RedLetter Bible Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i already answered that. he wouldn't care. that's why he sent jesus to make it clear how little he cares about who fornicates who

I believe you shot up to the NT we are still talking about the OT text where
someone is put to death for not being pure on their wedding night.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i already answered that. he wouldn't care. that's why he sent jesus to make it clear how little he cares about who fornicates who

I think you need to read the NT and pay close attention to Jesus' words,
he made it clear that if you even looked at a woman lustfully it was as bad
as doing a sexual sin in your heart, He did not do away with it He made it
very clear it was what we did in our hearts that turn us to sin, even if we
actually didn't do the deeds. Wanting alone is bad enough!

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you need to read the NT and pay close attention to Jesus' words,
he made it clear that if you even looked at a woman lustfully it was as bad
as doing a sexual sin in your heart, He did not do away with it He made it
very clear it was what we did in our hearts that turn us to sin, even if we
actually didn't do the deeds. Wanting alone is bad enough!

yes, and what did jesus do with sins?

did he by any chance stone people for them? or did he forgive them?


that is why there is a difference between the ot and nt. that is why it is obvious god never wanted those laws and was definitely not the author

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, and what did jesus do with sins?

did he by any chance stone people for them? or did he forgive them?


that is why there is a difference between the ot and nt. that is why it is obvious god never wanted those laws and was definitely not the author

Are you going to address the question I put to you about why God would
put into the law death for those that were not pure in marriage?

You really don't understand either the OT or NT if you think that God never
wanted those laws.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Are you going to address the question I put to you about why God would
put into the law death for those that were not pure in marriage?

You really don't understand either the OT or NT if you think that God never
wanted those laws.

I JUST DID.

i have answered it for about 3 posts now, i thought each would be the last. i am beginning to think that you are either yanking my chain or you really cannot form a more complex thought.



ot law says stone the little girl
jesus says don't stone the grown woman.

what, in the name of frank, is there to talk about?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
I JUST DID.

i have answered it for about 3 posts now, i thought each would be the last. i am beginning to think that you are either yanking my chain or you really cannot form a more complex thought.



ot law says stone the little girl
jesus says don't stone the grown woman.

what, in the name of frank, is there to talk about?

The text talks about a young girl they would still be living with their father
in their fathers home, little girl would imply a child, stick with the text!

I've asked why that God would put that in the text, not that its there! What
reason, what does it do, or prevent! I'm not attempting to jerk your chain
or insult you.

Logic, was what people were going on about so lets apply some! If this were
all just man made, why would he limit himself with marriage and all the
rules that go with it? Wouldn't any man who wanted a woman just want to
be able to take her without being killed?

Marriage puts walls up, protections! If the law holds man to those rules it
greatly hinders him from just doing what he wants when he wants. God on
the other hand even before the fall put up rules and introduced marriage.
Why, if man did it would he, and if God did it would He?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

little girls were to be stoned to death on the accusation of a man alone.

I think if you can manage to read the chapter a bit more objectively, you should see that on pure accusation alone of one man, there were protections from hastily executing the woman.

So your "on the accusation of a man alone" is simply an emotional over generalization ignoring the details of the procedure. Your doing argument by hysteria.

and you call it righteous?

Yes, for a specific theocratic nation with a special mission who has just witnessed the supernatural interaction of God in history.


But for some reason when I decided that I wanted to follow Jesus Christ according to the New Testament, it never was a concern to me that I might be called on to join a stoning party.

Are you concerned that if you become a Christian of the new covenant you might have to participate in the stoning of a young woman to fulfill a religious duty ?

" I may not like everything I read about these laws."
yes, it means you are a coward as well as a psychopath.

No, I think I have exercised courage in the Lord to be completely identified with the Bible, Christ and the church. The EASY way out would have been to become a hysterical, disgruntled, perpetual skeptic much like you, who cannot seem to read the Bible carefully.

It would have been much easier over the years to paint a permanent scowl on my face like Chris Hitchens or Richard Dawkins and run in cowardice away from confronting the character of Jesus Christ.


And we disciples of Jesus have been pre-warned by Jesus that the world that hates Christ will hate us also. We expect to be called names and despised by some people.


Are you a man or a woman ? Curious.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
I JUST DID.

i have answered it for about 3 posts now, i thought each would be the last. i am beginning to think that you are either yanking my chain or you really cannot form a more complex thought.



ot law says stone the little girl
jesus says don't stone the grown woman.

what, in the name of frank, is there to talk about?

All your references to "little girl" I take a just emotive red herrings.

And I think its time for you to answer my question.
Are you concerned that if you become a disciple of Jesus you will be called upon to participate in a stoning ?

Originally posted by sonship
I think if you can manage to read the chapter a bit more objectively, you should see that on pure accusation alone of one man, there were protections from hastily executing the woman.

I don't know why this keeps coming up. Lets assume that the accusations were always valid and the girl in question (woman if you like) was guilty.
Was death a reasonable punishment for the crime?
Why is death no longer a reasonable punishment for the crime?
Why is it no longer even considered a crime? (At least in many parts of the world).

In the genuine and sole (one time in history) theocratic nation who received their laws directly from God, God established a testimony. This testimony included the utter seriousness of sinning and the penalties that they deserved.

While the moralily of the law was not abolished by Christ, the ordinances related to specifics acts were abolished.

Said another way, the morality of the law was even made more penetrating, more relevant, and uplifted in standard. But ordinances or ritualistic procedures prescribed were abolished in Christ.


Here a couple of examples:

'You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)

'You have heard that is was said to the ancients, "You shall not murder, and whoever murders shall be liable to the judgment."

But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to the judgment. And whoever says to his brother Raca, shall be liable to the judgment of the Sanhedrin; and who ever says Moreh, shall be liable to the Gehenna of fire.' (Matt. 5:22)

Jesus was saying in essence that in the ancient times under the law of Moses you had a prohibition to this action and a certain prescribed punishment. But He comes with a even higher demand. Forget about murder. God is examining even your words of contempt, your abuse, your angry insulting and depriving dignity of your fellow man.

In the past you had probitions against ADULTERY and related punishements. But now even the motive of such a sin in its inception, in its "embryonic" beginnings in the imagination are under God's penetrating observation.

Let alone the action must be stemmed. Even you must yield your innermost being to God that the motive of such as sin is checked.

This requires another Perfect Life to blend and enter into our own life in regeneration.

Now the divinely prescribed ordinances and penalties of the crimes Christ abolished in His going to the cross to die for all of us.

"Abolishing in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinances, that He might create the two [Jew and Gentile] into one new man making peace." (Eph. 2:15)

Christ did not abolish the morality of the law of Moses.
Christ did abolish the law of "commandments in ordinances."

The Morality He heightened, made even more demanding, made more penetrating beyond the action down to the innermost motive and inclination.

The penalties in ordinances commanded by God and given to Moses, He abolished in His death as payment for all the sins of the world before God forever.

This is a brief post and not a chapter or a book.

Now civil laws of society still go on.
And not all of them, and thankfully, are as demanding as what God designated to the Israelites as the one and only genuinely theocratic government ever to exist on earth.

When David had committed a certain sin God sent a prophet to David giving him a choice of three punishments to choose from.

David was to select ONE of the punishments as a consequence of his sin. David, being an Israelite under the law of Moses replied -

"Let me fall into the hands of the Lord, because He is merciful. But don't let me fall into the hands of man."

First Chronicles 21:13 comp. Second Samuel 24:14

David knew that men can pervert justice. Men can go too far. Men can be opportunistic. Men can use the excuse of wrong doing to advance their own no better selfish agenda.

As harsh as he knew some of the laws of Moses were, he preferred to be subject to God rather than to be subject to man.

In essence his attitude was - "If God punishes me at least I know that it will be fair." Or he knew that the chances of receiving mercy were greater.

Originally posted by sonship
When David had committed a certain sin God sent a prophet to David giving him a choice of three punishments to choose from.

David was to select ONE of the punishments as a consequence of his sin. David, being an Israelite under the law of Moses replied -

[b]"Let me fall into the hands of the Lord, because He is merciful. But don't let me fall into th ...[text shortened]... least I know that it will be fair." Or he knew that the chances of receiving mercy were greater.

I agree with this and if I'm not mistaken there are times God rebukes us
for going to far in our judgments and ;punishments as well.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree with this and if I'm not mistaken there are times God rebukes us
for going to far in our judgments and ;punishments as well.

Absolutely.

We see this in the prophets' rebuke of the nations which God even used to discipline Israel.

One of the best places I notice this is with the whole story of David's general Joab. Sometime read the stories about Joab. You will see he was very faithful to David, yet selectively and oppurtunistically.

In the end of his life he died without mercy. For in his selective piety, he showed no mercy.

The aged David remembered Joab's selective, agenda driven dedication to David's throne. And he instructed Solomon -

First Kings 2:6

New American Standard Bible
"So act according to your wisdom, and do not let his gray hair go down to Sheol in peace.

King James Bible
Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace.

The old man clung to the horns of the altar, the place to beg for mercy. Solomon had his soldiers drag him from there and slew him with the sword.

God was not ignorant when some Israelites applied their piety selectively with an evil self serving agenda.

Originally posted by sonship
Now civil laws of society still go on.
And not all of them, and thankfully, are as demanding as what God designated to the Israelites as the one and only genuinely theocratic government ever to exist on earth.

Thankfully? Why? You disagree with Gods laws?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thankfully? Why? You disagree with Gods laws?

As to the question of do I disagree with God's laws.

The answer is yes, sometimes.
Otherwise I would not need salvation through Christ.

As I look back over my life and the sins I have committed, I have to come to the conclusion that on many occasions in my behavior I apparently disagreed with the law of God.

I have however, also, come to the realization that God Himself and God's law is righteous and I am a sinner in need of redemption from the guilt of sin and salvation from the power of sin.

But to the essence of your question - Am I thankful that I am not living in the theocratic nation of Israel in the Old Testament, but am rather living in a nation largly influenced by the Judea/Christian ethics ?

Yes I am glad I am a person living in the civil law system under a significant amount of influence from Judeo/Christian ethics rather than living in Israel during the time of Moses and Joshua or even Jesus of Nazareth.

But I would hasten to add that even that has considerable tradeoffs which make it something to contemplate. As long as God granted me revelation, I don't care which I live in.

Anyway, preference aside, what I am is a Christian disciple of Jesus Christ living under the grace of God, indwelt with the Holy Spirit. By God's sovereignty that is where I am. And I hope to make the best of it.