It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Jesus' Teachings Abolish the Old Testament Laws?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by miriam0566
 
This seems too simplistic to me. There was more than one purpose or use of the Law. Just because there is one of them eliminated does not mean the law itself is eliminated.



was adam given the law? no. he was given one commandment. one.

perfect humans dont need to be told not to kill,or not to lie, it doesnt even cross their minds. it wasnt until after adam broke the one commandment that he had that the direction the law provided even became necessary.

through jesus, we can see what a perfect human is by example. a person who loves and follows god because it come naturally to him.

its by his sacrifice that we are saved. not by works.

but in the future that will change, right now jesus is focused on establishing his millennial reign. this has already started, but will be in full force when jesus' enemies (most of them) are destroyed at armageddon.

after armageddon, something changes. revelation talks about trees whose fruit heals the nations. humankind will have the opportunity to become perfect, literally free from sin. that means accountable for our actions.

rev 20:[12] And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
[13] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

what is the book it speaks of? we dont know, it hasnt been opened yet. but we do know we will be judged according to the things in that book. likely this will be a new law.

the first law was to condemn us. jesus' law was to save us. this new law is to restore us.

yes, jmdeway. it is that simple




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

what is the book it speaks of? we dont know, it hasnt been opened yet. but we do know we will be judged according to the things in that book. likely this will be a new law.
In this case it is just a record. Once they are opened in this situation, they become exhibits of a court proceeding.
I am not a defender of all the laws being in force. The tabernacle was modeled after the one in heaven, and was meant to develop proper respect for the holiness of God. There were things that signified Christ and his ministry. So, now, these are relegated to history as something that pre-figured Christ and do not belong in the present as something to recreate, as something to actually carry out.
The Ten Commandments were obviously distinct from the rest by being spoken by God and written in stone and set in a gold covered box. This is to show its importance and everlasting nature. The basics of the Ten Commandments was reiterated by Jesus. They will be the standard that men will be measured against in the judgment.

its by his sacrifice that we are saved. not by works.
Those who do not avail themselves of it will be judged by their works.
My advice to anyone who finds themselves resurrected and brought up for judgment, claim the blood of Jesus. Defending yourself will not do any good at this point.





[edit on 30-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
In this case it is just a record. Once they are opened in this situation, they become exhibits of a court proceeding.


rom 6:[23a] For the wages of sin is death;

eccl 9:[5] For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
[6] Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

so let me get this straight. a man sins, and as a result is to die. his death pays for the sins he has committed, so he no longer has any debt.

now god is going to resurrect him, and then judge him on the sins that he has already paid for?

if thats the case, why is it books and not book?



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
every "law", because the law was no longer needed.

the mosaic law was set up so that man would understand the need for a saviour. man is imperfect, and they would have forgot that if they didnt have a standard to compare it too. if you want prove of this, just look at people today who live outside bible principles. "to err is to be human" as if it is only natural. "i am made the way god wanted me to be" they say to excuse personality flaws.

the mosaic law was to be a burden

gal 3:[13] Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

paul is quoting deuteronomy

21:[22] And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
[23] His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God
that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

why is paul quoting deuteronomy? because the mosaic law condemns us to death. nobody can follow the law perfectly and therefore we all die.

it does not matter if you are mother theresa or ghandi or adolf hitler, we all grow old and die.

this is why paul said -

romans 5:[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
[13] (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
[14] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

the law makes us aware of our sin. that is its purpose. this is also why the law bore heavily the requirements of sacrifice. it shows us that we cant redeem ourselves but actually needed a saviour.


Jesus made a difference between the laws of god, and the laws of men. The laws where it tells people to go do things, such as the examples you give are the laws and tradition of men. They came from misunderstandings of the proper way to follow the commandments. They thought that they were doing god's work when they killed the man who killed. But as Jesus points out, they were simply hypocrites. Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord. It is not their place to carry out the punishment.

So he brings understanding on what laws are the laws of men, and what are the laws of god. The laws of men are not valid, that is what you listed above. I guess we are in agreement as far as those go.

But I don't think they were valid to begin with. So I guess that is where our argument stems from. They were misunderstood, and Jesus shows the obvious errors in them, hypocrisy and so forth. So he doesn't change or abolish the law, but brings understanding.

Because when it comes to "thou shall not kill, steal, lie" and so on, those laws are still valid. Those are the laws of gods, and they are sound in reason and understanding. They can all be derived from the 2 rules Jesus gives to understand how to derive all rules from. love one another as thyself and love god. And so, thou shall no kill, steal, lie and so on break that, you can understand it and so it is a law of god. But the example you give you can see that it does not follow that. It is a law of men.



the animal sacrifices were to show us what was to come. animals are not worth human blood so no amount of animal sacrifice could redeem even one man, but they were symbolic of the ransom that was to be paid.

when jesus died, the ransom was paid soon after in the "spiritual temple". so if the law was to condemn us and jesus freed us from condemnation, then what need was there for the law?


This I completely disagree with. He brings understanding and is an example of how to walk the correct path. It is by following his example and walking that path that one is saved. Animal sacrifices were just another example of people not having a proper understanding, and that is what Jesus gives by fulfilling the law. Thus, why he is "the way".

A ransom? God doesn't have to pay a ransom. If he wanted to just forgive people, then he doesn't need to pay a ransom to do it, and he doesn't need to kill himself or his son in order to do it. However, the grace of Jesus would be that he is not full of sin and errors, so he doesn't have to be here. He knows full well what men will do in their sin to him, but he does it anyway just to be an example for people to follow. So that maybe you would see and understand and walk that same path.

So you have a bunch of people who are hypocrites, evil and don't understand how to live by the commandments and be part of a peaceful society. And then in order to show them the proper way to do that, and the proper way to live by the laws, Jesus comes and fulfills the law. So that by his example people will no longer be hypocrites, will no longer do evil things, and fix their mistakes, otherwise known as repent for sins. repent = fix, sin = mistakes. Fix your mistakes. And by his example you have the correct way of doing that.

But instead I'm too believe in ritualistic ideas like sacrifice and such? And that by washing in his blood I can be saved? Drop myself into some water in front of men in a ceremony to be baptized? Such is ritualistic. Not interested.



the problem is that advocates for christians under mosaic law get "standards" and "laws" mixed up. someone says that we arent under the law and they flip out thinking that means we can go on this killing spree.

thats not what it means. killing for example was not ok back then nor is it now. the standards are still there and they are summed up by the 2 commandments jesus outlined.

however the formalities and traditions of the law were no longer needed. christians were no longer required to make sacrifices, or observe the sabbath, or abstain from certain foods. the covenant GOD made with the isrealites was finished. jesus made a new covenant.

instead of worshipping god through tradition and ignorance, now they worshipped him in spirit and in truth.

john 4:[22] Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
[23] But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


I think our disagreements on the law is pretty minor. I just don't see them as ever having been valid, nor do I believe that those who followed the law in such a way were truly those who represent what it was about. It's like Evangelical Christians do not really represent all Christians etc. I would call those people Pharisees. They were hypocrites who used the laws and interpretations for power and corruption. While I am sure many people follow it in the time of Jesus in a bad way, I doubt all did. And I would say it was those who didn't who were right all along and following properly. Jesus goes to sinners where he is needed to be an example to them.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


so let me get this straight. a man sins, and as a result is to die. his death pays for the sins he has committed, so he no longer has any debt.
Eternal death, and there is no payment, just punishment.

now god is going to resurrect him, and then judge him on the sins that he has already paid for?
If he is resurrected in the second resurrection, he was already deemed not worthy of being part of the first resurrection. So, in a sense, he has already been judged. In respect of actual justice, there are normal proceedings and evidence is allowed. Of course it is a forgone conclusion at this point. Again, the punishment is eternal death, and apparently that person did not accept the payment that was made for him by Jesus. There is no payment possible by the sinner because he has nothing to offer. The perfect Jesus did, but was at some point rejected as un-necessary by the person in this situation.

if thats the case, why is it books and not book?

There is a book of life, where all the names of the people who are covered by Jesus' blood can be found. Then there are other books with the life records of individuals. If you are not in the first book, the other books are opened and you have to stand on your own merits, which of course only condemn you.


[edit on 31-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 
If sin only affected our social interaction, then maybe there is no need for a ransom. We could have a group of people like Essenes who went around helping people and being good examples and teaching how to love your fellow man.
Sin is not just a social faux pas. It is evil and spiritual corruption that goes to the core, not just of me and you but the entire universe. Something more drastic than good example had to happen, and it was the death of God, or as we call it the Son of God, (who was also the Son of Man) to ransom, not just your sorry *ss, but all of creation.

*I do not mean literaly, you.


[edit on 31-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Jesus made a difference between the laws of god, and the laws of men. The laws where it tells people to go do things, such as the examples you give are the laws and tradition of men. They came from misunderstandings of the proper way to follow the commandments. They thought that they were doing god's work when they killed the man who killed. But as Jesus points out, they were simply hypocrites. Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord. It is not their place to carry out the punishment.


exodus 21: [1] Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
[12] He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
[15] And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
[16] And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
[17] And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
[29] But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

ok so this is sort of a random chapter i pulled out. this is god given instructions to moses. perhaps im ignorant of something but how exactly were the jews misunderstanding these
laws when they plainly say to put the offenders to death?

lev 24:16] And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he
that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

so god doesnt want people to condemn other people, yet they are clearly told to stone the offender.

im assuming that im just missing something about your statement because it doesnt entirely match up for me.


This I completely disagree with. He brings understanding and is an example of how to walk the correct path. It is by following his example and walking that path that one is saved. Animal sacrifices were just another example of people not having a proper understanding, and that is what Jesus gives by fulfilling the law. Thus, why he is "the way".


exodus: [22] And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.
[23] Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.
[24] An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

if this was a misunderstanding, please explain this to me


A ransom? God doesn't have to pay a ransom. If he wanted to just forgive people, then he doesn't need to pay a ransom to do it, and he doesn't need to kill himself or his son in order to do it. However, the grace of Jesus would be that he is not full of sin and errors, so he doesn't have to be here. He knows full well what men will do in their sin to him, but he does it anyway just to be an example for people to follow. So that maybe you would see and understand and walk that same path.


ok then,

matt 20:[28] Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

jesus' own words, can you explain to me what he meant by this?


But instead I'm too believe in ritualistic ideas like sacrifice and such? And that by washing in his blood I can be saved? Drop myself into some water in front of men in a ceremony to be baptized? Such is ritualistic. Not interested.


matt 3:[16a] And Jesus, when he was baptized,....

can you explained to me then why jesus got baptized?



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
If he is resurrected in the second resurrection, he was already deemed not worthy of being part of the first resurrection. So, in a sense, he has already been judged.


im sorry, i cant go on. im getting a headache reading these posts (seriously)



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

im sorry, i cant go on. im getting a headache reading these posts (seriously)
No pain, no gain.
That is one of these stupid sayings that might be meaningless, but I use it.
I have to break my brain a few times to get through some processes.
That post you reference did not take any pain because as badmedia would say, it is repeating what men have told me.
I realize that something about your religion does not allow for permanent death and everyone gets a second chance. There might even be verses to back it up. It seems to me that it has to do with the concept that we, the enlightened ones and Watchtower members, or whatever, will rule over the unwashed masses and teach them what we already know, thus saving them from their wrongness and eventually being as good as us.
So, in that case, the second resurrection is a learning experience, and not the opportunity for having your sentence announced before the long sleep.
Happy thoughts and so much more compassionate. The better way, I suppose. Why should we wish harm on our fellow man?
I am not trying to make fun of you and it is a good thing to take the message out to the general population. I would not try to prevent that.
Get out of Babylon! That is the message we are to spread, and if you are doing it, more power to you.
My (local) church is supposed to be stepping up the street level campaign and I should sign up. (I already put my name on the list but have not gotten an email yet. That was only a litle over a week ago)


[edit on 31-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
No pain, no gain.
That is one of these stupid sayings that might be meaningless, but I use it.


there is no point chasing the wind. its pointless. im sorry but im starting to feel that way talking to you. your going off on these circles of reasoning that make no sense.


I realize that something about your religion does not allow for permanent death and everyone gets a second chance.


like where do you get your information from? because im not sure you completely know what you are saying



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
ok so this is sort of a random chapter i pulled out. this is god given instructions to moses. perhaps im ignorant of something but how exactly were the jews misunderstanding these
laws when they plainly say to put the offenders to death?
ok then,

matt 20:[28] Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

jesus' own words, can you explain to me what he meant by this?


But instead I'm too believe in ritualistic ideas like sacrifice and such? And that by washing in his blood I can be saved? Drop myself into some water in front of men in a ceremony to be baptized? Such is ritualistic. Not interested.


matt 3:[16a] And Jesus, when he was baptized,....

can you explained to me then why jesus got baptized?



I think your questions call all be answered in Hebrews 10.



26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.


What is being forgotten is that vengence is mine saith the lord. He is the one who will do the judging, not the people. Verse 30.

Also, I think the verses before that also address sacrifice and so forth.

As far as being baptized, I think it is talking about baptized in a different manner. I can say that I have been baptized in spirit and truth, but not in a river or lake and not in ceremony.



Matthew 28

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


It's about teaching and giving them understanding. Then they are baptized and so forth. Dunking people in water, or pouring water on them is just a ritual replacement.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by badmedia]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I always thought it was interesting that it never says that Jesus ever baptized anyone himself. He had his disciples do it.
But they did, and as far as I can tell, they did do it with water.

And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

The Jews understood what he was doing as gathering disciples. Apparently they had a misconception because if they were right, Jesus would have been doing it himself.
John the Baptist said Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost. (God had told him that)

Matthew 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown:
he shall baptize you--the emphatic "He": "He it is," to the exclusion of all others, "that shall baptize you."

This did not happen until Pentecost. It should be safe to assume that anyone who received the Spirit then, would have previously received the baptism of water. Once these people did receive the Spirit, they could speak to the assembled crowd and teach them. When they heard the teaching, they were ready to go ahead and receive the baptism of repentance. Notice also that Peter used a preaching method that was aimed at making the hearers feel guilty for killing Christ.


[edit on 31-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


This goes right along with John 20, and people who think someone is able to "forgive" sins by having the holy spirit. That is again not what it means and is done out of a lack of understanding.

When one has the holy spirit, then they will be able to see, know and understand the truth. And once they have that holy spirit, then they will be able to point out the sins(mistakes) of that person, as well as show them how to fix those sins. To repent for your sins simple means to fix your mistakes.

So when you baptize someone with the holy spirit, then you are teaching them(with the holy spirit) the error in their ways, and how to fix those errors and walk the proper path.

Again these things have all been ritualized and have lost their meaning and understanding in the rituals.

It is only by the holy spirit and understanding that anything I ever say will ever help anyone. But it's not just a matter of "magic" and "ceremony". That someone can magically forgive a sin and so forth by touching you etc, is just not what is being talked about in these things.

You tell me which scenario makes more sense towards truth.

Man A has the holy spirit, touches Man B and man B is forgiven.

or

Man A has the holy spirit, is able to see the errors in Man B. Shows and teaches Man B his sins and shows him how to repent and changes his way. Man B is then forgiven as he will now walk the correct path and no longer make those mistakes.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 

It is only by the holy spirit and understanding that anything I ever say will ever help anyone.
Hopefully someone will be challenged to blow the dust off their Bibles and crack it open. Then the Holy Spirit at least has a chance.
You seem to be pulling several concepts together here. Not exactly the safe path. You apparently have some sort of self confidence that you can deal with it. Too bad you do not get many people to take up your challenges. It would be interesting to watch someone humble you, but I doubt we will see that happen. The whole thing about posting on forums seems overly daunting to most people. I have yet to find anyone I know who will dare. I am naturally argumentative by personality, so I am used to being knocked about. I can tolerate personal attacks all day long but my blood gets up when people attack Jesus. That bothers me.
So, there you have it; my criticism of your post, you just come off as sounding too smart. How dare you? The very impudence! Just be like everyone else and accept things and stop thinking for yourself! Aghhh!
Really my criticism is to the non-existent posts. I mean the people who never want to expose themselves to possible rejection, or whatever makes people not want to speak out.



[edit on 1-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 




"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -- Galileo Galilei


I also do not feel obliged to believe that god is void of such things either.



Proverbs 8

1Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?

2She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.

3She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

4Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.

5O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.

6Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.

7For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.

9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

10Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.

11For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

12I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.

13The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

14Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.

15By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.

16By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.

17I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

18Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness.

19My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver.

20I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment:

21That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.




posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
This thread is in the chitchat forum group.
That's what it says at the top of the page.
Lucky thing for us. We do not have to be all that controversial all the time.
I got a post removed from a certain "Bible" forum for the reason of being over the top sarcastic. Oops. It was pretty bad, actually. I am still waiting to see if they just go ahead and ban me altogether.
I was motivated by this thread to go over there and spread the word, so to speak. I immediately found a thread someone had started on some sort of new testament law, or a sabbath for the new testament times.
I was saying something like Yes, lets create some new laws and go back into Egypt and bondage and while we're at it, lets have a Pharaoh type person who claims to be god on earth, to rule over us.
Of course I was not really advocating anything of the sort, but I think what doomed my post is I was poking at Sunday as maybe being part of the mark of the beast. I would assume all the moderators were Sunday worshipers, so it was a little too close to home for them.
Anyway, I would be in a class of people who are more accepters, rather than real thinkers because I struggle with the writings of several writers who I will consult (all long dead, of course) with when I have questions about things. I will line them up in my mind and play them off against each other and see who wins. It might seem like totally made up crap, oops, I mean beliefs, but they are in conformity with one person or another who I have some respect for. I do not just wholesale go for broke and pull anything completely from my imagination and present it as being some sort of truth. It is hard enough to say that about anything.
The thing is I have a background that insists on me knowing everything that is possible to know about (my) religion about God, so I have a degree of just pure information. Anytime I think I am being original, it really isn't because somewhere in the back of my mind, even if it was something I learned when I was five years old, are things that affect how I think about everything.
I am not saying my method is better than anyone else's, it is just what I have to work with. Now it does not mean that I am a bad person either. I may be a pharisee, but a lot of them did come forward after the crucifixion and made their belief in Jesus known. But you can see how they would have an initial reluctance to accepting what comes off as being original thought.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
I think your questions call all be answered in Hebrews 10.


even hebrew 10 is not agreeing with what you are saying.

you said in so many words that the isrealites, who were doing what they were told to do, were misunderstanding. and that they were following the law of man.

yet this "law of men" that you point out came from god.

so how are they misunderstanding something that is told to them simply and plainly from god?



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

even hebrew 10 is not agreeing with what you are saying.
Hebrews was only using that law about stoning as an example that if we reject Jesus and what he did for us, we will most assuredly be punished. He was not criticizing the law at all, only blasphemers against God and His Son.
I think badmedia is misunderstanding the text, here.
So, I am agreeing with you, on this point.
The writer of Hebrews was trying to get Jews to agree with him and I doubt he would have thought a good way to do that would be to slam the Law.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by badmedia
I think your questions call all be answered in Hebrews 10.


even hebrew 10 is not agreeing with what you are saying.

you said in so many words that the isrealites, who were doing what they were told to do, were misunderstanding. and that they were following the law of man.

yet this "law of men" that you point out came from god.

so how are they misunderstanding something that is told to them simply and plainly from god?


I guess the difference here is you would say the bible is the actual word of god, and I would say it isn't. At most one could say it is divinely inspired. Those laws were based on an inspiration, but that had a misunderstanding in it.

Their actions broke other commandments. Thou shall not kill. But if you kill someone because they sin, then you have broken that commandment yourself. Thus, vengeance is not ours, so it is not our place to carry out the punishment. As such, when you kill someone who kills, it's 2 sins, 2 mistakes not just 1.

Just because something says "god said", doesn't actually mean it was said by god. If it wasn't, then it's just a law of man. Again, the way to tell is based on the understanding Jesus gives. God is not a hypocrite, men are. And to say those laws are gods laws is to say God is a hypocrite.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
]I guess the difference here is you would say the bible is the actual word of god, and I would say it isn't. At most one could say it is divinely inspired. Those laws were based on an inspiration, but that had a misunderstanding in it.


i believe the same. the bible is the inspired word of god. however, there are parts that are direct dictation. the law is one of them.

remember that god was over a mountain with a storm cloud. he started to speak to the people but they didnt want it because they were terrified. so they sent moses.

if moses copied the law, but then totally misapplied it as he wrote it down, dont you think god would have done something about that?


Their actions broke other commandments. Thou shall not kill. But if you kill someone because they sin, then you have broken that commandment yourself. Thus, vengeance is not ours, so it is not our place to carry out the punishment. As such, when you kill someone who kills, it's 2 sins, 2 mistakes not just 1.

Just because something says "god said", doesn't actually mean it was said by god. If it wasn't, then it's just a law of man. Again, the way to tell is based on the understanding Jesus gives. God is not a hypocrite, men are. And to say those laws are gods laws is to say God is a hypocrite.


your right, god is not a hypocrite. so it should force you to look deeper into what the law implies.

"thou shalt not kill" is not an absolute commandment. even jesus says that some will be destroyed by god. if it was an absolute command, even god would never kill.

but "god is just" he follows his own standards. yet he kills. why?

because killing a wicked man whom as been judged as such is not against the mosaic law. god destroyed korah who rebeled against moses. god destroyed the pharaoh's army. i can go on an on, if fact there is a thread that lists by numbers. and yet these deaths were just. they were deaths of wicked people.

if god has to follow his own standards then that means "thou shalt not kill" has other implications. it implies unjust killing (which actually most killing falls into this category, including killing for one's country.)

the law gave the criteria for just killing. a person who disregards the law was to be given the same punishment that adam received for his sin. death, hence why the law reminded us of the need for the ransom to be paid (which god is also bound to since he is righteous and keeps his own standards) because without the ransom, all humans deserved was death.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join