A note before I begin this post:

I've really enjoyed this discussion. No, really, I have. But this thread is already halfway down the second page of my RinkForum display, and it's been a distressingly long time since Brunnen_G last threatened suicide. I'm game to keep discussing this as long as you are, and it's a pleasure to discuss the issue with someone as well-versed in Biblical history as you, but it seems unlikely one of us will convince the other and meanwhile (like I mentioned before) we're losing all the non-Christians to whom this is irrelevant. :) But, that hasn't really stopped me before, has it? So we press on...

>
> Granted. But it was as close as they could come. In effect, it was a picture of how disgusting sin is to God. These days, if you knew your* best animal was literally going to be killed every time you sinned, you'd* watch yourself*. (*pronoun "you" used for convenience, not referring specifically to Arthur)
>

Of course. If I knew God's own Son was going to be killed every time I sinned, I'd watch myself even more, though. (Yes, Jesus only died once, but that death was for all sins, and the suffering associated with all sin was on his head. We crucify him anew whenever we do something to deny him.)

> Preach more fully, for one. Check the Strong's Concordance, which is used with the KJV. Any meaning of "end" flat out contradicts what he said in the same sentence. "I am not come to destroy [the law(see earlier in the verse)], but to... end?" Preach more fully actually makes the *most* sense, because then He proceeds to make it stricter, e.g. lust = adultery, as far as the one who lusts is concerned.
>

I haven't a copy of Strong's Concordance in my possession, though my friend who leads our Bible studies at school and has become my study partner does. I will ask him about it, though it still seems an iffy meaning of fulfill to me. (If that *is* what the original Greek means, then the English word "fulfill" would be an example of a twisted and inaccurate translation, since I can't think of any modern usage that encompasses that definition of fulfill. "I will fulfill my promise" always entails adding action to words, not adding more words to words.)

BTW, broadening the scope of the Law, like I said before, made it unenforceable, at least from my POV. For example, if adultery is to be punished by death, and lustful thoughts are adultery, does that mean once you have reasonable proof that I was engaging in lustful thoughts (for example, if you saw me staring at a Playboy centerfold or somesuch) you would have the right to call for my execution by stoning, in a truly God-fearing society? Or that if I had an unresolved conflict with somebody I should be put to death without possible appeal, or, at least, banned from all church services?

I think Jesus here was demonstrating *why* the Law needed to be fulfilled once and for all by a blameless Son of Man and Son of God and why it could not simply be allowed to let stand in its accusation of human beings; he demonstrated that the *real* Law that underlies the written Law is a Law that no one can keep and no one has kept.

> > So, what, exactly was the intent of the Law? I'm guessing you disagree with me and my interpretation of Paul that the Law was a stumbling block intended to highlight the sins of humanity and drive them to grace.
>
> That's one part, albeit an important one.
>
> > (That's, after all, why its power is broken now, because grace is now here.) Can you tell me why you feel the Law was given, if (as you say later) it lacks the power to save?
>
> It does, however, have blessings attached to it, e.g. the kosher laws are so that you get "none of these diseases(Ex. 15:26, Deut. 7:15). I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Egyptians had brain tumors and rheumatoid arthritis, among other things. The feasts and the Sabbath call to mind the things that God has done and will do. And, of course, believing in Messiah adds meaning(brings out meaning that was already there, but which require the Messiah to spotlight them?)
>

Oh, sure, of course. I don't mean the laws were arbitrarily set up by God for laughs ("And I want you to walk around clucking like chickens on alternate Thursdays.") All the laws have a definite pragmatic reason behind them or reflect a definite spiritual truth. (The thing about not mixing fibers or planting two grains in the same field represents purity and being set apart; the Jubilee represents God's mercy; the Sabbath represents the cyclical nature of life and the eventual coming to an end of the work of Creation at the end times; etc., etc.)

But many of the pragmatic reasons no longer apply (if I cook pork the right way it's highly unlikely for me to get trichinosis), and to be reminded of spiritual truths in this way, though beneficial, is not essential. (God condemned many times such potentially beneficial things as phylacteries, ritual fasts, and even burnt offerings because they acted as distractions from rather than reminders of the truths behind them. Hence why Paul ended up condemning circumcision of Christian converts.)

> > > > God endorsed capital punishment in the OT for murder, true. He also endorsed capital punishment for adultery, for disrespecting one's parents and for worshiping other gods.
> > > >
> > > > But Jesus stopped the Pharisees from stoning the adulterous woman,
> > >
> > > Who was being unlawfully punished without the man involved.
> >
> > So did Jesus ask them to bring the man out? No.
> >
> > Yes, it does reflect badly on his persecutors that they weren't following the Law, either. But Jesus didn't do the "right" thing and ask them to go find the man. He let the woman go. "Neither do I condemn you. Go now, and leave your life of sin."
> >
> > The point he made with the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was that *only* God really has the right to judge right and wrong, and Jesus *chose* not to condemn the woman. He chose to forgive her. (We later learn that God has chosen to forgive all who receive his atonement, in Paul's letters.)

Yes. That ties back in with what started this whole thing, capital punishment. Which involves the civil government taking into its hands the judgment of a person's ultimate destiny. We don't have the right to condemn those whom God has forgiven. (True, McVeigh was not a Christian. This was not because God chose to forgive him; this was because he had not (Not yet? Never would? Who knows?) made the choice to accept the forgiveness. I don't think we had the right to take the chance away for him.)

> >
> > > > and he never turned in any of the many people who came to him after living lives of sin. He went to pagan cities (the Decapolis) and taught the Baal-worshipers when the Pharisees, strictly following the law, wouldn't have touched them;
> > >
> > > Strictly following their traditions.
> >
> > ...which stated that since the Gentiles had not received the Law, they were good as dead anyway. The very few Gentiles with a chance at salvation were those who undertook the conversion to Judaism, a long and difficult process that few undertook.
> >
> > Peter specifically went against this idea in the conversion of Cornelius, and Paul further explains this in his letters.
>
> As an aside, he has already a God-fearer, and well respected among the Jews. Not that this matters; it matters more how God saw him, and He liked what he saw, apparently.
>

But, IIRC, the issue was that he wasn't officially a Jew or a convert to Judaism; he had not been circumcised. (IIDon'tRC, then it certainly became an issue with many later Gentile believers.)

> > > > he let himself be taken by the pagan Romans and chastised Peter for trying to fight them in the style of the Macabees or of David.
> > >
> > > Incidentally, Peter was only trying to disqualify the servant for, well, service, not kill him.
> >
> > Even so, Jesus stopped him. "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword."
> >
> > Probably not a reference to the "sword" of the executioner but the sword of the zealot, true, but a meaningful comment nonetheless.
> >
> > The Church doesn't accomplish things with violence. Never has, never will. When it tries, we get perversions like the Crusades or the Inquisition. Or like the terrorist acts going on in the Middle East right now, many of them perpetrated by Christian partisans.
>
> All correct. My statement was an aside, anyway; a little tidbit while we were there.
>

I understand that; I thought some might misinterpret it, though, or something. Oh well, consider my statement an aside too. :)

> > > > Jesus *did* have a different style; he spoke out against those who put the written Law (which came right out of the Biblical text) above the spiritual law of love.
> > >
> > > The Law is love; you say so yourself later, and one specific encounter with Jesus teaches the same thing.
> > >
> >
> > *cough* I didn't say that, and neither did Jesus.
> >
> > The Law comes from love; love encompasses the Law; the essence of the Law is love.
> >
> > However, it is perfectly possible, as Paul tells us in I Corinthians and elsewhere, to follow the written Law exactly and be utterly lacking in love. The Pharisees were a prime example.
>
> Yeppers. Oh, wait, there are the laws commanding you to love God and others. Exactly, execept for those, then?
>

Sure. That's what I meant by the Law of Love.

They kept all the laws people could possibly catch them on, while neglecting the *heart* of the Law, which no one could check them on because it's the part between you and God; what's in your heart, soul, and mind.

(By "Law" here I meant "written Law", the Mosaic commandments, in contrast to the "Law of Love" Jesus gave.)

> > One can also transgress the written Law and be serving the Law of Love; Jesus' healings on the Sabbath...
>
> Whether that was to be considered sin was being debated at the time. Since it was an unknown to them, they treated it as if it were sin, just in case. Of course, this particular one may have been of the side that believed it was.
>

There was an incident where Jesus defended not the hard-to-define "work" of performing miracles but the fairly prosaic work of carrying one's sleeping mat down the street (the Pharisees were *very* strongly of the opinion that carrying any significant load any distance constituted work); when they pressed him about it, his argument was one that seemed to make the idea of the Sabbath meaningless. "My Father is at work every day. I, too, am at work."

He could've argued the case much differently; this one seems almost calculated to strike hard against the Pharisees and their faith in the Law.

> > ...his allowing the disciples to pick and eat on the Sabbath...
>
> Already dealt with.
>
> > ...his forgiving people the Law said were condemned,
>
> He has the power to do so, being God, and He exercised it.
>

Sure. My question is does he exercise it discriminately? Does he arbitrarily pick situations, where if he decides he likes you you're saved, and if he decides he doesn't you're damned? "He seems like he'd make a good Christian. Nah, she'd be better off in Hell anyway. Her... I'm not too sure about, let's wait on that."

Not a facetious argument. I have friends who are five-point Calvinists and they skirt the line of this sort of thing, if not stepping over and standing right in it.

> > Peter's allowing Cornelius into the Church without going through circumcision...
>
> I just looked that up, and the only requirement in the written Law regarding circumcision
>

And Paul nailed the other apostles for practicing such circumcision of the converted Gentiles. Not out of a convenience issue, but because the concept of physical circumcision of Christian converts was a perversion of the whole point of the Gospel. He got pretty incensed about it, IIRC.

> > ...or a ritual conversion to Judaism...
>
> Which was not part of the written Law, anyway.
>
> > ...the list goes on. And going backwards, too; Cain...
>
> Didn't love, didn't follow the Law(or what they had of it)...
>

And was given a mark to spare his life, though he knew even at that time that he deserved to be slain by God. His kids ended up causing no end of trouble, too.

> > Moses...
>
> Loved God and the people(sure, he got frustrated, but he still interceded for the people), and he followed the written Law once he received it...
>

Also committed murder and would've been executed by the civil government he lived in, the Egyptian one, if he hadn't high-tailed it for the desert. Sure, it was for a righteous cause, but it fits all the definitions of murder, done in anger, done outside the law, etc., and if it happened today I would still classify it as murder. God never zapped him for it.

> > Samson...
>
> All right, what's he an example of?
>

Broke the Nazirite vow, lost his strength, and the promise given by the angel implies he'd lose it permanently. That's how vows work, after all. But God gave it back to him when he asked. (We could go into how God used him and even how he achieved a place of honor despite his beyond numerous transgressions of the Law, but that would be an arguable case. So I'm sticking with this one point.)

> > David...
>
> Mercy in action.
>

Again; discriminate, arbitrary mercy, or an example of a larger principle of mercy?

(snip)

> > > Two separate incidents:
> > >
> > > 1) Jesus's discples pick grain on the Sabbath and eat it; the Pharisees misinterpret this as harvesting, a type of work. This is not an argument for Sabbath-breaking by Jesus, but a record of misinterpretations by the Pharisees.
> > >
> >
> > It *is* a form of harvesting, according to the Pharisees' super-strict interpretations (and you remember the reason for such interps, right? Otherwise you might as well have no Law, if the written Law is sacred and holy and all that and it's essential at all times to tell when one is breaking the law and when one isn't).
>
> But it's not a form of harvesting according to God; otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have done it. Even if He did away with the Law at the cross, He still had to be sinless to get there in the first place, right?
>

Well, Jesus wasn't doing it; he was letting his disciples do it. So one could argue that he, as God, was forgiving them for doing it, which would certainly be no sin as that was his right.

But I think we both agree that the real issue is that what they did was only "sin" based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Law's meaning and purpose.

> > Jesus does not argue with the Pharisees about the definition of "harvesting", though. He doesn't give us some standard of scale to determine what constitutes work and what doesn't.
> >
> > Instead, he brings up the incident of David and the consecrated bread, a very *definite* instance of lawbreaking, and compares it to his present situation, saying that the Law can be bent or broken to serve the needs of humans. Not because there is no Law, but because the Law of Love supersedes the written Law. ("Was the Sabbath made for man? Or was man made for the Sabbath?")
>
> And if the Law can be bent of broken, how much more men's traditions and misinterpretations?

Yeah. Except that these traditions and misinterpretations arose out of a genuine desire to interpret the Law. (The Pharisees didn't start out corrupt; generally nobody does.)

IIRC in Hebrew tradition they were aware that the Law, like any written document, was subject to human interpretation (or else we could stretch misinterpretations all the way into the other direction; "adultery" becomes "non-consensual sex", "work" becomes "certain specific jobs for pay; all else fair game", and "love" becomes "show a general lack of ill-will toward"; much of the liberal Christian community in American reflects this). And when you're dealing with a whole nation over it's entire history, common-sense interpretations become less and less common after a while; anyone who's even dabbled in the legal profession knows how powerful the forces of interpretation get no matter what one does.

The Hebrew tradition said this flaw in the written Law would be rectified when the Messiah came; he would give the one right and proper interpretation and, being a living human being, he would always be there to resolve disputes. All previous interpretations were flawed. Once the Messiah came the work of debating and interpreting the Law was over.

I think that Jesus' actions in this area went a little deeper than "it has to be bigger than one head at a time to count as 'harvesting'". I think he *did* interpret the Law for us, by giving us the stricter Law of Love in the Sermon on the Mount and the two Great Commandments, and, furthermore, he completed the interpretation of the Law by adding the element that it was missing, grace.

I also find it significant that when Jesus departed the Earth physically he sent the Paraclete (Advocate, Holy Spirit) to be our guide, our interpreter of the Law. And I believe it was under the Spirit's guidance that Paul, James, Peter, John, and the others wrote the epistles that form the Christian Church's final, authoritative interpretation of the Law.

(snip, snip)

> The power of sin to control us was broken. The eternal(remember, God says so Himself) Law of God still holds only as a way to stay healthy, etc., but having nothing to do with salvation. One's sins were merely covered, then; now they're cleansed away. That's a big change right there.
>

Okay, I'll go with you on that. I'm not sure exactly how all of the old Law can still hold, though... Much of it was the civil law of the nation of Israel, which, while it has been reinstated, now operates substantially differently, and, besides, most of the Christian world doesn't live in it. :) This country doesn't allow for a Feast of Jubilee; we don't have lands parceled out to our ancestral fathers; we don't live in the land of Canaan and don't participate in efforts to drive out aliens from it. At least, I'm pretty sure most of us don't. (I find those edicts in the OT troubling when looking at Israeli/Palestinian relations...)

> > I'd just like to ask you how much you think things *did* change, then.
> >
> > For instance, how do you deal with (leaving abstractions aside) the history of the Christian Church? There's evidence that there *were* two sects, one supporting the keeping of circumcision and the Law and the other supporting the repeal of the Law for Gentile Christians, with some exceptions for health reasons and to promote good relations with the Jews. (As I recall, they kept four commandments out of the whole Mosaic Law, three on food regulations and one on adultery. Could be wrong; someone check for me?)
>
> As a starting point, because they could learn the Law in the local synagogue. This was more efficient. They could learn the Law in synagogues, and learn about Jesus in their meeting-places(houses, etc.).
>

Yeah, but though Paul certainly thought it was beneficial to know and be familiar with the Law (he spent a long time on it himself) especially when dealing with the Jews, he seemed to be down on the whole idea of forcing the Gentiles to follow the Law. Hence the whole circumcision debacle. (That *wasn't* a convenience issue; that was a very deep issue, to him. He went so far as to call circumcision of Gentiles a form of emasculation.)

> > The Bible reveals that the second sect won over and convinced the Church councils that Scriptural authority and the leading of the Spirit was on their side; Paul speaks of how he defeated even Peter in an argument about circumcision. Though they kept the Ten Commandments as guidelines for life, the bulk of the Mosaic Law they simply dropped; they even moved the Sabbath to Sunday to emphasize this fact.
>
> The Sabbath, the eternal sign of God's covenant, traded for the holy weekday of Mithraism?
>

Well, and the day of Jesus' resurrection. Though this has caused no end of argument and been the cause of many major schisms. It depends how you do the math, I guess. (Did he rise on the third day *including* the day he was crucified or the third day *after* he was crucified? The text says the former to me, especially since I find it hard to see why the women would've waited an extra day after the Sabbath before bringing their ointments to Jesus' tomb, but still... Okay, anyone wanna start having our day of rest on Monday? We could really stand up for our beliefs against the civil government and all!)

To me, it's not that big a deal; the *idea* behind the Sabbath is more important than what day it was. Few people know of its origin anyway, and I even know some people who think of Sunday as the last day of the week. (Influence of the workweek's importance in modern society, I guess. And the fact that Tuesday contains a fake homonym of "two". And misinterpretation of the OT Sabbath as referring to Sunday in the first place.)

(snip)

> I would have to say that if heretical sects were all the fellowships that kept the 7th-day Sabbath, I'd have to go to a regular church for fellowship, and keep the Sabbath at home. But I'm not about to call the 1st day of the week the Sabbath.
>

I didn't say that. I *did* say that all the groups I knew that stated following the written Mosaic Law as a requirement I'd consider heretical, because my definition of heretical centers around my definition of Christianity, and my definition of Christianity centers around Jesus' atoning sacrifice that frees us from the Law.

Not that I don't follow any laws in my life, or even that I don't follow the Law; in fact, I consider it important to follow the Law of Jesus, which is even stricter than the Law of Moses (and it is the importance of that Law that makes me choose not to follow the lesser Law). But I know no saving power comes through it; I follow it, instead, because I am saved; it's part of the Spirit's process in changing me to a more perfect state. A process that will never be completed in this life, but that it is still profitable to follow in this life if one wants to truly say one lives well.

As for the day of the week? To me it doesn't matter. (*Many* of the major churches of the world use or at one time used Saturday as the Sabbath; at one time the whole Church did.) It's just that there aren't that many churches in my area that I'd call doctrinally sound that hold their services on Saturday.

> > You didn't answer my earlier questions. Do you mulch your lawn with lawn clippings?
>
> I mow it. I don't have a mulching mower.
>
> > Do you wear cotton/nylon weaves?
>
> I'm phasing those out. Most of mine are all cotton, now. By His grace,I'm working on it.
>
> > Do you eat rare steak?
>
> Ew, no. I never have. Neither blood nor fat appeal to me. Well done's the way I like it.
>

I see. Well, I commend you for being consistent about your beliefs, then.

> > Do you do any yardwork or paperwork on Saturdays?
>
> Yardwork? No. I do take sermon notes, however. Does that count as paperwork? :-D
>

I don't know. Ask one of the Pharisees. :) Or a Hasidic Jew. (I think this may be borderline; I remember someone telling me going to a class and taking notes on Saturday counted as "work".)

> I did do yardwork today, however.
>

I have no quarrel with that, considering Sunday isn't the Sabbath for you anyway. I wouldn't condemn anyone for doing work on the Sabbath they couldn't avoid; I'd get upset if they treated it as just another day, though.

> > Etc., etc., etc....
> >
> > Mosaic Law is hard to keep, you know. Look at Hasidic Jews.
>
> Who go *way* above and beyond what it says to do. But they often forget the love, which is the *really* important part.
>
> > Most people don't, *especially* Christians. Does that make most of us condemned?
>
> No, it just allows you to get sick more easily, etc..
>

Granted. But the restrictions are still very fine in cases (like the rare steak and the composition of one's clothing) that seem to have little to do with love.

So you say it's just to avoid getting sick? A kosher diet helps, I have read that, but not all that much, at least if you live in a country where you can be reasonably sure of getting untainted pork, sanitary cleaning surfaces, etc. I think *some* laws and traditions definitely were there for practical purposes, but for the most part many seem to be there just as reminders that you have a law to follow in all aspects of your life. I believe the Holy Spirit now occupies that function.

So... how about we just keep living our lives according to our respective beliefs, and see who ends up living longer? (Then again, I'd be a bad choice to take that challenge; poor genetic background and poor health habits irrespective of Mosaic Law. Like skipping sleep, for one.)

(snip)

> > (Okay, I apologize if I offend; I don't know you. For all I know, you may *be* a Seventh-Day Adventist. It's possible. But just to get it out of the way, I *do* consider such groups to be heretical. That's *not* what I believe. I don't think an honest reading of the whole Bible supports their interpretations. However, I'm very open to discussion.)
>
> Nope. I'm not a SDA, and I do consider many of their views to be heretical. (No offense intended to any belonging to the aforementioned groups.)
>

I'm glad we agree there. SDAs are actually the group I have the least quarrel with among the ones I mentioned, because their difference with mainstream Christianity seems to be mostly in their eschatology and not in their understanding of the core Gospel. Even so, they verge on embracing concepts I don't like when overapplied; the significance of works, the power of humans to change God's timing, etc.

> > > > Paul changed things even more (or, if you prefer, elucidated changes that Jesus made).
> > >
> > > I prefer that.

Well, I don't believe Paul actually had the power to *change* anything, being only human himself; however, I do think he changed our understanding of the situation we're in, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise there'd be no reason for his writings to be part of canon.

> > >
> > > > He told us that we were dead to the written Law...
> > >
> > > Meaning?
> >
> > Meaning that the Law says: "You abandon God, you get zapped, only Jesus goes free" and Jesus switched the clauses around: "You abandon God, Jesus gets zapped, you go free". The Law still applies, it still works, but now *its work is done*. No one left to punish; Jesus' last words on the Cross, "It is finished." (Okay, second-to-last.)

(snip things we agree on)

>
> > > A merciful God in the OT? *gasp*
> >
> > Did you read what I wrote earlier?
> >
> > I didn't make the argument that God was a different *God* in the OT. Mercy and love are present from the very beginning; else, if Jesus' sacrifice came out of the blue, I would have a hard time accepting it.
>
> Perhaps that was directed to someone who believes otherwise.
>

Granted. I guess I should've seen that, since the OT Yahweh/NT Jesus "dichotomy" goes right back to the Gnostic heresies, and it's a very common misconception even now. But I wasn't thinking clearly at that hour and decided to be on the safe side and respond to everything. :)

(snip some more stuff, get to the references)

Matthew 5:17...
>
> Ah, the one where the "preach fully" fulfil comes from.
>

I talked about how I feel about that.

> > Matthew 12:1-8...
>
> The "ears of corn" one, in which the Pharisee's interpretation of harvesting was broader than God intended.
>

And that.

> > Mark 3:4...
>
> The one in which it was assumed to be against the Law to heal on the Sabbath, but it wasn't.
>

And that.

> > Acts 10:28...
>
> Hmm. I just looked for any place in Scripture where it's unlawful to eat with foreigners... basically, that's the only place where it's mentioned, other than as regards the Passover.
>

The key point here was "Do not reject what God has made clean", and God's use of unclean animals in that illustration. Of course right here that meant the person, Cornelius, but I think it does have a deeper meaning. (Elsewhere Paul says "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial", meaning the Law doesn't dictate right and wrong to us; we base our moral decisions on our love for God and for others, on the leading of the Spirit. I Corinthians 10:23-29.)

> > Acts 13:38-41...
>
> And the Law is not for justification.
>

Agreed.

> > Acts 15:28-29...
>
> A good starting point; a place from which to learn more.
>

Agreed. Hence those parts of the Pentateuch are still canon and still "God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training". If you find that it has helped you to try to keep the Law, not for salvation but as an exercise, then more power to you. But I don't think the Law is a universal guide for everybody's life (it wasn't even when it was given; it was given to one nation, not to a world of Gentiles, hence all the problems they ran into trying to get Gentiles to follow the Law), and I don't think the punishments decreed by the Law are still in effect. Especially when they go against the greater Law of Love and the greater commission to "make disciples of all nations". We don't have the right to seal anyone's spiritual destiny.

> > Romans 3:19-31...
>
> Do we then make void the law through faith? _God forbid_: yea, we establish the law.
>

Right. My salvation doesn't prove that all the hateful, lustful thoughts are okay; rather, it finally gives me and God a way to condemn those sins utterly without condemning me to perdition, something neither of us wants. It establishes the Law; it fulfills the Law. It makes it *possible* for me to live according to the higher, real Law because it reconciles me to God and gives me the Spirit. Otherwise I could do nothing but be chained in sin.

I still don't think it means that now because I'm saved it's okay for me to send murderers to damnation.

> > Romans 4:14-16...
>
> So, that promise is not thorugh the Law. I knew that.
>
> > Romans 6:14...
>
> :15 - What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? _God forbid_.
>

Of course. I never said it's okay for us to go out and kill people. In fact, if you think about it, that's the *opposite* of what I said. :)

(So would you classify keeping a murderer alive as "sin", out of curiosity?)

> > Romans 7:1-13, Romans 8:1-4, Romans 9:30-33...
>
> Exactly. If you're keeping the Law by faith, that's good. If you're doing it, but not as unto the Lord, you will fail.
>

Right; except the Law here is the higher Law of Love, not the Mosaic Law.

> > I Corinthians 9:20-21...
>
> Funny how people who do v. 20 get judged(not by you, but by others) as trying to attain salvation by works...
>

Of course. And it's weird how those who do v. 21 get judged (not by you, AFAIK, but by others) as selling out and caving into the world. Even Jesus was accused of that.

(*deep* breath; snip)

> Okay, if "an eye for an eye" is the maximum penalty to be exacted, and that by the judges, then you're well *within* the Law to go ahead and forgive what would otherwise be a debt, and even allow him to take more. One of the problems of the day was that the "eye for an eye" principle was taken as if it were expected of the victim; that you almost *had* to exact that much. And I imagine some people didn't leave it to the judges. He wasn't asking or telling anybody to do anything that God's Law said not to.
>

But, of course, the Law does not demand forgiveness or make of it a principle the way Jesus did. It allows it, of course; else Jesus *would* have had to abolish the Law rather than fulfill it. But we assume all forgiveness must be based somewhere; no just God could forgive in the sense of going *poof* and making sin disappear. If I forgive a person of sin, I can only do that because God first forgave that person, and God can only forgive that person because God (as Jesus) chose to take the punishment on himself.

The Law *does* demand life for life, in the end. It just allows that punishment to be deferred (hence banishment to the cities of refuge rather than a full acquittal is offered to manslayers). But even in OT times they knew no temporal punishment is sufficient for our crimes (see Ecclesiastes) and there was the growth of an idea that true judgment would come with the future resurrection. It was that true judgment that Jesus primarily dealt with, though in the process he dealt with lesser judgments as well. The epistles make it pretty clear that none of us could hope to escape our debts simply by hoping God's in a good mood; the payment has to come from Jesus first.

> > Ar"shouldn't try to argue theology on less than six hours of sleep"thur
>
> Nyper"Good idea"old

Thanks for being patient and responding to me anyway, and I'm glad to see we don't disagree as much as I first thought. And, again, it's been a pleasure discussing this with you.

Ar"hopes he sounds better now that he's (relatively) well-rested"thur