A Christian

Originally posted by ivanhoe
"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.

Who cares what a silly twit like you thinks anyway? Don't join the debate; when have you EVER acted in a civil manner in these forums??? I doubt if you have enough knowledge to add anything meaningful anyway; if we need a cut and paster we got dj2becker. So go rant somewhere else; I'm sure there's someplace you can go on and on about the "Culture of Death" etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Who cares what a silly twit like you thinks anyway? Don't join the debate; when have you EVER acted in a civil manner in these forums??? I doubt if you have enough knowledge to add anything meaningful anyway; if we need a cut and paster we got dj2becker. So go rant somewhere else; I'm sure there's someplace you can go on and on about the "Culture of Death" etc. etc. etc.

All right, all right .... I love you too, no1.

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

Then what are you trying to prove ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Then what are you trying to prove ?

What makes you think I'm trying to prove anything? I'm asking Coletti a question, as should have been obvious to you from the post above, where I asked Coletti a question. 🙄

Originally posted by bbarr
What makes you think I'm trying to prove anything? I'm asking Coletti a question, as should have been obvious to you from the post above, where I asked Coletti a question. 🙄

I'm sure we will hear Colettis answer shortly .... but what do yóu think is the correct answer to that question, Bbarr ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

I'm sure we will hear Colettis answer shortly .... but what do yóu think is the correct answer to that question, Bbarr ?

If Coletti's answer differs from mine, then I will present my answer.

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?

Matthew 5:28 - But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Christ fulfilled the old testament law. He set a new standard. A much higher standard.

Originally posted by bbarr
If Coletti's answer differs from mine, then I will present my answer.

Suspense, suspense ...

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?

No, but if you were Christian, and your brother dies, you (and/or your family) would be under obligation to care for your brother's widow.

I think the "law" in Due 25:5-6 are is the logical implication of the Ten Commandment. In that culture and time, the way to assure that your brother's family line did not end, and to assure your brother's widow was cared for - one kept the widow "in the family" by having her become the wife of the closest kin (technically it did not have to be the brother if he was already married).

Now today, the Gentiles are included in the Covenant with God through Christ - and the importance of maintaining family lines (genealogies) and inheritance customs have changed. But the Law is the same - and the obligation it puts the Christian under has not changed.

So marrying your dead brothers wife so that she could continue his family line, is not so much a law as it is the practical application of the Law.

My view at this time, which is still being worked out, is a Christan must not ignore any OT laws, but must understand them with respect to the New Covenant that was established by Christ's blood. Christ being the ultimate sacrifice for sins, and the final High Priest and Mediator between God and mankind.

Things like culture and custom are also important (but not primary) to understand the correct application of these laws.

Originally posted by bbarr
If Coletti's answer differs from mine, then I will present my answer.

An interesting aside is Jesus interaction with some Sadducees on this issue in Matthew 22:23-32. But the issue was not specifically if a man still needed to take is dead brother's wife as his own, but after the resurrection, who's wife would she be. And the reason for the questions was the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead.

Originally posted by no1marauder
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 l ...[text shortened]... distinction between the Law and the OT laws in a prior post which, presumably, you didn't read.

Fair 'nuff. I don't think I read all the previous post carefully.

Originally posted by Coletti
No, but if you were Christian, and your brother dies, you (and/or your family) would be under obligation to care for your brother's widow.

I think the "law" in Due 25:5-6 are is the logical implication of the Ten Commandment. In that culture and time, the way to assure that your brother's family line did not end, and to assure your brother's widow w ...[text shortened]... m are also important (but not primary) to understand the correct application of these laws.

Definite proof that you're not a literalist Coletti .....😉