A Christian

Originally posted by no1marauder
SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH! Where is there a provision for forgiveness in the OT law?

Yes. God could forgive sins.

You are confusing the law with the punishment for violation of the law. The law was against adultery - that has not changed. The punishment was to be stoned to death. That may or may not have changed. But Jesus forgave her - so there was no punishment. Jesus came to forgive. That the whole point of Jesus' death, for the forgiveness of sins.

Originally posted by Coletti
Yes. God could forgive sins.

You are confusing the law with the punishment for violation of the law. The law was against adultery - that has not changed. The punishment was to be stoned to death. That may or may not have changed. But Jesus forgave her - so there was no punishment. Jesus came to forgive. That the whole point of Jesus' death, for the forgiveness of sins.

The Law of Moses contains a prohibition and a punishment for the prohibited act. If you change the punishment for a crime, you are surely changing the law. New York re-instituted the death penalty a decade ago; that changed the law. You are extremely confused if you believe that the punishment is not part of the law; the punishment was expressly given in the OT and Jesus got rid of it ("I do not condemn thee"😉.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Go and study orthodox Roman-Catholic theology before spouting your non-sensical stances on the forums.

You are the fundamentalist and the literalist here in this discussion no1 and a ridiculous one at that.

Why don't you simply state what the orthodox RCC posiition is? That would be adding something to the discussion rather than continuing your stupid little war. You failed to make any argument that what I say is nonsense; just asserting it don't make it so. I say that Jesus abolished the death penalty for adultery and that was a change from OT law. Do you agree or not?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Law of Moses contains a prohibition and a punishment for the prohibited act. If you change the punishment for a crime, you are surely changing the law. New York re-instituted the death penalty a decade ago; that changed the l ...[text shortened]... ven in the OT and Jesus got rid of it ("I do not condemn thee"😉.

You do not understand what the Bible means by saying Jesus did not come to end the Law. Jesus did not change what it means to violate the Law - sin - He fulfilled the demands of the Law by not sining and being crucified. The Gospel is not about the details on punishment - the OT is not New York - it's about being forgiven your sins. The OT Law is not changed - but our relationship to God has. The covenant relationship God established with the Jews has been opened up to the Gentiles.

The Law is made clearest in the ten commandments. It tells up what is sin and what is good. Your focus on civil law has you confused. The law is to love God with all you being, and your neighbor as yourself. Not do X or get punishment Y. That was part of the Pharisee's errors.

Originally posted by Coletti
The OT Law is not changed - but our relationship to God has. The covenant relationship God established with the Jews has been opened up to the Gentiles.

So, if my brother dies before impregnating his wife, I am obligated to impregnate her and raise the child as my brother's? If I do not do this, have I sinned or not?

Originally posted by bbarr
So, if my brother dies before impregnating his wife, I am obligated to impregnate her and raise the child as my brother's? If I do not do this, have I sinned or not?

Well, what is the answer, Coletti? Has this law changed or not?

Originally posted by Coletti
You do not understand what the Bible means by saying Jesus did not come to end the Law. Jesus did not change what it means to violate the Law - sin - He fulfilled the demands of the Law by not sining and being crucified. The Gospel is not ...[text shortened]... o X or get punishment Y. That was part of the Pharisee's errors.

I understand just fine. I also understand that you came into this thread late and didn't bother to read what the discussion was about. BF101 stated: "Yes, I do believe that the Laws of Deuteronomy And Levitcus are to be adhered to". He was referring to the specific laws mentioned in those chapters. That is what is being discussed and those laws were basically a civil and criminal code. And Jesus said parts of them and by possible implication ALL of them, are no longer valid as a civil and criminal code. That is what I am saying; I might well agree with most of what you say in this post, but that does not mean that Jesus didn't invalidate the OT laws, at least in part. I already drew the distinction between the Law and the OT laws in a prior post which, presumably, you didn't read.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why don't you simply state what the orthodox RCC posiition is? That would be adding something to the discussion rather than continuing your stupid little war. You failed to make any argument that what I say is nonsense; just a ...[text shortened]... r adultery and that was a change from OT law. Do you agree or not?

"My stupid little war" ?

What do you think you are doing here ? Having a civil debate ?

If you would change your ways I would be inclined to discuss things with you, but you continue to convince me you'll never be able to change your annoying "debating" habits.

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, what is the answer, Coletti? Has this law changed or not?

Another literalist joins the action.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Another literalist joins the action.

To whom are you referring? I am no literalist, I argue against literalists by trying to show then how silly the Bible is when interpreted literally.

Originally posted by bbarr
To whom are you referring? I am no literalist, I argue against literalists by trying to show then how silly the Bible is when interpreted literally.

Then what is the correct answer to your question ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Then what is the correct answer to your question ?

The answer is either that the law still binds or that it doesn't. I am waiting for Coletti's answer.

Originally posted by bbarr
The answer is either that the law still binds or that it doesn't. I am waiting for Coletti's answer.

You really think it is that simple ?


Do you want to prove that Coletti is a literalist ? I don't think he is.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

You really think it is that simple ?

Of course not, the answer will have to be qualified. I've read Romans 7.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Do you want to prove that Coletti is a literalist ? I don't think he is.

In my book Coletti is a literalist, though not as bad as some. I am not out to prove this.