So let's summarize where we are.
You refuse to accept that there were different kinds of OT laws, and keep on asserting that there was one law in the OT, which does not apply to anyone anywhere any more. You wish to equate sin to moral law, which is false, You furthermore assert that since the one OT law was given to Israel only, it has no bearing on Christianity today, since Jesus fulifilled the law, and the Gospel and Paul established new laws by which Christians should abide. You further use the example of the death penalty to argue that OT law is not valid any more, since the concept of the death penalty was overturned by Jesus telling us to turn the other cheek. Hope I got all of that.
It is pointless to continue this discussion unless you can agree to the rather basic point that there are different types of law in the OT. You already agreed that there was ceremonial law, do you also agree that there was civil law and moral law?
You also insist that sin and moral law is the same thing, which it is not. I already showed the different definitions from Eatons regarding law, read it again since it does not look as if you understood it.
Here is the definition of sin from the same work:
Sin - is "any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God" (1 John 3:4; Rom. 4:15), in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission (Rom. 6:12-17; 7:5-24). It is "not a mere violation of the law of our constitution, nor of the system of things, but an offence against a personal lawgiver and moral governor who vindicates his law with penalties. The soul that sins is always conscious that his sin is (1) intrinsically vile and polluting, and (2) that it justly deserves punishment, and calls down the righteous wrath of God. Hence sin carries with it two inalienable characters, (1) ill-desert, guilt (reatus); and (2) pollution (macula)."
The law describes the sin, but is not "sin". Sin is the lack of conformity to the law, a state or deed, while moral law sets the standard. Moral law and sin cannot be used interchangeably, they are different things.
Paul's letters are used as more detailed description of how a Christian should act and were sanctioned as universal by the early church.
The following are quotes from Jesus on the eternal validity of God's moral law. He would not have referred to the Commandments or the law if it was not still valid:
Matthew 7:12 (NIV)
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 22:40 (NIV)
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Matthew 23:23 (NIV)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
Luke 10:26 (NIV)
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
Luke 16:16-17 (NIV)
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. [17] It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
Mark 10:19 (NIV)
You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"
Since you claim that fulfill and abolish mean the same thing (Merriam Websters):
Main Entry: abol·ish
1 : to end the observance or effect of : ANNUL
2 : DESTROY
Main Entry: ful·fill
1 archaic : to make full : FILL <her subtle, warm, and golden breath ... fulfills him with beatitude -- Alfred Tennyson>
2 a : to put into effect : EXECUTE b : to meet the requirements of (a business order) c: to measure up to : SATISFY
3 a : to convert into reality b : to develop the full potentialities of
Since Jesus kept on referring to the Law and the great Commandments, they were valid also for those to whom the Gospel should be preached. He fulfilled the Law under which He was born, and in doing so, set us free from the command to be perfect under the Law in order to be saved.
Please show where Paul's writings were "sanctioned as universal".
No, my interpretation is perfectly accurate. Jesus disagreed with the old law still being in place. He is making a direct reference to this, objects to it, then gives advice. While the latter is indeed personal, it does not change his objection to the "eye for an eye" law.
You are contradicting yourself here. If it is personal, why does it apply to punishment given by governments? The sermon on the mount was addressed to inidividual Christians, and their conduct.
Please show how what Jesus said was in contradiction to the authority of governments to apply punishment that fit the crime, as mentioned in Romans 13.
God made available capital punishment before Mosaic law was established. (Gen 9:6)
No, you're not following my logic. Jesus was talking about revenge, no matter who inflicts it. I have no problem with the government keeping people in jail for REHABILITATION purposes, but at capital punishment I draw the line. Vengeance is God's not man's.
Those are your opinions, and not necessarily congruent to Scripture.
There is a difference between revenge and punishment. Romans 13 clearly establishes civil governments through which the punishment of God is administered as God's agent.
Romans 13:1-5 (NIV)
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. [2] Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [3] For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
I have no wish to study it as I have a feeling we are arguing over semantics. Let's assume sin and moral law are interchangeable from now on.
Already addressed this, sin and moral law is not interchangeable. Your unwillingness to study it, however, shows that you are in no way interested in learning the whole truth, only to continue to assert your misinformation, without considering the possibility that there may be thruths that do not coincide with your personal views.
Then it is not a law. A law gives the code of conduct and the punishment for it.
I don't know what source you will accept for what the definition of law in the Biblical context is, since you refuse to look at any sources that may endanger your views.
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
"\Law\ (l[add]), n. [OE. lawe, laghe, AS. lagu, from the root
of E. lie: akin to OS. lag, Icel. l["o]g, Sw. lag, Dan. lov;
cf. L. lex, E. legal. A law is that which is laid, set, or
fixed; like statute, fr. L. statuere to make to stand. See
{Lie} to be prostrate.]
1. In general, a rule of being or of conduct, established by
an authority able to enforce its will; a controlling
regulation; the mode or order according to which an agent
or a power acts.
Note: A law may be universal or particular, written or
unwritten, published or secret. From the nature of the
highest laws a degree of permanency or stability is
always implied; but the power which makes a law, or a
superior power, may annul or change it.
These are the statutes and judgments and law,
which the Lord made. --Lev. xxvi.
46.
The law of thy God, and the law of the King.
--Ezra vii.
26.
As if they would confine the Interminable . . .
Who made our laws to bind us, not himself.
--Milton.
His mind his kingdom, and his will his law.
--Cowper.
2. In morals: The will of God as the rule for the disposition
and conduct of all responsible beings toward him and
toward each other; a rule of living, conformable to
righteousness; the rule of action as obligatory on the
conscience or moral nature.
3. The Jewish or Mosaic code, and that part of Scripture
where it is written, in distinction from the gospel;
hence, also, the Old Testament."
2. above is the moral law, 3. is the civil and ceremonial.
All I see is the law. No mention of your "Moral Law".
Not surprising that you don't see it. First sentence, look closely....
Not to mention that referencing the Psalms which were written by people under all 3 of your clasifications cannot be talking about the exact same law as Paul does.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Where does it say "I fulfilled the ceremonial law" I don't see ceremonial law or moral law anywhere. All I see is "the law". NOt only are you reading selectively but you're reading stuff that isn't there.
Clearly you are not seeing anything. It is pointless to discuss this if you cannot grasp basic concepts from the Bible, such as different classifications. Are there different types of sin? Are there different types of worship? Are there diferent types of scriptures? Are we to take everything literal, or is there a difference between symbolism, prophesy and history? We can classify all of those, just as we can classify Biblical laws. We can analyze and understand by classifying, know the intent and context and draw conclusions, something you are clearly not interested in.
Already have.
Refresh my memory.
Sorry, not only is that not how my translation worded it, but we are discussing OT laws. He is under Christ's law. He gets his laws from Christ. If they happened to coincide with OT laws that's fine but the OT is not a reference.
What translation are you using?
1 Cor. 9:21 (KJV)
To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1 Cor. 9:21 (ASV)
to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law.
1 Cor. 9:21 (Dar)
to those without law, as without law, (not as without law to God, but as legitimately subject to Christ,) in order that I might gain [those] without law.
1 Cor. 9:21 (YLT)
to those without law, as without law—(not being without law to God, but within law to Christ)—that I might gain those without law;
All of these state the same thing, that Paul was not without God's law, and also that since Christ is God, he was subject to the same law from Christ.
Is it your assertion here that Christ's law was not God's law?
There are no if's in the Bible. Jesus referred extensively to the commandments, as did Paul. It is no coincendence that they correspond. If the OT is not a refrence, where did they get it from?
Romans 13:9 (NIV)
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
No, sorry. The OT laws had earthly punishments attached to them. Christ's did not. The OT had eye for an eye attached to murder, for example. Christ did not and thus the laws are different.
This gets back to your unwillingness to accept the different classifications, as well as the fact that moral law does not mention punishment. Breaking the moral law through sin does specifiy punishment, on earth to be determined and executed by God's agents, and in the afterlife by God's judgment.
Again, are you saying that no criminals should be punished?
9/10 actually. He never did say to rest on the sabbath.
I agree. It was not ordained by God as necessary for salvation or held by angels, for example, and not observing it does no harm to God or our fellow human beings, i.e. it is not moral law. It is a tradition that establishes good order in the church.
The OT laws no longer apply. Since you haven't proved that when Jesus and the apostles say "law" they "really mean moral law", it's up to you to prove it.
So what do they mean when they say law? I think I have addressed this earlier.
Where does it say to kill them? For all I know it could be talking about using the sword during something like a robbery.
It says that the punishment should fit the crime, as determind by the civil government, who are agents, or ministers, of God. I should add here that the only time we are to rise against government, is when they no longer do the will of God. Death penalty is addressed lower down.
No OT laws please.
No punishment of criminals please, mastermind has decreed that we let them all run rampant. And no sin either, we have nothing to tell us when we are sinning.
What do I care about the US or any country's laws?
Apparently nothing, but it does not relieve you from God's instruction to be subservient to governments and civil magistrates.
A crime of passion? In the OT, killing somebody out of anger mandated death. God did not kill Cain before the mosaic covenant and since I am not under the mosaic covenant, nor can you prove to me that I am, God's attitude before it stands.
Already mentioned Genesis 9:6, before the Mosaic laws. And I already stated that we are not subject to OT civil laws, thanks for repeating my point. You are subject to God's eternal moral law, which did not change throughout the Bible.
Yep, taking people into slavery was common practice. I don't see how this relates to punishing criminals.
You are changing the topic. You said it was impossible to intern people in ancient times, therefore they were executed.
Genesis 39:20-23 (NIV)
Joseph's master took him and put him in prison, the place where the king's prisoners were confined.
But while Joseph was there in the prison, [21] the Lord was with him; he showed him kindness and granted him favor in the eyes of the prison warden. [22] So the warden put Joseph in charge of all those held in the prison, and he was made responsible for all that was done there. [23] The warden paid no attention to anything under Joseph's care, because the Lord was with Joseph and gave him success in whatever he did.
Genesis 40:3 (NIV)
and put them in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, in the same prison where Joseph was confined.
Genesis 40:5 (NIV)
each of the two men--the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were being held in prison--had a dream the same night, and each dream had a meaning of its own.
Genesis 42:16 (NIV)
Send one of your number to get your brother; the rest of you will be kept in prison, so that your words may be tested to see if you are telling the truth. If you are not, then as surely as Pharaoh lives, you are spies!"
Genesis 42:19 (NIV)
If you are honest men, let one of your brothers stay here in prison, while the rest of you go and take grain back for your starving households.
Judges 16:21 (NIV)
Then the Philistines seized him, gouged out his eyes and took him down to Gaza. Binding him with bronze shackles, they set him to grinding in the prison.
Judges 16:25 (NIV)
While they were in high spirits, they shouted, "Bring out Samson to entertain us." So they called Samson out of the prison, and he performed for them.
When they stood him among the pillars,
1 Kings 22:27 (NIV)
and say, 'This is what the king says: Put this fellow in prison and give him nothing but bread and water until I return safely.' "
2 Kings 17:4 (NIV)
But the king of Assyria discovered that Hoshea was a traitor, for he had sent envoys to So king of Egypt, and he no longer paid tribute to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year. Therefore Shalmaneser seized him and put him in prison.
2 Kings 25:27 (NIV)
In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin from prison on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month.
2 Kings 25:29 (NIV)
So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king's table.
2 Chron. 16:10 (NIV)
Asa was angry with the seer because of this; he was so enraged that he put him in prison. At the same time Asa brutally oppressed some of the people.
2 Chron. 18:26 (NIV)
and say, 'This is what the king says: Put this fellow in prison and give him nothing but bread and water until I return safely.' "
No law Christ gave is in violation of anything. God is, however, free to do with the covenant as He wishes because I guarantee that Israel did not keep it to perfection.
What does the covenant have to do with God's moral law?
The law needs both parts to apply to us. As it stands, it is just the sin part of the law that applies thus the law itself does not apply.
Moral law did not specify earthly punishment, but eternal punishment if we don't accept the grace and love of Jesus. How can it not apply to us? I already showed the difference between law and sin. And as I already mentioned many times, in the civil order today we are subject to the government.
No no no, the bible told Israel to make the punishment fit the crime. It doesn't say "it always should for everybody" otherwise God would have lightningbolted the **** out of cain.
Cain was not subject to civil authority, since there was none at the time, so you cannot compare that. God gives the authority to civil governments to establish punishment for crimes.
Why did Paul then agree to the death penalty if he was guilty?
Acts 25:11 (NIV)
If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!"
Again, by your logic there should be no punishment for criminals.
I'm fairly certain the romans had a good law and punishment system. It's not just Israel that had this. When Christianity came to power, it mellowed down the laws of the Roman Empire, it did not make them harsher.
Proof please.
This relies on personal interpretation of one verse. Personally, I'd rather not risk it.
It fits with the context of the rest of the chapter, it's not personal interpretation.
That woman caught commiting adultery, for starters. I already know what you're gonna say about it and I have an answer ready.
Invalid in context. Because the Romans held the rule of life and death and the right to implement the death penalty, this was a challenge to Jesus to commit sedition. If he had said, "Go ahead," he would have been arrested. By itself this offers no injunction against the death penalty, since it was not really an option; moreover, Jesus' reply indicates, "If we are to enforce it this time, some of you are next." The constraints of Roman power were acknowledged, though the death penalty itself was not thereby repudiated.
Yes, I'm arguing about application of the civil law because it is counterintuitive given Jesus. First, criminals are put in jails that fit the crime, so "fellow prisoners" are usually fellow murderers and rapists and if they feel the need to beat the **** out of each other, that's their business. Second, the wardens know what they're getting into. They were probably pretty sadistic to begin with if they took such a job.
This is just a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions. How do you know all wardens are sadists? Now suddenly the punishment fits the crime? So your eye for an eye doctrine does not apply inside prisons, since they can kill each other in there and you don't care? You see fit to condemn peopke to an environment such as that?
Third, society is protected while they're in there.
So wardens and prisoners are not part of society, and are not allowed equal protection under the law?
Now just because I'm suggesting that we jail them does not mean I am happy with the current system. Slavery till you're 70 instead of capital punishment suits me just fine.
And how is that Biblical?
So much for bringing people to God.
I'm all for bringing people to God, but you accused me of damning people to hell. Two different things. It was their choice that put them on death row in the first place, not mine. And where do you minister to inmates, or are you just being a hypocrite?
You're missing the point. Since humanity is not perfect the death penalty is bound to kill somebody who is innocent.
No you're the one missing the point. Poor application or an "imperfect humanity" does not invalidate the death penalty. So we should let innocent people be slaves for 70 years instead?
