Why don't christians follow the laws of Leviticus and kill homosexuals, adulterers, etc.?

originally posted by: carewemust
The books of the Bible were written by imperfect humans. How many are 100% accurate in what's said and taught?

This is part of the point I am trying to make; thank you for bringing it up...

So if some of it is inaccurate, maybe all of it is? How can anyone be sure?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So how about the "until heaven and earth disappear" part. I don't know about heaven, but earth appears to still be here.

a reply to: craig732

I give this the most ignorant post award of 2016. For his next trick Craig732 will ask why blacks don't have white skins.

originally posted by: AaronOfEther
What I'm trying to figure out is why you're criticizing Christians for not killing people.

Welcome to ATS... I am honored that you chose my thread for your first post!

I am not criticizing anyone for not killing people. But I guess in an offhand way I am criticizing people for following and trying to get others to follow the rest of the book when they choose to not follow the killing parts.

For instance, why does a person who does not follow their god's law by killing homosexuals still feel homosexuality is wrong because their god told them it is an abomination. If they ignore part of the verse, why honor another part of it?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Because Jesus fulfilled the Levitical Law. That is why He stopped the Pharisees from stoning the adulteress.

How did He fulfill it? I mean, exactly? He would have had to stone the woman, to fulfill it. Jesus fulfilled NOTHING of the Levititcal law....nothing. He broke every single law that was in place by Yahweh. Name ONE He fulfilled. Just one.

All of the Law was Accomplished/Fulfilled when Jesus died on the cross for our sins. So the answer to your question is in the verse you cited.

No, you still haven't said HOW he fulfilled ALL the law. He would have had to of DONE the law, to fulfill it. So, once again, name any law that He fulfilled. Dying on the cross doesn't count. In order to be the perfect sacrifice, and the spotless lamb, He would have had to have FULFILLED the law. He didn't. He constantly violated it, yet he was sinless. How do you rectify those two things?

originally posted by: craig732

So if some of it is inaccurate, maybe all of it is? How can anyone be sure?

The Holy Ghost will testify to you what is true and what is false. Do not rely solely on the claimed authority of men (priesthood, scripture, etc.) in determining ultimate truth. They can point you in the right direction, but that's all.

They can also point you in the wrong direction.

All you have to do is ask of the Father, in the Son's name, with true intent. If you have no intention of following the guidance you're asking for (and He does know the desires of your heart), one may be inclined to ask what the point would be in giving you an answer in the first place.

Ask, and you shall receive. Knock, and it shall be opened unto you...

...but only if you believe it's truly possible, and hold the intention of going wherever the answers you receive may lead you, whether they are what you want to hear or not.



Edit to add: I just saw your response to my earlier post. Thank you for welcoming me. I'll try to respond on-the-go, as I'm heading out the door for the weekend.

Signal tends to be a bit spotty up in "God's country", though.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: craig732

Perhaps because they aren't officers of the court legally empowered to carry out those punishments.

Despite that fact, all sin is equally liable under Old testament Law. One punishment for all.

Even in the Old Testament times, if you went about killing people, you were a murderer.

Unless you were Yahweh...then you could kill all the people and animals you wanted to, for the slightest infractions (like picking up sticks on the Sabbath). Of course, the babies and animals didn't do anything wrong at all. Guess they were just liabilities. Or you could just kill them because they displeased you. So much for loving your enemies, eh?

Remember when the disciples asked Jesus if He wanted them to call fire down from heaven, like Elijah the prophet? What did He tell them..."you know not what spirit you are of". Hmmmm....wonder who did all that "calling fire down from Heaven, and what spirit IT was of"?

The Laws of Moses were given to "O ye children of Israel!"

I'm not a child of Israel, so I'm good. Thanks for asking.

a reply to: craig732

Because gods heart wasn't in it, only humans like to murder each other.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

And the law in the 10 commandments in Hebrew doesn't say thou shalt not kill, it says thou shalt not murder. The Hebrew word used there is about murder, killing an innocent person. God was never against capital punishment, and in fact He says that if a person sheds innocent blood then their own blood will be shed by man. You gotta look at the context of verses or else you'll come away with wacky ideas.

Wacky ideas? Now if "innocent" and "guilty" were black and white that would make sense.

originally posted by: Aedaeum
a reply to: craig732

This is extremely simple to answer. Forgiveness. Yes, it is technically lawful for Christians to condemn those that break the Levitical law, but forgiveness is the answer. That is what Christ taught. Christ did NOT abolish anything, he reminded us what it means to love and how to apply that love to others in our daily lives. There is no law against forgiveness. If you sin against me and I forgive you, that sin is wiped away. You no longer have anything to bear except your own conscience.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I don't know how many times I have to quote this until it sinks in, but I'll keep doing it when it's relevant, which seems to be a lot these days. The reason that horrible law even exists is because humans are greedy pieces of trash; they want blood for blood, an eye for an eye. That is NOT the way of the Father, that is the way of men. They wanted it and so they got it. "If you live by the sword you will die by the sword"

You are correct, but still missing the point. Yahweh MADE all of the sacrificial laws, unclean laws, sin offering laws, etc. On top of that, he was misogynistic and blood thirsty (any being that demands an innocent sentient being should be put to death for someone else's sin is blood thirsty...and it's just plain evil). Not only that, but he was a hypocrite. He condemned his people for offering sacrifice to a false god, yet wanted blood sacrifice if it was for HIM. He gave the commandement "thou shall not kill", yet he would order them to kill...all the time....indiscriminately.
If Jesus said, "If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father", then how can you rectify an "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" god, with Jesus?? They are polar opposites.
Why would Yahweh command "stone the adulteress!" Then, while His spirit is moving through Jesus, He does the opposite??
That's just illogical.

originally posted by: craig732

originally posted by: AaronOfEther
What I'm trying to figure out is why you're criticizing Christians for not killing people.

Welcome to ATS... I am honored that you chose my thread for your first post!

I am not criticizing anyone for not killing people. But I guess in an offhand way I am criticizing people for following and trying to get others to follow the rest of the book when they choose to not follow the killing parts.

For instance, why does a person who does not follow their god's law by killing homosexuals still feel homosexuality is wrong because their god told them it is an abomination. If they ignore part of the verse, why honor another part of it?

Because people have been raised on the SCriptures wrongly is why. Catholics are ESPECIALLY bad about this by teaching their followers the way they do. They arent HEBREWS,and as such are not bound to those restrictions. but what do they do? memorize the 1o commandments and not just follow the NT covenant.

I have a example of a mis taught belief. The Belief that we are to keep to our kind. Kind in the bible refeers to humans keeping with humans. it dont mention "race" at all but many many preachers are guilty o f perpetuating this mis repsentation about keeping to your own color. It also refeers to CHristians and non christians belief wise. Once again No 'race' involved at all.

originally posted by: GailNot
The law to the nation of Israel was not given to everyone else. If you are not a part of that nation you don't have to follow it. In fact no other nation at that time followed the law. And after Israel put God's son, Jesus, to death, the law was done away with. It is no longer in effect.

It isn't that Christians don't know about it like some here slyly with lies tell you. It's just that no Christian is held accountable by the Mosaic law.

Pretty simple, straightforward, easy to understand, and correct.

It is quite extraordinary how many people are confused about so many basic and simple things.

Then, if the law to the nation of Israel was not given to anyone else, why would "god" demand not following it will earn you a spot in eternal punishment and hellfire? Oh, I know....you just have to accept Jesus as your lord and savior and then you get the "freebie pass" to eternal life. All your sins are covered.
Except that Jesus Himself said this..........
Matthew 7:21-23New American Standard Bible (NASB)

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

So, Gailnot....explain to me what Jesus meant by "practicing lawlessness", and what would the Father's will be? (try to not use Paul, either)

a reply to: jjsr420

And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

Only liars have to constantly say they "aren't lying". Paul was never called to be teacher to the gentiles. That role was given to Peter by Jesus Himself.
Paul would make the number of apostles 13...there were only EVER supposed to be 12. Go read Acts Chp. 1 and see where the original diciples prayed and asked the HS who they were to pick to replace Judas. They cast lots and the lot fell to Matthias, which brought the number back up to 12. The criteria to even BE an apostle, was to have been a witness to Jesus' life (meaning spent time with Him) and to have witnessed His death and resurrection.
Saul had none of those credentials. Saul/Paul appointed himself as an apostle, then put down the true apostles who actually spent 3 1/2 years with Jesus and were intimate with Him. Paul never even met Jesus. He was a liar and didn't have too high an opinion of women either.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: craig732
The short answer to your question is;
"Now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code [e.g. Leviticus] but in the new life of the Spirit"- Romans ch7 v6.

Do you want Christians to be stoning adulterers etc? Are you complaining?
I've known it happen. Somebody once started a thread about Christians being evil because they stoned adulterers. When I pointed out that Christians do not, in fact, stone adulterers, he suddenly changed his angle of attack and began arguing that Christians ought to be stoning adulterers. We were morally reprehensible for not stoning them.
Apparently he regarded it as a kind of cheating, failing to stone adulterers at a time when somebody wants to attack you for doing it.
So when you ask this question, are you trying to recall us to our duties?

What Paul taught in Romans was that ONCE you are saved (by believing in your heart and stating it with your mouth) that Jesus died for your sins...THEN and only then are you discharged from the law. So, answer this question, how could Jesus have not stoned the woman, if HE HADN'T even been crucified yet? The law was still in effect (technically).
For Jesus to have been the perfect, spotless, lamb...who obeyed ALL the law in order to fulfill it, He would have had to have stoned that woman. Yet, He didn't.
The only way around that is to say Jesus was God in the flesh. Yet, He Himself stated that the Father was HIS GOD, AS WELL.

originally posted by: GailNot

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: jjsr420

Welcome to Paulianity

He means to say that Satan hates Paul's inspiration from God so much, that after 2000 years, he still attacks him. Almost, almost as much as he does Jesus.

This demon will attack Jesus' words too when you give him a chance.

Nah...Jesus warned his disciples about Paul. Just didn't name names. The book of James is a direct, point by point, rebuttal to Galatians and Romans.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Because Jesus didn't support the corrupted Torah the Priests were teaching, nor did He support the "laws of Yahweh".

That's false, Jesus didn't support the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They had elevated their oral law and rabbinical traditions and teachings above the Torah. Jesus explains this in Mark chapter 7 when He tells them they have made the word of God to none effect by the traditions of their elders.

Really?? Then WHO said "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"?? While Jesus taught, "you've HEARD it said, "and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth....yet I SAY..."Matthew 5:38-42New American Standard Bible (NASB)

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take your [a]shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 Whoever [c]forces you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

Jesus CHANGED the actual TORAH many, many, times. Jesus contradicted Yahweh, many, many times.

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
What Paul taught in Romans was that ONCE you are saved (by believing in your heart and stating it with your mouth) that Jesus died for your sins...THEN and only then are you discharged from the law. So, answer this question, how could Jesus have not stoned the woman, if HE HADN'T even been crucified yet? The law was still in effect (technically).
For Jesus to have been the perfect, spotless, lamb...who obeyed ALL the law in order to fulfill it, He would have had to have stoned that woman. Yet, He didn't.
The only way around that is to say Jesus was God in the flesh. Yet, He Himself stated that the Father was HIS GOD, AS WELL.

Another way of putting it is to say that Jesus, too, was being guided more by the Spirit than by the "written code".

Another thread turned into a Bible fest?

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

You're confused and don't know the history of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They elevated the oral law and rabbinical teachings above the Torah. Again, I directed you to Mark 7 where Jesus explains this. He said their doctrines made the word of God to be on none effect by the traditions of their elders.

This will help quite a bit for you to understand what the Pharisees and Sadducees had done: