A Christian

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're an idiot. The adulteress was NOT put to death as required by the Law of Moses. The disciples gathered grain i.e. worked on the Sabbath; a violation of the Law of Moses. Jesus changed the divorce law which was only allowed in the Law of Moses because of the "hardness of your hearts". You lose, jerkwad.

Christ did not say adultery was wrong, or that she did not deserve to be stoned - he said only whoever is without sin should cast the first stone. The "law" is adultery is a sin. Did that change? No.

When the disciples gathered grain - the Pharisees said they were violating the law - but if you read Mat 12:1-18 that because they were in the presence of Christ, they were innocent. (vs. 5). Indeed, the priest who broke the Sabbath in the temple are declared innocent. But this does not change the law of the Sabbath - and neither did Christ.

Jesus never changed any laws of divorce - he corrected the Pharisees customs of divorce. He said it was Moses (not God) who allowed the change of custom due to their hardness of hear (Mat 19:7-8) but Jesus said that the correct view of divorce in Mat 5:32.

Jesus was constantly correct the Pharisaical understanding of law. Not changing law.

Wrong on all three counts.

Originally posted by Coletti

When the disciples gathered grain - the Pharisees said they were violating the law - but if you read Mat 12:1-18 that because they were in the presence of Christ, they were innocent. (vs. 5). Indeed, the priest who broke the Sabbath in the temple are declared innocent. But this does not change the law of the Sabbath - and neither did Christ.

Jesus wa ...[text shortened]... y correct the Pharisaical understanding of law. Not changing law.

Wrong on all three counts.

You're saying that because they were standing next to Jesus working on the sabbath was ok?

So if they had been outside of his presence, they would have sinned?

Originally posted by Nyxie
You're saying that because they were standing next to Jesus working on the sabbath was ok?

So if they had been outside of his presence, they would have sinned?

Did Jesus say He would always be there when their calf fell into a pit?

Originally posted by Nyxie
You're saying that because they were standing next to Jesus working on the sabbath was ok?

So if they had been outside of his presence, they would have sinned?

The priest who worked in the temple, were considered innocent, as they were in the presence of God. Jesus said that something greater than the temple was with them. The point Jesus was making was not that it was OK to work on the Sabbath - but that he was greater then the temple.

Mat 12:1-8 NASB
(1) At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat.
(2) But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath."
(3) But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions,
(4) how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?
(5) "Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?
(6) "But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.
(7) "But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the innocent.
(8) "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

The conclusion of his argument is verse 8 - the somewhat cryptic statement that the "Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

He was actually declaring his deity - because being in his presence made it legal for his hungry disciples to pluck grain.


Another interesting verse is:

Deu 23:25 NASB
(25) "When you enter your neighbor's standing grain, then you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not wield a sickle in your neighbor's standing grain.

Originally posted by Coletti
Christ did not say adultery was wrong, or that she did not deserve to be stoned - he said only whoever is without sin should cast the first stone. The "law" is adultery is a sin. Did that change? No.

When the disciples gathered grain ...[text shortened]... rstanding of law. Not changing law.

Wrong on all three counts.

You are truly contemptible. First:

Here's the OT law on adultery: Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

"SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH". Was she? Jesus should have been grabbing a stone himself if he wasn't changing the law. Your position is nonsense.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are truly contemptible. First:

Here's the OT law on adultery: Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

"SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH". Was she? Jesus sho ...[text shortened]... ld have been grabbing a stone himself if he wasn't changing the law. Your position is nonsense.

Jesus did not come to save the righteous, he came to save the sinners.

Originally posted by Coletti
The priest who worked in the temple, were considered innocent, as they were in the presence of God. Jesus said that something greater than the temple was with them. The point Jesus was making was not that it was OK to work on the Sabbath - but that he was greater then the temple.

Mat 12:1-8 NASB
(1) At that time Jesus went through the grainfields ...[text shortened]... s with your hand, but you shall not wield a sickle in your neighbor's standing grain.

Rubbish! Was Jesus physically with David when he ate the showbread? The example reinforces the main point which is:

Mark 2:27

27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Trying to limit this to you're excused from the law of the Sabbath ONLY if you're in Jesus' physical presence is simply preposterous.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Jesus did not come to save the righteous, he came to save the sinners.

Make up your mind; I thought we were "ALL" sinners!!!!!

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are truly contemptible. First:

Here's the OT law on adultery: Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adul ...[text shortened]... himself if he wasn't changing the law. Your position is nonsense.

No1: " ... "SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH". Was she? Jesus should have been grabbing a stone himself if he wasn't changing the law. Your position is nonsense.[/b]

Are you a lawyer, no1 ? I guess yoùr position is ridiculous and nonsense, because you have no clue about the nature and purpose of Jesus Christ's mission. It is time you go and study some decent orthodox Roman-Catholic theology.
I suggest that more people do so before digging into these matters.

You are being the literalist fundie here, no1. This kind of trench warfare is absolutely ridiculous.

Originally posted by Coletti
Christ did not say adultery was wrong, or that she did not deserve to be stoned - he said only whoever is without sin should cast the first stone. The "law" is adultery is a sin. Did that change? No.

When the disciples gathered grain - the Pharisees said they were violating the law - but if you read Mat 12:1-18 that because they were in the presence o ...[text shortened]... y correct the Pharisaical understanding of law. Not changing law.

Wrong on all three counts.

The Mosaic Law of divorce is in Deutronomy 24: 1-4; Jesus changes it. There is simply no way to read the passages as to make them not conflict; Mosaic Law, as spelled out in the Bible, allowed divorce if a husband, in his sole discretion, found the wife "indecent" in some manner. Jesus explicitly states otherwise; only an illiterate or a sophist would argue otherwise.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are truly contemptible. First:

Here's the OT law on adultery: Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

"SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH". Was she? Jesus sho ...[text shortened]... ld have been grabbing a stone himself if he wasn't changing the law. Your position is nonsense.

Your position is Jesus changed the law - but the example you give has to do with mercy and forgiveness - not changing the law. The violation was adultery - stoning is the punishment. He forgives her and tells her to "sin no more." He did not have to grab a stone because he could forgive her. Why would he stone someone he just forgave?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
No1: " ... "SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH". Was she? Jesus should have been grabbing a stone himself if he wasn't changing the law. Your position is nonsense.

Are you a lawyer, no1 ? I guess yoùr position is ridiculous and nonsense. It is time you go and study some Roman-Catholic theology.
I suggest that more people do so before digging into these matters.

This kind of trench warfare is absolutely ridiculous, no1.[/b]

I'm sick of your stupid personal vendetta, Ivanhoe; if you have something to argue against my position, use it. Otherwise, stick your snotnose, childish comments up your a**.

Originally posted by Coletti
Your position is Jesus changed the law - but the example you give has to do with mercy and forgiveness - not changing the law. The violation was adultery - stoning is the punishment. He forgives her and tells her to "sin no more." He did not have to grab a stone because he could forgive her. Why would he stone someone he just forgave?

SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH! Where is there a provision for forgiveness in the OT law?

Originally posted by no1marauder
SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH! Where is there a provision for forgiveness in the OT law?

Don't you get it? Before you stone someone you must ask, "Got Jesus"?

ES

Originally posted by no1marauder
SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH! Where is there a provision for forgiveness in the OT law?

Go and study orthodox Roman-Catholic theology before spouting your non-sensical stances on the forums.

You are the fundamentalist and the literalist here in this discussion no1 and a ridiculous one at that.