zegidroph
New Member
Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!
Posts: 22
|
Post by zegidroph on Jan 9, 2006 18:19:03 GMT -5
Matthew 5 38-40 38."You have heard that it was said,An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 39.But I tell you not to resist an evil person.But whoever slaps you on your right cheek,turn the other to him also. Another thing are we as Christians still under the law? I've been taught we are now under grace. And there is a verse in Hebrews that says something like those who willfully sin against God after knowing better,there no longer remains sacrifice for sin. But since Jesus died on the cross for our sins can't our sins be forgiven even when we turn and willfully sin? Very good points, but keep in mind: forgiven does not mean unpunished. There have been sins we've done and I'm sure anyone can testify that God has punished us for them in one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by shredmetal777 on Jan 9, 2006 18:26:45 GMT -5
yeah,I know I've been punished by feeling very convicted and shameful,so I definietly know what you mean, Good Point!
|
|
zegidroph
New Member
Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!
Posts: 22
|
Post by zegidroph on Jan 9, 2006 18:29:10 GMT -5
So, in fact, Jesus speaks directly against changing the old laws and commandments in the passage. If you disagree, please tell me and explain. This is the way I grow. Right, if he fulfilled them then we are not bound by them anymore. Jesus didn't contradict the OT laws, but if he fulfilled them, then what need is there for us to abide by them? If we're still under OT law then shouldn't we also be worried about ceremonial cleanliness, being kosher, etc.?[/quote] He fulfilled them. Comlpeted them. Not as if he followed them so we don't have to, but in that he is the only one to follow all of them. Jesus was the only perfect human being, so he fulfilled these laws that were passed. As for the purely old fashioned ones (being kosher and such), those were more relevent at the time as to be an example to non-christians were it would make an impact on the culture. In addition, the next two verses after (Matthew 5:18-19) Jesus tells specifically that the laws will remain until its purpose is achieved. Kosher food, not so important anymore. Crimes for murder? Still VERY relenvat!!! I told you I was mental about context.
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Jan 9, 2006 18:36:07 GMT -5
Wait, so why are the laws about kosher food / ceremonial cleanliness / etc. not important but the laws about punishment are?
|
|
zegidroph
New Member
Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!
Posts: 22
|
Post by zegidroph on Jan 9, 2006 18:38:34 GMT -5
Matthew 5 38-40 38."You have heard that it was said,An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 39.But I tell you not to resist an evil person.But whoever slaps you on your right cheek,turn the other to him also. Another thing are we as Christians still under the law? I've been taught we are now under grace. And there is a verse in Hebrews that says something like those who willfully sin against God after knowing better,there no longer remains sacrifice for sin. But since Jesus died on the cross for our sins can't our sins be forgiven even when we turn and willfully sin? This is true. As Christians, we should turn the other cheek. But this is for slapping, or stealing your shirt, not MURDER.
|
|
zegidroph
New Member
Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!
Posts: 22
|
Post by zegidroph on Jan 9, 2006 18:41:05 GMT -5
Wait, so why are the laws about kosher food / ceremonial cleanliness / etc. not important but the laws about punishment are? Because in those times in society, it was expected and was thought of being holy. It was like the Catholic tradition of dipping your finger in water and signing the cross. It was just looked upon as holy. P.S. I'll finish this after work, be back in 4 hours.
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Jan 9, 2006 19:31:09 GMT -5
So you're saying that eating kosher and maintaining ceremonial cleanliness were not actually laws of God, but traditions created by men to keep up the appearance of holiness?
|
|
zegidroph
New Member
Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!
Posts: 22
|
Post by zegidroph on Jan 9, 2006 23:44:08 GMT -5
Both, and neither.
Kosher: in Leviticus 11 (I've wrote out enough scripture, look it up yourself) God tells the people what and what not to eat. This is not because it is unhealthy, but because it was unclean BECAUSE the pagan nations around them ate these and God wanted his people to be different. (horray Bible footnotes!) In Acts 10:9-16, God speaks to Peter and tells him to kill and eat. Peter refuses because they are unclean but God tells him it is acceptable again.
As for cememonial cleanliness, which I believe you mean burnt offerings, Jesus was the ultimate sacrafice, making any animal we could offer obsolete (Hebrews 9:13-15) BUT at the time, Jesus had not come yet, therefore these things were acts of dedication to God.
So in response to that, it was neither. It was GOD who made the traditions to keep the appearence of holiness.
This entire arguement on your part is rather iffy too. Being kosher and ceremonial cleanliness have nothing to do with the death penalty. They are personal acts, whereas the death penalty is executed and ran by the law and government.
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Jan 10, 2006 9:46:10 GMT -5
No I'm actually talking about all of the laws regarding what makes you ceremonially clean and unclean. For example, if you touch unclean animals, you are made ceremonially unclean and you are (Leviticus 5:2) guilty. If the priest examines someone with diseased skin, he can pronounce him ceremonially unclean. After copulating with one's husband/wife, one must relegate seven days to clean oneself in order to restore ceremonial cleanliness. These are all laws of God.
Now I don't understand what the relevance of the government is. It is clear that God's law is above the law of human government; Paul wrote the famous 'obey authority' passage in Romans while he was in jail. Therefore, all Old Testament laws, in my eyes, are equal for God, whether or not a human government chooses to continue to abide by them.
Now, if the death penalty as a punishment is right, why is it that Jesus does not put the adulturess to death? John 8: he tells the people that they can stone her if they themselves are sinless. They walk away. Jesus is sinless, therefore (by his own logic) he should have the right to stone her. Further, if we are to abide by biblical death penalty, we'd be doing some pretty extreme stuff. Deutoronomy 21:18-21
Let me explain my take on the situation. Israel was God's kingdom. It was a physical place, and its inhabitants were physical people. As such, if there was any person who was a threat to the kingdom, he/she would need to be 'culled from the herd' in order to not bring down the rest of the people. As it says above, 'You must purge the evil from among you'. God's Old Testament kingdom is a physical kingdom that must consequently be purged of physical evil. However, all of those sacrifices and all of those laws did not work in keeping God's kingdom pure, so God sent down Jesus to rectify the situation. When Jesus came, he taught and died for all people; and thus, God's kingdom is no longer a physical kingdom but a spiritual kingdom. Evil is purged from us through the death of Christ, not through the death of animals or people.
|
|
|
Post by eyeofsauron on Jan 14, 2006 11:49:46 GMT -5
zegidroph,
Thank you for your gentle reminder of including direct Biblical support. You were absolutely correct, and the fault was mine.
Sorry it took so long to get back to the dialog and recognize that - unforunately, life intrudes from the fun things (like carrying on a lively debate with online friends).
God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Jan 14, 2006 12:56:16 GMT -5
Ok, here's my answer (if I haven't posted it already):
The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19); adultery (Lev 20:10); homosexuality (Lev 20:13), a false prophet (Deut 13:5), prostitution and rape (Deut 22:4), and several other crimes. However, God often showed mercy when the death penalty was due. David committed adultery and murder, yet God did not demand his life be taken (2Sam 11:1-5, 14-17; 2Sam 12:13). Ultimately, each and every sin we commit should result in the death penalty (Rom 6:23). Thankfully, God demonstrates His love for us in not condemning us (Rom 5:8).
Jesus Himself did not ever directly address capital punishment (or if He did it is not recorded in the Bible). Jesus did recognize the authority God had given to government (John 18:9-11). God was the One who instituted capital punishment: “Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Gen 9:6). Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17). Therefore, I would say that Jesus would support capital punishment. Jesus also demonstrated grace when capital punishment was due (John 8:1-11). The Apostle Paul definitely recognized the power of the government to institute capital punishment where appropriate (Romans 13:1-5).
So, basically we are back to were we started. Yes, God allows capital punishment. But at the same time, God does not always demand the death penalty when it is due. What should a Christian’s view on the death penalty be then? First, we must remember that God has instituted capital punishment in His Word, therefore it would be presumptuous of us to think that we could institute a higher standard than Him or be more kind than He. God has the highest standard of any being since He is perfect. This standard applies not only to us but to Himself. Therefore, He loves to an infinite degree and He has mercy to an infinite degree. We also see that He has wrath to an infinite degree and it is all maintained in a perfect balance.
|
|
zegidroph
New Member
Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!
Posts: 22
|
Post by zegidroph on Jan 20, 2006 1:10:59 GMT -5
And all God's children said together: AMEN!
(I'm sorry for taking a while too. Having a life can sometimes suck.)
|
|
|
Post by kansascitykid on Jan 20, 2006 20:02:54 GMT -5
Laura Well i know you go on later to say Jesus demonstrated grace when capital punishment was due, but i wonder how thats not a direct adress on capital punishment. I understand the woman was not a murderer, but were not talking about murder we're talking about capital punishment. Jesus simply said let you who are without sin throw the first stone. think about that in a modern vernacular, if you havent sinned then you can give the lethal injection. i would say thats about as close as a direct adress as it gets. see also Matthew 1:19 Mary under jewish law would have been stoned to death if he Joseph had desired it, but because he was a righteous man, he didnt, God would certainly not have allowed this, but the point remains that Joseph was right in not condeming Mary.
zegidroph
Do you really think Christ was saying literally if someone slaps you on the cheek turn the other one, and if someone steals your shirt you must give him your other one or if someone forces to go one mile that you are to go exactly two more with them? i find that incredibly hard to believe, but if you want what Christ said directly about murder here it is. Matthew 5:21-22, You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgement.' But i tell you that anyone who is angry who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement. Again anyone who says to his brother "Raca" is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says 'you fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
I wonder if you would be so bold as to literally translate "anyone who says 'you fool' will be in danger of the fire of hell, which would shatter the very basis of salvation through faith that we have. You may say that Jesus points to the Sanhedrin as a valid way to justice, but we dont have a sanhedrin, we have a supreme court, who believe it or not isnt a representation of scriptural law. Furthermore i think we should all realize that when Christ says anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement, he is saying the physical act of murder is no worse than being just plain mad at someone. In that case the very very small amount of anger i feel when i hear Christians with different opinions than me qualifies me for the same judgement as murderers, slappers, shirt thieves, and hike forcers.
|
|
|
Post by MWC DemonHunter on Jan 20, 2006 23:20:16 GMT -5
We had a long debate about this and wrote a paper one time in an English class....it's a tough call. Might I ask where at KCKid?
|
|
zegidroph
New Member
Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!
Posts: 22
|
Post by zegidroph on Jan 21, 2006 0:26:38 GMT -5
zegidroph Do you really think Christ was saying literally if someone slaps you on the cheek turn the other one, and if someone steals your shirt you must give him your other one or if someone forces to go one mile that you are to go exactly two more with them? i find that incredibly hard to believe, but if you want what Christ said directly about murder here it is. Matthew 5:21-22, You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgement.' But i tell you that anyone who is angry who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement. Again anyone who says to his brother "Raca" is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says 'you fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. No I do not necessarily think he was talking about literal, and neither was I. There are many times where we as Christians should not retaliate to make a good example, but to do such specifically everytime, I don't believe so. I believe Jesus was trying to make a more of a point than a commandment.
|
|