# The Stoning of Soraya M



## atlashunter (Apr 2, 2011)

Watched this movie with my wife last night. She bawled her eyes out. If you've never seen this one it's a must see. Very gut wrenching though. There is something bad wrong with a religion, a society, and individuals that can do something like this. Even for someone that really has committed adultery they wouldn't deserve this. Then consider how much worse the hot place would be. It's revolting that so many can really say with a straight face that is what humanity deserves. Just goes to show how far religion can drive people to evil under the guise of good.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1277737/


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 2, 2011)

Heard about it but have not seen it.  I think it came out last year.  I remember it getting a lot of press.


----------



## 1handkneehigh (Apr 3, 2011)

Haven't seen it yet.  There is another movie called "Agora."  It's about the rise of Christianity during the fall of Roman empire.


----------



## chicken cow (Apr 10, 2011)

"Old Yeller" was a sad movie too!


----------



## holton27596 (Apr 19, 2011)

yes, but the stoning of soraya is a true story. HUGE difference.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 12, 2011)

Evil guises itself in many forms.  Some people use religion to cover it. 


It's a problem sourced in the created...not the Creator.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 12, 2011)

I'll have to watch it.. I'll let you know tonight. 

I can see that many that cause this problem are using religion to cover it up, but when I read the bible, I see it sourced there. Here is the path to salvation. DO IT.... OR ELSE..


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2011)

You're right. The bible prescribes the same punishment for adultery that the Koran does. The only difference is that most modern day Christians reject those offensive parts of the bible.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 12, 2011)

I don't think it's reject.. it's overlooking them as being as harsh, demanding, dictating... whatever you want to call it.. and keeping it soft and simple, "the wages of sin is death." That's doesn't sound so bad.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 12, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You're right. The bible prescribes the same punishment for adultery that the Koran does. The only difference is that most modern day Christians reject those offensive parts of the bible.



Consider me from MO.....show me.


Or rather, show me where it prescribes that punishment be applied currently.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Consider me from MO.....show me.



Deuteronomy 22 22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.

Leviticus 20 10 If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Leviticus 20 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. 

Leviticus 21 9 If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she also defiles her father's holiness, and she must be burned to death.



http://philadelphiacriminallawnews.com/2011/03/john-joe-thomas-charged-with-stoning-victim-for-homosexuality.html



> But court documents revealed that Thomas told police he had "stoned Murray with a rock in a sock" because the elderly man had allegedly made sexual advances to him, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Through a literal interpretation of the Bible's Old Testament, Thomas apparently thought that the appropriate punishment for homosexual acts was stoning.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 12, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't think it's reject.. it's overlooking them as being as harsh, demanding, dictating... whatever you want to call it.. and keeping it soft and simple, "the wages of sin is death." That's doesn't sound so bad.



"Take up your cross daily" is not soft and simple.  Neither is "whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

There is no admonition in the NT to stone anybody for anything.  The only stoning I can think of in the NT was Stephen, the first Christian martyr.  He prayed for his murderers as he was being stoned.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2011)

Last I checked, the OT was still part of the Christian bible. Jesus says in Matthew that not one letter of OT law is abolished by his coming and goes on to make it even more strict.

Fortunately, most Christians find ways to disregard the evil commandments of OT scripture. If they didn't then we would have a lot more John Thomas types locked up for murder. Yet they don't do away with all of the OT law. They still cling to the ten commandments as if they are well... holy and written in stone. They continue their crusade against homosexuals. I suppose as the story of Jesus and the adulteress in John shows, it gets a bit harder to cast stones when you're sitting in a glass house and when it comes to pre-marital sex and adultery, many Christians are.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 12, 2011)

I'm not even talking about stoning specifically... I'm talking about the WRATH of god being harsh and dictating.. all of it. But rather than refer to that as so harsh, it's just, "the wages of sin is death." What you've got to do and what you get may not be soft and simple.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 12, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Last I checked, the OT was still part of the Christian bible.



Jews don't stone people, either.  As for Christians, this exact question (should Gentiles follow the law) came up and was dealt with in Acts 15.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 12, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I'm not even talking about stoning specifically... I'm talking about the WRATH of god being harsh and dictating.. all of it. But rather than refer to that as so harsh, it's just, "the wages of sin is death." What you've got to do and what you get may not be soft and simple.



We just have different views of God.  The NT tells us "God is love", and "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

"The wages of sin is death" refers to what happened to in the garden of Eden.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Jews don't stone people, either.  As for Christians, this exact question (should Gentiles follow the law) came up and was dealt with in Acts 15.



That's true. But there was a time that they did. There was a time that Christians burned people at the stake on scriptural grounds. They have changed. The scriptures haven't.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2011)

And to get back to the original point of this post, beliefs matter. It's a good thing that most Christians and Jews don't take their scriptures as seriously as some Muslims take theirs. I'm hoping that Muslims follow their lead in this respect.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 12, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> There was a time that Christians burned people at the stake on scriptural grounds. They have changed. The scriptures haven't.



I'll say it again:  



centerpin fan said:


> There is no admonition in the NT to stone anybody for anything.



Likewise, there is no admonition in the NT to burn anyone at the stake.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I'll say it again:
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise, there is no admonition in the NT to burn anyone at the stake.



And? It's in the bible. It has been and on occasion continues to be used literally. You might consider your God to be reformed from his old ways but I doubt you would go so far as to deny that the Old Testament is the word of God. And if you did, you'd be in a minority among your brethren.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 12, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> And?



And ... I'll say _this_ again:



centerpin fan said:


> As for Christians, this exact question (should Gentiles follow the law) came up and was dealt with in Acts 15.






atlashunter said:


> It's in the bible.



Yes, it is.  

Are Christians commanded anywhere in the NT to stone anyone or burn anyone at the stake?  No.

Are Christian men commanded anywhere in the NT to be circumsized?  No.

Are Christians commanded anywhere in the NT to follow OT dietary laws?  No (at least not beyond what's listed in Acts 15.)

Are Christians commanded anywhere in the NT to observe the Jewish Sabbath?  No.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> And ... I'll say _this_ again:



And others can cite Matthew 5.





centerpin fan said:


> Are Christians commanded anywhere in the NT to stone anyone or burn anyone at the stake?  No.



And yet they did. Why? Because their bible said to. It's simply dishonest to deny the scriptural basis that Christians have used to kill people.




centerpin fan said:


> Are Christian men commanded anywhere in the NT to be circumsized?  No.



And yet it is a common practice among Christians.




centerpin fan said:


> Are Christians commanded anywhere in the NT to follow OT dietary laws?  No (at least not beyond what's listed in Acts 15.)



You're right. But this is dealt with explicitly in the NT(and it directly contradicts Jesus in Matthew 5 btw). Can you point out a passage in the NT that specifically instructs that no harm should be done to witches, adulterers, and homosexuals?


----------



## JFS (May 12, 2011)

What is the position on witches now?  The NT does have references to witches and sorcery.   Do you think there are witches now?  Is it (just more) evidence that bible writers didn't understand the true nature of things?  Or there used to be witches but not any more?


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 12, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> We just have different views of God.  The NT tells us "God is love", and "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
> 
> "The wages of sin is death" refers to what happened to in the garden of Eden.



This is very true... we have very different views. I'm not referring to my views anyway. I am referring to my training.

for the wages of sin is death but the gift of god is eternal life? That's from the garden of eden? I thought that gift wasn't given until Jesus rose? But it was only for Adam and Eve? No... He doesn't want anyone to perish?? Yet if you don't do exactly what he wants, your in trouble and he will send you srtaight to perish. I can think of people in more recent history like that too...


----------



## centerpin fan (May 12, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> And others can cite Matthew 5.



Matthew 5 does not tell Christians to obey OT laws.  It says the law will not pass away.  Besides, Peter was present at the Sermon on the Mount, and he heard Jesus say that.  It did not prevent him from saying this in Acts 15:

_"... Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.... It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God ..."_

And here is what Peter and the other elders wrote to the Gentiles:

_It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:  You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. _  (emphasis mine)




atlashunter said:


> And yet they did. Why? Because their bible said to. It's simply dishonest to deny the scriptural basis that Christians have used to kill people.



You will get no argument for me that people have misused scripture in the past and continue to do so today.  There is no command in the NT to burn/stone people.




atlashunter said:


> And yet it is a common practice among Christians.



It's a common practice for virtually _everybody_ (at least in this country.)  It's obviously done for medical purposes (unless you're Jewish.)




atlashunter said:


> You're right. But this is dealt with explicitly in the NT(and it directly contradicts Jesus in Matthew 5 btw).



It doesn't contradict Jesus in Matthew 5.  You're really grasping at straws with the Matthew 5 argument.




atlashunter said:


> Can you point out a passage in the NT that specifically instructs that no harm should be done to witches, adulterers, and homosexuals?



No, and neither is there a passage telling me to stone/burn/harm any of them in any way.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (May 12, 2011)

Some good answers, but also many that reflect opinions not tempered with facts. The Bible in the Old Testament required man to live under "Law". Penalties for violating many were quite harsh. What is missing is the intent for imposition of the harshness. It was to prevent the spread of the sin amongst the people of God. Sin was dealt with as cancer, ...it was cut out. In those days families were much closer, and while divorce wasn't unheard of, it was rare.God gave his people th epromised land, but warned them not to adopt their idolitrous ways. Today we live in the dispensation of GRACE. Thank God we can have his MERCY instead of what we deserve. But look at what's happened to the USA. Founded by Christian men seeking the freedom to practice their faith. If you could have told them the president of our nation would be pushing to allow homosexual unions, they wouldn't have believed it. Rather than standing in judgment of the creator, we need to seek his forgiveness. I don't presume to be wise enough to pass judgment on the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. Some who now think they can will learn otherwise if they meet him unprepared.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 12, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> for the wages of sin is death but the gift of god is eternal life? That's from the garden of eden? I thought that gift wasn't given until Jesus rose? But it was only for Adam and Eve?



The passage is from Romans, but it describes what happened to Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God.  They sinned and death came into the world.  For a more complete explanation, read _On the Incarnation _by St. Athanasius.



TripleXBullies said:


> He doesn't want anyone to perish?? Yet if you don't do exactly what he wants, your in trouble and he will send you srtaight to perish.



God wants all to be saved, but He gave us free will.  So, it's inevitable that many will reject Him (not the other way around.)


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 12, 2011)

to both.... Eh...  I could run with both of those... don't care to in this thread..


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Matthew 5 does not tell Christians to obey OT laws.  It says the law will not pass away.



 Fine. If that is how you want to approach it then nothing Jesus said in any of the gospels applies to Christians because there were no Christians when he was alive. He was a jew talking instructing other jews.




centerpin fan said:


> Besides, Peter was present at the Sermon on the Mount, and he heard Jesus say that.  It did not prevent him from saying this in Acts 15:
> 
> _"... Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.... It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God ..."_



The case could be made that he is speaking specifically about the path to salvation here, not saying that the law no longer applied. But if he was saying that, then according to Matthew, Jesus said he would be called least in the kingdom of heaven.




centerpin fan said:


> You will get no argument for me that people have misused scripture in the past and continue to do so today.  There is no command in the NT to burn/stone people.



Nor is there any injunction against it while there is a command in the OT to burn and stone people. It would appear that those more strictly adhering to the letter of the scriptures are those Christians that you disagree with.




centerpin fan said:


> It's a common practice for virtually _everybody_ (at least in this country.)  It's obviously done for medical purposes (unless you're Jewish.)



Yep. Here and other traditionally christian parts of the world. It's not just a coincidence.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 12, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If that is how you want to approach it then nothing Jesus said in any of the gospels applies to Christians because there were no Christians when he was alive.



That's not what I was saying.  As I said, you're grasping at straws with Matthew 5.  You're as dogmatic about what the passage does _not_ say as any Christian is about what it says.  

Let's try something else.  Take a look at these questions:

Are Christians commanded anywhere in the NT to stone anyone or burn anyone at the stake?

Are Christian men commanded anywhere in the NT to be circumsized?

Are Christians commanded anywhere in the NT to follow OT dietary laws?

Are Christians commanded anywhere in the NT to observe the Jewish Sabbath?

I answered "no" to each of them.  How would you answer?





atlashunter said:


> The case could be made that he is speaking specifically about the path to salvation here, not saying that the law no longer applied. But if he was saying that, then according to Matthew, Jesus said he would be called least in the kingdom of heaven..



Obviously, he is saying that.  And don't try pitting Jesus against Peter.  Acts 15 completely refutes your position.  Just admit it.




atlashunter said:


> It would appear that those more strictly adhering to the letter of the scriptures are those Christians that you disagree with..



Who are you talking about? 




atlashunter said:


> Yep. Here and other traditionally christian parts of the world. It's not just a coincidence.



No idea where you're going with this.  Circumcision was commanded in the OT but not the NT.  Today, it is done for medical reasons.  What am I missing?


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> That's not what I was saying.  As I said, you're grasping at straws with Matthew 5.  You're as dogmatic about what the passage does _not_ say as any Christian is about what it says.



Then what were you saying?




centerpin fan said:


> Let's try something else.  Take a look at these questions:
> 
> Are Christians commanded anywhere in the NT to stone anyone or burn anyone at the stake?
> 
> ...



I'd answer no to them too. So what? Since when was Christian theology strictly confined to only what the New Testament says?

What a Christian very well _could_ say is that Jesus made clear in the new testament that the old law was not abolished.





centerpin fan said:


> Obviously, he is saying that.  And don't try pitting Jesus against Peter.  Acts 15 completely refutes your position.  Just admit it.



Ok then if he is talking about the path to salvation then that doesn't mean that the old law is abolished. It still applies, you just can't be saved by following it. If you think Acts 15 refutes Matthew 5 go ahead and think it. It very well may. But another Christian like say from Salem a few hundred years ago might think differently. They might think the bible actually means what it says when it says to kill a witch. Acts 15 doesn't claim to be the words of Jesus, Mathew 5 does. If Mathew 5 is really what Jesus said then Acts 15 either contradicts it or it doesn't mean to say what you think.


Here is a question for you. Is Exodus 22:18 the word of God?


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 12, 2011)

AHHHH.. I asked my wife to order it and she didn't... Oh well.. Hopefully tomorrow night. The movie seems entertaining. I'll watch Wedding Crashers afterward.. HA


----------



## atlashunter (May 13, 2011)

It's a sad movie. And it will probably tick you off. But I think you'll be glad you watched it.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 13, 2011)

> But court documents revealed that Thomas told police he had "stoned Murray with a rock in a sock" because the elderly man had allegedly made sexual advances to him, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Through a literal interpretation of the Bible's Old Testament, Thomas *apparently* *thought* that the appropriate punishment for homosexual acts was stoning.



I still have to read the rest of the thread.  But please note the two words in red....they are important to show how you continue to use the behavior of Christians to justify your hate for Christ.

We are certainly in agreement that Christians often reflect horribly on Christ.  You'll get no argument from me on that point.  It's when you take that behavior and then assume that Christ approves that we have a disagreement.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Then what were you saying?



I was saying that the law still applies but Christians are not made right with God by following the law.  That theme is repeated throughout the NT (see Romans and Galatians, for example.)  That's why Peter said what he said in Acts 15.




atlashunter said:


> I'd answer no to them too. So what?



So ... we both agree that there are many commands in the OT that do not apply to Christians.

Period.  End of discussion.




atlashunter said:


> What a Christian very well _could_ say is that Jesus made clear in the new testament that the old law was not abolished.



This Christian would agree.




atlashunter said:


> Ok then if he is talking about the path to salvation then that doesn't mean that the old law is abolished. It still applies, you just can't be saved by following it.



Yes, as I said above.  Not only that, but no one has ever been able to follow it.  Peter said the Jews couldn't follow it, so why burden the Gentiles with it?




atlashunter said:


> But another Christian like say from Salem a few hundred years ago might think differently. They might think the bible actually means what it says when it says to kill a witch.



They were wrong.  As I said before, Christians have misinterpreted and misapplied the Bible throughout history.  Salem is just one example.




atlashunter said:


> Acts 15 doesn't claim to be the words of Jesus, Mathew 5 does. If Mathew 5 is really what Jesus said then Acts 15 either contradicts it or it doesn't mean to say what you think.



There is no contradiction (see above.)  All the NT is considered scripture, not just the "red letters".




atlashunter said:


> Here is a question for you. Is Exodus 22:18 the word of God?



Yes it is. 

Is Exodus 22:18 in the NT?  No.

Is there any command like Exodus 22:18 in the NT?  No.


----------



## atlashunter (May 13, 2011)

It appears that the gap between our views is not as wide as first thought. The key difference is that you seem to be under the impression that Christians should only follow the new testament. Clearly not every christian shares your view on that point. Not in the past and not now. I also see a certain inconsistency in your view in that even though the NT doesn't specifically repeat all of the OT laws it does make clear in Mathew 5 that they are still to be followed. The inconsistency is that you will likely respond that Jesus was only speaking of jews in Mathew 5 but that isn't explicitly stated and as I've already pointed out, everything Jesus said to his disciples was being said by a jew to other jews. If you reject Mathew 5 on the grounds that it doesn't apply to you because you are not a jew then there is quite a bit more that Jesus said which you must also reject if you are going to be consistent.


----------



## atlashunter (May 13, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> Is Exodus 22:18 in the NT?  No.
> 
> Is there any command like Exodus 22:18 in the NT?  No.



Then why would you object to someone following it? Do you object to someone espousing and following the 10 commandments?


----------



## holton27596 (May 13, 2011)

Question? Some of you are saying that the NT says not to stone people, etc.. in other words not to obey the OT. Well the 10 commanments are in the OT, do yall ignore them too?????


----------



## atlashunter (May 13, 2011)

holton27596 said:


> Question? Some of you are saying that the NT says not to stone people, etc.. in other words not to obey the OT. Well the 10 commanments are in the OT, do yall ignore them too?????



It's a bit of a silly objection for Christians to make because even if you concede the point to them they are still left saying that it's ok to stone people to death if God tells you to.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It appears that the gap between our views is not as wide as first thought. The key difference is that you seem to be under the impression that Christians should only follow the new testament. Clearly not every christian shares your view on that point. Not in the past and not now. I also see a certain inconsistency in your view in that even though the NT doesn't specifically repeat all of the OT laws it does make clear in Mathew 5 that they are still to be followed. The inconsistency is that you will likely respond that Jesus was only speaking of jews in Mathew 5 but that isn't explicitly stated and as I've already pointed out, everything Jesus said to his disciples was being said by a jew to other jews. If you reject Mathew 5 on the grounds that it doesn't apply to you because you are not a jew then there is quite a bit more that Jesus said which you must also reject if you are going to be consistent.



You're missing the forest for the trees.  I'm not saying Matthew 5 doesn't apply to me because I'm not a Jew.  I'm saying it doesn't apply to me because we have a _new covenant_.  It's not a question of where it is in the Bible (OT or NT.)  It's a question of what covenant we're talking about.  I can't say it any better than Paul did in Galatians 3 (emphasis is mine):

_1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. 

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 

19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise._


----------



## centerpin fan (May 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Then why would you object to someone following it? Do you object to someone espousing and following the 10 commandments?



See post #40.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 13, 2011)

holton27596 said:


> Question? Some of you are saying that the NT says not to stone people, etc.. in other words not to obey the OT. Well the 10 commanments are in the OT, do yall ignore them too?????



See post #40.


----------



## atlashunter (May 13, 2011)

Centerpin thanks for clarifying why you don't think they apply to you. The problem with the new covenant objection is that isn't what Jesus said in Mathew 5. He didn't say, I'm establishing a new covenant so that the old law won't apply and you won't need to follow it. This is what he said,

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 

 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 

 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 

 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. 

Till heaven and earth pass and until all is fulfilled. Is all fulfilled? Have heaven and earth passed? He is saying that until that time, every jot and tittle of the law is to be done and taught. I'm not sure how much more serious a tone he could have taken in this passage. He goes on immediately after this to make pronouncements of an even more strict interpretation of the OT law than was commonly understood. This only further confirms that his intention was not that the law would be set aside as if it had expired.

Your point concerning Paul's writings I completely agree with you in what Paul was saying. And what I am saying is that it doesn't change what Mathew says any more than what Mathew says changes Paul's message. You are looking at two different messages by two different authors that are contradicting each other. I'm actually glad that you choose Paul's message over what Mathew reports Jesus to have said. The world is a better place now that most christians have done the same. But it doesn't change what Mathew says and it doesn't change what Exodus says.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Centerpin thanks for clarifying why you don't think they apply to you. The problem with the new covenant objection is that isn't what Jesus said in Mathew 5. He didn't say, I'm establishing a new covenant so that the old law won't apply and you won't need to follow it.



That is _exactly_ what he said in Matthew 26:28:

_27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins._




atlashunter said:


> And what I am saying is that it doesn't change what Mathew says any more than what Mathew says changes Paul's message. You are looking at two different messages by two different authors that are contradicting each other.



There is no contradiction.  Matthew 5 takes place very early in Jesus' ministry.  Matthew 26 takes place right before the end.  Paul is just explaining to the Galatians the new covenant that Jesus talks about.  The Galatians are "Matthew 26 people" who have been "bewitched" into drifting back to a "Matthew 5 covenant".


----------



## River Rambler (May 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Last I checked, the OT was still part of the Christian bible. Jesus says in Matthew that not one letter of OT law is abolished by his coming and goes on to make it even more strict.
> 
> Fortunately, most Christians find ways to disregard the evil commandments of OT scripture. If they didn't then we would have a lot more John Thomas types locked up for murder. Yet they don't do away with all of the OT law. They still cling to the ten commandments as if they are well... holy and written in stone. They continue their crusade against homosexuals. I suppose as the story of Jesus and the adulteress in John shows, it gets a bit harder to cast stones when you're sitting in a glass house and when it comes to pre-marital sex and adultery, many Christians are.



No he did not mention anything regarding sex. He said "sin", which covers all of us. This was obviously intended to demonstrate that the law holds up accountable in recognizing we fail, but there are none capable to justly enact the cruel punishment of such a law.
Don't try to use scripture to dimish Christ's message of forgiveness and love trump all law.


----------



## atlashunter (May 13, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> That is _exactly_ what he said in Matthew 26:28:
> 
> _27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins._



Where does he say the law no longer applies or should no longer be followed? Remember in Mathew 5 he isn't saying "until the new covenant" or "until I'm crucified" or anything even remotely similar to that. He says until ALL is fulfilled and heaven and earth pass. The new covenant doesn't meet that criteria.




centerpin fan said:


> There is no contradiction.  Matthew 5 takes place very early in Jesus' ministry.  Matthew 26 takes place right before the end.  Paul is just explaining to the Galatians the new covenant that Jesus talks about.  The Galatians are "Matthew 26 people" who have been "bewitched" into drifting back to a "Matthew 5 covenant".



Given that Galatians is considered to predate Mathew the most likely explanation is that Paul was expressing his own views, his own understanding, and that view differed from the view of the author of Mathew. Does Paul ever mention the same account that Mathew gives in chapter 5? If not then he may have never even heard it. And even if he had we know as evidenced from his own writing that there was a wide range of conflicting views at that time just as there still are so there is no reason to think that he was either aware of or agreed with Mathew 5.

Paul expresses his own view of the covenant and that is the view you take. That's fine. But Mathew does not express that view and in fact expresses one going the other direction.


----------



## atlashunter (May 13, 2011)

River Rambler said:


> No he did not mention anything regarding sex. He said "sin", which covers all of us. This was obviously intended to demonstrate that the law holds up accountable in recognizing we fail, but there are none capable to justly enact the cruel punishment of such a law.
> Don't try to use scripture to dimish Christ's message of forgiveness and love trump all law.



How do you conclude that, from this?



> 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Where does he say the law no longer applies or should no longer be followed? Remember in Mathew 5 he isn't saying "until the new covenant" or "until I'm crucified" or anything even remotely similar to that. He says until ALL is fulfilled and heaven and earth pass. The new covenant doesn't meet that criteria.



If He said it in the next verse, you would just come up with another objection.  You are so fixated on two verses in Matthew that you cannot see a message that is taught throughout the Bible.  As Paul points out, that message is a continuation of one from Genesis:  that Abraham was made right because he believed God.

So, then ... what was the new covenant Jesus spoke about in Matthew 26?




atlashunter said:


> Given that Galatians is considered to predate Mathew the most likely explanation is that Paul was expressing his own views, his own understanding, and that view differed from the view of the author of Mathew. Does Paul ever mention the same account that Mathew gives in chapter 5? If not then he may have never even heard it. And even if he had we know as evidenced from his own writing that there was a wide range of conflicting views at that time just as there still are so there is no reason to think that he was either aware of or agreed with Mathew 5.
> 
> Paul expresses his own view of the covenant and that is the view you take. That's fine. But Mathew does not express that view and in fact expresses one going the other direction.



Matthew 5 is not the Bible.  It is _part_ of the Bible.  Christians do not hold to Jesus' words alone as scripture.  You cannot take one passage in isolation and build a doctrine on it.  That's exactly what the gun control advocates do to the 2nd Amendment.  They focus on the "militia" phrase, and say, "See?  The founding fathers only thought a militia should own guns.  Now that we have an army and a police force, we don't need a militia.  So, it's perfectly obvious that it should be illegal for private citizens to own guns."

Taken in isolation, you can make a passage say whatever you want it to say.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 13, 2011)

It's just as easy to do that to the whole thing. For anyone.


----------



## atlashunter (May 13, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> If He said it in the next verse, you would just come up with another objection.  You are so fixated on two verses in Matthew that you cannot see a message that is taught throughout the Bible.  As Paul points out, that message is a continuation of one from Genesis:  that Abraham was made right because he believed God.
> 
> So, then ... what was the new covenant Jesus spoke about in Matthew 26?



He didn't say that in the next verse. If he had then Mathew would have created an internal contradiction in his own gospel. But he didn't so the hypothetical doesn't matter. What you aren't getting is that Paul's message isn't Mathew's message. They each have their own message and on this point their messages differ. What you are trying to do is find a way to mesh the two and make them fit. But that was not the intention of the men who wrote these works. Their writings were not some collaborative work between the two of them. Paul had his view and Mathew had his.




centerpin fan said:


> Matthew 5 is not the Bible.  It is _part_ of the Bible.  Christians do not hold to Jesus' words alone as scripture.  You cannot take one passage in isolation and build a doctrine on it.
> 
> Taken in isolation, you can make a passage say whatever you want it to say.



The passage says what it says. I've shown it here. The only way you can say the law no longer applies in light of Mathew 5 is if you can make the case that the criteria Jesus set for the passing away of the law has been met. That criteria is not "a new covenant". The criteria is that heaven and earth have passed away and all has been fulfilled. So far you haven't even tried to make that case. What Paul says is what Paul says. It holds no relevance to what Mathew says. Same holds true in the other direction and for other biblical authors. If they contradict each other, and they do, its because the authors each had their own views and their own message. Or in some cases they used an earlier writing as their source and made their own tweaks to present the message they wanted to present. What they didn't do was gather around a table as with the Constitution and decide to write a single book called the bible and decide what it would contain. Didn't happen that way. The only reason Mathew and Paul's writings are in the same book at all is because men who came long after them decided to take their writings and put them in a collection of other Christian writings that came to be known as the New Testament.

It's an error to try to weave the separate writings into one unified story, one unified theology because you end up trying to resolve obvious contradictions by putting words into the authors mouths as you have done in this case rather than let each author speak for themselves.

Bottom line... Mathew says one thing, Paul says something different. A Christian that takes seriously what Mathew said may very well decide to murder on behalf of their God. The best you as a Christian who prefers Paul can say is that your God once demanded stoning and burning but no longer does. For me, that's not something to be impressed with.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 13, 2011)

So when are you turning in your guns?  As the 2nd Amendment clearly states, only a "well regulated Militia" is allowed to own guns.

It's there in black and white.  It says what it says.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 14, 2011)

I watched the movie... The message is pretty simple... Even the men who seemed sympathetic to her still would have been glad to stone her if they were convinced she had done it.


----------

