LIBERTIES

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Unregistered(d)	Jesus Was Not Perfectly Torah Observant	#521	[-]
Posts: 0 (08/25/07 10:48:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hello, GS. You state, "My Lord was perfectly Torah observant". No, he was not. The Law commanded that adulterers and adulteresses be put to death. If Christ was "perfectly" Torah observant, He would have helped stone the adulteress Himself. Christ's answer, "He that is without sin among you . . . " is not Torah-observant. The Law did not call on only sinless people to inflict the death penalty. It simply stated that the community must inflict death on those who are guilty of this sin. Christ did not obey the Torah in this case. (Because He wasn't supposed to.)
giant slayer	Re: Jesus Was Not Perfectly Torah Observant	#522	[-]
Posts: 821 (08/26/07 09:38:16) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hello Interested Sister: The Torah gives proper instruction on how to bring charges against someone. Those instructions were not followed. First, the accused were to be brought before the proper body for trial. That body would have been the Sanhedrin. That was not done. Secondly, Two or three witnesses were required to convict. There were no witnesses presented. Only the word of the spokesman who said she was caught in the act. The witnesses were to be the ones to cast the first stone. "thus Jesus' words. The man was to be stoned also, they didn't bring him. Perhaps the man had raped her. Every move these persons made in regard to this woman was in itself a violation of Torah. That means it was sin, so Jesus convicted them of sin. Jesus did not forbid them to stone here. Jesus had no authority under the law to stone her Himself because the witnesses were to be first and none of them were willing to follow through after being convicted themselves of violating this womans rights. In doing so, they were guilty of being false witnesses and could have been stoned themselves. JESUS DID NOT VIOLATE TORAH
Unregistered(d)	Torah	#523	[-]
Posts: 0 (08/27/07 07:19:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi, GS. "the witnesses were to be first and none of them were willing to follow through after being convicted themselves of violating this womans rights." You are arbitrarily filling in parts of the narrative, here. "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act." (Jn. 8:3-4) Nothing -- nothing -- here implies that the Pharisees had denied her due process. Jesus did not question whether or not they accorded her due process. He focused on sin, generally. This narrative implies that they had already taken her through due process and had a conviction, and decided to get the opinion of the new prophet. Jesus dissuaded the witnesses you speak of with his question -- a question that was not relevant under Torah. Let's read the Bible simply, here. JESUS WAS NOT PERFECTLY TORAH OBSERVANT
giant slayer	Re: Torah	#524	[-]
Posts: 821 (08/27/07 09:19:19) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Interested Sister: First you asy I am arbitrarly filling in parts of the narrative, then you say "Nothing-- here implies that the Pharisees had denied her due process and that the narrative implies that they had already taken her through due process". By saying that such is implied you are yourself arbitrarily filling in parts of the narrative. If you choose to accuse Jesus of sin by violating Torah because He refused to take part in this lynch mobs activity, that is between you and Jesus. We will just have to disagree on this one.
Covenanted Sister	torah	#525	[-]
Posts: 156 (08/27/07 10:51:32) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	David, I am going to have to agree with Interested Sister's interpretation of the event and not yours. Sorry. You say Every move these persons made in regard to this woman was in itself a violation of Torah. Specifically which statutes did they violate? Do the scriptures say that no trial took place previously? Do the scriptures say the appropriate number of witnesses weren't already presented? I will develop this point in a future post, but let me briefly identify what I think is heretical about your perspective: you make the Torah an idol. You diminish Christ and God, making them subservient to your interpretation of a written code. You say God's word doesn't change, but have you at all read the Old Testament??? I will be be eliciting some examples for you that I'd like for you to clarify under the terms of your messianic theology. In the meantime, I truly pray that you come to understanding that Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is so far beyond the written Torah, and this is the point I was attempting to make in my previous post. Moses delivers to us the Torah, but Moses was denied the privelege of seeing the fullness of God's Glory. Only Jesus can reveal that to us, and that is why the Old Covenant Torah is only a shadow. But hold tight, friend.....my post will be forthcoming.
giant slayer	Re: Torah	#526	[-]
Posts: 821 (08/27/07 12:43:43) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I would like to add more to the discussion Interested Sister. John 18:31 says "Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." In light of the fact that Jesus would have been participating in an unlawful act under Roman law if He had joined in the death of this woman, do you still think that Jesus violated Torah by doing what He did? Had he participated and then was arrested for murder, how do you think that the salvation of man would have been affected? If they used the arguement with pilate that they had no authority to take a life, then what were they trying to do with Jesus by asking Him to condemn this woman to death? Since John in his first letter, chapter 3, verse 4 says that sin is the transgression of the law, and you say that Jesus transgressed the law, then He could not be the sinless sacrifice, so where does that leave you Interested Sister? You are yet in your sins. According to Torah, one could not be King if He violated Torah, so, does that mean that Jesus was not the King of the Jews? Jesus said Himself, I come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. How could He violate the law and still fulfill it? I could go on and on and on and on. Jesus was the perfect sinless Son of God who came to do the will of the Father and take our sins upon Himself. He was perfect! He never sinned, He never violated Torah! If I hear one more accusation from you Interested Sister that my Lord violated Torah, I will shake the dust from my feet as a testamony against you and pray for mercy for your soul. David
giant slayer	Re: torah	#527	[-]
Posts: 821 (08/27/07 14:18:09) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Covenanted Sister: Don't bother. I am at a loss to understand why you and Interested Sister have taken me as an adversary. If you will study the beliefs of your own Church, you will find that every law you keep that you identify as "moral law" is Torah! I have only been trying to show that all of Torah is God's law. I am simply trying to move your understanding out from under the vail of anti-semitism that has caused all of these problems between Christians and Jews. Judah is your brother! If you can't even make a small attempt to leave your gift at the altar and go and reconcile with your brother, then you are so deep into the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes and the Laodician error that apart from direct intervention of the Holy Spirit you will never get out of it. You may use me as a scape goat if you wish and do all you please in your heart to save face on this forum, I don't care. I only care that eyes are open before it is too late. So, say what you wish, just be careful that what you say does not injure a weaker brother, and call me a heretic if you wish, laugh at me, ridicule me or what ever gives you pleasure, but just know that I love you in Christ and will be praying that you and Interested Sister will be shown mercy and delivered from your ignorance of God's law before it is too late. I count both of you as sisters in Christ and you will be in my prayers. David
Covenanted Sister	law	#528	[-]
Posts: 156 (08/27/07 14:29:21) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	David, Can you please help me understand your most recent post? What do you mean when you say Jesus would have been participating in an unlawful act under Roman law if He had joined in the death of this woman. Why are you comparing the story of the woman taken in adultery to John 18.31? The reason the Jews could not put Christ to death is because it was during the Pasch. The death penalty was not a foreign concept to the Torah; in fact it was sanctioned by the Torah. I'm at a complete loss as to what you are getting at. I would add that Jesus violates the written Torah insofar as He goes beyond its dead letter.
giant slayer	Re: law	#529	[-]
Posts: 821 (08/27/07 17:59:37) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It is pretty simple Covenanted Sister, It had nothing to do with the Pasch. Under Roman Law it was unlawful for the Jews to practice capital punishment. Otherwise they could have waited until the end of Pasch and the executed Him. Only the Roman authority could practice capital punishment.
Covenanted Sister	unlawful	#530	[-]
Posts: 156 (08/28/07 02:43:59) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	David, This doesn't solve your dilemma, unless you somehow believe that civil law can legitimately supplant the law of God. If the Torah commands an action and the action isn't carried out because of some other non-Torah law, then how is that not a violation of the Torah? CS
Covenanted Sister	death	#531	[-]
Posts: 156 (08/28/07 02:54:40) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	David, I would also clarify that what Roman law forbade was death by stoning. As is plain from John 18.32, the manner in which Christ was to die (stoning vs. crucifixion) was a matter of previous prophesy. Essentially, the Jews co-opted Roman law in this instance, making it their own, thus fulfilling Jesus' prophesy in Matthew 23.34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synaogues and persecute from town to town. The you, to whom Jesus was speaking were Jews. This prophecy, David, was made during the time of the Roman occupation.
Unregistered(d)	Non-Observance vs. Violation	#532	[-]
Posts: 0 (08/28/07 07:04:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hello, GS & CS. To add to CS' examples, we have Pilate turning to the chief priests and telling them to take Jesus and crucify Him themselves because Pilate found no fault in Him. I agree with you, CS that the fact of Roman Law does not negate the fact that Jesus clearly discouraged the witnesses, scribes, and Pharisees from carrying out the death penalty for this woman. Jesus' refusal to observe Torah perfectly/physically seems to center on penalty issues like this one (not surprisingly). He, for example, forgave the man sick of the palsy of His sins, inspite of the fact that no ram or animal had been sacrificed. All of us know why and accept that this was still just. But, at the end of the day, it was not perfectly Torah observant in the physical sense. You make a valid point, GS, in assuming that Jesus kept the Law perfectly Himself as He walked the earth (For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin . . . II Cor. 5:21). It's pretty telling that His disciples picked ears of corn on the Sabbath, but He did not. But the point relevant to your theology, GS, is that Jesus did not endorse keeping the Mosaic Law in the commands He gave to his followers. Take an honest look at His answer to the Pharisees in Matt. 12. His disciples' actions were no more lawful than those of wandering Israelites who gathered manna on the Sabbath. Yet, he called them "guiltless" (Mt. 12:7). He recounts David's eating the shewbread and clarifies that it was "not lawful for him to eat". His answer is that He is greater than the temple, Lord even of the sabbath, etc., and therefore He has the authority to override the law. per se. Ultimately, keeping the letter of the Mosaic Law is not what is commanded in the NT. In my view, this negates the view that the Sabbath must be kept in exacting OT style, dietary regulations, physical circumcision, etc whether for salvation or for sanctification (two things that I think aren't all that different).
giant slayer	Re: Non-Observance vs. Violation	#533	[-]
Posts: 821 (08/28/07 13:01:51) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hello Interested Sister: Thank you for acknowledging a little of my point. I was on the verge of giving up. Let me address the situation of David eating the shewbread. At that time, Jesus was not present with David as He is in the situation of the Disciples picking the grain, at least He is not present in the flesh. There was a "NEED: "he was an hungred, and they that were with him" Mt 12:5, the priest profane the Sabbath, and are blameless. It is their job to minister on the Sabbath. They are working on Sabbath, but they are excused because that is what priests do. In verse 7 Jesus says, "...if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless." David was guiltless because of a need that was greater than the Sabbath. They were hungry. The need of the preservation of life is a greater need than keeping the Sabbath. The disciples were guiltless because they were hungry. Their need for food was also a need for the preservation of life. That is a greater need than not harvesting on Sabbath. It was the so called oral law that put such strengent proabitions on the Sabbath. If I get hungry on Sabbath I go make a sandwich or something. I am not breaking Sabbath because I do. Though I acknowledge that Jesus is greater than the Sabbath, or Moses, or Torah, or anything else in the creation. He was not referring to Himself as "the greater one that was present" He was referring to the "NEED" to preserve life is greater than the need to not harvest. Otherwise He would not have chosen this passage as a reference, because He was not physicaly present with David and his men. This is the same lesson He taught in all His confrontations over Sabbath keeping. It was improper interpretation of Torah that brought about these situations with the Scribes and Pharisees. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. He can interpret the Torah in the way it was intended to be, not in some modern day interpretation which loses much in translation and translation bias. After all, He is the author of the Torah! Greater than any Torah proabition is mercy and not sacrifice. This trumps Sabbath or any other Torah ordinance. It would have been somewhat difficult, and unmerciful to require that the one sick of the palsy go and make sacrifices in his condition. Again, mercy is a greater weight than ordinances. Whereas, He instructed the leper who was cleansed to go to the Temple and offer the sacrifices commanded in the Torah as a testamony. Jesus taught that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Here again, it is an interpretation problem. The Pharisees put more weight in the so called Oral Torah than the truth of the written Torah. He said, the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath. That makes Sabbath the Lord's Day and establishes His authority to interpret the Torah as He sees fit without being accused of breaking it.
Covenanted Sister	death penalty	#534	[-]
Posts: 156 (08/29/07 06:56:13) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Everyone (particularly GS), In the interest of protecting my own academic integrity, I did some further research regarding the imposition of the death penalty by the Sanhedrin during the Roman occupation of Palestine. I previously indicated that the Romans forbade only death by stoning, and in doing so I was relying on a source that may not be so reliable after all. After having visited sources at the University of Missouri Law School, and in particular some legal research done on the matter of the trial of Christ, the legal relationship between Roman law and Jewish law was a tenuous one at best, and shrouded in confusion. According to one source, de jure, there was a prohibition on the Sanhedrin imposing the death penalty, but de facto, the death penalty was indeed imposed by the Sanhedrin notwithstanding, and there are some historical citations. Additionally, Jewish law, during the time of the Roman occupation, explicitly endorses the death penalty by its own court. See, the Mishna 6.1 to 6.4. One source states as follows: The gospel of John indicates that the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to Pilate because it lacked the power to impose death: Pilate said to them, take him yourselves and judge him according to your law. The Jews replied, We are not permitted to put anyone to death. The Mishnah, however, clearly shows that the Sanhedrin did have the power to impose death for certain crimesat least sometime before 200 A.d. In particular, Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.1 to 6.4 specify the procedures for stoning. There is no evidence to suggest that the power did not exist in 30 c.e. On the contrary, there is evidence that the Romans preferred to leave as much power as possible to control religious crimes in the hands of Jewish authorities. I stand by the dominant thrust of my previous posts, but I wanted to clarify this one point, even though it is perhaps only tangentially related to the larger topic of this thread. CS
giant slayer	Re: death penalty	#535	[-]
Posts: 821 (08/29/07 09:18:01) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi Covenanted Sister: Your research is very helpful and educational. Thank you for providing that and for your research efforts. I will concede that perhaps the authority issue is not adequate evidence to establish that Jesus was Torah observant in this situation. I will stand on the Torah instruction that the accusers were to cast the first stone and that Jesus was acting within Torah by instructing that they do so. Jesus later forgave the woman. His authority to do so should not be questioned. Once the witnesses withdrew there was no authority remaining to stone the woman. Had Jesus cast the first stone, He would have been in violation of Torah. Had Jesus past judgment on the woman, He would have been in violation of the two or three witness ordinance of Torah. Had Jesus passed judgment on the woman He would have been in violation of Torah by acting as a judge while not being in a position to do so since He was not a member of the Sanhedrin. If as Interested Sister suggested, that the text implies that she had already been before the Sanhedrin, judged guilty and sentenced to stoning, why did they bother to bring her to Jesus? Why did they not just go ahead and carry out the sentence? They were looking for a way to convict Jesus, they could care less about the fate of the woman. If she had already been judged and sentenced according to Torah, then they were in violation of Torah by not carrying out the sentence according to Torah regardless of what Jesus said. Put the sin where the sin belongs. It was those who wanted to destroy our Savior who sinned and violated Torah. Not Jesus. It was the woman's accusers who were in violation of Torah which is proven by their reaction of leaving. If they had been innocent they would have insisted that justice be done. I believe if we were arguing this in a court of law today I would win this case. However, that is not my goal. I only wish to defend my Lord who knew no sin and kept the Torah perfectly. We will have a chance to ask Him personally soon. Then He will be acting as Judge in accordance with His authority as Messiah and High Priest and very Eloheim. Let Him be praised. Not accused! It would be a waist of everyones time to pursue this further. I have said what I believe and I don't intend to change my mind on this subject. Blessings to all.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

LIBERTIES

Quick Reply