Can a fundamentalist please explain these bible verses to me?

[JustKari]

Others have made some fantastic points for you to chew on a bit, but consider this also, the will of God is not the will of man.  What I mean by that is, our "free will" and the suppression of someone else's free will (i.e. incarceration or some form entanglement or perhaps you would go so far as shooting?) is not the same as Gods.  God has a lot more power than we do.  You are claiming they are the same when they are infinitely different.  A person in prison can still kill someone else if they choose, if God would ever decide to step in to take away free will of anyone, there is no end run around God. 

So the link that you are trying to draw is flawed, while we may try to stop crime or take away someones free will to do so, until that person is dead, they still have free will.  We do not have the ability to control the heart or mind of others.

[Darth Fife]

Small point of contention that is terribly important for you to understand.  You are confusing the laws of Moses with the ten commandments, those are two separate things.  Jesus said he did not come to "overturn" as you put it Gods law, which is the ten commandments.  He was not talking about the laws that Moses wrote.  I quoted above a case where Jesus said Mosaic law was wrong.

Forgive me if this has been address already, but...

Was not the law that Moses "wrote" (I am assuming you are referring to the many laws in Leviticus etc) given to Moses by God himself?

Or did Moses Go Rogue on the Maker of All Creation?

Even if it weren't, the New Testament passage you allude to seems to indicate something different than what you claim. Apparently there is no "Law of Moses" loophole as you insist.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

-Matthew 5:17 KJV

Another translation makes it even more evident that Jesus indicates that we are to still keep to the Mosaic law.

Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.

-Matthew 5:17 Amplified Bible

-Darth

[MFA]

Forgive me if this has been address already, but...

Was not the law that Moses "wrote" (I am assuming you are referring to the many laws in Leviticus etc) given to Moses by God himself?

Or did Moses Go Rogue on the Maker of All Creation?

Even if it weren't, the New Testament passage you allude to seems to indicate something different than what you claim. Apparently there is no "Law of Moses" loophole as you insist.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

-Matthew 5:17 KJV

Another translation makes it even more evident that Jesus indicates that we are to still keep to the Mosaic law.

Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.

-Matthew 5:17 Amplified Bible

-Darth

Two things:

1)  That's not what the verses mean.
2)  The Mosaic Law applies to Jews.  Not to gentiles.

[Darth Fife]

Two things:

1)  That's not what the verses mean.

I'm willing to be enlightened...

2)  The Mosaic Law applies to Jews.  Not to gentiles.
[/quote]

You can provide a quote which supports that? I would be best if it were Jesus' own words (or at least words attributed to him by the writers of the Gospels).

-Darth

[MFA]

I'm willing to be enlightened...

"Abolish" and "fulfill" are rabbinic terms which refer to interpretation.  It could be fleshed out as follows:

I did not come to render the law useless by misinterpreting it, that is, I did not come to abolish the law through misinterpretation; rather, I come with the right and complete interpretation, that is, my interpretation validates and fulfills the law.

2)  The Mosaic Law applies to Jews.  Not to gentiles.


You can provide a quote which supports that? I would be best if it were Jesus' own words (or at least words attributed to him by the writers of the Gospels).

-Darth

Well, keep this in context of the verse above.  It's already obvious that "abolish" and "fulfill" do not mean what people assume they mean.

But would Paul be good enough?

"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (Galatians 2:21)

"Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?" (Galatians 3:2-5).

Now, you've asked for the words of Jesus as attributed to him by Gospel writers.  Paul wrote this (as a law-abiding Pharisee) before the Gospels were written!

In the history of the early Church:

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (Acts 15:19-21).  The Church leadership is affirming what Jews today call the "Noachide Law"--God's expectations for gentiles (i.e., people outside of the Mosaic Covenant).

Jewish Law is part of what determines the expectations for those living in that Covenant between Israel and God under Moses's leadership.  There is no reason or justification for imposing that law on those outside of that Covenant.  This is why Paul affirms that "inclusion into God's people" is not about "law-keeping" or even circumcision (the sign of God's Covenant with Abraham) but about faith (trust) in God.

[Yawn]

"Abolish" and "fulfill" are rabbinic terms which refer to interpretation.  It could be fleshed out as follows:

I did not come to render the law useless by misinterpreting it, that is, I did not come to abolish the law through misinterpretation; rather, I come with the right and complete interpretation, that is, my interpretation validates and fulfills the law.

Well, keep this in context of the verse above.  It's already obvious that "abolish" and "fulfill" do not mean what people assume they mean.

I agree with a lot of what you post, but not this "interpretation" at all. It certainly DOES mean what you read. He is talking about the foundational Law of God -- the 10 Commandments. ALL of them including the Sabbath COMMAND hated by so many christians today. Also the Law concerning the Holy Days and clean and unclean meats -- also rejected by today's christian.

When He comes he will require all nations to keep the Law, including the Feast of Tabernacles. Nations such as Egypt, that refuse, will have drought until they do. Nations will be FORCED to abandon their false gods (Allah) and their pagan holidays (Easter, Christmas, Ramadan) and keep the Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles.

Beyond that, here is what he meant when he said "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law. I have not come to abolish, but to MAKE FULL"

How does He make the Law more "FULL"?  "You have heard, 'You shall not commit adultery' (7th Commandment), but I say to you, whoever looks at a woman and lusts after her in his heart, has committed adultery"

So for the Christian, you cannot say you haven't committed adultery simply because you haven't committed the act, but you're just as guilty by what goes on in your heart.  THAT is why we need a continual spirit of repentance and forgiveness and an understanding of His sacrifice for our sins.

The same applies to murder. He says hate is the same as murder.

[Yawn]

Forgive me if this has been address already, but...

Was not the law that Moses "wrote" (I am assuming you are referring to the many laws in Leviticus etc) given to Moses by God himself?

Or did Moses Go Rogue on the Maker of All Creation?

Even if it weren't, the New Testament passage you allude to seems to indicate something different than what you claim. Apparently there is no "Law of Moses" loophole as you insist.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

-Matthew 5:17 KJV

Another translation makes it even more evident that Jesus indicates that we are to still keep to the Mosaic law.

Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.

-Matthew 5:17 Amplified Bible

-Darth

"Jesus" didn't say anything about the Law of Moses. He spoke about "the Law."  The "Law of Moses" has to do with the RITUALS. When Christ talks about "the Law," He is referring to the Ten Commandments and other foundational Laws of God, including the Holy Days and clean and unclean meats. These are NOT the same as the Law of Moses

[MFA]

I agree with a lot of what you post, but not this "interpretation" at all. It certainly DOES mean what you read. He is talking about the foundational Law of God -- the 10 Commandments. ALL of them including the Sabbath COMMAND hated by so many christians today. Also the Law concerning the Holy Days and clean and unclean meats -- also rejected by today's christian.

Do you eat shellfish?  Do you wear clothes with mixed fabrics?  Are you circumcised?

All of these are part of the Mosaic law.

When He comes he will require all nations to keep the Law, including the Feast of Tabernacles. Nations such as Egypt, that refuse, will have drought until they do. Nations will be FORCED to abandon their false gods (Allah) and their pagan holidays (Easter, Christmas, Ramadan) and keep the Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles.

Beyond that, here is what he meant when he said "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law. I have not come to abolish, but to MAKE FULL"

How does He make the Law more "FULL"?  "You have heard, 'You shall not commit adultery' (7th Commandment), but I say to you, whoever looks at a woman and lusts after her in his heart, has committed adultery"

So for the Christian, you cannot say you haven't committed adultery simply because you haven't committed the act, but you're just as guilty by what goes on in your heart.  THAT is why we need a continual spirit of repentance and forgiveness and an understanding of His sacrifice for our sins.

The same applies to murder. He says hate is the same as murder.

Yes.  Jesus' "true interpretation" of the Law is that the intention of the Law points to the heart rather than outward actions.  However, the Law on its own cannot accomplish heart transformation.  What does a transformed heart look like?  Paul describes it as the "fruit of the Spirit" (or, the fruit of Spirit-life).  Love, joy, peace,...etc.  You cannot effect love through legislation.  You cannot achieve joy through "trying harder."  You don't reach peace through outward actions.

That's why Paul says that you cannot complete by law what was initiated by the Spirit.  He's not talking about justification; he's talking about sanctification.

[MFA]

"Jesus" didn't say anything about the Law of Moses. He spoke about "the Law."  The "Law of Moses" has to do with the RITUALS. When Christ talks about "the Law," He is referring to the Ten Commandments and other foundational Laws of God, including the Holy Days and clean and unclean meats. These are NOT the same as the Law of Moses

That's quite a misrepresentation.

When Jesus says "Law," he's referring to the Tanach (the first five books of Moses).  The title of these books was "the Law."  This is why Jesus sometimes refers to "the Law" and sometimes "the Law and the Prophets" and sometimes "the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings."  "The Prophets" referred to most of Joshua to Malachi with the exception of "the Writings" which included texts like the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc.

The 10 commandments were part of the Mosaic Covenant.  There is no legitimate reason to excise from their context and apply them separately.

There is nothing in Scripture to distinguish between "the Law" and "the Law of Moses."

[Darth Fife]

"Jesus" didn't say anything about the Law of Moses. He spoke about "the Law."  The "Law of Moses" has to do with the RITUALS. When Christ talks about "the Law," He is referring to the Ten Commandments and other foundational Laws of God, including the Holy Days and clean and unclean meats. These are NOT the same as the Law of Moses

Moses was God's chosen prophet.

The Bible is the Word of God.

How can the Law of Moses not be the Law of God?

As for MFA, no, I'm sorry writings attributed to St Paul are not valid sources as far as I'm concerned. For one thing, Paul never met Jesus directly (yes, I'm discounting the "meeting" on the road to Damascus, as the account of that was written almost a half a century after Jesus' death and wasn't written by Paul anyway). Anyway, some Biblical Scholars believe that many of the epistles of Paul are thought not to have been written by him.

-Darth

[MFA]

As for MFA, no, I'm sorry writings attributed to St Paul are not valid sources as far as I'm concerned. For one thing, Paul never met Jesus directly (yes, I'm discounting the "meeting" on the road to Damascus, as the account of that was written almost a half a century after Jesus' death and wasn't written by Paul anyway). Anyway, some Biblical Scholars believe that many of the epistles of Paul are thought not to have been written by him.

-Darth

Okay, well Jesus taught in a culture in which the Law was embodied by specific things like diet, dress, the Temple, sacrifices, circumcision, and Sabbath keeping.  If you read the Gospels in that context, you see him pointing to himself rather than these things as the true intention of God.  This is hinted at in his baptism (representing identification into God's new Covenant outside the Temple system), claiming to be the Temple, reinterpreting the Law, exonerating his disciples' breaking of the Sabbath, etc.

[daidalos]

Yes those are "Old Testament" Solar.

Torah in fact.

That said, the op is also not posting these verse's in the context in which they are written either.

Now, hmmm gee why would someone, anyone, possibly not want to post a verse they are allegedly genuinely questioning, in the full context of which it is written?

After all it's not as if someone might want to try and take a verse out of context, in order to make it say something which it does not.

Not as if we've ever seen detractors from the faith do thaaaaaaaaaaat one before.

[daidalos]

"Jesus" didn't say anything about the Law of Moses. He spoke about "the Law."  The "Law of Moses" has to do with the RITUALS. When Christ talks about "the Law," He is referring to the Ten Commandments and other foundational Laws of God, including the Holy Days and clean and unclean meats. These are NOT the same as the Law of Moses

Yes Jesus did. Where you get that from Yawn? Jesus spoke about Gods law, (the law of moses) all the time. In fact after teaching about love, Christ most taught about obedience to Gods law. So where you get that he never spoke or talked about the law really escapes me. Perhaps you could walk us all through that one, biblically?

[Yawn]

Already did. Read again. s - l - o -w - l -y.

[Moishe3rd]

I will say with full sincerity that I've tried coming up with every possible rationalization for these verses, and have even researched justifications from Christian sites...and I still haven't come up with an excuse for this disgusting embarrassment to the human conscience.  Please read these verses.



Hosea 16:13

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

Judges 21:10-24


    Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem.  They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!  And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding.  Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"  So the men of Benjamin did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.  Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.  So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29


    If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24



    If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.


Exodus 21:7-11



    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

These are just the ones about rape, and one about cutting open pregnant women.  I can literally find hundreds of verses about genocide, torture, etc.  Heck, I can find passages of God mandating abortions.  This is why any Christian who isn't a blind follower should actually read the Bible, on his/her own time, front to back.  It's probably the best way to make atheists.

All of the verses lack the additional understanding needed which comes in what we call the Oral Torah, which is 3,000 years of transmission of G-d's Laws on how the Torah and Tanach (the "old testament") must be understood.

That would take a great deal of explanation.
On one side, the passages from the Torah regarding "rape" and "selling his daughter" are not translated correctly and, even with correct translations, do not mean what seems apparent from a simple reading of the Written Torah.  This is precisely why G-d provided the Oral Torah to the Jewish peoples.   The Written Torah could make no sense at all based on trying to understand the simple, literal meanings of words.

On the other hand, sometimes a person has to bow to a Higher Authority, in this case, G-d, and accept that He knows what He is doing.
In our contentious and "democratic" world, everyone thinks that they "know better" than their parents; or their boss; or their President; or their clergy person; or whomever...  We are pretty much "know it all's" when it comes to anything that we have difficulty accepting.
If a person accepts that G-d Created the Universe; the Earth and All that's in it; Mankind and every Life that every existed; and that G-d has a Personal relationship with each and every aspect of His Creation - one might have to accept that G-d Knows exactly what He is doing and that what we view as death and suffering of unimaginable pain, might be what is absolutely necessary for every individual involved and for all mankind.

Or, one can deny G-d and His Works because we do not understand... anything...
We have the Free Will to do so.