Stravinsk
Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2016
- Messages
- 4,562
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Deist
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Widow/Widower
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- No
When Christians think of sin and penalty for sin - most often what comes up is 1) The cross 2)Christ's words on the cross 2) The woman caught in adultery 3) Teachings on grace by Saul/Paul 4)Direct teachings of Christ on forgiveness.
Forgive and be forgiven. Love one another. Be reconciled to one another. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer. Pray for your enemies.
So I'm wondering why Yeshua would take such a strong stand for the death penalty in Mathew Chapter 15. Clearly - he is calling the Jewish leaders of His time Hypocrites and servants of Hell for NOT obeying the law - and in the example of the law quoted - for NOT obeying the penalty that the law extracts when it is broken.
That penalty referred to being DEATH.
It is right there in Matthew Chapter 15. Specifically verse 4 and what follows.
Why does Christ take such a strong position for the validity of the law and the penalty for it if it's all going to change? Wouldn't it be more consistent to *teach* that it was going to change in the near future when making the argument made against the Jewish tradition in Matthew 15?
Forgive and be forgiven. Love one another. Be reconciled to one another. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer. Pray for your enemies.
So I'm wondering why Yeshua would take such a strong stand for the death penalty in Mathew Chapter 15. Clearly - he is calling the Jewish leaders of His time Hypocrites and servants of Hell for NOT obeying the law - and in the example of the law quoted - for NOT obeying the penalty that the law extracts when it is broken.
That penalty referred to being DEATH.
It is right there in Matthew Chapter 15. Specifically verse 4 and what follows.
Why does Christ take such a strong position for the validity of the law and the penalty for it if it's all going to change? Wouldn't it be more consistent to *teach* that it was going to change in the near future when making the argument made against the Jewish tradition in Matthew 15?