V
Valke2
Guest
Jesus only said what we had ALREADY put into practice. That’s the point.
- Status
A
agangbern
Guest
Yeah, lucky was the woman that Jesus was there. For if Jesus was not there, she probably must have died right there. Look what the Jews did to an innocent man, here:
Acts 7:52-59,
*Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: *
prophets 2nd Chron 36:16, Matt 5:12, Matt 23:37, 1st Thess 2:15, Heb 11:35, James 5:10
*Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
*
*When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. *
cast Num 15:35, 1st Kings 21:13, Matt 27:32, Heb 13:12
*And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
*htmlbible.com/kjv30/B44C007.htm
V
Valke2
Guest
of course we don’t view the gospels as being historically accurate. My point was that despite having the Divine green light to execute people for a variety of offenses, Jews have almost from the beginning chosen to err on the side of caution when it comes to dispensing biblical justice. So that while one may technically be stoned to death for breaking the Sabbath, in practice it was not done.
A
agangbern
Guest
But they stoned Stephen to death. They wanted to stone to death the woman that fortunately Jesus saved.
The point giving rise to this part of the discussion still stand: the Jews most often misinterpreted the law. Hence Christ came to fulfill the law, that is, to show the all-encompassing meaning of the law. The Scriptures are witness to Christ. Hence all Scriptures should not be interpreted apart or contrary to Him.
V
Valke2
Guest
Jews and christians can spend all day (and millenia) accusing each other of misinterperting the law. Let’s find something more productive to discuss.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**Let’s give an example. Someone has a piece of land which borders with the main road. And there is an apple tree too close to the road. Then the owner builds a fence to prevent those who can’t leash their urge to steal, from entered the propriety and are caught stealing. If someone break that fence but decides not to steal the apples, can he be charged for robbery? Of course not! That’s what I mean by only breaking the fence is not breaking the commandment. But the fence makes the breaking of the commandment remote.Therefore, Jesus came to build fences!
But where is it written in the bible that Jesus came to build fences? And what’s the use of building fences when breaking them would not mean breaking the commandment anyway?
Fences are built for those who are unable to control themselves. Fences are good therefore. Very good, by the way. They are provisions from the grace of God to help those who are weak of characer.
Ben:
**
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
I refer to the People of Judah. The Jewish People today. That’s what was Divinely promised to David in I Kings 11:36 that would stay forever. Apart from temporary exiles because of our sins, we reign in the Land of Israel. Or… perhaps not?The Romans ADORED their emperors as gods. The Egyptians regarded Pharaohs as one of the more important of all the Egyptian gods.
You used interchangeably the person Judah and the Kingdom Judah. Isaiah 9:6 is about the King who is to rule his own Kingdom and that of David forever. And this King cannot be Judah.
Ben:
A
agangbern
Guest
It may not be robbery, but he is liable for trespassing.**Let’s give an example. Someone has a piece of land which borders with the main road. And there is an apple tree too close to the road. Then the owner builds a fence to prevent those who can’t leash their urge to steal, from entered the propriety and are caught stealing. If someone break that fence but decides not to steal the apples, can he be charged for robbery? Of course not! That’s what I mean by only breaking the fence is not breaking the commandment. But the fence makes the breaking of the commandment remote.
Fences are built for those who are unable to control themselves. Fences are good therefore. Very good, by the way. They are provisions from the grace of God to help those who are weak of characer.
Ben:
Now, let us get to a concrete example of one of these you called “fences” Unfortunately, it is in Matthew 5:21-22,
The law: " Thou shalt not kill; and that whoever shall kill shall be liable to judgment."
The so-called “fence”: But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment"
It is clear there that violation of the “fence” has simply the same punishment as a violation to the law. This completely belies your allegation that violation of the fence is not necessarily violation of the law. The law was given an encompassing meaning by Jesus so that it does not limit itself to actual killing but it includes even mere “anger”.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**To you perhaps; not to me. For two reasons: First, I accept as tender value only 20 percent of the NT. The second reason, I go by logic. In the same chapter, it says, “You shall not commit adultery; if you look at a woman with lust, you have committed adultery.” That’s so illogical that even in the heart of the fool, is not worthy believing that a thought is a crime. Of course, I understand that if you don’t think about committing adultery, the actual act itself becomes rather remote. But that’s all it does. The same applies to anger, if it’s not carried into action. But if you want to think it does, it’s your choice.
Ben:
**
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Read Acts of the Apostles.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**Who is in charge of the Government in the Land of Israel? The Jews, right? Right. So, you have a ruler in the Kingdom of David. The “forever” is to be applied toThe Romans ADORED their emperors as gods. The Egyptians regarded Pharaohs as one of the more important of all the Egyptian gods.
You used interchangeably the person Judah and the Kingdom Judah. Isaiah 9:6 is about the King who is to rule his own Kingdom and that of David forever. And this King cannot be Judah.
the permanence of the Jews in this world, opposite to Israel, the Ten Tribes… (Jer. 31:35-38; 46:28)
Ben:
**
L
Lapell
Guest
About #270: Thanks, agangbern, for the clarification. I understand what you meant now… Thanks again, and God bless you!
L
Lapell
Guest
“Almost” never is "not quite"never, so there WERE cases!
L
Lapell
Guest
What about the intention, Ben? You may not act on it for now, but you may act on it later, even much later. Moreover, there might be times when someone can get angry and suddenly explodes, so to speak, and the one whom he gets angry at kinda lose his energy to an extent, is overcome by fear, and is not so “alive” in the presence of the one angry! And if someone says angrily something to the effect, for instance, that the person he is angry is a good-for-nothing that would be more useful dead than alive, it may upset the other one to the extend that he would become so sad that every once in a while he might attempt to kill himself… This may happen, you know! A sudden outburst is not as innocent that it may seem to you.**To you perhaps; not to me. For two reasons: First, I accept as tender value only 20 percent of the NT. The second reason, I go by logic. In the same chapter, it says, “You shall not commit adultery; if you look at a woman with lust, you have committed adultery.” That’s so illogical that even in the heart of the fool, is not worthy believing that a thought is a crime. Of course, I understand that if you don’t think about committing adultery, the actual act itself becomes rather remote. But that’s all it does. The same applies to anger, if it’s not carried into action. But if you want to think it does, it’s your choice.
Ben:
L
Lapell
Guest
It makes the stoning of deacon Stephen even graver!
L
Lapell
Guest
Frankly, Ben!!!..
We are not going to leave Jesus out of this “equation”, as you call it. And for a good reason: Jesus and “the Christ of Paul” are the same one person. You may not like it, Ben, but it’s the truth!
I guess you have dismissed a good amount of what I said and of what others said. It’s not because in your view it just can’t be that it automatically is.
Funny, coming from a Jew who seems to not believe in an afterlife…
A
agangbern
Guest
Christians have their own bible that supports the teachings that they abide. You have your own bible that you too think supports the teachings that you abide. Your bible, for example, does not consider “anger” as punishable in the eyes of God; while Christian bible considers it punishable. Christians believe, for example, in the gospel of Matthew, where three persons in one God are clearly spelled out; while you do not believe in Matthew. In such case, therefore, what did you expect or intend in starting this thread?**To you perhaps; not to me. For two reasons: First, I accept as tender value only 20 percent of the NT. The second reason, I go by logic. In the same chapter, it says, “You shall not commit adultery; if you look at a woman with lust, you have committed adultery.” That’s so illogical that even in the heart of the fool, is not worthy believing that a thought is a crime. Of course, I understand that if you don’t think about committing adultery, the actual act itself becomes rather remote. But that’s all it does. The same applies to anger, if it’s not carried into action. But if you want to think it does, it’s your choice.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**What did I expect or intend in starting this thread? I’ll tell you what. First of all, to proclaim the absolute unity of God. Then, being Jesus a religious Jew, my intent was to bring to your attention that anything about him, which is not Jewish, it’s not true. You might say that’s according to Christianity and not Judaism. Yes, but you are using a religious Jew to give an impression that there is precedence or potential in Judaism for Greek Mythology, and that’s not true.
Ben:
**
A
agangbern
Guest
He whom you call a religious Jew, Christians worship Him. But Jews sought to kill Him, and they pushed for His death. Now, about two thousand years passed, using your logic and your own bible, you want that Christians should not worship Him. I wonder when should the Jews stop persecuting Jesus.**What did I expect or intend in starting this thread? I’ll tell you what. First of all, to proclaim the absolute unity of God. Then, being Jesus a religious Jew, my intent was to bring to your attention that anything about him, which is not Jewish, it’s not true. You might say that’s according to Christianity and not Judaism. Yes, but you are using a religious Jew to give an impression that there is precedence or potential in Judaism for Greek Mythology, and that’s not true.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**Oh! I think you are not reading be right. I am not defeding Jesus per se. I know that one once dead, he or she is dead forever. My stand if for the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism, which I think is being tempered by Christians who attribute non-Jewish innovations to Judaism.
Ben:
**- Status