Fischer: Noah's Flood Was The Result Of Society Not Using The Death Penalty :

a reply to: r0xor

Jesus taught to do away with the law

No he didn't.

Matthew 5
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

As for the OP, apparently this guy never read the OT because Yahweh issues the death penalty on numerous occasions throughout the OT. What a dumb thing to say.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: r0xor

Jesus taught to do away with the law

No he didn't.

Matthew 5
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

As for the OP, apparently this guy never read the OT because Yahweh issues the death penalty on numerous occasions throughout the OT. What a dumb thing to say.

Jesus must have fulfilled it for them as well, because the worldwide Jewish community is actually opposed to the death penalty.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: IShotMyLastMuse

There's a difference between murder and execution. I realize that's a matter of opinion of course. Biblically speaking though, that's the case.

Kill people who don't listen to Priests. (Deuteronomy 17:12)
Kill witches. (Exodus 22:17)
Kill fortunetellers. (Leviticus 20:27)
Kill homosexuals. (Leviticus 20:13)
Kill nonbelievers. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)
Kill followers of other religions. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12, Deuteronomy 17:2-5)
Kill false prophets. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5, 18:20-22, Zechariah 13:3)
Kill an entire town if anyone there worships another God. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
Kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
Kill people working on the Sabbath. (Exodus 31:12-15)
Kill sons of sinners. (Isaiah 14:21)
Kill in the name of the Lord. (Jeremiah 48:10)

Death for striking parents. (Exodus 21:15)
Death for cursing parents. (Leviticus 20:9, Proverbs 20:20)
Death for fornication. (Leviticus 21:9)
Death for adultery. (Leviticus 20:10)
Death for blasphemy. (Leviticus 24:10-16)
Death to followers of other religions. (Exodus 22:19)

Yeah..

All those punishments are for ridiculous reasons!

They count as murder in my book..

Exodus 22:17 actually refers to those who use poison. Seems ol' King Jimmy and his translators...not biased at all...decided to use a slightly...different..translation. seems if you call someone a 'witch' and execute her ( it was aimed primarily at women), you can then get her stuff, her family's stuff.

a reply to: Spider879

Source is Lib but seemed fair in their reporting klik for the rest. This guy is not a politician but he does have an audience and so have political clout,so here is couple of things God apparently changed his mind about the death penalty after about 1600 yrs before he "God " really got pissed and killed all but about half a dozen people in probably one of the worst mass extinction event ever recorded, and he still hold on to the belief that the world or creation is around 4200 B.C but yet Göbekli Tepe goes back some 10,000 yrs B.C so if you are creationist how do you square the difference. I am not mocking your beliefs here just how such a conclusion is reached.

I do agree that it was about 1650 years from the creation of Adam to the flood. When Cain killed Able he was in ignorance of law. After he killed Able he then was held accountable.

Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.


By this you can see that from that point on a law was established against killing and a penalty was established to all people who would kill. Simply because Cain did not know does not make it a less crime but it did show that Cain was not accountable for that sin. After knowing it was a crime to kill then it became accountable.

Rom_5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

So to say that murder was not accountable till the flood Is not true at all. Why was the creation destroyed by Noah's flood? Mostly because of murder. If there were no punishment because of murder then all creation would not have been killed in the flood nor would the flood ever have existed. So that shows us that people were aware of murder hundreds of years prior to the flood and that punishments were in force after the tree of knowledge to do good and evil was revealed.

Now why the great disparity between dates In history? I believe it is a matter of what we do not know and not a matter of what we do know. I will try to keep this as short as possible.

When the wold was created and the waters were separated, There was a canopy of unknown depth of water left surrounding the world. The world was engulfed in a ball of water till the flood. This was that rain which fell upon the
world for 40 days and nights. As the rain fell it was so devastating that it actually broke the depths of the earth and the world expanded creating continental separations as we see it today. Prior to this the world surface waters were gathered into one place with the world about fifty percent smaller than after the flood.

It did more than enlarge the world. The world slowed its rotation dramatically and exposed the world to the universe. Now what does that mean to me? It means that for well over 1600 years the world years were faster due to Its weight and circumference but that it was not immediately shown. This is the reason that I believe Noah observed one equinox and not two as we do today. Noah had no observation of the universe till after the canopy of water, which engulfed the world, fell and exposed the sun and moon and the entire universe. It was a gradual slowing as shown by the longevity of the antediluvian descendants of Noah. No one really knows exactly the difference between now and creation but in my imagination it had to be a tremendous difference. I believe that all of the sciences were affected and will continue to change in the future. I also believe that God, after His sabbatical, has and is continuing His creation.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Matthew 5
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.



As for the OP, apparently this guy never read the OT because Yahweh issues the death penalty on numerous occasions throughout the OT. What a dumb thing to say.

Jesus was not referring to the Ten Commandments when he said that. He actively disobeyed the commandments when it suited the greater good (such as at the well with the samaritan woman, healing people on sabbath, etc). I think he meant that he came to fulfill the prophecies of the prophets, which he did. We'd have to look at what the original aramaic word was that he used when he was supposedly quoted saying that, to know which laws he was referring to.

The law said to stone people to death if they messed up one good time, did Jesus teach that? No, he taught the opposite of that.

Thus, why I said he taught to do away with the 'law'. The 'law' as it was currently being practiced in a corruptible manner by the priests.

Any reference or advocation to harming anyone in anyway in the Bible, especially execution, was in the Old Testament, therefore not meant to be interpreted literally by a Christian. Only the New Testament is to be interpreted literally, while the Old Testament is more of a prophecy/history reference for Christianity, not a set of directions.

a reply to: Seede

I wonder, do they know what the definition of flood is.

Flood Definition dictionary.search.yahoo.com n. noun 1. An overflowing of water onto land that is normally dry. 2. A flood tide. 3. A large amount or number, especially when moving from one place to another. received a flood of applications. v. verb 1. To cover or submerge with water; inundate. The town was flooded when the dam burst. 2. To move into or fill in large numbers or amounts. People flooded the square. His inbox was flooded with mail. 3. To overwhelm in large numbers.

We do know that after the Last Glacial Maxim, many prior civilizations are now underwater. So, the Last Glacial Maxim did indeed cause a flood, because the first definition (an overflowing of water onto land that is normally dry) means that a GLOBAL flood did occur.

Going by their scientific definition, then when the water rose and covered land that was normally dry, and it was global, and the sea levels rose, covering land that was normally dry, then a global flood did happen.

NASA Sea Levels

Massive ice sheets covered parts of North America, northern Europe, and several other regions during the last ice age. This huge volume of ice lowered global sea level by around 120 meters as compared to today. After the ice sheets began to melt and retreat, sea level rose rapidly, with several periods of even faster spurts. The first such spurt may have started about 19,000 years ago, at which time ocean levels rose 10-15 m in less than 500 years. However, this event is not seen in all past sea level records and new evidence suggests that ice melting may have begun much earlier. A more clearly-defined accelerated phase of sea level rise occurred between 14,600 to 13,500 years before present (termed "meltwater pulse 1A" or "MWP-1A" by Fairbanks in 1989), when sea level increased by some 16 to 24 m (see Figure 1). Although the meltwater was previously believed to have come chiefly from Antarctica, a recent reconstruction by Tarasov and Peltier of ice sheet retreat using a glacial model calibrated by a variety of data points instead to a largely North American source. Furthermore, diatom fossils in sediments from fjords in East Antarctica show that ice melting there began perhaps 3000 years later, thus ruling out Antarctica as a likely source.

Rain falling for a long time, yes, that is a source. In the northern and southern hemisphere it would have been snow. But sea levels rose rapidly to cover lands normally dry, that is a flood. Now watch them argue with their own scientific evidence.

Doggerland is now under water, that was the result of a flood.

a reply to: r0xor

In summary,

The Ten Commandments are a guideline and should be followed by Christians, which they teach to follow. They are *the* origin of the concept of sin, and what it means to have committed a sin.

They are not, however, followed in the same manner as depicted in the Old Testament, or in modern Judaism.

PS: To fulfill something means to end it, to complete it, to stop it's continuance.

originally posted by: r0xor
a reply to: r0xor

In summary,

The Ten Commandments are a guideline and should be followed by Christians, which they teach to follow. They are *the* origin of the concept of sin, and what it means to have committed a sin.

They are not, however, followed in the same manner as depicted in the Old Testament, or in modern Judaism.

PS: To fulfill something means to end it, to complete it, to stop it's continuance.

The 10 Commandments are really found in all ancient cultures and religions. But the point of the 10 Commandments to the Jews then was a covenant agreement between them and Yaweh. They agreed to go under the covenant, therefore they are in agreement to serve Yaweh and Him only.

Now as far as Gentiles go, or those of us who were not under that covenant agreement, then we would then be covered under the moral precepts, which has never been out of the world. I think people are confused by the 10 Commandments and the 603 Mosaic laws, which were civil codes.

No one can argue that any society can live without civil codes, all nations and groups have them. But if one isn't Jewish, they aren't in that same covenant to become part of the Jewish community.

I don't think they realize that Judaism is a religion, but also a group, most definitely a community. They have agreed historically that they will live under a covenant agreement with each other and with God. Therefore, it is binding upon them to live according to the terms of the covenant.

At no time have they ever said that the rest of us are obligated to their civil codes. They choose to live as a community, so they have rules within their community. The very identity of a Jewish person is found in their respect toward the community as a whole.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Right, so in essence, some Christian Theologians taught the concept that Jesus was trying to bring Judaic monotheism to the world, without the civil codes that should only apply to Jewish communities, not every community; it didn't extend into Christian communities.

Whoever "some Christian Theologians" are.

What I meant earlier was, any reference to punishments that involve killing anyone(excluding the crucifixion, which was not Abrahamic in origin), or God commanding to kill people, is in the Old Testament only.

originally posted by: r0xor
a reply to: WarminIndy

Right, so in essence, some Christian Theologians taught the concept that Jesus was trying to bring Judaic monotheism to the world, without the civil codes that should only apply to Jewish communities, not every community; it didn't extend into Christian communities.

Whoever "some Christian Theologians" are.

Does it extend today?

Do "groups" and "subgroups" live by their own civil codes or moral codes within their groups? They most certainly do. Remember, the first rule of Fight Club is "don't talk about Fight Club".

But the civil codes that were in place in the first century, the disciples were Jewish. The writers were Jewish. They lived in the Jewish community. Why do you suppose that the crucifixion was a serious matter to the Romans? Pilate said Jesus had committed no crime against Roman law, the Pharisees said they had no law to put Him to death. The final solution...say He committed treason against Rome.

That was why Pilate questioned Him about His kingdom, and Jesus responded with "My kingdom is not of this world". If Jesus had said He was the Son of David, a rightful king in the line of descent, then that would be treason against Rome, because Israel was a vassal state.

Those were two civic laws for two different communities. But Paul also remarks "The Gentiles do by nature those things which are contained in the law, therefore are a law unto themselves" So the Gentiles were already doing those things that were expected for the Jewish community, they weren't expected to become circumcised.

Circumcision was how they identified a Jewish male. It makes them a part of the Jewish community, and then fully at their Bar Mitzvah. That really means "son of the oath, or deed". To perform mitzvah means that you perform a good deed for the community. But as a Jewish male and part of the Jewish community, he would be expected to follow the civil codes.

As Gentiles performed good deeds, it was in their nature to do so. But then civil codes for countries began to emerge which were similar to the Mosaic laws. One should not say that there is no benefit for civil codes, all countries have them.

originally posted by: r0xor
a reply to: WarminIndy

Right, so in essence, some Christian Theologians taught the concept that Jesus was trying to bring Judaic monotheism to the world, without the civil codes that should only apply to Jewish communities, not every community; it didn't extend into Christian communities.

Whoever "some Christian Theologians" are.

What I meant earlier was, any reference to punishments that involve killing anyone(excluding the crucifixion, which was not Abrahamic in origin), or God commanding to kill people, is in the Old Testament only.

Actually it was the job given to Israel, to teach the world about God.

They were Gods chosen people to bring His message
Obviously they failed.

The laws, even the law to execute evildoers are Gods civil laws, mankind is so corrupt and so selfish Gods laws were made to settle disputes.

It doesnt matter if you believe it or not if you like it or not, Gods laws are the rules of the world and you will be judged by those standards. Those who carry a burden of sin will be condemned

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: r0xor
a reply to: WarminIndy

Right, so in essence, some Christian Theologians taught the concept that Jesus was trying to bring Judaic monotheism to the world, without the civil codes that should only apply to Jewish communities, not every community; it didn't extend into Christian communities.

Whoever "some Christian Theologians" are.

What I meant earlier was, any reference to punishments that involve killing anyone(excluding the crucifixion, which was not Abrahamic in origin), or God commanding to kill people, is in the Old Testament only.

Actually it was the job given to Israel, to teach the world about God.

They were Gods chosen people to bring His message
Obviously they failed.

The laws, even the law to execute evildoers are Gods civil laws, mankind is so corrupt and so selfish Gods laws were made to settle disputes.

It doesnt matter if you believe it or not if you like it or not, Gods laws are the rules of the world and you will be judged by those standards. Those who carry a burden of sin will be condemned

How did they fail?

And who said that God isn't the God of the whole earth, as the Bible says? Do you really think the Jews say God came to them only?

Nay, but they did accomplish telling us about God. It's now 4,000 years on from the time of Abraham, I think they did quite well in bringing that message.

a reply to: r0xor

We are not bound by the law or live under it as Christ has paid for our sin's (so long as we repent and resolve to not sin any further), we are living under his grace but he lived by the law too the letter of it on our behalf, those who deny him are living under the law but he said those that do not know he would forgive.

The priest who was sinful but accused another and had them stones will recieve his just deserts on judgement day as indeed the stoned victim will likely be lifted to heaven.

Why, well remember how the woman accused of adultary was dragged to be stoned by a crowd and he stood looking at them then picked up a stone and challenged them, "Let he that is without sin" - (that is lived perfectly in accord with the law which even the priests did not) - "cast the first stone", non of them did as they heard the authority in his voice and they melted away dropping there stone's, he who was about to cast his own stone at the first to claim to be innocent when he knew them guilty then dropped his and said "Then neigher shall I", had they cast the stone it would have been judgement day for them right there and right then but they felt the authority in his voice.

Those who have pointed out the old testament law's need to look again at the words of christ.
Those who stoned the innocent or even the guilty but who were guilty themselve's will face God's wrath on there very soul's.

"Judge not lest ye be judged", if we can learn to live innocent, to be merciful, to not judge other's and to leave it to God then we may too avoid judgement on judgement day but who amongst us is so perfect, only a child and Christ said that.

He is our lord weather people believe or not as he paid for all of us.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: r0xor
a reply to: WarminIndy

Right, so in essence, some Christian Theologians taught the concept that Jesus was trying to bring Judaic monotheism to the world, without the civil codes that should only apply to Jewish communities, not every community; it didn't extend into Christian communities.

Whoever "some Christian Theologians" are.

What I meant earlier was, any reference to punishments that involve killing anyone(excluding the crucifixion, which was not Abrahamic in origin), or God commanding to kill people, is in the Old Testament only.

Actually it was the job given to Israel, to teach the world about God.

They were Gods chosen people to bring His message
Obviously they failed.

The laws, even the law to execute evildoers are Gods civil laws, mankind is so corrupt and so selfish Gods laws were made to settle disputes.

It doesnt matter if you believe it or not if you like it or not, Gods laws are the rules of the world and you will be judged by those standards. Those who carry a burden of sin will be condemned

How did they fail?

And who said that God isn't the God of the whole earth, as the Bible says? Do you really think the Jews say God came to them only?

Nay, but they did accomplish telling us about God. It's now 4,000 years on from the time of Abraham, I think they did quite well in bringing that message.

I heard a rumour that the Jews had Jesus crucified, its all in a big black book.

Ever met an evangelical Jew