chomerics Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 ive already answered it go back and reread the thread You did nothing of the sort! You ignored his question, and changed the topic, more than once. So either answer his question, or throw yourself onto the tailgate scrapheap of obscurity. . .or better yet, post in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 ASF , I think you are bluring the difference between the Mosaic law (jewish law)and the six laws of Adam and the Noahide laws,While Jesus fullfiled the sacrifice requirement of Mosaic law, and I agree we live in a era of grace,I see no evidence that the earlier commands to mankind are superceeded by Jesus in any way. 1. Idolatry - You shall not make for yourself an idol. 2. Murder - You shall not murder. 3. Theft - You shall not steal. 4. Sexual Promiscuity - You shall not commit adultery. 5. Blasphemy - You shall not blaspheme. 6. Cruelty to Animals - Do not eat the flesh of a living animal. only difference from law of Adam 7. Government - You shall set up an effective government to police the preceding six laws. The early church leaders show no indication that these were done away with that I see. Added: If you wish to argue we (as beneficiaries of God's grace) should extend mercy in not implementing the death penalty I can accept that,but I see no evidence that we are instructed to do so. What say ye???? Added : One more important fact, the Mosaic law which you keep using has NEVER been applicable to the Gentiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I would just like an answer to the question, I think its only fair since this is a debate; I've staked out my position and have answered all the questions, and he's staked out a position and the basis for his position only now he's hit a dilemma for which there is no solution except to compromise his position, or take a position the he really doesn't believe in. Oh well. It's probably just that the answer to your question can't be found in the site he was copying and pasting from. P.S. You're clearly winning this "debate", but that doesn't mean you're right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 What say ye????Added : One more important fact, the Mosaic law which you keep using has NEVER been applicable to the Gentiles. I'm sorry but the only Law (properly understood) that was in existence came at the time of Moses, because prior to Moses there was no Law, and no commandments. Abraham, Noah, and Adam preceeded the Law and there was no Law given until Moses; except "don't eat from that tree". Otherwise Abraham's justification and righteousness would not have been on account of his faith but instead on account of the Law. Romans 4:13 For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. It did not come to him through the Law, because at the time of Abraham there was no Law given. This is the whole point that Paul is making in Romans that God's plan was not for everyone to obey a strict law, but instead that they were to be reckoned as righteous just as Abraham was righteous, and the Law was given only later to show people their inability to acheive righteousness on their own. Now, can you make an argument about certain conduct, maybe, but Law as Biblically understood? No. As for God's statement to Noah: Genesis 9:5-6 For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life. 6 Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind. One needs to make the decision as to whether this was eternally bound as a sort of Law or was given to Noah during the repopulation. IMO the "own lifeblood" indicates that this was given to Noah. *edit for clarity*Given to Noah for Noah's time alone.*/edit* Isn't it interesting though that the very first murderer did not receive capital punishment. Something tells me that if God were so adamant about "life for a life" than he would have taken Cain's life. I mean he struck down Annanias and Sapphira, and there was no death penalty law against what they did, so wouldn't it stand to reason that Cain would have fallen too, if indeed Capital Punishment was what God really wanted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 It's probably just that the answer to your question can't be found in the site he was copying and pasting from. P.S. You're clearly winning this "debate", but that doesn't mean you're right... LOL:laugh: I've been there before; its really bad when years later you wake up and go "Ooops." But, since I used to argue the otherside of this debate and have had a fundamental shift in perspective, I think its safe to say that I've already had my "oops" moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 ASF, whether you wish to call them "laws" or simply direct instructions from God matters not at al in the matter of intent and application. As for your reasoning on Gen.9;6? I see no reason for your conclusion,.and looks like a reach imo. As for Cain, specific instructions were given as to his treatment,which would seem to be a exception rather than the norm. Or do you feel every murderer is so cursed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain When God confronted Cain about Abel's death, God cursed him, stating: " And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." (Gen. 4:10-12.) When Cain complained that the curse was too strong, and that anyone who found him would kill him, God responded, "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.", and God "set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." (Gen. 4:15). When God confronted Cain about Abel's death, God cursed him, stating: " And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." (Gen. 4:10-12.) When Cain complained that the curse was too strong, and that anyone who found him would kill him, God responded, "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.", and God "set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." (Gen. 4:15). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 ASF, whether you wish to call them "laws" or simply direct instructions from God matters not at al in the matter of intent and application.As for your reasoning on Gen.9;6? I see no reason for your conclusion,.and looks like a reach imo. As for Cain, specific instructions were given as to his treatment,which would seem to be a exception rather than the norm. Or do you feel every murderer is so cursed? Well there is a really big difference between the instructions that God gave certain people (i.e. Noah, etc) and the Law that was given to Moses (which is being cited as evidence in this argument, maybe not by you but definitely by others). And there is a difference between the intent and application, because the personal instructions can easily be argued that they were contextual i.e. Noah, whereas the Law was a-contextual. Just like Paul's instructions to the Gentile churches about women in church are contextual and not eternal precepts (some may choose to argue that as well). The reality is that Jesus chose not to comply with what the Law demanded, and the fact that he showed mercy instead of condemnation and death is proof of this; for when he pardoned the woman caught in adultery he was not following the Law for in the Law there was not a provision for leniency, instead the Law gave only one course of action and that was death. *edit* Also, God's treatment of Cain is also evidence that God is not absolute on the sentence of "Life for a Life". I wasn't trying to say all are like Cain, but that Cain represents God's treatment of offenders in ways that differ from established notions. */edit* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 ASF, I agree there is a major difference between the law(or instructions) given to Noah and the Law of Moses. Noah was the start of a new civilization from which all mankind spread, and the instructions to him were to guide him(and us all) in this effort. Whereas the Law of moses was directed to the Jews and them ONLY,as God's chosen people Surely you know that even today in orthodox circles it is considered wrong for a Gentile to observe the LAW? It has been interesting seeing others reasoning in this matter OT but, Can I ask your thoughts on the possibly different results in the time of mankind between Adam and the Flood if God had allowed Cain to be killed? Why do you think evil flourished in this time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadets08 Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 I used to be all for the death penalty, but after seeing the movie "Dead Man Walking" I've changed my views a bit. The whole "eye for an eye" deal is atypical of the Old Testament. In the New Testament Jesus never condones capital punishment, and in fact he condemns it with the infamous line, "He who hasn't sinned cast the first stone." As Christians we believe Christ is our savior. Therefore we should hold Christ's words above the actions deemed acceptable in the Old Testament. The Old Testament also condones polygamy, divorce, etc which are things deemed wrong in Christianity because of the teachings in the New Testament. *NOTE* I'm not bashing the O.T. just trying to make a Christian point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Now back to the Adultress They were looking to try jesus for breaking either the mosaic law or Jewish law wich he did neither. He slid right between the 2 laws. now what was written in the sand by Jesus only the people that were there no for sure but jesus probably either wrote where is the adulterer or some of you have been with her. Under mosaic law it was required that the adulterer got killed also, where was he, probably in the group that wanted to stone her. Under mosaic law it takes 2 witness to stone someone when he said let those of you without sin cast the first stone They were all guilty of some kind of sin. If he was against the death penalty he would have said while everyone was there that it was not right to stone her but he didnt. They were looking for charges to take him before the court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Now back to the Adultress They were looking to try jesus for breaking either the mosaic law or Jewish law wich he did neither.He slid right between the 2 laws. now what was written in the sand by Jesus only the people that were there no for sure but jesus probably either wrote where is the adulterer or some of you have been with her. Under mosaic law it was required that the adulterer got killed also, where was he, probably in the group that wanted to stone her. Under mosaic law it takes 2 witness to stone someone when he said let those of you without sin cast the first stone They were all guilty of some kind of sin. If he was against the death penalty he would have said while everyone was there that it was not right to stone her but he didnt. They were looking for charges to take him before the court Still waiting.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 A added twist to the trap the pharasies laid for Jesus seebee was the fact the Jews were forbidden to execute anyone under Roman rule. In my opinion Jesus spoke reguarding our spiritual relationship at this event to put the focus on how the spiritual leadership of Israel had strayed. He came not as a earthly ruler concerned over temporal matters,but spiritual ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Whereas the Law of moses was directed to the Jews and them ONLY,as God's chosen people Surely you know that even today in orthodox circles it is considered wrong for a Gentile to observe the LAW? Yes, but its also interesting to note that the first century Christians did not separate themselves from the Jews, but instead saw themselves as Jews. It was not until 90 AD that the Christians were removed from the synagogues by the Rabbis. Granted, Paul advocated for Gentiles to be apart from the Law, but that leaves the Jerusalem Christians in an interesting situation. OT but, Can I ask your thoughts on the possibly different results in the time of mankind between Adam and the Flood if God had allowed Cain to be killed? I don't think it would have really changed that much at all, mankind had already fallen, sure some of the details might have been different but I don't really see that things would have changed all that much.Why do you think evil flourished in this time? I don't think that evil flourished any more during that time than it does now or at any other time. Remember, evil existed prior to even the Fall of humanity or else there would have been no temptation. It's not as if evil came into this world after the Fall, the Fall was just the introduction of corruption into humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 He came not as a earthly ruler concerned over temporal matters,but spiritual ones. Yet the spiritual matters necessarily bleed over into the temporal matters, lest we have a faith that is constrained to the spiritual arena, and not lived out in our daily lives as well. We must be sure not to let faith become all one or all the other (i.e. All spiritual or all Temporal) once this happens the "Way" that Jesus taught us becomes distorted into either Antinomianism (all spiritual no life application) or Legalism (all legal no spiritual). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Yes, but its also interesting to note that the first century Christians did not separate themselves from the Jews, but instead saw themselves as Jews. It was not until 90 AD that the Christians were removed from the synagogues by the Rabbis. Granted, Paul advocated for Gentiles to be apart from the Law, but that leaves the Jerusalem Christians in an interesting situation.Are you trying to be difficult? The first century Christians were primarily Jews, and You are bound to know the issues that festered because some tried to still live under the law of Moses and even subject others to it. You also doubtless know the church at jerusaleum was insular and neglected the commands of the Great commission..(Was the persecution a nudge from God? ) Paul advocated the requirements of the Mosaic law were fullfilled for the Jew with Christ's sacrifice.(The Noahadic law still holds by virtue of God's covenant with Noah) I don't think it would have really changed that much at all, mankind had already fallen, sure some of the details might have been different but I don't really see that things would have changed all that much. I don't think that evil flourished any more during that time than it does now or at any other time. Remember, evil existed prior to even the Fall of humanity or else there would have been no temptation. It's not as if evil came into this world after the Fall, the Fall was just the introduction of corruption into humanity. Thanks for the response Evil has existed, but to the level God regretted mankind? They must have had some wild parties in those days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Yet the spiritual matters necessarily bleed over into the temporal matters, lest we have a faith that is constrained to the spiritual arena, and not lived out in our daily lives as well. We must be sure not to let faith become all one or all the other (i.e. All spiritual or all Temporal) once this happens the "Way" that Jesus taught us becomes distorted into either Antinomianism (all spiritual no life application) or Legalism (all legal no spiritual). Agreed We also should not become too focused on the grace and forgiving aspects of God that we forget the wrath of God....balance is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Agreed We also should not become too focused on the grace and forgiving aspects of God that we forget the wrath of God....balance is good. Agreed, for me though I will err on the side of grace, especially in cases that involve the taking of a life, much less chance of getting it wrong and making a fatal mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Are you trying to be difficult? The first century Christians were primarily Jews, and You are bound to know the issues that festered because some tried to still live under the law of Moses and even subject others to it. You also doubtless know the church at jerusaleum was insular and neglected the commands of the Great commission..(Was the persecution a nudge from God? ) Paul advocated the requirements of the Mosaic law were fullfilled for the Jew with Christ's sacrifice.(The Noahadic law still holds by virtue of God's covenant with Noah) Thanks for the response Evil has existed, but to the level God regretted mankind? They must have had some wild parties in those days Yeah, I was trying to be difficult. Nothing like details to mess things up for us. Tell me more of how you're describing Noahdic law, and where you're finding it spelled out. I'm curious about this as I think I understand the concept but I haven't heard this approach before. As for God regretting making mankind, we also have to remember that (I believe Jeremiah) speaks about God leaving the Temple and abandoning Israel to their enemies; hence the Babylonian exile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 You can find it in the Talmud,about the only place actually spelled out. The council in Jerusaleum addressed the issue, acts 15: ,and of course in Gen 9 You can go here,but you know the problems with wiki I'm sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_Laws On the other, abandoning is better than destroying Good thing we get mercy rather than justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Good thing we get mercy rather than justice. AMEN, and AMEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.