Old Testament, New Testament

[Tom Butler]

What I got out of that horrible article is that there are parts of the OT and NT that he does not like so he wants to take a black marker and cross out what he doesn't agree with - he wants a bible of his own making.

In other words, the Bible is inspired in spots, and he's inspired to spot the spots.

 

[preacher4truth]

In other words, the Bible is inspired in spots, and he's inspired to spot the spots.

I'm not surprised when things like this come out of the arminian camp. It's to be expected.

 

[Skandelon]

see post 95.....Jesus as sinless,and the law giver could have justly"cast the first stone"....but as God he chose to have mercy on her,forgiving her sin,

The law was for people (not Christ) to stone adulterers, so by this reasoning it would have also been lawful for the sinful men to have stoned her, right?

What if Christ hadn't been there and they had stoned her, would that have been wrong?

What does this story tell us about the nature of God given that in the OT He tells them to stone her and in the NT he tells them to show mercy? BTW, I've never argued that one negates the other, nor have I have argued that the OT command didn't exist or mean what it said. I'm simply pointing out how we should interpret the OT in light of the NT. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[12strings]

The law was for people (not Christ) to stone adulterers, so by this reasoning it would have also been lawful for the sinful men to have stoned her, right?

What if Christ hadn't been there and they had stoned her, would that have been wrong?

What does this story tell us about the nature of God given that in the OT He tells them to stone her and in the NT he tells them to show mercy? BTW, I've never argued that one negates the other, nor have I have argued that the OT command didn't exist or mean what it said. I'm simply pointing out how we should interpret the OT in light of the NT. Wouldn't you agree?

Here's the problem (see bolded section) You HAVE NOT pointed out HOW we shoudl interpret the OT in light of the NT. You, like the author in question, have simply pointed out that there is a problem, an apparent contradition, but failed to give a clear solution.

I'm waiting to hear what solution you are proposing. (sorry if I've missed it...you can point me to a previous post, or summarize it here).

 

[Iconoclast]

The law was for people (not Christ) to stone adulterers, so by this reasoning it would have also been lawful for the sinful men to have stoned her, right?

What if Christ hadn't been there and they had stoned her, would that have been wrong?

What does this story tell us about the nature of God given that in the OT He tells them to stone her and in the NT he tells them to show mercy? BTW, I've never argued that one negates the other, nor have I have argued that the OT command didn't exist or mean what it said. I'm simply pointing out how we should interpret the OT in light of the NT. Wouldn't you agree?

This would be a whole seperate thread...but yes the Nt takes priority but there is alot to discuss with that.

 

[Amy.G]

The law was for people (not Christ) to stone adulterers, so by this reasoning it would have also been lawful for the sinful men to have stoned her, right?

No it would not have been lawful. The whole episode was intended to trap Jesus. According to the Law, both parties were to be stoned, but the offending man was never brought forward, only the woman was. Some have said that the offending man may have been one of the men watching this incident.

Leviticus 20
10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.

 

[Skandelon]

yes the Nt takes priority

Exactly. That is the point. Its not that the OT is disregarded or dismissed, but that the NT takes priority and provides clarity as to God's intent in his methods of revelation in the OT.

We don't understand mercy without Law. We can't grasp what Christ did in the NT unless the seriousness of the law as is revealed in the OT is first made known. There is a purpose for both, but Paul warned the church of Galatia not to go back to the law and that is the warning we must heed ourselves when we allow legalism and fundamentalism to take over our churches. The law was a tutor pointing us to grace and the true nature of God as revealed in his Son. Thus, when I read the 'terror' passages of the OT I interpret them in light of "love your enemies and do good to those who hate you," and I praise God we no longer live under law. I refuse to allow legalists to rule over me. I am free and I aint going back!!!

 

[Skandelon]

Michael, with all due respect, you keep telling him you don't want to have anymore to do with him and then you keep right on responding as if he is the only one on the board. Let it go brother. I have two words for you: Ignore list.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Exactly. That is the point. Its not that the OT is disregarded or dismissed, but that the NT takes priority and provides clarity as to God's intent in his methods of revelation in the OT.

We don't understand mercy without Law. We can't grasp what Christ did in the NT unless the seriousness of the law as is revealed in the OT is first made known. There is a purpose for both, but Paul warned the church of Galatia not to go back to the law and that is the warning we must heed ourselves when we allow legalism and fundamentalism to take over our churches. The law was a tutor pointing us to grace and the true nature of God as revealed in his Son. Thus, when I read the 'terror' passages of the OT I interpret them in light of "love your enemies and do good to those who hate you," and I praise God we no longer live under law. I refuse to allow legalists to rule over me. I am free and I aint going back!!!

Praise God and AMEN, brother!!!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael, with all due respect, you keep telling him you don't want to have anymore to do with him and then you keep right on responding as if he is the only one on the board. Let it go brother. I have two words for you: Ignore list.

I respond, but I'm trying not to get in the ditch with him.

But you're probably right; I should probably just let him bray on and ignore it.

 

[Skandelon]

Here's the problem (see bolded section) You HAVE NOT pointed out HOW we shoudl interpret the OT in light of the NT. You, like the author in question, have simply pointed out that there is a problem, an apparent contradition, but failed to give a clear solution.

I'm waiting to hear what solution you are proposing. (sorry if I've missed it...you can point me to a previous post, or summarize it here).

Hopefully my last post to Icon will help, but feel free to ask if not...

 

[Skandelon]

No it would not have been lawful. The whole episode was intended to trap Jesus. According to the Law, both parties were to be stoned, but the offending man was never brought forward, only the woman was. Some have said that the offending man may have been one of the men watching this incident.

Leviticus 20
10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.

So, you think it would have been ok to stone them had they both been brought out for judgement? Why doesn't the church still stone adulterers then?

 

[thomas15]

...It's not about belief in the Word, but how one interprets it. Apparently you think Jesus doesn't believe the OT scriptures because he didn't follow its precepts by stoning the adulterous woman...and its painfully obvious why not a single one of you will even address that point which has been raised several times now.

Jesus, the second person of the triune God has the unique right to forgive the sinner and in fact he did forgive this lady. Also, Jesus, God with us chose the exact time to appear among us, a time when Israel did not have political control over civil matters. If they did, the Jews would not have had to ask Pilate to pass judgement on Jesus and they probably would have gone through with stoning Jesus John 8:58 but were held back in part I believe because they did not have the civil authority to do so.

Jesus stated himself that he came not to judge but to seek and save the lost. This includes both the adulterous woman and the Scribes and Pharasees. It would have been counterproductive for him to pass judgement on one sinner and let another sinner off scott free. He who searches the heart and mind knew full well that the Pharaseese wanted to use the adulterous woman to further their own ungodly purposes, not to keep society pure. Note that Jesus forgave the woman but he did not forgive those who brough her to Jesus.

Also in the passage you keep referring to, Jesus said to the Jews, in effect, if you have no sin, go ahead, stone her. But they were convicted of their sins.

There are other points to be made here but I think this should do for now. The reason why I haven't addressed your point is, and I'm sure others here feel the same, is because your premise is, to be quite frank, silly.

 

[Skandelon]

Jesus, the second person of the triune God has the unique right to forgive the sinner and in fact he did forgive this lady.

Right, and we are supposed to be like him! Now you are getting it. :smilewinkgrin:

The reason why I haven't addressed your point is, and I'm sure others here feel the same, is because your premise is, to be quite frank, silly.

And what is that premise exactly? Maybe you can restate what you THINK my premise is and explain what is 'silly' about it. I look forward to your answer.

 

[Amy.G]

So, you think it would have been ok to stone them had they both been brought out for judgement? Why doesn't the church still stone adulterers then?

It doesn't matter if I think it was ok or not. What does the bible say? When Jesus walked the earth the Law was still in effect. He obeyed it perfectly. Once the veil was torn in two, the Law had been fulfilled and the NC began. That's not my opinion, that's bible and history. So under the Law, yes adulterers could still be stoned to death.
But it was to trap Jesus. Jesus said he who is without sin, cast the first stone. This is reference to the Law that requires that only a person not involved in the crime may throw the first stone. The whole point of this episode was to trick Jesus. That is what you should be learning from it.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Right, and we are supposed to be like him! Now you are getting it. :smilewinkgrin:



And what is that premise exactly? Maybe you can restate what you THINK my premise is and explain what is 'silly' about it. I look forward to your answer.

I'm waiting to see if any of these people have the guts to tell you what they've told me -- that you don't believe God's word; that you're a God-hater; blasphemous; a cancer to be cut out of Christ's Body; an apostate heretic on the way to Hell, etc. I believe the same as you do regarding this thread's subject, but there's one difference -- you as a mod have the power to banish them to outer darkness.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It doesn't matter if I think it was ok or not. What does the bible say? When Jesus walked the earth the Law was still in effect. He obeyed it perfectly. Once the veil was torn in two, the Law had been fulfilled and the NC began. That's not my opinion, that's bible and history. So under the Law, yes adulterers could still be stoned to death.
But it was to trap Jesus. Jesus said he who is without sin, cast the first stone. This is reference to the Law that requires that only a person not involved in the crime may throw the first stone. The whole point of this episode was to trick Jesus. That is what you should be learning from it.

And what was the point of the episode of the Sermon on the Mount, hmmm?

 

[Skandelon]

So under the Law, yes adulterers could still be stoned to death.

And we are no longer under the law and thus no longer do as prescribed by the OT in this regard, we agree. So, what is your point? Maybe you weren't attempting to disagree? I'm not sure???

The whole point of this episode was to trick Jesus. That is what you should be learning from it.

Darn, I learned both.

1. Jesus was trying to be tricked

AND

2. Grace is a better response than condemnation, shame and law.

I guess I learned too much!

 

[Skandelon]

I'm waiting to see if any of these people have the guts to tell you what they've told me -- that you don't believe God's word; that you're a God-hater; blasphemous; a cancer to be cut out of Christ's Body; an apostate heretic on the way to Hell, etc. I believe the same as you do regarding this thread's subject, but there's one difference -- you as a mod have the power to banish them to outer darkness.

There is one other difference that I hope is evident to all. :flower:

 

[Amy.G]

And what was the point of the episode of the Sermon on the Mount, hmmm?

Christ was explaining not only the doing of the Law but the spiritual meaning behind it, and by doing so He showed even more deeply how man is unable to obey it perfectly, thereby putting to shame the Pharisees legalism. Smarty pants.