Couple questions - Leviticus / Galatians

[nshan]

Hey all, I need some honest pointers regarding a couple of things if anyone is up for it or knows if Ray talked about it:

In Leviticus 24 we have "an eye for an eye", a man who cursed/blasphemed God was ordered to be stoned to death by God.

Then in Matthew 5:38-5:48 we have Jesus saying "You have heard it was said [from the Lord your God -- aka me?] an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you: ..."

I know God does not change but this is still hard to understand even with the following references I briefly gathered:

Heb 7 : imperfect priesthood
Heb 8 : first covenant had fault
Heb 9 : Christ became a high priest for a greater and more perfect (complete) tabernacle
Heb 10 : law is a shadow
Job 4:17 : shall a man be more pure than his maker? - no
Pro 10:12 : love / God covers all sins
Ecc 3:11 : no man can find out the work God makes from the beginning to the end

Maybe I'm just having trouble as to why God would order that? Because this is a complete 180 from what he commanded before. Maybe the above already explains part of how/why? I also know that the scribes write with a lying pen in Jeremiah 8:8 so that is always something to watch out for.

I guess my question is how would one explain this to themselves and others if they ask you without sidetracking or giving a cliched answer?

--

Also I don't know if anyone has studied Galatians? Which actually ties into the above. In Galatians 3:10-3:14 it talks about those continuing under the old law are under a curse. Anyway, my specific question is in Gal 3:13 it says that Christ being made a curse for us and that it is written "Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree." Does anyone have a reference or a parallel verse to where it says that in any scripture we currently have?

[Porter]

Found this from Ray. 

https://bible-truths.com/lake16-D3.htm

[5] " Ye have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil... turn to him the other [cheek] also" (Matt. 65:38-39). I won't spent much time on this as it is the same as the others and I want to get to the " love your enemies" command. Suffice it to say that according to all Jewish Scholars that I read (many), none teaches that this was ever enforced, literally. It meant to reimburse the harmed person in like value. And this apparently is the truth, seeing that we have this Scripture:

"You shall not avenge [take vengeance on] , nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as thyself, I am the Lord" (Lev. 19:18). Certainly one was justified in being reimbursed for the value of a lost eye, hand, tooth, etc., but not that one person should avenge another by literally gauging out his brother's eye, if he were responsible for you loosing your eye. There is not one case of this being literally executed in Scriptures anymore than Jesus meant to literally pluck out our physical eyes, if we lusted in our heart. However, there are examples of this being fulfilled in kind. Jesus' command in no way contradicts or does away with the "eye for an eye" principle. In modern times we carry insurance for just such times as we need to reimburse in kind (value) those who are injured (as in an auto accident were someone might loose an arm or leg or eye).

[6] " Ye have heard that it has been said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies..." (Matt. 5:43-44).

Well, there it is. This one for sure is an annulling of the Old Testament Law and a complete and total contradiction of it, right? Wrong again, pale face. Some of the examples Jesus uses were indeed commanded in the Law of Moses. This one, however, was not. Sure enough, Lev. 19:18 does tell us to, "love your neighbor," but it does not tell us to "hate our enemy." In fact, there is not one statement in any of the Law of Moses that says we are to "hate our enemy."

Well then where did we hear that "it has been said... hate your enemy?" Notice that Jesus did not say in this example, "You have heard that it was said by them..." No, Jesus said, "You have heard that it has been said..." He does not say it was said "by them," as there was no "them" in this case. Only one person in the Scriptures said that He hated his enemies, and that was David.

It is not in the Law of Moses, rather in the Psalms of David: "I hate them with perfect hatred [Heb: 'complete hatred'] : I count them mine enemies" (Psalm 139:22). It was the "bloody man," David, who died with blood on his hands and murder in his heart (I Kings 2:1-9), who said he hated his enemies, not God telling us that we should hate our enemies.

And so, Jesus, true to His word in Matt. 5:17-19, did not destroy any law, nor did He do away with so much as "one jot or one tittle" of the law. Now let's learn how we are to be judged by our Lord, and how we are to live by His NEW COMMANDMENT.

[Porter]

Also I don't know if anyone has studied Galatians? Which actually ties into the above. In Galatians 3:10-3:14 it talks about those continuing under the old law are under a curse. Anyway, my specific question is in Gal 3:13 it says that Christ being made a curse for us and that it is written "Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree." Does anyone have a reference or a parallel verse to where it says that in any scripture we currently have?

Is this what you're looking for?

Deu 21:22  And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
Deu 21:23  His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God ) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

[nshan]

Also I don't know if anyone has studied Galatians? Which actually ties into the above. In Galatians 3:10-3:14 it talks about those continuing under the old law are under a curse. Anyway, my specific question is in Gal 3:13 it says that Christ being made a curse for us and that it is written "Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree." Does anyone have a reference or a parallel verse to where it says that in any scripture we currently have?

Is this what you're looking for?

Deu 21:22  And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
Deu 21:23  His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God ) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Yes this is exactly what I was looking for thank you.

Also at the end of Leviticus 24 God commanded Moses to tell Israel to stone to death the man who committed blasphemy. So he was ordered by God to be restrained and stoned to death by his own people. Which doesn't really seem to be explained fully by Ray in this writing, but it's a start.

[Porter]

Only thing I can think of is the fact the Old Covenant (with it's Mosaic laws) is not in accord with the New Covenant (and it's Law of Christ).

Heb 8:6  But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8  For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

The first Covenant is death, the second Covenant is life.

Joh 8:3  Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, making her stand in the center.
Joh 8:4  "Teacher," they said to Him, "this woman was caught in the act of committing adultery.
Joh 8:5  In the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do You say?"
Joh 8:6  They asked this to trap Him, in order that they might have evidence to accuse Him. Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground with His finger.
Joh 8:7  When they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, "The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her."
Joh 8:8  Then He stooped down again and continued writing on the ground.
Joh 8:9  When they heard this, they left one by one, starting with the older men. Only He was left, with the woman in the center.
Joh 8:10  When Jesus stood up, He said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
Joh 8:11  "No one, Lord," she answered. "Neither do I condemn you," said Jesus. "Go, and from now on do not sin any more."]

[Extol]

Dear nshan,

You wrote I know God does not change but this is still hard to understand...Yes, He does not change, but there is still a process, a progression of stages,  by which His plan is accomplished. He says The soul that sins shall die (Ezek 18:20), yet we also know this mortal must put on immortality [deathlessness] (1 Cor. 15:53). This is not God changing; it's just two different stages in the plan.

A parent may paddle a toddler, ground a 10-year old, and take a cell phone away from the 16-year old without the law or the parent changing.

Contrary to the belief of many, the Law is not bad. Paul said I would not have been mindful of sin if not for the Law (Rom. 7:7)It is good for us to be mindful of our sin. If the Law said "When a man does ____ the congregation must forgive him"....oh, how the criminals would celebrate! There is no punishment for sin! In fact, there is no sin at all, since the Law does not demand any penalty.

As Ray said (in Porter's post), Certainly one was justified in being reimbursed for the value of a lost eye, hand, tooth, etc.

The "problem" with the Law is that it cannot save anyone, because all have sinned. It demands perfection, a demand none of us can meet. This does not make the laws themselves bad. You will notice in those Hebrews chapters you referenced that it talks about a better priesthood, a better covenant, a greater tabernacle, etc. but it does not criticize the laws of God. (The "change in the law" (Heb. 7:12) refers to Jesus' eligibility to be High Priest despite being of Judah, not Levi. It does not mean there is a change to "Thou shalt not commit adultery.")

The paper Porter quoted is called The Sermon on the Mount is For You. For you, the would-be overcomer, the potential Elect who strives for the First Resurrection. Yes, a man is justified in being reimbursed for a tooth. But if you want to pursue that higher calling...can you forgive? Here is more from that paper. It's a lengthy excerpt but there is a lot of good stuff:

Let's notice a phrase that Jesus used thirty-three times in the Gospels: " You have heard, but I SAY UNTO YOU...," "I say unto you...," or " For I say unto you...," or " But I say unto you..." Several times when Jesus prefaces His statements with, " But I say unto you...," He is giving His present teaching on something that was taught in the Old Testament Scriptures and Law of Moses.

Sometimes it appears that Jesus might even contradict the Law of Moses, as in these verses for example:

    " Again, ye have heard that it has been said by them of old time, You shall not forswear yourself, but shall perform unto the Lord YOUR OATHS: But I say unto you, SWEAR NOT AT ALL" (Matt. 5:33-34).

Here is another:

    " Ye have heard that it has been said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies..." (Matt. 5:43-44).

Some time ago when I began to really study verses 20 to 45, instead of taking someone else's interpretation, I found that I was wrong to assume that Jesus is contradicting portions of the Law of Moses or teaching contrary to it.

Ask yourself: Are those "circumcised in heart" really breaking God's Commandment if they are not "circumcised in flesh?" I don't think so and neither do the Scriptures.

Are present day Gentile Believers really breaking God's command to sacrifice animals to atone for their sins if they rather spiritually accept the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ Himself on the cross? I don't think so, and neither do the Scriptures.

Are Believers today breaking the tithing law if they rather " present themselves a living sacrifice," and always are willing to " lay in store as God has prospered them" (I Cor. 16:2) their money, time and talents to serve others? I don't think so, and neither do the Scriptures.

Are Believers today breaking the Sabbath day command if they do not set aside the seventh day to physically rest, but rather have set aside all days as a spiritual rest (Heb. 4)? I don't think so, and neither do the Scriptures.

Likewise, Jesus is not contradicting the Law of Moses in these few examples in His Sermon on the Mount.

We need to really understand and know as Paul did when he said: " For we KNOW that THE LAW IS SPIRITUAL..." (Rom. 7:14). And just how did Paul " know" this? Because of the 10th commandment of the Ten Commandments which were the main part of the Law of Moses, and the Old Covenant (Deut. 4:13). "... Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law [what law?] : for I had not known lust, except the law [which law?] had said, 'THOU SHALT NOT COVET'" (Rom. 7:7). Oh THAT law. That would be the 10th commandment of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:17).

Of course I have said and have written for many years now that the Ten Commandments of God are spiritual. And I have explained that it is this 10th commandment that is the absolute proof. The 7th commandment already said to not commit adultery, and the 8th commandment already said to not steal, but then the last and 10th commandment says in effect, "...and don't even THINK about it!"

Isn't this exactly what Jesus is teaching when He says that the commandment said to not commit adultery, be He then said we are not to even THINK ABOUT lusting after another woman with impure sexual thoughts?

This whole Sermon on the Mount is Christ's teaching on how to live an exceedingly higher level of morality and righteousness than was taught before, and the accompanying Judgments if one does not live up to these standards.

Paul taught:

    "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Gal. 3:24-25).

The law was like elementary school, whereas living by faith in Christ is more like high school or college.

Is not elementary school necessary before high school? Most elementary students cannot do high school or college work. Do high school and college teachers contradict the math, grammar, and science that was learned in elementary school. No, of course not, and so neither does Jesus CONTRADICT the lessons of the Law of Moses which brought us to Him. We never contradict 2 + 2 = 4 when we get to high school, but we do move onto higher math and do not continue re-laying the foundation of these subjects already established back in elementary school.

We will now turn to the Sermon on the Mount and see if we are able to learn a little "new [spiritual] math."

Lets be clear on one thing before we enter this study. You will find the phrase, New Covenant, New Testament, and New Commandment in the Greek Scriptures, But you will not find the phrase "New LAW" anywhere. There are "new commandments" regarding that law, the but law is the same, as it is " spiritual" and therefore is not " temporal" (II Cor. 4:18).

And let me make this perfectly clear. In the Old Covenant Law, we read this:

    "... you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18 & Matt. 5:43, 19:19, 22:39, etc.)

The apostle John informs us that this commandment is not new:

    "And now I beseech you, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto you, but that which we had from the beginning, that we should love one another" (II John 1:5).

But John also knew that Jesus did add something to this commandment:

    " And this is HIS commandment, that we should believe on the Name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, AS He gave us commandment"
    (I John 3:23).

Well was there something different about this commandment from the Old Covenant Law and " AS" Jesus commanded it? Yes there was. A new Law? No. A contradictory Law? No. Well what then was different from the way Jesus taught and kept this commandment to " love your neighbor?"

Here it is, simply and profoundly: " A NEW commandment I give unto you, That you love one another [same as the Old Commandment, right? No, here is were the new " AS" part comes in...] ...That you love one another AS I HAVE LOVED YOU, that you also love one another" (John 13:34). Now that brings a whole lot more meaning to the "old" commandment which they had from the beginning. Loving " AS" Jesus loved, is a whole new ball game, as they say. (my comment: One can still ask for reimbursement; but loving like Jesus loves? That is something only a few (the elect) will be able to do.)

There was and is nothing wrong with the Law of Moses. God calls it "MY law."

The problem was never with the Law, but with the people:

    " O that there were such an HEART in them, that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always..." (Deut. 5:29).

The problem was never with God's Law, but with the peoples' heart-they were carnal, and when one is carnal, he cannot keep a " spiritual" law:

    "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Rom. 8:6-7).

And here is absolutely proof that there needed a change in the Covenant, not in the LAW OF THE COVENANT:

    "For if that first covenant ['covenant,' not law] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For FINDING FAULT WITH THEM, He said, Behold, the days come, says the Lord, when I will make a NEW COVENANT [not a New Law] with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah... For this is the covenant that I will make... I will put my LAWS [same old laws-but new covenant] into their MIND, AND WRITE THEM IN THEIR HEARTS..." (Heb. 8:7-9).

There it is!

[AwesomeSavior]

I know Ray said that "Only one person in the Scriptures said that He hated his enemies, and that was David."

However, there is this verse(s) as well:

The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. (Psa 11:5)

Strongs definition for the word "hateth":  שָׂנֵא sânêʼ, saw-nay'; a primitive root; to hate (personally):—enemy, foe, (be) hate(-ful, -r), odious, × utterly.

I might even make a case with Hosea 9:15, as it seems as though the Lord is speaking in that particular verse. It uses that same Hebrew word for hated.

[nshan]

Only thing I can think of is the fact the Old Covenant (with it's Mosaic laws) is not in accord with the New Covenant (and it's Law of Christ). The first Covenant is death, the second Covenant is life.

From what I am reading in the scriptures this seems to be correct. Understanding the "why?" part is really my question.

The "problem" with the Law is that it cannot save anyone, because all have sinned. It demands perfection, a demand none of us can meet. This does not make the laws themselves bad. You will notice in those Hebrews chapters you referenced that it talks about a better priesthood, a better covenant, a greater tabernacle, etc. but it does not criticize the laws of God. (The "change in the law" (Heb. 7:12) refers to Jesus' eligibility to be High Priest despite being of Judah, not Levi. It does not mean there is a change to "Thou shalt not commit adultery.")

You seem to be right, but Heb 7:12 is not just referring to Jesus's eligibility to being High Priest, it uses this as an example because if you actually read the verse it says:
[KJV] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
[HNV] For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change made also in the law.
etc.

This change I guess is probably referring to the law of Christ since it was not made manifest until now in Heb 9:8 and is now being written in our hearts. Also, I continued reading in Heb 10 about the old ordinance being a shadow which leads me to believe it was never the real deal. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is just a shadow of something better. I guess we are to live by faith now.

A better example would be Mat 5:17 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
So he fulfilled everything as they were just a shadow of the real thing. 

Mat 5:38  Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 
Mat 5:39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 
Mat 5:40  And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 

This is a complete 180 from what was given (by God) before. Blood for blood VS nevermind.

The question about Leviticus is still not very well answered which is probably because God's ways are past finding out (Rom 11:33) though it would be nice to know everything now. Maybe because the old with all its laws and ordinances is not equal to the new.

This reminds me of David and the shewbread too since God considered David guiltless even though he broke the sabbath, but since God was lord of sabbath he considered him as guiltless as the priests who broke the sabbath, yet it was lawful for them to break the sabbath:
Matthew 12:4-8
Luke 6:4-5

I know Ray said that "Only one person in the Scriptures said that He hated his enemies, and that was David."

However, there is this verse(s) as well:

The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. (Psa 11:5)

Strongs definition for the word "hateth":  שָׂנֵא sânêʼ, saw-nay'; a primitive root; to hate (personally):—enemy, foe, (be) hate(-ful, -r), odious, × utterly.

I might even make a case with Hosea 9:15, as it seems as though the Lord is speaking in that particular verse. It uses that same Hebrew word for hated.

I remember reading that God hated Esau (though he was blessed by God and reunited with his brother) and there is no meaning in Hebrew "to love less" it is just "hate", only the Greek "introduces" the meaning "to love less" but not the Hebrew.

[Extol]

You seem to be right, but Heb 7:12 is not just referring to Jesus's eligibility to being High Priest, it uses this as an example because if you actually read the verse it says:
[KJV] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
[HNV] For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change made also in the law.
etc.

This change I guess is probably referring to the law of Christ since it was not made manifest until now in Heb 9:8 and is now being written in our hearts.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. I did actually read the verse, which is why I referenced the law changing regarding the priesthood...because that is what the verse says! Here is the law that was changed:

Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the doorway of the tent of meeting and wash them with water. You shall put the holy garments on Aaron and anoint him and consecrate him, that he may minister as a priest to Me. You shall bring his sons and put tunics on them; and you shall anoint them even as you have anointed their father, that they may minister as priests to Me; and their anointing will qualify them for a perpetual [olam] priesthood throughout their generations. Exodus 40:12-15

Jesus Christ, our High Priest, was not of the line of Aaron. So the Law was "changed" to accommodate Him being from another tribe. And He is in fact part of a priesthood that predated the Levitical one.

Mat 5:38  Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40  And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

This is a complete 180 from what was given (by God) before. Blood for blood VS nevermind.

You are assuming things that are not actually stated in the text. Jesus did not say "But I say to you, that law of Moses about eye for an eye is a bunch of rubbish and should be thrown away, here is a new law...." Because B (v. 39) is true does not necessarily mean A (v. 38) is false (or a "complete 180"). Have you driven in one of those work zones where a flashing sign says TAKE TURNS MERGING ? What if Jesus said to YOU (you potential Elect of God), "Let ALL the cars go ahead of you" ? That does not mean it is bad or wrong for the other cars to go on after letting just one car merge. Car for a car is fine for the world--it is justice--but there is a higher calling for those who want to be part of that blessed and holy first resurrection.

Also, what is the question in Leviticus you say is yet unanswered? Is it about the guy being stoned?

[nshan]

After reading more:

If the laws given to Paul's fathers were perfect there would be no need for anyone besides Aaron and his sons in the Levitical priesthood. Paul uses this as an example leading up to a better testament if you read both chapters.

You are assuming things that are not actually stated in the text. Jesus did not say "But I say to you, that law of Moses about eye for an eye is a bunch of rubbish and should be thrown away, here is a new law...." Because B (v. 39) is true does not necessarily mean A (v. 38) is false (or a "complete 180"). Have you driven in one of those work zones where a flashing sign says TAKE TURNS MERGING ? What if Jesus said to YOU (you potential Elect of God), "Let ALL the cars go ahead of you" ? That does not mean it is bad or wrong for the other cars to go on after letting just one car merge. Car for a car is fine for the world--it is justice--but there is a higher calling for those who want to be part of that blessed and holy first resurrection.

Also, what is the question in Leviticus you say is yet unanswered? Is it about the guy being stoned?

According to the Christ it seems to be rubbish because we are to love our enemies and not retaliate. If you think love your enemies, don't retaliate, etc. is not a 180 from Blood for Blood then I'm not sure what to really say here. I quoted from the text. I am not saying the scriptures contradict, but this is definitely the opposite of the commandment given before. We are also supposed to accept Jesus as our high priest and sacrifice unless we should start killing bulls again? The old is passing away right? I get what you're trying to say about the cars a bit but it's not a great example as it would be a sin for me to hold the others back by not going when it's my turn. I took a few math proofs classes myself. If you're trying to say that the new testament is just a better version than the old than yes, I guess it's infinitely better. (If this is not what you meant then nvm)

If the old was meant to pass away then I am assuming it is not perfect? If it's perfect, and let us assume anything less than perfect is rubbish to God and us, then how many lambs does it take to equal Christ's blood? If it's not perfect then I'm going to just flat out say it's garbage compared to Christ's, as Paul also gave up being blameless in the law and counting it all as a loss compared to the Christ. (Php 3)

Also, what is the question in Leviticus you say is yet unanswered? Is it about the guy being stoned?

Yes

[octoberose]

Wanting to understand  the why of God is what we humans seek, but it is pretty futile . We do not yet have the mind of Christ . I think it's also presumptive .  Who are we to question God ? Every time I do it He responds with silence . I get nothing .  When I respond with Faith, then  I get answers - usually in the form of Peace. Sometimes I even get knowledge or wisdom.

Gods judgements in the Old Testament are exactly what we deserve.  You dishonor God -  death You disobey your mother and father  - death . Adultery - death. I could go on and on with different infractions and Gods judgement to it but you get the idea .
And then it's  as if God says ,  Do you get it now ? You will never be reconciled to me  .  I am so far above you and your thoughts are sinful all day long . But I do Love you and even love comes at a cost . His name is Jesus - and he is the best part of me .He is coming down there to walk among you and humble himself to be in the form  of a man. ( but you should see him now because He is really splendid ! ) It breaks my heart, but the only way you can be reconciled to me is if we make this sacrifice .  It always had to be this way.  I was just waiting for the right time . And you will despise him and use him for your own means and you will kill him. But when he is resurrected and defeats death - well that's a game changer . And then some of you will be transformed and eventually all of you will see our glory.

Jesus is a Teacher , and he taught us with his own words that he was going to make it possible to forgive our  enemies and turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile.  The rule book became the book of grace . There is a time for everything .

[Dennis Vogel]

Christians Do Not Have To Love Terrorists:   https://youtu.be/PT7CANf88VY

[nshan]

Wanting to understand  the why of God is what we humans seek, but it is pretty futile . We do not yet have the mind of Christ . I think it's also presumptive .  Who are we to question God ? Every time I do it He responds with silence . I get nothing .  When I respond with Faith, then  I get answers - usually in the form of Peace. Sometimes I even get knowledge or wisdom.

Gods judgements in the Old Testament are exactly what we deserve.  You dishonor God -  death You disobey your mother and father  - death . Adultery - death. I could go on and on with different infractions and Gods judgement to it but you get the idea .
And then it's  as if God says ,  Do you get it now ? You will never be reconciled to me  .  I am so far above you and your thoughts are sinful all day long . But I do Love you and even love comes at a cost . His name is Jesus - and he is the best part of me .He is coming down there to walk among you and humble himself to be in the form  of a man. ( but you should see him now because He is really splendid ! ) It breaks my heart, but the only way you can be reconciled to me is if we make this sacrifice .  It always had to be this way.  I was just waiting for the right time . And you will despise him and use him for your own means and you will kill him. But when he is resurrected and defeats death - well that's a game changer . And then some of you will be transformed and eventually all of you will see our glory.

Jesus is a Teacher , and he taught us with his own words that he was going to make it possible to forgive our  enemies and turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile.  The rule book became the book of grace . There is a time for everything .

Then I guess it is correct then that the just shall live by faith (Hab 2:4, Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11, Heb 10:38) -- that's definitely quoted a lot. All sin leads to death since the wages of sin is death. Still stuck on the "why" part. I don't know if anything in this life is deserved, even death if it's all from God. Still a lot to learn. But you're right since with God all things are possible.

Christians Do Not Have To Love Terrorists:   https://youtu.be/PT7CANf88VY

Is this the highest love? :
And thou shalt love (G25 - agapao) the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. (Mar 12:30)

As the Father hath loved (G25) me, so have I loved (G25) you: continue ye in my love (G26 - agape). (John 15:9)


Is this the weakest love? :
But I say unto you which hear, Love (G25 - agapao) your enemies, do good to them which hate you, (Luke 6:27)

For if ye love (G25) them which love (G25) you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love (G25) those that love (G25) them. (Luke 6:32)

If agapao is a lower form of love then does Father only lower form of love Jesus?

Concerning terrorists, what reward do you have by loving them or others less? You can call them out and hate their ways like Stephen. Stephen was actually stoned to death by his own people and he forgave them. If only the pure in heart can see God (Mat 5:8) then maybe with God's spirit he was able to see the glory of God and Jesus at his right hand (Act 7:55)? There's probably a lot more to this love business, I would have to watch the video again honestly to see what Ray said but reading the verses above provides me with a bit more clarity.

[Dennis Vogel]

Gee, Dennis, I don't have to look any further for an enemy than my own family.  I wasn't thinking terrorist.

I was referring to "According to the Christ it seems to be rubbish because we are to love our enemies and not retaliate." by nshan.

[Rocco]

Sorry about full quote, don't know how to pull out just one paragraph. Anyway just a feel good comment about the stoning of Stephen. I think it's awesome that he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 

[Dennis Vogel]

Sorry about full quote, don't know how to pull out just one paragraph. Anyway just a feel good comment about the stoning of Stephen. I think it's awesome that he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

Just copy and paste the text you want to quote - then highlight it - then click the button that looks like a quote (hint says "Insert Quote") 6th from the right.

[Rocco]

Thanks Dennis. One other thing I cant get BOLD or underline to work either.

[nshan]

Thanks Dennis. One other thing I cant get BOLD or underline to work either.

This might help too, here is a wiki reference to using BBCode for forums like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBCode

Though some tags like [url] are unnecessary. For bold wrap bold between [b ] and [ / b] (no spaces), same with underline.
You can also use the user interface above. Highlight whatever lines of text you want and then click the B button for Bold, U for Underline etc. On the bottom near post you can click "preview" and it will show on top of the page what it looks like

[Rocco]

Thanks

[loveroftruth]

excellent topic and thread here brothers.

My question is: HOW do we love (agape) PRAY FOR and DO GOOD to our enemies who PURPOSELY use is?  I know how to love (Phileo), pray for, and treat well those who my friends are, but, it's difficult for me to respect those that use me up...