Stoned to death

[GodsGrace]

Jesus spoke about the Laws in the Sermon on the Mount. (I think it was in that sermon). Saying that no word in the law will go away until it is completed. Then Jesus continues on to say that anyone who follows the laws and teaches others to follow them will be the greatest in in Kingdom of Heaven, and those who Ignore even the least of the laws, and teach others to ignore them will be the least in the Kingdom.

Nonetheless, in both cases both types of people are included in going to the Kingdom of heaven. The real kicker to the issue is what Jesuscsays next in Mathew 5:20.

"But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!"

The two thoughts on this matter is that 1) the Pharisees and teachers of the law were continually called hypocrites, and Jesus condemned them publically for that. And 2) the other idea is the idea that we are saved not by our own rightousness but by Jesus's rightousness taking the place of our sins so that we can be made with a clean slate before God.

Agreed.
But have you been reading along?
What do you say about my post no. 78? (and even 76).

How do we reconcile what Jesus said with what is written in the O.T.?

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Why, you think I'm going to the hot place because I don't believe God said not to boil a goat in his mother's milk?

As for that specific law itself. When I read it, it makes sense to me to not be cruel and cook a child in the milk of it's mother. There were a few laws that were given that are about how to be towards the animals and the land, instead of how to behave towards other people. I think is one of them. My thought is that though God gave us livestock for our own food, He still loved the animals and cared about being just (even to animals) to make a law to protect them from an act of horror to a mother goat.

 

[GodsGrace]

What I should have said to be more accurate is that your eternal lifestyle is at stake...I would have thought that you knew me better than what you accused me of...but whatever. I didn't type it all out correctly...my bad.

P.S. Yes, I DO know you better than that.
I was rather shocked, to tell you the truth.
We both know that judgement is on action
and not on our soul....

 

[GodsGrace]

As for that specific law itself. When I read it, it makes sense to me to not be cruel and cook a child in the milk of it's mother. There were a few laws that were given that are about how to be towards the animals and the land, instead of how to behave towards other people. I think is one of them. My thought is that though God gave us livestock for our own food, He still loved the animals and cared about being just (even to animals) to make a law to protect them from an act of horror to a mother goat.

NNS,,,,,a kid is a small goat...not a child. You mean a child goat?
Read that passage again....I think the goat would have to be dead first??

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

NNS,,,,,a kid is a small goat...not a child. You mean a child goat?
Read that passage again....I think the goat would have to be dead first??

To the mother goat, the other goat being cooked is it's child. Though all of the animals that God gave Israel as food instead of saying they are unclean, so even though people took livestock and some of them for food, I think God was still making a point to not add to this by cooking a goat in the milk of it's mother. Does that make more sense? To me it sounds like a law that is there to protect even the livestock that are used as food.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Didn't Jesus say:

Matthew 5:38-39
38“You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’o 39But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also.

If you could give me a good explanation, I'd be very happy to hear it. Because right now what I've been taught seems to be correct.

Jesus came down not to condemn the world but to save it. In the same way, if we are to walk in the same manner as Jesus did, then we have to offer the same kind of grace. I think this is adding to that. Save a person from their own sins; conquering evil by doing good.

Regarding divorce. That's tougher, because that's not just adding to a law and saying to not be a hypocrite and accept God's grace while still demanding others to pay the penitality (eye for an eye). But instead this is a whole new insight to the law of divorce. God never intended for it, but allowed it for reasons that are called "the hardening of the heart." My thought on this is that because of our sinful nature God knew there were going to be broken relationships in one way or another, so He allowed divorce without needing a reason to justify it. Covers any situation where the broken relationship could only get worse instead of better. I know of at least one relationship that while I am sad for both people that their marriage got to the point that it was in, but I have to acknowledge that they weren't going to get any better on their own. The divorce in my mind is a very gray area, because I know those people and I know the faults they had on them when the divorce was finalized. This then becomes an example to me of God's wisdom in His mercy. He gave a law for people to divorce as an act of mercy on our broken sinfulness, and our hardened and unforgiving hearts.

 

[for_his_glory]

There actually is a following by this name of Noah.

Here is a link that give the information...as I said, I knew a woman that belonged to this faith or "religion".

Noahidism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thank you for the link as it is a fascinating study, but very involved within studying the full of it. Here is just a snippet.

If you think about it all of us, Jew and Gentile, are of the generations of Noah through his sons. The term B'nei Noach has applied to all non-Jews as descendants of Noah for in the days of Noah there were no Jews as Abraham was the first one mentioned in scripture as the Hebrew, meaning to pass over, Genesis 14:13.

The English term Jew originates in the Biblical Hebrew word Yehudi, meaning "from the Kingdom of Judah" or "Jew". It's like you are from Italy, but known as Italian and I'm from America and known as an American.

I would not call it a religion, but those of faith being non-Jews and Orthodox Jews who regard the Torah, both oral and written.

They call themselves Noahides, which according to a Noahide source in 2018 there are over 20,000 that follow the seven laws that God gave to Noah under the covenant God made with him. Seven or ten commandments are all part of the moral laws found within the 613 Mosaic or another word Levitical laws. It's just that God started with seven and added to them as the generations grew and the necessity of God adding more laws specific for the Jews, but yet also for the Gentiles that are grafted into the branch by a better covenant as everyone are to follow the moral laws, which consist of well over 25 of them in subcategories that enlarge them even more.

As far as stoning to death that is one of the laws Jesus fulfilled in His greatest commandment of love and to love your neighbor no matter if they are your enemy.

 

[for_his_glory]

I was agreeing with you in my post.
Some are just not specific...
for instance, where does it say not to smoke or take drugs?
But we are told to love ourselves and this would cover that.
I think you misunderstood my post?

We will just have to disagree with the specifics and let it rest there sis. No problem with that.

 

[for_his_glory]

Sorry FHG,

I will no longer continue with this discussion unless there's a separate thread for it.

I fear I am not explaining myself properly, OR I am being misunderstood and this is a serious matter.

OK, I understand and it's remains well between us.

 

[JohnDB]

wondering
Job 42:1-7
Then Job replied to the LORD:

2“I know that You can do all things

and that no plan of Yours can be thwarted.

3You asked, ‘Who is this

who conceals My counsel without knowledge?’

Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,

things too wonderful for me to know.

4You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak.

I will question you, and you shall answer.’

5My ears had heard of You,

but now my eyes have seen You.

6Therefore I retract my words,

and I repent in dust and ashes.


Job was a true innocent. He was rather blameless even though his "friends" tried to blame him and label him with some kind of sin.
But notice especially verse 7... even though Job was a truly good guy he despised himself... meaning he hated himself for his own wickedness and felt the need for all kinds of repentance when he seen God. Job, in his own defense, explained the great and expensive lengths he went to in order to avoid sin in his household and cleanse himself of anything that might possibly be displeasing to God.

But yet... he hated himself when he met God. He felt completely unworthy.

So... even though I'm not going to hand over the answers (the posts would be horrendously long) I have hinted strongly about where the answers lie.
Context is King...and flat, face isolated value with inaccurate pictures formed by Atheists would be the last place I'd start looking for answers.
No one was ever told by God to go out and stone grade school aged children. (Which is what the Atheists would like for people to believe)
If someone forced you into a compromised and sinful lifestyle God would hold the forcer and not the forcee accountable. And God doesn't deprive us of things for arbitrary reasons. I once tried this dish spoken about... tastes great but you won't be able to leave the bathroom afterwards. I can't even imagine doing it with unpasteurized milk. (Which is what they would have used) And there is evidence that this was symbolic of bad practices...but I'm forgetting the stuff at the moment.

 

[OzSpen]

All I'm saying is that I believe that some of those rules were not of God's word -- Jesus did fix some of them, didn't He?

He said not to stone the adulteress woman. Stoning was allowed.
He said there is to be no divorce. Moses allowed divorce.
He said we are not to hate our enemy. The enemy was to be hated.

wondering,

I would never venture, as you do, to claim that I consider some of the OT 'rules were not of God's word'. Have you checked to see if the Jewish MSS evidence supported those OT rules?

As for the adulterous woman (John 7:53-8:11) some scholars consider this was not in the NT. See: 'Pericope adulterae', in FL Cross (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). Of this passage the NIV states: '[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]'.

I don't use this adulterous woman passage as there is too much doubt over its authenticity.

Notice the question of the Pharisees to Jesus: 'Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”' (Matt 19:3). They asked about divorce 'for any and every reason'.

What was Jesus' response?

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matt 19:7-9).

It is incorrect to say 'He (Jesus) said there is to be no divorce. Moses allowed divorce'. Jesus said Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of people's heart. However, Jesus allowed divorce 'for sexual immorality'.

Paul later taught that divorce is permitted if the unbeliever leaves the marriage (1 Cor 7:15).

I'll let other posters deal with your statement about OT hate and Jesus' no hate.

Oz

 

[JohnDB]

wondering,

I would never venture, as you do, to claim that I consider some of the OT 'rules were not of God's word'. Have you checked to see if the Jewish MSS evidence supported those OT rules?

As for the adulterous woman (John 7:53-8:11) some scholars consider this was not in the NT. See: 'Pericope adulterae', in FL Cross (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). Of this passage the NIV states: '[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]'.

I don't use this adulterous woman passage as there is too much doubt over its authenticity.

Notice the question of the Pharisees to Jesus: 'Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”' (Matt 19:3). They asked about divorce 'for any and every reason'.

What was Jesus' response?


It is incorrect to say 'He (Jesus) said there is to be no divorce. Moses allowed divorce'. Jesus said Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of people's heart. However, Jesus allowed divorce 'for sexual immorality'.

Paul later taught that divorce is permitted if the unbeliever leaves the marriage (1 Cor 7:15).

I'll let other posters deal with your statement about OT hate and Jesus' no hate.

Oz

I've heard from several scholars who believe that this section of John 8 actually belongs in Mark instead of John... that somehow it got confused/lost in an early transcribing/copying session of NT scriptures and wrongly re-inserted into John.
I don't toss it out but I do tend to isolate the story if I am in one of the very few instances of discussing it.

 

[OzSpen]

I've heard from several scholars who believe that this section of John 8 actually belongs in Mark instead of John... that somehow it got confused/lost in an early transcribing/copying session of NT scriptures and wrongly re-inserted into John.
I don't toss it out but I do tend to isolate the story if I am in one of the very few instances of discussing it.

John,

Gleason Archer is a scholar who supports the inerrancy of Scripture. Of John 8 and the adulterous woman he wrote:

The evidence of the earlier manuscripts of the Gospel of John suggests that this particular passage was not included by John himself in the original text of his gospel. The earliest surviving witness to this episode seems to be the sixth-century Codex Bezae, although it was received into the koine or Byzantine family of manuscripts, on which the Textus Receptus (and the KJV) are based. Nevertheless it appears to be an authentic account of an episode in Christ's ministry, and it is written in characteristically Johannine style (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties 1982:371).​

​

This outstanding resource is now available online (I've provided a pdf link).

Oz

 

[JohnDB]

John,

Gleason Archer is a scholar who supports the inerrancy of Scripture. Of John 8 and the adulterous woman he wrote:

The evidence of the earlier manuscripts of the Gospel of John suggests that this particular passage was not included by John himself in the original text of his gospel. The earliest surviving witness to this episode seems to be the sixth-century Codex Bezae, although it was received into the koine or Byzantine family of manuscripts, on which the Textus Receptus (and the KJV) are based. Nevertheless it appears to be an authentic account of an episode in Christ's ministry, and it is written in characteristically Johannine style (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties 1982:371).​

​

This outstanding resource is now available online (I've provided a pdf link).

Oz

Interesting...
But it's all conjecture by the scholars.
Many scholars agree that the passage is scripture...they just disagree with where it belongs. Others don't believe that it is scripture but is some kind of insertion.
I looked at several different scholars thoughts and research decades ago and came up with what I expressed previously.
I'm not going to rely upon this one controversial passage for any groundbreaking theological position and I believe the same to be true of you.

The action in the passage does seem to be consistent with what we know about Jesus. The main problem with it is thematic inconsistency it provides in John and stylistic difference from John's writing style. (As well as it's missing existence in many other manuscripts as stated by Gleason and many others.) Gleason might not see a thematic problem...but others do.

It's all conjecture...interesting conjecture but conjecture nonetheless. The evidence is all fairly circumstantial at best.

 

[OzSpen]

Interesting...
But it's all conjecture by the scholars.
Many scholars agree that the passage is scripture...they just disagree with where it belongs. Others don't believe that it is scripture but is some kind of insertion.
I looked at several different scholars thoughts and research decades ago and came up with what I expressed previously.
I'm not going to rely upon this one controversial passage for any groundbreaking theological position and I believe the same to be true of you.

The action in the passage does seem to be consistent with what we know about Jesus. The main problem with it is thematic inconsistency it provides in John and stylistic difference from John's writing style. (As well as it's missing existence in many other manuscripts as stated by Gleason and many others.) Gleason might not see a thematic problem...but others do.

It's all conjecture...interesting conjecture but conjecture nonetheless. The evidence is all fairly circumstantial at best.

John,

This is not conjecture. See the outline of the evidence in:

• Manuscript History and John 8:1-8:11
• Does the Passage Belong in the Bible? The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11
• My Favorite Passage that’s Not in the Bible

There is much evidence available to demonstrate it was not in the original. To call it conjecture, is just that - conjecture by you.

Oz

 

[JohnDB]

The conjecture I was referring to was who the original author was and where possibly it originally came from.
As cited from an article you provided:

Intrinsically, the vocabulary, syntax, and style look far more like Luke than they do John. There is almost nothing in these twelve verses that has a Johannine flavor. And transcriptionally, scribes were almost always prone to add material rather than omit it—especially a big block of text such as this, rich in its description of Jesus’ mercy. One of the remarkable things about this passage, in fact, is that it is found in multiple locations. Most manuscripts that have it place it in its now traditional location: between John 7:52 and 8:12. But an entire family of manuscripts has the passage at the end of Luke 21, while another family places it at the end of John’s Gospel. Other manuscripts place it at the end of Luke or in various places in John 7.

This is what I'm referring to. Not that it was included in the original codex of which contains John's Gospel...that evidence is rather solid. Tradition alone is what places it in its location ...not facts.

 

[GodsGrace]

Jesus spoke about the Laws in the Sermon on the Mount. (I think it was in that sermon). Saying that no word in the law will go away until it is completed. Then Jesus continues on to say that anyone who follows the laws and teaches others to follow them will be the greatest in in Kingdom of Heaven, and those who Ignore even the least of the laws, and teach others to ignore them will be the least in the Kingdom.

Nonetheless, in both cases both types of people are included in going to the Kingdom of heaven. The real kicker to the issue is what Jesuscsays next in Mathew 5:20.

"But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!"

The two thoughts on this matter is that 1) the Pharisees and teachers of the law were continually called hypocrites, and Jesus condemned them publically for that. And 2) the other idea is the idea that we are saved not by our own rightousness but by Jesus's rightousness taking the place of our sins so that we can be made with a clean slate before God.

In the Sermon on the Mount in chapter 5 of Matthew, Jesus taught how to be a part of the Kingdom....

I believe both your ideas at the bottom of your post are correct.
Jesus said the Pharisees would not enter into the Kingdom because they lacked love and taught only the law -- which is difficult to keep without the Holy Spirit.

And, He also taught the our righteousness must be more than that of the Pharisees, IOW,,,our righteousness comes from God and not from ourselves. We can be righteous, right with God,,,only through faith and obedience to Him and with the loving help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[GodsGrace]

As for that specific law itself. When I read it, it makes sense to me to not be cruel and cook a child in the milk of it's mother. There were a few laws that were given that are about how to be towards the animals and the land, instead of how to behave towards other people. I think is one of them. My thought is that though God gave us livestock for our own food, He still loved the animals and cared about being just (even to animals) to make a law to protect them from an act of horror to a mother goat.

I've never thought about this too much. But the above sounds reasonable. Maybe someone else will also weigh in ?

 

[GodsGrace]

To the mother goat, the other goat being cooked is it's child. Though all of the animals that God gave Israel as food instead of saying they are unclean, so even though people took livestock and some of them for food, I think God was still making a point to not add to this by cooking a goat in the milk of it's mother. Does that make more sense? To me it sounds like a law that is there to protect even the livestock that are used as food.

I know what you meant....
It's just that you've given this more thought than I have.
I wonder if JohnDB has any thoughts on this?

 

[GodsGrace]

Jesus came down not to condemn the world but to save it. In the same way, if we are to walk in the same manner as Jesus did, then we have to offer the same kind of grace. I think this is adding to that. Save a person from their own sins; conquering evil by doing good.

Regarding divorce. That's tougher, because that's not just adding to a law and saying to not be a hypocrite and accept God's grace while still demanding others to pay the penitality (eye for an eye). But instead this is a whole new insight to the law of divorce. God never intended for it, but allowed it for reasons that are called "the hardening of the heart." My thought on this is that because of our sinful nature God knew there were going to be broken relationships in one way or another, so He allowed divorce without needing a reason to justify it. Covers any situation where the broken relationship could only get worse instead of better. I know of at least one relationship that while I am sad for both people that their marriage got to the point that it was in, but I have to acknowledge that they weren't going to get any better on their own. The divorce in my mind is a very gray area, because I know those people and I know the faults they had on them when the divorce was finalized. This then becomes an example to me of God's wisdom in His mercy. He gave a law for people to divorce as an act of mercy on our broken sinfulness, and our hardened and unforgiving hearts.

The giving of a divorce certificate by Moses is interesting.

God did not begin by wanting divorce. Adam and Eve were supposed to stay together forever.

But man, with his hard heart, would leave his wife and his children ot go with another woman, or for whatever reason. So Moses made it more difficult to just leave a woman....he required that a certificate of divorce would be necessary. A man could not just up and leave his wife/family.

However, Jesus fixed this problem by declaring, as it was in the beginning, that divorce is absolutely not wanted by God and is to be rejected.

We could debate whether or not infidelity was given by Him as a good reason for divorce. I understand both sides of the issue but am unable to decide for either side.

But, once again, we find Jesus adjusting a law of Moses to bring it back to its original state.