality of the co-existence of the will of man with the sovereignty of God, the equation breaks down right out of the gate.

It appear my mind is unadjustable because I really cant see how 'the will of man' or 'the sovereignty of God' (whatever that may mean) can change the situation.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
He would have had to contend with Pharisees then as then.

It's nice to see someone getting close to the point.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Was that a trick question?

Leviticus 20:10
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

So you would support the death penalty for affairs, then?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It appear my mind is unadjustable because I really cant see how 'the will of man' or 'the sovereignty of God' (whatever that may mean) can change the situation.

The sovereignty of God is simple enough, but one must consider the fact that He 'yields' to a degree to the will of man. He has made man with a sovereign will of limited scope, in the image of Him. He respects that will while never compromising His own.