No, I will find it, I was just being lazy, but thank you for the offer, very nice. I know about murderers and rapists but never heard of adulterers is all.
I think rebellious children get stoned too. That should solve a lot of discipline problems!
No, I will find it, I was just being lazy, but thank you for the offer, very nice. I know about murderers and rapists but never heard of adulterers is all.
I agree that following Jesus is the only way to the father.I am sorry Dan, but none of that has anything to do with Christianity. All we have in common is Jesus, who introduced His people to His Heavenly Father, so that all who believe and follow Him and HIS teaching might be saved. There is no salvation in Jewish rituals, sacrifice or law keeping. No man can save himself, salvation is a gift of God, there is no other way.
Sounds good!Before Jesus arrived in the flesh, i.e during the OT, they were saved by faith in what God revealed to them.
And what did God reveal to them during that time? "Keep the Law of Moses, circumcise your male kids, and offer an animal sacrifice every time you sin."
As long as they do that, God considers that as "putting their faith in him" and he will see them as righteous before him, as what the prophet Balaam found out in Numbers 23:18-21.
I think it's unlikely that the Israelites captured by the Assyrians stayed mostly intact and migrated up into Denmark, etc. But I suppose it's possible.To give a little background of "world history" (geographically speaking) for credibility purposes, as I have come to understand it, concerning "the idea?" The tribes that migrated north into Denmark, Britain, and eventually to, not only the U.S. of A., but Aussie Land as well?
Migrated over a mountain range in the Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia areas, known as the "Caucasus" mountains? Were "later" called "caucasians", by those scattered in a more southerly direction through Europe, Italy, Spain, etc. (get the "drift?").
Some even "earned the moniker" of being "labelled" "Saxons." Sons of Issac, or "Issac's Sons."
There must have been a "parting of the ways" between those who believed in "gods", from those who believed/followed the "God of Issac", further northwards to Norway, Sweden, Finland, and probably Iceland, as well.
By the time these "tribes" migrated? It stands to reason that "followers of nimrod", had already established themselves in these areas, after the "flood of Noah." (tower of Babel incident) Hence, the "paganism" that stems from the "nordic regions."
Jesus, Yeshua, by His action and by His teaching has clarified how the law should be regarded after His presence here, His first advent.
Hearing Him we learn that any law without mercy, justice and faith is not to be applied. He was perfect. He did not break the law, yet He defended the adulteress from being stoned to death according to the law….Did He break the law in so ding? No, He demonstrated the law without mercy is not good. .........
I agree that following Jesus is the only way to the father.
Once we become a Christian, does that mean we no longer look to the law for wisdom?
We don't have to follow the physical requirements of the law. At the same time, I think it is good to look to see what the law says about things. For example
1 Corinthians 9: 9. For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it for the oxen that God cares, 10. or does he say it assuredly for our sake? Yes, it was written for our sake, because he who plows ought to plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should partake of his hope.
Jesus said, "This is the New covenant in my blood."Sounds good!
The only small thing I would note is that as I read the scriptures, the old covenant, or the old testament, was still in force throughout Jesus' life and ministry up until the time when he says
This is the New covenant in my blood.
I like that interpretation.This is very interesting!
Jesus didn't say "don't stone her because I came to abolish the Law" or "don't stone her because the Law will soon be abolished". The Lord said they could stone her, but the one without sin should be the first to cast a stone.
My interpretation is this:
Jesus not only obeyed the Law, but He also amended it, bringing it to a higher level.
According to David Bivin FULFILL means more than TO OBEY, TO KEEP, TO EXECUTE, TO FINISH, etc. The scholar says that FULFILL and ABOLISH are idioms meaning respectively: "to interpret correctly" and "to misinterpret".
So, Jesus was reinterpreting the Law and the Pharisees accused Him of misinterpreting it, which, in their minds, would ultimately result in the destruction of the Torah.
I think Jesus didn't remove anything from the Law regarding stoning; He just amended it by adding a new requirement: "the one without sin must be the first". Theoretically Jesus didn't abolish stoning, but in practice He did because no one is without sin.
Now, I ask a question: Why didn't Jesus Himself throw the first stone? He was without sin and He was still under the Law!
That's exactly right, Paul is talking about paying those who minister to you.O' dear Dan, I'm afraid the passage in 1 Cor 9-14 is not what you think. It is about being paid for the work we do. Because the ox is not muzzled it can eat the corn, in that way it gets paid in kind.
In verses 11-12 Paul says, "If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap material benefits (payment) from you?"
If others enjoy this right over you, don't we have a stronger claim?
In verse 13 he says, "those who work in the Temple get their food from the Temple and that those who serve at the altar get their share of its offerings." They get paid.
He concludes by saying, "In the same way, the Lord has ordered that those who proclaim the gospel should make their living from the gospel." Paul is saying to pay those who minister to you.
That's exactly right, Paul is talking about paying those who minister to you.
And he bases it on a concept in the law. Does this mean we do everything the law says, and we take the law literally? No. And it also doesn't mean that we follow every concept in the law.
But,
Psalm 19: 7. The law of the Lord is good, giving new life to the soul: the witness of the Lord is certain, giving wisdom to the foolish. 8. The orders of the Lord are right, making glad the heart: the rule of the Lord is holy, giving light to the eyes.
I like that interpretation.
Jesus gave his disciples the power of binding and loosing, so it would follow that Jesus himself had the ability to amend the law.
Matthew 18: 18. Most certainly I tell you, whatever things you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever things you release on earth will have been released in heaven.
Maybe something he wrote in The Sand would explain why he didn't begin the stoning.
(another possible explanation of the story is that it isn't actually part of the Gospel of John. It is not found in many early manuscripts, in a few early manuscripts it occurs in Luke. So a possible scenario is something like there was an ancient pastor who was preparing his sermon and wanted to include this story the way pastors do. He wrote it in the margins of his copy of John. Then the next person that made a copy from that copy included the story in the main body.)
Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb FOR ALL ISRAEL. Malachi 4:4 “God commanded us (through His son Jesus and through the apostle Paul) to stop keeping the law of Moses. We have to obey Him.
Sounds good!
The only small thing I would note is that as I read the scriptures, the old covenant, or the old testament, was still in force throughout Jesus' life and ministry up until the time when he says
This is the New covenant in my blood.
Jesus had to stay under the law because He was going to have to go back "to Noah" , to offer all those who had died under the law, grace. He couldn't really do that if He had not been under it himself.Sounds good!
The only small thing I would note is that as I read the scriptures, the old covenant, or the old testament, was still in force throughout Jesus' life and ministry up until the time when he says
This is the New covenant in my blood.
This is very interesting!
Jesus didn't say "don't stone her because I came to abolish the Law" or "don't stone her because the Law will soon be abolished". The Lord said they could stone her, but the one without sin should be the first to cast a stone.
My interpretation is this:
Jesus not only obeyed the Law, but He also amended it, bringing it to a higher level.
According to David Bivin FULFILL means more than TO OBEY, TO KEEP, TO EXECUTE, TO FINISH, etc. The scholar says that FULFILL and ABOLISH are idioms meaning respectively: "to interpret correctly" and "to misinterpret".
So, Jesus was reinterpreting the Law and the Pharisees accused Him of misinterpreting it, which, in their minds, would ultimately result in the destruction of the Torah.
I think Jesus didn't remove anything from the Law regarding stoning; He just amended it by adding a new requirement: "the one without sin must be the first". Theoretically Jesus didn't abolish stoning, but in practice He did because no one is without sin.
Now, I ask a question: Why didn't Jesus Himself throw the first stone? He was without sin and He was still under the Law!
I'm not a law-keeper, but I still haven't found a single piece of evidence -- in the Gospels -- that Jesus ever told us to stop keeping the Law. Should we rely solely on what Paul said?
Alright, how did you arrive at this belief? You don't think it was set for an example of "reading the thoughts and intents of our hearts" and as an example of the forgiveness that "might" be found in the new covenant to come? "political/religious spy"???I believe this poor woman was "set up", to take the fall. Her "only crime", being she was a "political/religious spy", involved in some "power struggle", involving those who wished her taken "out of their mix", because she knew too much! Or, perhaps, she was a "paid operative"(being more likely the story here) by one or more of these guys, to "destroy the credibility", of the guy she was having intimate relations with.
Now Jesus, perceiving that which was in their hearts, as He oft times did, Seen the "games they were playing" with the LAW! And, how "far" the "wild olive tree" had "infiltrated and corrupted" these people.
2 Timothy 2
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
Is as true NOW, as it was "since the fall of Adam n Eve!"
Tis AS sad NOW, as it was THEN!
ALAS! The "games" people play! Eh?![]()
Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: