My theory about the "Word" in John 1:1

[justbyfaith]

This is not about the other nations - for the fifth time .. yet you keep running there in hopes of avoiding the reality that this was Israelite law.

It was not Isrealite law.

Claiming a Baby at 6 months old has done a sin worthy of death because of being in a house where there is worship of other Gods is

1) Evil
2) Against God's law.

So, you're saying that God is evil and that He violated His own law.

To this I will only say that you are judging the Lord and that you are not His judge but He will be your judge on the day of judgment.

And even if He is judged, it is written,

Rom 3:3, For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Rom 3:4, God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

This is to say that when God is judged concerning everything that He did on the earth, He will be justified.

You do not have all of the facts. I suggest that you heed the following scripture:

Pro 3:5, Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Pro 3:6, In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Hardcore contradiction -
A) We should kill children for the sins of their parents
B) We should not kill children for the sis of their parents

You have been arguing for A) .. and hope you are proud of such an argument.

No, I have been arguing for B).

I have said that when God commanded the wiping out of the nations that were before Israel, that 1) it was not a law that He was giving for the people of Israel to perpetually keep; 2) He did what He did in order to keep idolatry from entering into the life of His people...which, as I have said, history bears out that some of these wicked nations did survive and also succeeded at corrupting the children of Israel so that they committed idolatry and in worship of other gods passed their children through the fire; and 3) the children who would be killed died not for the sins of their parents but for their own sins.

If you are going to keep arguing about this I don't think that there will be a necessity for me to repeat myself again. We will see.

 

[Heyzeus]

It was not Isrealite law.
.

Of course it was .. and I showed you this numerous times.

So, you're saying that God is evil and that He violated His own law

no .. this is what you are arguing .. when you argue for killing babies due to the sin of their parents .. as you have been doing consistently .. despite your later denial of this fact later in the post.

"No, I have been arguing for B)" - that Children should not be killed for the sins of their parents..

The above is false.. you have been consistently arguing that 6 month old babies should be killed if their parents worship other Gods.

So yes your actual position is A) Children should be killed for the sin of their parents.

 

[justbyfaith]

Of course it was .. and I showed you this numerous times.

No, it wasn't. And no, you haven't.

no .. this is what you are arguing .. when you argue for killing babies due to the sin of their parents .. as you have been doing consistently .. despite your later denial of this fact later in the post.

No, I have not argued for the killing of babies because of the sins of their parents...for these children died for their own sins; as I have said.

"No, I have been arguing for B)" - that Children should not be killed for the sins of their parents..

The above is false.. you have been consistently arguing that 6 month old babies should be killed if their parents worship other Gods.

So yes your actual position is A) Children should be killed for the sin of their parents.

No, I have been arguing for B).

I have said that when God commanded the wiping out of the nations that were before Israel, that 1) it was not a law that He was giving for the people of Israel to perpetually keep; 2) He did what He did in order to keep idolatry from entering into the life of His people...which, as I have said, history bears out that some of these wicked nations did survive and also succeeded at corrupting the children of Israel so that they committed idolatry and in worship of other gods passed their children through the fire; and 3) the children who would be killed died not for the sins of their parents but for their own sins.

 

[justbyfaith]

@Heyzeus,

I have asked the Holy Spirit to open your eyes to the fact that you are behaving as an enemy of the Lord...

And that you might also ask yourself the question, If I am an enemy of God, what makes me think that I am going to be allowed into His kingdom?

Considering that the alternative is outer darkness, where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Heyzeus]

No, I have been arguing for B).

I have said that when God commanded the wiping out of the nations that were before Israel, that 1) it was not a law that He was giving for the people of Israel to perpetually keep; 2) He did what He did in order to keep idolatry from entering into the life of His people...which, as I have said, history bears out that some of these wicked nations did survive and also succeeded at corrupting the children of Israel so that they committed idolatry and in worship of other gods passed their children through the fire; and 3) the children who would be killed died not for the sins of their parents but for their own sins

You are claiming that the parents sins were transferred to the Children = for the parents sin the children died.. you are failing basic logic.

What a pathetic and desperate attempt to deny that children are being killed on the basis of the parents actions - and not anything the child has done .. but some kind of sin these children absorbed from the parents at 6 months old .. what a joke ..

No, it wasn't. And no, you haven't.

No, I have not argued for the killing of babies because of the sins of their parents...for these children died for their own sins; as I have said.
.

Yes you have.. you have argued that because the parents sinned .. a 6 month baby has absorbed that sin and so should be killed.

What is most absurd is that somehow you fail to recognize that one is just as bad as the other .. and that BoTH ... either way you want to do it .. violates "Gods Word" - Gods Law to the Israelites .. what he commanded them to do .. in perpetuity .

The big Joke is that it didn't work very well .. as the Israelites never followed this Law - and spent most of their time worshiping other Gods.

Guess God made a miscalculation with the baby killing law ... better luck next time perhaps ... so sorry for all those dead babies.

Nice perspective.

 

[Heyzeus]

@Heyzeus,

I have asked the Holy Spirit to open your eyes to the fact that you are behaving as an enemy of the Lord...

And that you might also ask yourself the question, If I am an enemy of God, what makes me think that I am going to be allowed into His kingdom?

Considering that the alternative is outer darkness, where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

You are the one behaving as an enemy of the Lord - once again projecting. It is your disturbing version of Christianity that is an affront to Jesus - Jesus did not claim that babies should be killed because their parents sinned and the baby absorbed some of that sin according to you ..

Good luck explaining that one to Jesus at the pearly gates .. Jesus explaining that you were given a brain .. and saying "so what is your excuse".

 

[justbyfaith]

You are the one behaving as an enemy of the Lord - once again projecting. It is your disturbing version of Christianity that is an affront to Jesus - Jesus did not claim that babies should be killed because their parents sinned and the baby absorbed some of that sin according to you ..

Good luck explaining that one to Jesus at the pearly gates .. Jesus explaining that you were given a brain .. and saying "so what is your excuse".

Are you attempting to say that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are not the same God?

Isaiah 9:6 would tell us otherwise...

I am not the one accusing the Lord of doing evil here.

 

[justbyfaith]

You are claiming that the parents sins were transferred to the Children = for the parents sin the children died.. you are failing basic logic.

What a pathetic and desperate attempt to deny that children are being killed on the basis of the parents actions - and not anything the child has done .. but some kind of sin these children absorbed from the parents at 6 months old .. what a joke ..




Yes you have.. you have argued that because the parents sinned .. a 6 month baby has absorbed that sin and so should be killed.

What is most absurd is that somehow you fail to recognize that one is just as bad as the other .. and that BoTH ... either way you want to do it .. violates "Gods Word" - Gods Law to the Israelites .. what he commanded them to do .. in perpetuity .

The big Joke is that it didn't work very well .. as the Israelites never followed this Law - and spent most of their time worshiping other Gods.

Guess God made a miscalculation with the baby killing law ... better luck next time perhaps ... so sorry for all those dead babies.

Nice perspective.

The fact that the Israelites did not wipe out the cultures in question by obeying God in this meant that the Israelites ended up worshiping idols and sacrificed their own children to those idols.

Do you not think that God was attempting to protect Israel by telling them to wipe out the idolatry in those cultures?

I will say again that God will be justified when He is judged...

You do not have all of the facts concerning everything that happened in those days.

You would actually do well to trust in the LORD with all of your heart and lean not on your own understanding...in all your ways acknowledging Him...and He would make your paths straight.

 

[justbyfaith]

God is going to be your judge on that day...and you would do well to remember that.

 

[Heyzeus]

The fact that the Israelites did not wipe out the cultures in question by obeying God in this meant that the Israelites ended up worshiping idols and sacrificed their own children to those idols.

Do you not think that God was attempting to protect Israel by telling them to wipe out the idolatry in those cultures?

.

If we were talking about Israel wiping out other cultures - your comments might be relevant - but we are not talking about other cultures.
This law was in effect for Israelites themselves

I have explained this to you at least 5 times now - yet you keep returning to the same vomit - in hopes of avoiding what is being discussed =

Israelite Children were to be killed for the sins of their parents - these are Israelite towns .. not "The Enemy"

but even if we were talking about the command to kill babies in non Israelite Towns - this is still sick and wrong - and did not protect the Israelites from Idolatry. So even if you hadn't moved the goal posts to another planet .. your argument is still worthless.

Further - what you are claiming "that children should be killed because of the sins of their parents" - violates God's Law - that Children should not be killed for the sins of their parents.

I will say again that God will be justified when He is judged...

We are not judging God - because God didn't command what was done. Gods Law states that children are not to be killed for the sins of their parents .... and if you think otherwise .. Satan is clouding your judgement - well its not Satan actually but lets call it that for now .. it is a dark force.

You do not have all of the facts concerning everything that happened in those days.

We don't need any facts .. other than what is given .. The command is given "Exterminate all the children" and the reason is Given is because some people in the town (may not have been their parents) have turned to worshiping other Gods.

You would actually do well to trust in the LORD with all of your heart and lean not on your own understanding...in all your ways acknowledging Him...and He would make your paths straight

The above is complete nonsense - It is you who is not listening to the teachings of Jesus- once again trying to project your issues onto others.

Do you think Jesus agrees with some Law = stated to be one of God's legalistic commands - of which this is one - despite your desperate attempts at denial - and you need to stop denying the obvious .. but I digress.

Do you think Jesus agree's with some Law in the OT (and here I will distinguish from Commands - I generally refer to the other stuff as "suggestion" - and we don't know the twist that mans hand has induced .. some thing you really need to start to accept) that has the Israelites going out and killing Israelite babies .. because of their parents ?

Not only are you suggesting that Jesus would agree .. your Trinity dilemma forces you to then also believe that it was Jesus that did these dirty deeds .. and the story just gets more and more convoluted from there .. thanks to your strict literalist interpretation that some evil human has instilled in you.

I do not believe the God of Jesus was some xenophobic genocidal maniac - a flip flopping contradictory God with the most petty and nasty of human emptions and characteristics .. A God who makes a Law "Children not to be killed for the sins of parents" - and then turns around a few pages later and is exterminating children - for the sins of their parents.

You keep trying to appeal to "Just don't use your brain because your brain is now worthy". I tell you this idea is a lie - self deception - God gave you a brain ... and that brain can distinguish between right and wrong -

You have found yourself arguing that Children should be killed for the sins of their parents - and "just in this instance" doesn't work at all - I could say that about the whole Bible - Just in that instance back then .. we don't need to follow the teachings of Jesus today.

Do you really want to stand on that stump ? I don't think so .. talk about something coming around to bite one's backside.

I have done one thing consistently in our conversations - The Will of the Father .. defining what this is .. and doing it.

Your definition includes - killing 6 month old babies because a relative started worshiping an Idol

Mine - does not .. Mine says "Do unto others as you would have done to you" = If you don't want someone killing you and your family, because some folks in one part of your town decided to have a party for Baal, then do not do this to others.

Judge not - lest you be judged .. You better hope you are not judged by your own standards.
Love Neighbor as self - Never heard Jesus going out and condoning the atrocities that you are.

Tell you what he did do though .. Jesus rejected what you claim is "Gods Law" (again separating all the various laws from the Commands) .. Perhaps you should do the same..

Perhaps you should also consider the possibility that if Jesus rejected something purporting to be "God's Law" - that perhaps this Law wasn't so Godly after all.

 

[justbyfaith]

Israelite Children were to be killed for the sins of their parents - these are Israelite towns .. not "The Enemy"

but even if we were talking about the command to kill babies in non Israelite Towns - this is still sick and wrong - and did not protect the Israelites from Idolatry. So even if you hadn't moved the goal posts to another planet .. your argument is still worthless.

They were still to be killed because of idolatry that would motivate the Israelites to pass their children through the fire as a whole nation...so God was choosing the lesser of two evils by having the Israelites wipe out those who committed idolatry
rather than allowing idolatry to run rampant so that even more children would be killed as the Israelites passed them through the fire.

Further - what you are claiming "that children should be killed because of the sins of their parents" - violates God's Law - that Children should not be killed for the sins of their parents.

That is not what I am claiming...for the children were killed because of their own sin.

The command is given "Exterminate all the children"

Chapter and verse please. You will not find those exact words anywhere in holy scripture. But you apparently think that it is worthy to be placed in quotes.

and we don't know the twist that mans hand has induced .. some thing you really need to start to accept

I actually believe in the sovereignty, love, and Omnipotence of the Lord...and because I believe in it, I also believe that God is going to preserve His unadulterated message in a Bible of every language; especially English which has become the language of the world. Certain modern translations do water down the message by taking away whole prhases, sentences, and even paragraphs from the scriptural account...but I trust the kjv to give me the unadulterated message of God's word, hands down.

You have found yourself arguing that Children should be killed for the sins of their parents -

No; I am arguing that God is not evil in that He ordered children to be killed for their own sins in order that the greater good might be accomplished.

Tell you what he did do though .. Jesus rejected what you claim is "Gods Law"

Let's see what Jesus said about God's law:

Mat 5:17, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18, For 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.
Mat 5:19, Whosoever 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.
Mat 5:20, For 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.

Jesus did not come to abolish the law....He came to exalt the law and make it honourable (Isaiah 42:21). Therefore He did not reject the law but affirmed it.

 

[Heyzeus]

They were still to be killed because of idolatry that would motivate the Israelites to pass their children through the fire as a whole nation...so God was choosing the lesser of two evils by having the Israelites wipe out those who committed idolatry
rather than allowing idolatry to run rampant so that even more children would be killed as the Israelites passed them through the fire.
That is not what I am claiming...for the children were killed because of their own sin.

That is complete bull twaddle - What sin did this 6 month old commit ?

You claiming that a 6 month old is guilty of sin because their parents sinned - blaming the child for the parents sin.

The baby has committed no sin .. you are off your rocker.

Literalism has twisted your mind - so that now you want to violate God's Law that Children are not to be killed for the sin of their parents - by blaming the children for the sins of the parents - and this is exactly what you are doing.

 

[Heyzeus]

They were still to be killed because of idolatry that would motivate the Israelites to pass their children through the fire as a whole nation...so God was choosing the lesser of two evils by having the Israelites wipe out those who committed idolatry
rather than allowing idolatry to run rampant so that even more children would be killed as the Israelites passed them through the fire.

That is not what I am claiming...for the children were killed because of their own sin.

That is complete bull twaddle - What sin did this 6 month old commit ?

You claimed that a 6 month old is guilty of sin because their parents sinned (worshiped other Gods) - somehow in your twisted and deceived thought process - the sin of the parents is transferred onto the innocent child .. and now the child becomes the sinner in your mind .

The baby has committed no sin .. you are off your rocker.

Literalism has twisted your mind - so that now you want to violate God's Law that Children are not to be killed for the sin of their parents - by blaming the children for the sins of the parents.

 

[Heart2Soul]

This thread has become a name-calling, derogatory, spiteful, hateful, gossipy battle amongst the fellowship of brethren and has every form of evil to it.
James 3 (KJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¹³ Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
¹⁴ But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
¹⁵ This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
¹⁶ For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
¹⁷ But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
¹⁸ And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

In addition to the above scripture names envy and strife along with idolatry and witchcraft.....
Galatians 5 (KJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¹³ For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
¹⁴ For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
¹⁵ But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
¹⁶ This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
¹⁷ For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
¹⁸ But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
¹⁹ Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
²⁰ Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
²¹ Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Now if scripture is true (which it is) then there is much to be said about striving against one another.

Debate each other peacefully and humbly or warnings will be given.

Thank you!

 

[Heyzeus]

Let's see what Jesus said about God's law:

Mat 5:17, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18, For 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.
Mat 5:19, Whosoever 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.
Mat 5:20, For 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.

Jesus did not come to abolish the law....He came to exalt the law and make it honourable (Isaiah 42:21). Therefore He did not reject the law but affirmed it.

This is a tough one to figure out given that Jesus then goes out and breaks "The Law" .. so how do we treat this ?

Not sure if it was you but in previous posts I have distinguished between "The Law" and the Commands .. Notice that in the first part Jesus is talking about "The Law" came not to destroy - but to fulfill .. what does this mean ? .. it is vague - and do resist the urge to put up hand and go "I know - I know"

However we take this - he is not necessarily claiming one has to obey the entire Law .. so I say fulfill means improve on - as that is what he does later in the sermon .. and by his sacrifice in general.

Either way though ... it is not said one must follow every letter of the law .. he leaves it blank.

What he does say - is to not break the commands .. notice we have the word command rather than "The Law" and in the Sermon that follows Jesus mentions nothing in law .. other than the commands .. sans a change to the adultery law .. but again this is in relation to a command .. Don't Shag thy neighbors wife..

The next part is very interesting - introducing the concept of severity of sin .. those who break the commands will be least .. those who keep the commands will be the most.. both however get in .. so breaking a command is not cause for not getting through the door.

That criteria comes next - "More Righteous than the Law Givers .. the Priests and the Scribes" .. Fortunately for us .. Jesus sets the bar quite low .. as he did not think much of those folks.

What did you want to claim by posting this ... that Jesus told you to obey all of Jewish Law ? .. in some attempt to refute my previous statement that Jesus broke "The Law"

 

[justbyfaith]

The baby has committed no sin .. you are off your rocker.

Psa 58:3, The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Either way though ... it is not said one must follow every letter of the law .. he leaves it blank.

He says that until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.

The next part is very interesting - introducing the concept of severity of sin .. those who break the commands will be least .. those who keep the commands will be the most.. both however get in .. so breaking a command is not cause for not getting through the door.

That is because we can be forgiven for committing sins through the blood of Jesus.

That criteria comes next - "More Righteous than the Law Givers .. the Priests and the Scribes" .. Fortunately for us .. Jesus sets the bar quite low .. as he did not think much of those folks.

He actually sets it quite high...scribes and Pharisees were sticklers for the law and when it came to law-keeping, they were impeccable.

What did you want to claim by posting this ... that Jesus told you to obey all of Jewish Law ? .. in some attempt to refute my previous statement that Jesus broke "The Law"

The law is given as a schoolmaster to lead men to Christ..it shows us that we are sinners in need of a Saviour (Galatians 3:24-25, Romans 3:20, Psalms 19:7 (kjv)). As such, it is binding on everyone who is not forgiven...it condemns each one as a sinner.

As for Jesus breaking the law, of course it is true that He broke the sabbath in John 5:1-18.

I explain this by pointing out that Jesus came as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedec...and as such He came not after the law of a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life (Hebrews 7:16). His coming according to the order of Melchizedec also brought about a change in law (Hebrews 7:12) from being bound to the letter to becoming obedient to the spirit of what is written (Romans 7:6, 2 Corinthians 3:6, Galatians 5:16-22).

So Jesus didn't violate the law when He broke the sabbath....for the law had already been changed because of the fact that He was High Priest according to the order of Melchizedec.

But the old law, according to Jesus, is still binding on those who would seek to enter in to the kingdom through keeping the law, by being obedient, by abstention from sinning, or by works righteousness. In Galatians 3:10, James 2:10, and in Matthew 5:48, we find that if anyone desires to enter in to the kingdom through their own righteousness, they must keep the law perfectly from conception into eternity.

 

[Heyzeus]

Psa 58:3, The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
.

Unbelievable - this is your justification for killing children and fetuses.. because of some passage relating to original sin ..

OK - good plan. Lets legitimize mass slaughter of babies, children, and fetuses on the basis that they were born evil .. born with sin.

Are you listening to yourself ? Your justification is A)

A) Children should be killed for the sin that they were born with - according to Psalm 58.

Unfortunately - that is not the reason God Gives for for killing the whole town - babies included. Mosaic Law states that if the parents are engaging in idolotry then the children are to be killed.

B) Mosaic Law - Children are to be killed for the sins of their parents

My position is C) God's Law - Children are not to be killed for the sins of their parents

 

[Heyzeus]

He says that until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.

That is because we can be forgiven for committing sins through the blood of Jesus.

He actually sets it quite high...scribes and Pharisees were sticklers for the law and when it came to law-keeping, they were impeccable.

Jesus hated the Lawgivers and the Pharisee's .. the bar is set very low ..

It had little to do with being sticklers for the law - and you are making things up ... prove this out of the blue claim .. nowhere is it indicated that this was Jesus rational ..and it makes no sense in context .. you are making things up .. Lets go with what is written .. and not your story about what Paul had to say on some topic .. unless directly related .. or your own made up story - which is fine .. so long as you support that story with valid argument .. and you do not .. you don't give any support .. just a "why don't I throw this out"

So yes .. perhaps that was Jesus's reason .. but it is a claim that must be supported - on the spot with something like "Jesus later says .. as in a few sentences down .. or at least in the Sermon .. something that backs this up.

Give me a break here and stop trying so hard to impart your perspective on what is written ..

My take .. which is also a guess because this passage is a tough one - unless of course one just makes stuff up out of the blue to explain it away.. - is that Dogma has gotten away from sound doctrine .. and the Church had become a place of Commerce..

What does this have to do with the Law though -- the one that Jesus broke a number of times .. "Let ye who is without sin - Cast the first Rock" ... and no .. this is not in Matt .. or the Sermon on the Mount .. but I believe Jesus said this .. Mark starts us out .. Matt adds a few pieces from we know not where .. John a few more along with Luke.

but - one of the main themes of the Sermon is the Golden Rule - the Rock on which Jesus bases his Teachings (not his Church as in Peter) .. the foundation of the teachings of Jesus is the GR .. and he gives numerous examples Judge not, neighbor as self, log out of eye .. various restatements of this rule .. capped ofF with do unto others .. "RULE THAT SUMS UP THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS" .. in case you missed it

That's why I think he said .. let ye who is without sin.. cast the first rock... and in another place our Lord says .. "I do not pass Judgement .. but when I Judge" .. goes on to describe his authority to judge through God"

A very subtle distinction is made in this statement.. whomever wrote it .. inspired !

It is a statement with respect to "The Law" .. Humans are not to pass Judgement on each other .. but we all will be Judged .. and when Jesus does Judge us .. he will do it under the authority of God - The Father.

Are ya feelen the Thunder from Down Under !! No blood of Jesus required..

Should we stone adulterers like in the good ol days ? - or do a blood sacrifice .. of the human kind ? Ohhhhh .. so that is what Jesus was up to .. Don't do this sht ... here .. you don't need to sacrifice humans to please the Gods .. because that person has violated God's Law

Even if the Law says directly .. "Stone this Person" "Kill that Baby" .. don't have to do that no more .. got your back .. appeased the Gods on your behalf .. so this is a comment which separates Church from State ... No punishing people on behalf of God = No Civil/Criminal Law on the basis of "God said so" ..

Deep we are going .. but I will leave it at that. So this is with respect to how we conduct ourselves w/r to Law - how we will be judged is a different matter. "I do not Pass Judgement" - but when I Judge..

The salvation formulation in the Sermon on the mount does not include any blood of Jesus - as he is not yet dead but what Jesus does in this Sermon. is give what must be done to enter through the pearly gates .. he cites a few specifics .. Obey the Commands ( as in the 10) .. and then gets into the Golden rule .. with numerous examples.

He then sums up - talking about the "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing" - and who are those folks ? False Prophets .. "“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them"

how do we recognize them ? . by their fruit .. and Jesus was not fond of the Fruit the lawgivers and Pharisees were producing.

He then talks about how the Sola Fide Crowd doesn't necessarily get in .. but only those that do the Will of the Father - which what he has described in his sermon .. follow the 10 commands - follow the Golden Rule.

You want to do more .. go ahead .. but you will be judged on the basis of the above .. and your position in the afterlife will be affected.. and the "poor in spirit" shall inherit the Kingdom



The examples of breaking the law include more than just the Sabbath - dietary law for example - Its not what you put into your mouth that makes you unclean .. but what comes out sayeth the Lord.

 

[justbyfaith]

What does this have to do with the Law though -- the one that Jesus broke a number of times .. "Let ye who is without sin - Cast the first Rock"

Actually the Lord didn't violate the law in that instance.

The law required that there be two or three witnesses in order for a stoning to take place. By the time Jesus was done with them, there were no witnesses left.

Are ya feelen the Thunder from Down Under !! No blood of Jesus required..

See Romans 5:9, Hebrews 13:12, Hebrews 10:29, 1 John 1:7.

The salvation formulation in the Sermon on the mount does not include any blood of Jesus

The Sermon on the Mount is Jesus' treatise on the law; it is not His teaching on salvation.

He then talks about how the Sola Fide Crowd doesn't necessarily get in .. but only those that do the Will of the Father - which what he has described in his sermon .. follow the 10 commands - follow the Golden Rule.

Actually, in Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus condemns those who are trusting in their works to save them.

 

[justbyfaith]

B) Mosaic Law - Children are to be killed for the sins of their parents

Children are to be killed for their own sin.

You are not going to shame me out of understanding that there is a reconciliation for these apparent contradictions.

My position is C) God's Law - Children are not to be killed for the sins of their parents

That's my position too.