Death Penalty For Homosexuals?

[RND]

RND,

Those who speak of the "law of nature" are not trying to distinguish it from God's standards. The assumption is that the law of nature is the same as God's standards of behavior, because it is God who installed this code in human beings.

So then this law has always existed, and has always been expressed, and has always been part of the expression of God's character and nature in His government.

You say that the sabbath preceded the law. To be more accurate, we should say that the command to observe sabbath was given after the exodus, and was incorporated into the law given at Sinai. The sabbath is mentioned in Genesis 2, but there is no record of God requiring anyone to keep it until Exodus 16.

Which was before the giving of the law in Exodus 20.

From my Messianic brother Elijah: The Law: For Jews only?
This brings us to the question: "What exactly is sin?". Well, if obedience to the law is righteousness---then would not transgression of the law (breaking the commandments in the law) be sin/unrighteousness? YES. Scripture says so:

1John 3:4 - Whoever commits sin trangresses also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law. 5 - And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 - Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 7 - Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 - He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of YAHWEH was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 - Whoever has been born of YAHWEH does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of YAHWEH. 10 - In this the children of YAHWEH and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of YAHWEH, nor is he who does not love his brother.

See how they are all tied in together? See the warnings given! Now that we have answered the question "What is sin?", what about all those that seem to say certain parts of His torah/law need not be kept by His people? Should we only observe the commandments that modern preachers say are only for Gentiles? Who gets to decide which commandments are "Jewish" and which ones aren't? Are the Sabbath, the Feast days and the clean and unclean commandments given to Jews or Israelites only? Let's examine...

Genesis 7:1 - And YAHWEH said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2 - Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Noah was a righteous man. He knew the difference between the clean and the unclean. The concept of clean/unclean couldn't possibly be "Jewish" because Noah, a man who existed centuries before there was ever a Jew or an Israelite, being "RIGHTEOUS" knew about the clean and unclean animals. The answer then must be that this is not a "Jewish" law or doctrine in the sense that it was only given or known to the Jews. This is YAHWEH'S law and doctrine. Yahweh clearly marked the animals at creation so that man could distinguish between the clean and the unclean animals For animals, they must have a cloven hoof and chew the cud to be clean. For fish, they must have fins and scales to be clean. The remarkable thing about this is that most (though not all) of the clean animals are vegetarians and nearly most of the unclean animals are scavengers and feeders off of the ocean floor, the garbage cleaners of the earth. Yahweh designed the animals in such a wonderful and miraculous way, what a blessing! So this is not a 'Jewish' law as commonly meant, this is Yahweh's law!

What about the Sabbath, is it intended for Jews or Israelites only? We learn that Yahweh did something else at creation besides marking the animals. He also rested on the seventh day:

Genesis 2:2 - And on the seventh day Elohim ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

He also did something else very important.

Genesis 2:3 - And Elohim blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which Elohim created and made.

He blessed the day and sanctified it. Did He rest because He was tired? Did He need to rest? Surely, Yahweh rested as an example for us! In the Ten Commandments--which are written in stone by His own finger--Yahweh writes:

Exodus 20:8 - Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 - Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 - But the seventh day is the sabbath of YAHWEH thy Elohim: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 - For in six days YAHWEH made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore YAHWEH blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Here it is written that Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it at creation. Some say that there is no scripture telling us that the patriarchs kept the Sabbath day.. or any commandment telling them to keep the Sabbath day.. so we don't have to. But there is no scripture telling us that the patriarchs DIDN'T keep the Sabbath day. We do see that they must have known about the Sabbath because of how Yahweh created all things and rested, for they were closer to the event of creation than we are. There was no commandment forbidding homosexuality either, but no one in their right mind would argue that it was okay for them to commit those acts in the wicked city of Sodom. In fact, as I stated before it was written of Abraham:

Genesis 26:4 - And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 - Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Where were Yahweh's statutes and His laws in the days of Abraham? Why did Yahweh destroy Sodom & Gomorrah if there was no commandment against doing such wickedness? Where was the standard of righteousness when Yahweh destroyed the whole world except Noah and his family?

Well, surely Adam knew righteousness. I believe they were passed down from generation to generation and were much more commonly known in those days. Did you know that many timelines show that Noah was alive until Abraham was 65 years of age? Did you know that many timelines show that Adam's son, Seth died just 13 years before Noah was born? We also see that Jacob (Israel) co-existed with Shem, the son of Noah. Thus, it was not so difficult for the standard of righteousness to be passed down. However, when the children of Israel went into Egypt, they went into forced labor and this commandment along with many others was forgotten:

Nehemiah 9:13 - Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: 14 - And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

Here Nehemiah says in truth that Yahweh "made known to them" His holy Sabbath. His Sabbath day had already existed since creation, Yahweh had to make it known to them that they were to be keeping it holy/separate. It had been holy to Yahweh centuries beforehand..and He wants His own people to keep it Holy.

[Paidion]

I really wish, Paidion, that you would stop raising the red herring of drinking water with dust in it somehow naturally causing the symptoms of a swollen belly and a rotten thigh. There is absolutely no argument on your side of this particular issue. The ordeal of jealousy is clearly indicated to be a supernatural demonstration of guilt, when that cannot be verified by witnesses.

It is written often in Moses’ writings that God spoke to Moses face to face. So if a man “had a fit of jealousy”, why could not God have spoken directly to Moses and told him whether or not the man was guilty? Or were there too many fits of jealousy for Moses to handle? In that case, God could have spoken to Aaron or Joshua, or some of the leading priests.
Why this revelation through “the water that brings the curse”? Secondly, if this were a miraculous test from God, why was it necessary to mix in the dust? Why wouldn’t pure water have suited just as well? Or no water at all? That is, why didn’t God simply cause the condition in the guilty women, but not in the innocent ones?

However, if “the water which brings the curse” had its usual effect, the woman would suffer and be “proved guilty”. But in some cases, where a woman had a good immune system and suffered no ill effects, she would be declared innocent.

Does the procedure not remind us of the seventeenth century test for witches? The suspect would be curled up in a non-breathable position with rocks tied to her ankles and thrown into deep water. If the victim sunk, she would drown, but this would prove that she was not a witch. If she floated, this would indicate that she was guilty, and she would be tried for witchcraft.

Numbers 5:21 specifically says it is the Lord who causes the symptoms—though only if the party is guilty.

Of course it does. Moses wrote it. I am inclined to think that he actually believed that Yahweh caused the symptoms.

In contrast to the scripture, you have claimed that God had nothing to do with this, that Moses made up this legislation (even though it begins with "the Lord spoke to Moses...") …

Even if Moses “made up” the legislation, he may have sincerely believed that Yahweh told him to use this test. After all, Yahweh frequently spoke to Moses. But he may have sometimes interpreted his own ideas as the revelation of God. God’s people still do that to this day.

…and have claimed that there was some naturally-occurring substance in the dirt on the tabernacle floor, which, when added to water and ingested, will cause the outbreak of such the symptoms as are guaranteed in the ordeal.

Not guaranteed, for some peoples’ immune systems work well and are quite resistant to bacteria. Some of the women didn’t develop the symptoms.

I asked you in another post if you were aware of any virus or bacterium commonly occurring in Sinaitic desert soil, which causes these particular symptoms (swollen belly and rotting thigh). You have neglected to answer this matter though it is absolutely crucial to your point.

I didn’t know of such a virus or bacterium at the time, and never considered such knowledge to be “absolutely crucial to my point”. Just now I did an internet search and found that viruses and bacteria are more prevalent in deserts than in tropical rain forests. Some of them survive in temperatures as high as 200º F.

One of them, the Desert Shield Virus attacks human beings, and causes gastroenteritis. The virus can be ingested by eating food or drinking water containing it. One of the symptoms of gastroenteritis is “painful abdominal bloating”. Doesn't that sound a lot like “the water that brings a curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her belly shall swell”? (Num 5:27)

Of course, this particular virus may not be the one that the polluted dirt contained, but some of its effects are similar, and there are many viruses in desert soil.

Even if such a contaminant does exist (which I seriously doubt), how could Moses guarantee that this unusual factor would regularly be found on the floor of the tabernacle—the cleanest ground in the encampment, since no one could walk on it unless they first washed their feet at the laver?

I see no scriptural evidence that “no one” was allowed to walk on the floor of the tabernacle without washing his feet. I do find the command that Aaron and his sons were to do a ritual washing of their hands and feet before offering a food offering. Would not that have been in the Holy of Holies? Do we know that it was in this part of the tabernacle that the dust from the floor was taken, the dust which was mixed with the water given to a woman who had a jealous husband?

Since normal children are careless about eating with dirty hands, and even are known, not infrequently, to eat dirt, I wonder that swollen bellies and rotting thighs are not commonly seen among them. If there was something in the dirt that caused these symptoms, you have avoided identifying this in response to my challenges to you, on a previous thread,

How do we know whether or not children had the condition, or if they had it, how frequently? Also, it may be that the virus existed in greater concentration in the tabernacle where many people walked in their bare feet than just any part of the terrain which children frequented.

…and you have not explained why it would only happen when the woman was guilty. A woman who had not committed adultery would be unaffected by the concoction.

Those are the words which Moses wrote as having been uttered by Yahweh. We don’t know however, whether or not all who were afflicted by the condition were in fact guilty, or whether all who weren’t afflicted were, in fact, innocent.

I really want you to provide some rational answers to these reasonable questions. If you continue to repeat this libel against God's law, beyond this point, without providing evidence and answers to these challenges, your honesty and submission to the truth of scripture will be greatly compromised in the eyes of those at this forum.

I really am not concerned about my reputation in this regard. I am concerned about doing God’s will, upholding His divine character as revealed in, as well as by, His Son while He lived as a man among humanity, and I am concerned upholding and sharing truth and reality.

Paidion wrote:
I am quite certain that Paul had none of these practices in mind when he wrote that the commandments of the law are "holy, righteous, and good."

We all know that being quite certain of a thing does not guarantee that it is correct. In fact, Paul's statement was quite in keeping with his general belief that the law's listing of certain crimes as being "deserving of death" was a demonstration of the "righteous judgment of God" (Rom.1:32). These "righteous judgments" are found nowhere other than in the very laws that you wish to criticize. Paul and you simply disagree. I will continue to side with the principal spokesman that Christ authorized to teach the Gentile churches. I am not sure who you may be siding with in this rejection of the justice of God's laws.

You appear quite certain that you are siding with Paul in the matter; I am just as certain that it is I who am siding with him.

You haven’t addressed my quote of Paul at all. I see this quote as “absolutely crucial” to the matter being discussed.

Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”

Did not Paul refer to the law of God? That is, the moral law which God gave to Israel? Consider how the following parts of God’s law are fulfilled in the commandment to love your neighbour as yourself:

Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that Yahweh your God is giving you.

Your own father and mother are the closest of neighbours. If you love them as yourself, you will surely honour them.

You shall not kill.

If you love your neighbour as yourself, you are not going to kill him.

You shall not commit adultery.

If you commit adultery with your neighbour’s wife, you have demonstrated that you don’t love him as yourself.

You shall not steal.

If you love your neighbour as yourself, you are not going to steal his goods.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

If you bear false witness against your neighbour, you have proven that you do not love him.

You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbour’s.

If you love your neighbour as yourself, you will not covet his possessions. Rather you will rejoice that he has all these things.

Okay, I have just given examples of some of the moral law of God being explained in terms of loving one’s neighbour as oneself. Now would you please explain to me how the civil laws of Moses are fulfilled in loving your neighbour as yourself? Even if you limit your explanation to the following two examples, I will be satisfied:

1.Please explain how killing my rebellious son is fulfilled in the command to love my neighbour as myself.

2.Please explain how, as a result of my jealousy and suspicion, testing my wife’s fidelity by giving her “the water that brings the curse” is fulfilled in the command to love my neighbour as myself.

It is easy to see that God’s laws such as honouring your father and mother, refraining from murder, refraining from adultery, theft, false witness, and envy of one’s neighbour are “holy, righteous, and good” as Paul affirmed God’s law to be. But it appears impossible to see some of Moses’ civil laws (such as the two mentioned above) in that light.

[Michelle]

Hi Paidion,

Okay, I have just given examples of some of the moral law of God being explained in terms of loving one’s neighbour as oneself. Now would you please explain to me how the civil laws of Moses are fulfilled in loving your neighbour as yourself? Even if you limit your explanation to the following two examples, I will be satisfied:

I'm pretty sure you were asking Steve, but while you wait for his answer, I'll give it a go...

1.Please explain how killing my rebellious son is fulfilled in the command to love my neighbour as myself.

First of all the verse says it's a stubborn and rebellious son:
"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them," Deut 21:18
Obviously stoning him is the last resort after all other possible methods to coerce him into correct living have been exhausted in order to prove that he is stubborn in his rebellion. Second of all, I'm pretty sure the rebellion here isn't the run of the mill teenage acting out that we think of today when we hear of a rebellious son. Deut 21:20 calls him a drunkard and a glutton: "And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard." I would take that to mean that he is stubbornly turning his back on societal norms, thumbing his nose at his family and God, and probably leading others into joining with him in his rebellion. That sort of rebellion leads to the breakdown of society and opens the way to idolatry. It would be loving to one's neighbors to remove the son in order to preserve society and any individuals who might be influenced by his rebellion.

2.Please explain how, as a result of my jealousy and suspicion, testing my wife’s fidelity by giving her “the water that brings the curse” is fulfilled in the command to love my neighbour as myself.

Obviously you have never had to deal with a jealous man who believes, unjustifiably, that his woman is being sexually unfaithful to him. Jealous men are pretty unreasonable. I just googled "jealous husband" and came up with a raft of murdered wife stories. I think this law is actually a wonderful protection to wives. Of course if there are witnesses to adultery, it's a different story, but in the case of merely suspected infidelity, the jealous husband cannot just off his wife, no matter how much he wants to, but must submit to this ritual. Honestly, I think that there would be much more incidence of guilty women being pronounced innocent than of innocent women picking up some virus that proves them guilty. But regardless, I think this law shows love for women in the protection it actually provides them from jealous, homicidal husbands.

It is easy to see that God’s laws such as honouring your father and mother, refraining from murder, refraining from adultery, theft, false witness, and envy of one’s neighbour are “holy, righteous, and good” as Paul affirmed God’s law to be. But it appears impossible to see some of Moses’ civil laws (such as the two mentioned above) in that light.

I'll probably fade back into lurkdom again, but I want to be sure I understand your position before I do. You seem to think that part of the Law is from God yet much of it is just Moses' ruminations. Is that correct? If so, do you view the whole Old Testament this way? Did some of the prophets actually hear from God, but others not? If I understand correctly, you view the Old Testament as the story of the Hebrews and how the misunderstood their God, and that Jesus shows us the correct understanding of God. Do I have that right?

Michelle

[RND]

Obviously stoning him is the last resort after all other possible methods to coerce him into correct living have been exhausted in order to prove that he is stubborn in his rebellion. Second of all, I'm pretty sure the rebellion here isn't the run of the mill teenage acting out that we think of today when we hear of a rebellious son. Deut 21:20 calls him a drunkard and a glutton: "And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard." I would take that to mean that he is stubbornly turning his back on societal norms, thumbing his nose at his family and God, and probably leading others into joining with him in his rebellion. That sort of rebellion leads to the breakdown of society and opens the way to idolatry. It would be loving to one's neighbors to remove the son in order to preserve society and any individuals who might be influenced by his rebellion.

Isn't interesting that it was the parents that were required to indite their own son and in essence throw the first stone? What would this say about the parents?

Deu 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Obviously you have never had to deal with a jealous man who believes, unjustifiably, that his woman is being sexually unfaithful to him. Jealous men are pretty unreasonable. I just googled "jealous husband" and came up with a raft of murdered wife stories. I think this law is actually a wonderful protection to wives. Of course if there are witnesses to adultery, it's a different story, but in the case of merely suspected infidelity, the jealous husband cannot just off his wife, no matter how much he wants to, but must submit to this ritual. Honestly, I think that there would be much more incidence of guilty women being pronounced innocent than of innocent women picking up some virus that proves them guilty. But regardless, I think this law shows love for women in the protection it actually provides them from jealous, homicidal husbands.

How does such a love stack up against 1 Corinthians 13? Wouldn't perfect love even forgive the adulteress?

I'll probably fade back into lurkdom again, but I want to be sure I understand your position before I do. You seem to think that part of the Law is from God yet much of it is just Moses' ruminations. Is that correct? If so, do you view the whole Old Testament this way? Did some of the prophets actually hear from God, but others not? If I understand correctly, you view the Old Testament as the story of the Hebrews and how the misunderstood their God, and that Jesus shows us the correct understanding of God. Do I have that right?

I can't speak for Paidon, but I think you have assessed things for me very well here. God was dealing with two-year old's. That's why the law is viewed as a "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ. College students working on their Ph.D don't have to be told not to run with scissors in their hands like two-year old's do. Thus God had to meet these people where they were and what they knew. If only the adulterers were required to be stoned then that beats killing the whole family. Eye for and eye is really "don't take more than necessary."

[Paidion]

Thank you for your thoughtful answer, Michelle.

It would be loving to one's neighbors to remove the son in order to preserve society and any individuals who might be influenced by his rebellion.

If you had a son that was rebellious in the sense that was described in Exodus, would you be willing for society to exact the death penalty?

You seem to think that part of the Law is from God yet much of it is just Moses' ruminations. Is that correct?

I see Paul's references to "the Law" as The Law of God, and that this law was basically moral law. I don't see some of Moses' injuctions as part of the Law at all. I wouldn't call them "ruminations". I think they were ideas which came to him, and which he thought were planted there directly by God. So in his record of events, he stated that God had said these things. He wasn't lying. He simply misunderstood his own thoughts as God's word.

If so, do you view the whole Old Testament this way?

I haven't thought about that particularily, but at this point, I would say, "no".

Did some of the prophets actually hear from God, but others not?

Rather than some of them hearing from God and others not, I think that some of them, particularily Moses, sometimes received God's revelation and sometimes, particularily if they became a leader of the Israelites, viewed their own thoughts and ideas as being the word of God. I think perhaps God's true nature was revealed to Isaiah and Jeremiah in a way that surpassed most of His revelation to other OT prophets.

If I understand correctly, you view the Old Testament as the story of the Hebrews and how the misunderstood their God, and that Jesus shows us the correct understanding of God. Do I have that right?

Well, the OT contains a lot of that misunderstanding, though it also contains the real revelation of God as well. But yes, Jesus Himself is the personal Logos (expression) of God to man; He is the revelation of God. He taught us the true nature of the Father both by His actions of love and compassion, and by His teachings, which both the writer of Hebrews and the elder John in 2 John, calls "the teaching of Christ" (or the "doctrine" of Christ, if you prefer). Paul calls Christ's teaching in the "Sermon on the Mount" and elsewhere "the law of Christ" and says that it can be fulfilled by "bearing one another's burdens" (Gal. 6:2 ) ---- which would be a lot like "loving your neighbour as yourself."

[Michelle]

Thank you, Paidion.

If you had a son that was rebellious in the sense that was described in Exodus, would you be willing for society to exact the death penalty?

No. My children are the light of my life; I wouldn't be the one to bring my son before the elders, accusing him of a rebellious spirit. As RND pointed out, it was the parents who brought the charge against their son, not the elders, or anyone else in society, with the parents acquiescing. Also, it doesn't appear that the parents could just take their son out to a field and execute him, but had to bring him before the elders. Perhaps (I'm not sure, but maybe?) the elders would intervene if the parents accusations were insufficient?

Parents do kill their children sometimes. I think that this law actually might provide protection. Daughters in some islamic societies are murdered, even today, for being rebellious and bringing shame to their families. Isn't it interesting that this law only mentions sons?

I wouldn't call them "ruminations". I think they were ideas which came to him, and which he thought were planted there directly by God. So in his record of events, he stated that God had said these things. He wasn't lying. He simply misunderstood his own thoughts as God's word.

Well, by "ruminations" I meant "thoughts" and "ideas" that he considered carefully. For the record, I don't agree. I think God did dictate all the Law to Moses.

Well, the OT contains a lot of that misunderstanding, though it also contains the real revelation of God as well

I see and I stand corrected.

Well, the OT contains a lot of that misunderstanding, though it also contains the real revelation of God as well. But yes, Jesus Himself is the personal Logos (expression) of God to man; He is the revelation of God. He taught us the true nature of the Father both by His actions of love and compassion, and by His teachings, which both the writer of Hebrews and the elder John in 2 John, calls "the teaching of Christ" (or the "doctrine" of Christ, if you prefer). Paul calls Christ's teaching in the "Sermon on the Mount" and elsewhere "the law of Christ" and says that it can be fulfilled by "bearing one another's burdens" (Gal. 6:2 ) ---- which would be a lot like "loving your neighbour as yourself."

I don't disagree at all with this paragraph. It is very well stated! I would just add that I don't think the Mosaic Law...any of it...is at odds with the Law of Christ.

[Paidion]

Thanks again, Michelle.

We're all where we are in our understanding. We are not required to agree. We are required to submit to our Lord Jesus, and obey Him with all our hearts. This is the essence of our fellowship with Him and with each other.

As for all of these other matters ---- they will become clear to us sooner or later. All of us who are in error in any respect (and I include myself of course) will be corrected. Everything will become plain when our Lord makes it so, whether in this life or the next. We may trust Him completely.

[Michelle]

Thanks again, Michelle.

We're all where we are in our understanding. We are not required to agree. We are required to submit to our Lord Jesus, and obey Him with all our hearts. This is the essence of our fellowship with Him and with each other.

As for all of these other matters ---- they will become clear to us sooner or later. All of us who are in error in any respect (and I include myself of course) will be corrected. Everything will become plain when our Lord makes it so, whether in this life or the next. We may trust Him completely.

I agree, well said.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

I see Paul's references to "the Law" as The Law of God, and that this law was basically moral law.

You would do well to do a word study on the usage of the word "law" accompanied with the article "the", as used by the New Testament writers and then tell us whether it means moral, civil, or ceremonial commands. The inspired writers of the New Testament never thought to divide The Law into these categories as has been done in times since.

Your posts bear the mark of desperation.

[Sean]

RND,
What do you make of these scriptures?

Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

So the matter they were to discuss was Gentile circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses. What was the decision?

Act 15:19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.


Interesting.


Also, what do you make of Paul's statements here:

Rom 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
Rom 7:2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.
Rom 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.

Just in case we miss his point Paul says: Rom 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

RND, what are we to make of this?