Post by Brother Andrew on May 15, 2005 21:57:39 GMT -5
We find in the ‘New Testament’ in the book of John chapter 8 that the Jews bring a woman to Jesus who they had accused of the grave crime of adultery, they stated that Prophet Moses ordered this woman to be stoned in which Leviticus 20:10 lays down this Mosaic law that those who commit adultery are to be put to death.
Jesus knowing the nature of the Jews starts scribbling on the ground, the question is what was he scribbling on the ground? Jesus told the Jews ‘he that is without sin cast the first stone’ addressing the witnesses due to the fact that Mosaic Law commands the witnesses to cast the first stone (Deuteronomy 17:17)
Jesus started scribbling on the ground once more only to find when he looked back up all the Jews had disappeared due to their ‘being convicted by their own conscience’
We know that Jesus elsewhere in the Bible called the Jews ‘ye wicked and ADULTEROUS generation (Matthew 12:39) it could have been that Jesus was scribbling the names of those guilty of adultery in the sand and when the Jews saw their names they became ‘convicted by their own conscience’ as verse 9 of John Chapter 8 suggests.
The woman was left standing there all alone with no Jews to convict her, had it been that just two of them had stayed she would have been stoned to death, it wasn’t an act of Mercy when he said ‘go and sin no more’ but he was actually following Mosaic Law which lays down the condition of two witnesses seeing the act of adultery for the guilty party to be stoned for it says in Deuteronomy 17:6 ‘at the mouth of two witnesses shall they who is worthy of death be put to death but at the mouth of one witness they shall not be put to death’.
Islamic Law is very similar to Mosaic Law in this regard but yet whilst the Bible commands there be two witnesses for the death penalty to be carried out the God of the Qur’an demands there be four witnesses (4:15)
However if a woman is falsely accused or even if the accuser fails to produce four witnesses against her then according to Islamic law the accusser is flogged with eighty stripes (24:4)
Jesus clearly indicated that he had not come to abrogate the Law of Moses when he said in Matthew Chapter 5 verses 17 - 18
Think not I have come to destroy the law, or the Prophets, I have not come to destroy but uphold for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot ( yod - the smallest Hebrew letter) or one title shall in no wise pass from the law.
So clearly Jesus agreed with the killing of apostates and even says himself ‘but those mine enemies which not that I should rule over bring them in front of me and kill them’ (Luke 19:27)
The stoning of the adulterer , keeping in mind that Jesus did order them to stone the adulteress, but the Jews cowered of after they seen him scribbling in the sand.
Circumcision: We find that it was an everlasting covenant between God and man as outlined in Genesis chapter 17 and those who were to break the covenant were to be cut off – meaning killed! We even find that Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21) but yet we find Paul abrogating circumcision (Galatians 5:2 and Acts 15:1) in which he had no right to do.
The eating of swine: the ‘Old Testament’ clearly forbids the eating of swine (Leviticus 11:7-8 and Deuteronomy 14:8) but yet Christians seem to think they have some divine right to abrogate the law that Jesus came to uphold, what makes common people better than Jesus?
Paul and his followers should have heeded the warning of Jesus when he said ‘not one jot or title shall in no wise pass from the Law’ and the following verse after this:
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. 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 (Matthew 5:19:20)
Jesus relates a parable to the Jews in which he concludes that the kingdom of God will be taken away from the Jews and given to another nation (Matthew 21:33-43)
The fact that Jesus states that the Jews had the Kingdom of God implicates the Law in which they had,
but yet when we look at the Christians they don’t seem to have the Kingdom of God (the law) that the Jews had but if we examine the Islamic Law you will see a striking resemblance, therefore one must question himself as to which nation did God give his Kingdom to?
Jesus knowing the nature of the Jews starts scribbling on the ground, the question is what was he scribbling on the ground? Jesus told the Jews ‘he that is without sin cast the first stone’ addressing the witnesses due to the fact that Mosaic Law commands the witnesses to cast the first stone (Deuteronomy 17:17)
Jesus started scribbling on the ground once more only to find when he looked back up all the Jews had disappeared due to their ‘being convicted by their own conscience’
We know that Jesus elsewhere in the Bible called the Jews ‘ye wicked and ADULTEROUS generation (Matthew 12:39) it could have been that Jesus was scribbling the names of those guilty of adultery in the sand and when the Jews saw their names they became ‘convicted by their own conscience’ as verse 9 of John Chapter 8 suggests.
The woman was left standing there all alone with no Jews to convict her, had it been that just two of them had stayed she would have been stoned to death, it wasn’t an act of Mercy when he said ‘go and sin no more’ but he was actually following Mosaic Law which lays down the condition of two witnesses seeing the act of adultery for the guilty party to be stoned for it says in Deuteronomy 17:6 ‘at the mouth of two witnesses shall they who is worthy of death be put to death but at the mouth of one witness they shall not be put to death’.
Islamic Law is very similar to Mosaic Law in this regard but yet whilst the Bible commands there be two witnesses for the death penalty to be carried out the God of the Qur’an demands there be four witnesses (4:15)
However if a woman is falsely accused or even if the accuser fails to produce four witnesses against her then according to Islamic law the accusser is flogged with eighty stripes (24:4)
Jesus clearly indicated that he had not come to abrogate the Law of Moses when he said in Matthew Chapter 5 verses 17 - 18
Think not I have come to destroy the law, or the Prophets, I have not come to destroy but uphold for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot ( yod - the smallest Hebrew letter) or one title shall in no wise pass from the law.
So clearly Jesus agreed with the killing of apostates and even says himself ‘but those mine enemies which not that I should rule over bring them in front of me and kill them’ (Luke 19:27)
The stoning of the adulterer , keeping in mind that Jesus did order them to stone the adulteress, but the Jews cowered of after they seen him scribbling in the sand.
Circumcision: We find that it was an everlasting covenant between God and man as outlined in Genesis chapter 17 and those who were to break the covenant were to be cut off – meaning killed! We even find that Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21) but yet we find Paul abrogating circumcision (Galatians 5:2 and Acts 15:1) in which he had no right to do.
The eating of swine: the ‘Old Testament’ clearly forbids the eating of swine (Leviticus 11:7-8 and Deuteronomy 14:8) but yet Christians seem to think they have some divine right to abrogate the law that Jesus came to uphold, what makes common people better than Jesus?
Paul and his followers should have heeded the warning of Jesus when he said ‘not one jot or title shall in no wise pass from the Law’ and the following verse after this:
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. 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 (Matthew 5:19:20)
Jesus relates a parable to the Jews in which he concludes that the kingdom of God will be taken away from the Jews and given to another nation (Matthew 21:33-43)
The fact that Jesus states that the Jews had the Kingdom of God implicates the Law in which they had,
but yet when we look at the Christians they don’t seem to have the Kingdom of God (the law) that the Jews had but if we examine the Islamic Law you will see a striking resemblance, therefore one must question himself as to which nation did God give his Kingdom to?