21 Feb 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf God works in mysterious ways, then anything is possible, and no one thing is more believable than another. The phrase 'mysterious ways' implies you cannot comprehend it, so attempting to do so is a waste of time.
what is more believable? that god works in mysterious ways and didn't stop those evil men immediately after making that horrible law?
or that god works in mysterious ways and he himself thought it would be a good idea to kill little girls? when his son specifically stopped the stoning of an ADULT woman, who was far more guilty of the same crime.
21 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhitehead"If God works in mysterious ways,.."
If God works in mysterious ways, then anything is possible, and no one thing is more believable than another. The phrase 'mysterious ways' implies you cannot comprehend it, so attempting to do so is a waste of time.
I've always questioned that idea. How is what God does mysterious when we have the whole council of God's will as it is revealed in His Word?
"...then anything is possible, and no one thing is more believable than another."
Mark 10:25-27
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men [it is] impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
The idea that "with God all things are possible" doesn't mean God can or will do something out of character or violates His nature.
Your connection between anything being possible, and that no one thing is more believable than another, is without substance, meaningless and unprovable.
21 Feb 15
1 edit
John 18: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:
Interesting that they couldn't put anyone to death? And yet when a man and woman were caught together in adultery they were supposed to both be put to death? Maybe men weren't supposed to die because if that was the case maybe Jesus wouldn't have been crucified?
21 Feb 15
Originally posted by RBHILLThe Jews were under Roman jurisprudence in that they were not allowed "to put any man to death".
John 18: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:
Interesting that they couldn't put anyone to death? And yet when a man and woman were caught together in adultery they were supposed to both be put to death? Maybe men weren't supposed to die because if that was the case maybe Jesus wouldn't have been crucified?
The actual crucifixion was conducted by Roman soldiers.
21 Feb 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe context of scripture given had the proof for both, if one accused falsely
that was the context. everything related to that subject is in the fragment i posted.
a girl is to be stoned if she is accused by her husband of not being a virgin and her parents cannot find proof.
and if one actually did the deed.
22 Feb 15
Originally posted by KellyJayif one accused and proof against his claims was found, he was supposed to pay a fine and never divorce the girl (meaning she would have to stay with the man that tried to kill her)
The context of scripture given had the proof for both, if one accused falsely
and if one actually did the deed.
if one accused and proof wasn't found, the girl was killed.
do these two seem equal to you?
22 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadi was arguing for kelly jay. i used a phrase he likes and asked him to choose between two possibilities.
If God works in mysterious ways, then anything is possible, and no one thing is more believable than another. The phrase 'mysterious ways' implies you cannot comprehend it, so attempting to do so is a waste of time.
just because of that "mysterious ways" phrase doesn't mean one is not more logical than the other. it simply means god had mysterious motives for doing something.
22 Feb 15
Originally posted by sonshipare you still trying to justify stoning a little girl?what is wrong with you?
I have looked at your passage - [b]Deuteronomy 22:113-30 approximately. I have considered the particulars, the context, and other factors and given you my brief immediate feeling to your comment.
The jest of which is something like this "At least I am not so bad as God. I mean to have little girls stoned. ...[text shortened]... 't stop my reading of the Bible with Deuteronomy 22. I go on all the way into the New Testament.[/b]
22 Feb 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziI actually thought the worse part for the girl was if she was pure that she
if one accused and proof against his claims was found, he was supposed to pay a fine and never divorce the girl (meaning she would have to stay with the man that tried to kill her)
if one accused and proof wasn't found, the girl was killed.
do these two seem equal to you?
had to marry the moron that tried to frame her knowing what it meant if
they believed him. There was a proof setup so that the woman could be
cleared that if she was pure would indeed clear her name, it wasn't going
to be her word against his alone.
There were crimes about sex that had men killed too. So lying wasn't as
bad as having sex outside of marriage in that case. Different sets of
punishments for two different crimes isn't unheard of, but answer my
question please. You started this, why would God care?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Feb 15
4 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
are you still trying to justify stoning a little girl?
are you still trying to justify stoning a little girl?
I do not think the law Deuteronomy 22:13-21 was unrighteous of God. I think the law was holy, just, and righteous.
I may not like everything I read about these laws. But I believe they were righteous.
If ever a man walked the earth who was qualified to point out the unrighteousness of God in ANY conceivable way, that man, I think, would be Jesus of Nazareth.
Now if you pointed out to me where Jesus identified His Father as being unrighteous, that would impress me. As it stands Jesus referred to God of the OT as His Father and righteous -
"Righteous Father, though the world has not known You, yet I have known You, and these have known that You have sent Me." (John 17:25)
When the Son of God came, and to test Him they actually brought a woman to Him to see if He would condone stoning her, in John 8 He did not teach that the stoning was unrighteous of God. He did however shine a brighter light of truth, a more penetrating moral lesson in justice, and a more transcendent revelation of God's nature.
"But when they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
And when they heard that, they went out one by one, beginning with the older ones. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman stood where she was, in the midst.
And Jesus stood up and said to her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." (John 8:7-11)
Now we Christians believe that this is the SAME God Who made the laws in Deuteronomy. This is a further revelation of that same God. His truth is made more penetrating. His light is increased. His holiness and hatred of sin has not changed. It is not that He hated sin in the days of Moses but was more amiable towards sin at this time.
I emphasize that this is the very SAME God now become a man. While not softening His hatred for adultery and fornication one bit, He DOES reveal a fuller revelation of forgiving and redeeming nature.
So I don't slam the Bible close on Deuteronomy 22 in a huff that God is an unrighteous executor of "a little girl". I stay with the whole disclosure of God's nature and God's salvation for all sinners.
Why did the crowd disperse? They dispersed because Jesus touched their consciences. They were ALL similarly worthy of a death penalty. Not ONE was qualified to pass judgment by stoning. The older ones who had sinned longer realized it first. The young and impetuous eventually caught on too.
None of them were without serious sins on their own consciences. It was not God who was on trial. Nor was it even the adulterous woman on trial. It was each one standing there under the divine light of truth in their consciences. Each one of them was on trial. Each one of them realized they needed mercy and forgiveness from God.
After this section, immediately we see the Gospel saying - "Again therefore Jesus spoke to them saying, I am the light of the world, he who follows Me shall by no means walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." (v.12)
It is understandable that some things in the law of Moses we would really not like. But why stop reading there? How can I not simply LOVE this Person, Jesus, the Son of God - "the light of the world"?
22 Feb 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziKelly Jay likes the phrase because it eliminates the need to choose between the two possibilities.
i was arguing for kelly jay. i used a phrase he likes and asked him to choose between two possibilities.
just because of that "mysterious ways" phrase doesn't mean one is not more logical than the other. it simply means god had mysterious motives for doing something.
If Gods motives are mysterious, then you cannot claim that one is more logical than the other. Such a claim relies on God having motives that you can at least guess.