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

a reply to: ketsuko

I edited my post, you might want to review.

"I" was the one that brought up forgiveness as an answer to the reason we don't go around killing one another for breaking the levitical law.

a reply to: craig732

First of all, it is my opinion that the bible is NOT the verbatim word of God. That being said, the Levitical law exists because man cannot contain his bloodlust. That is my opinion of course.

originally posted by: Aedaeum
a reply to: ketsuko

We're not discussing salvation, that is irrelevant to the topic in the OP. We are discussing levitical law and why it should or shouldn't apply. Please stay on topic.

Yes, but I wasn't talking about that.

In keeping with the topic of the post, the only one who can forgive us is God. It was that way under Levitical Law which is what all the sin offerings were for, and it's still that way now under the Covenant of Grace. Only now, instead of being saved by our rigid adherence to Levitical Law and its sacrifices, we are saved by our faith in Christ. That is how we obtain forgiveness and are reconciled to God now.

But at that point, talking about how we as human beings are to treat one another is a different issue. Yes, I ought to forgive and forget for several reasons, but whether or not I do, is not as related to my ultimate salvation as my faith in Christ.

I could walk on this earth my entire life and forgive everyone who ever wrongs me and never once accept Christ, and I would not be reconciled to God and find forgiveness and salvation. I would still be judged by God and be judged under His standard of perfection. Odds are extremely good that I would not measure up.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Haha, so incredibly true. A star for you

I really wish I could see the silver lining amidst this world of chaos, but I just can't anymore...I really want to though...

originally posted by: craig732
a reply to: DISRAELI

No, I am trying to understand why christians follow some parts of the bible but ignore other parts. Like the verse I asked about in my original post. It directly contradicts the verse you posted.

I already answered your original post. Leviticus was written for the Levite priests and addressed to the children of Israel. It says so in the first paragraph of the book.

a reply to: craig732

That's easy enough to figure out, I think.

On the face of it, it's relying on someone else's wisdom, and/or knowledge of the world around them.

Or...relying on someone to do their thinking for them, as well.

"Why". If that isn't one of the most powerful words in existence, I'm not sure what would be?

If more people asked why, it might, though maybe not, be more peaceful place...assuming we listen.

a reply to: ketsuko

You want to know what's ironic? We say the adherence to the Levitical law was necessary "back then" yet Christ died before the foundation of the Earth. This makes the Levitical law nothing more than a dog and pony show to satiate their bloodlust. People love having a reason to judge and take vengeance, which is why Christ had to show the way of Love. If you really read everything that went on back in those days, it's almost as if people didn't even have a concept of what Love was, only a primal lust.

Now again, as far as forgiveness goes...am I Good? Am I righteous? I'd say the odds are a resounding NO! If I can forgive my brother, how much more can God, who is Good, forgive him? I would say as far as the East is from the West. I think as human beings, dealing with the concept of a God, we tend to either humanize him to the point that he's no longer omnipotent, or deify him so much that he can no longer be a real part of our lives, but an abstraction.

My opinion is that we have a very real relationship with him and he wants NONE of us to leave his sight. Those that are all called, are called to be as Christ was, and he forgave people nearly every day of his life. Was his forgiveness real and our forgiveness fake? At a certain point you have to question what Gods goal is and what might be the more probable outcome. We all have our own interpretations and I'm not saying mine is the "law" so-to-speak, but it's the best I've been able to come up with.

originally posted by: craig732
I know that most people will say that Jesus formed a new covenant and made the old laws obsolete.

But that view clearly contradicts Matthew 5:17-18:
17 “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.

So, keeping can anyone explain why they choose to follow certain parts of the bible, but ignore the laws that instruct you to kill a bunch of people, when Matthew 5:17-18 clearly states that the “old laws” are still in effect?

The problem is that every single word in a modern testament is suspect, and anyone who takes the new testament word for word has not done a proper vetting of the history of those words. The fact is, the Council of Nicaea pretty much picked and chose what books would be included, and which VERSION of those books would be included. There were numerous other gospels that were stamped as heretical, because they did not conform to TPTB plan to enslave the masses in the Christian religion.

And this has been proven using text that have been uncovered in the last 30+ years. The Romans and the Vatican destroyed all of the gospels and texts that didn't conform to their goal. It is only when one uncovers and reads the translated text of those documents that were written BEFORE the 3rd century AD, that you find the true words of Jesus and Christianity.

There was no CHURCH in Jesus' religion! NONE. Almost all of the Christian holidays are in fact based on pagan festivals, and have nothing to do with actual Christian dates. Christs birth was celebrated on Jan 5 (I believe that is correct, but I may be off by a day or two), but was moved by Rome to 12/25 because that was a pagan holiday. There are numerous other examples of the bastardization of the Christian faith that happened in the 4th century.

So stop interpreting the New Testament word for word. Better yet, find the translated texts of the other documents (there's a name for them, but I can't remember it...it's hard enough to remember 'nicaea'), and read those if you want to get something closer to the true words and teachings of Jesus.

Edited to add. Just as an example, the Vatican removed whole chunks of the Gospel according to Matthew, that made reference to Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene. And they completely removed the Gospel of Judas, as well as numerous others, because they didn't tell the story the PTB wanted to shape for the control of the masses.

a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

The fact is, the Council of Nicaea pretty much picked and chose what books would be included, and which VERSION of those books would be included.

That's not a fact at all, not even close. The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of scripture. It was specifically convened to address the Arian heresy in Alexandria, also to settle on a date for Easter, and to appoint bishops. Dan Brown said that the Council of Nicaea got together to determine what books would be allowed in the NT canon, but it was simply sensationalism and his book was fiction.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

The fact is, the Council of Nicaea pretty much picked and chose what books would be included, and which VERSION of those books would be included.

That's not a fact at all, not even close. The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of scripture. It was specifically convened to address the Arian heresy in Alexandria, also to settle on a date for Easter, and to appoint bishops. Dan Brown said that the Council of Nicaea got together to determine what books would be allowed in the NT canon, but it was simply sensationalism and his book was fiction.

The point though, is that a bunch of MEN decided what books would be included and which wouldn't. It continued on throughout the ages.
Here's the kicker for me...Christians believe God would micromanage and protect "His Word" down to the tiniest detail...causing men (or basically violating that free will we're all supposed to have) to write everything down, word for word, just as He said....yet, He can't take time out to 'micromanage" this planet. Like, a little girl who is being raped and brutalized, or a child being blown to pieces in a war he or she has no control over, or that little kid in Africa, dying from starvation and lack of clean water (with flies buzzing all around it while it dies), or the zillions of other things that are so f'ed up on this planet, it boggles the mind.
But YEA...that ole "Holy Word of God" is going to come through unscathed, dang it...because it's the only thing humanity has to tell it how to behave. God doesn't have to do anything else to help us...just give us "HIS WORD" so we know we are all going to be damned if we don't follow it.
Sorry, but something is truly rotten about that whole picture.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: enterthestage

Not true. There was a prohibition in the Torah about doing cures on the Sabbath but he broke it.

Can you cite the passage about healing the sick on the Sabbath? Because that came from the oral law of the Pharisees.

The Sabbath prohibits doing anything including but not limited to gathering wood (death penalty) or any kind of work i.e. your job. Physicians of the day, the only people who might be able to heal the sick, could not do it or they had to severely punished.

Why do you need me to explain that to you and how do you not know this already?

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: enterthestage

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: enterthestage

Not true. There was a prohibition in the Torah about doing cures on the Sabbath but he broke it.

Can you cite the passage about healing the sick on the Sabbath? Because that came from the oral law of the Pharisees.

The Sabbath prohibits doing anything including but not limited to gathering wood (death penalty) or any kind of work i.e. your job. Physicians of the day, the only people who might be able to heal the sick, could not do it or they had to severely punished.

Why do you need me to explain that to you and how do you not know this already?

Because there is no OT law prohibiting healing the sick on the Sabbath. That doesn't exist in the Torah, that's one of the hundreds of laws the Rabbis taught in their oral law. Pharisees elevated their oral law above the Torah and were teaching the people those laws they invented were superior to the Torah. When Jesus was here, he rejected the oral law of the Pharisees and the traditions of the elders that they were teaching the people.

So again, Jesus never violated the Torah, the law of God, He condemned the oral law of the Pharisees who made the word of God no none affect by their traditions and extra-biblical laws and ordinances. (See Mark chapter 7)

a reply to: NOTurTypical


I have been reading a few of your answers and I don't think issue is you I think you need to find a better Bible teacher because you just said that Leviticus was only for Levite priests.

There is no more Levitcal priesthood and it is still in the Bible so whether or not it was ever only for Levites it's in the Bible now. That response had to have been taught you by a pastor who is not so good at the Bible.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: enterthestage

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: enterthestage

Not true. There was a prohibition in the Torah about doing cures on the Sabbath but he broke it.

Can you cite the passage about healing the sick on the Sabbath? Because that came from the oral law of the Pharisees.

The Sabbath prohibits doing anything including but not limited to gathering wood (death penalty) or any kind of work i.e. your job. Physicians of the day, the only people who might be able to heal the sick, could not do it or they had to severely punished.

Why do you need me to explain that to you and how do you not know this already?

Because there is no OT law prohibiting healing the sick on the Sabbath. That doesn't exist in the Torah, that's one of the hundreds of laws the Rabbis taught in their oral law. Pharisees elevated their oral law above the Torah and were teaching the people those laws they invented were superior to the Torah. When Jesus was here, he rejected the oral law of the Pharisees and the traditions of the elders that they were teaching the people.

So again, Jesus never violated the Torah, the law of God, He condemned the oral law of the Pharisees who made the word of God no none affect by their traditions and extra-biblical laws and ordinances. (See Mark chapter 7)

I have no need for this explanation I was just telling you something but since you took the time thanks. I was just trying to explain why their was confusion and I did.

originally posted by: enterthestage
a reply to: NOTurTypical


I have been reading a few of your answers and I don't think issue is you I think you need to find a better Bible teacher because you just said that Leviticus was only for Levite priests.

There is no more Levitcal priesthood and it is still in the Bible so whether or not it was ever only for Levites it's in the Bible now. That response had to have been taught you by a pastor who is not so good at the Bible.

No, it's part of basic Biblical hermeneutics. It's taking the texts in context, and one of the fundamental ways to do that is identify the group of people the speaker was writing to so you don't misapply what was being said. Leviticus was written to instruct the Levite priests and God told Moses to address it to the children of Israel to follow. (Is says this in the first few verses)

The same glaring problem arises in the NT where people think the book of James is at odds with John chapter 3 or Ephesians chapter 2. It's not, James is writing to believers, not the unsaved. It's not an evangelistic letter, James is a pastoral one. In layman's terms, James isn't telling his readers how to be saved, he is telling them how saved people should act or in other words, the evidence of genuine faith.

Correct contextual application is crucial component to accurately dividing the word of God so errors aren't applied.

originally posted by: enterthestage

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: enterthestage

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: enterthestage

Not true. There was a prohibition in the Torah about doing cures on the Sabbath but he broke it.

Can you cite the passage about healing the sick on the Sabbath? Because that came from the oral law of the Pharisees.

The Sabbath prohibits doing anything including but not limited to gathering wood (death penalty) or any kind of work i.e. your job. Physicians of the day, the only people who might be able to heal the sick, could not do it or they had to severely punished.

Why do you need me to explain that to you and how do you not know this already?

Because there is no OT law prohibiting healing the sick on the Sabbath. That doesn't exist in the Torah, that's one of the hundreds of laws the Rabbis taught in their oral law. Pharisees elevated their oral law above the Torah and were teaching the people those laws they invented were superior to the Torah. When Jesus was here, he rejected the oral law of the Pharisees and the traditions of the elders that they were teaching the people.

So again, Jesus never violated the Torah, the law of God, He condemned the oral law of the Pharisees who made the word of God no none affect by their traditions and extra-biblical laws and ordinances. (See Mark chapter 7)

I have no need for this explanation I was just telling you something but since you took the time thanks. I was just trying to explain why their was confusion and I did.

Not a problem at all, I'm just here to offer insight where I can. Jesus wasn't a sinner, but He was very anti-Oral Law of the Pharisees. After Babylon the teachers and Rabbis had begun elevating their traditions and oral laws over the Torah and were teaching them to the ignorant people as the word of God. For example, they literally had hundreds and hundreds of laws regarding the Sabbath that weren't even in the Torah. You see this to a degree in the Essenes after Jesus, one law for example they had which Josephus mentions which is a perfect example of how absurd they were is that they wouldn't have a bowel movement on the Sabbath and would hold it in until nightfall because to have a BM meant "doing work" on the Sabbath. Absurd huh?

a reply to: Aedaeum

Not exactly.

What is certain is that humans did to the Law what they have always done to any law. Look at the US constitution. It is a simple, elegant document meant to contain the worst excesses of government, and yet, in man's lust for power, he has subverted it and distorted it beyond all recognition by finding ways to interpret and re-interpret it to his own greedy advantage. Levitical Law was no different.

By the time of Christ, the Pharisees who were supposed to be administering the Law in God's name and with God's Love had taken this same body to the same kinds of extremes to enhance their own power in the world and had interpreted and re-interpreted it beyond all recognition to the point where Christ rebuked them on numerous occasions and seemed to be flouting the Law. But then you have to ponder this: If Christ was the spotless lamb and perfect sin offering for all, he could not have actually done so. He must instead have been living perfectly within the Law in order to fulfill it.

That means that what true Levitical Law and what the Pharisees interpreted it to be had to have been somewhat different in truth and in actual practice.