Christians and the Law: Answering the Objections, part 7

Toby Temple asked this question of another commenter, but I’ll answer it for myself. By responding to him here, I am giving Toby more respect than he deserves. His ignorance of the Scriptures, including the New Testament, is remarkable for someone so convinced of his own rightness. However, many other people with more humility and sincerity have had some of the same thoughts and questions. Those people deserve a response.

Statement 8: Do you stone adulterers, murderers and blasphemers to death in accordance to Mosaic Law? Yes or No?

Leviticus 26:16 (Stoning blasphemers to death) [I think he meant Leviticus 24:16. -jay c]
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (adulterers stone to death)
Numbers 35:16-18 (murderer put to death)

So tell me, do you still do these things?

-Toby Temple

In accordance with Mosaic Law? Absolutely! But what does the Mosaic Law say?

  1. There must be at least two witnesses testify to the crime. (Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 19:15, etc.)
  2. The trial must be presided over by a duly appointed judge and witnessed by the congregation. (Deuteronomy 1:16, Deuteronomy 16:18, etc)
  3. The witnesses must cast the first stones. (Deuteronomy 17:7)
  4. The whole community must participate in the stoning. (Leviticus 24:16, Numbers 14:10, etc.)

Given these conditions, there can be no stonings in Modern America in compliance with the Mosaic Law. If a case in my local community meets all four requirements, then I would be required to participate. And so would you.

Toby made another very interesting comment, but my response will be lengthy. So I will leave part 7 short.

part 5part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9

Vox’s original article: Christians and the Law.

This entry was posted in Keeping Torah, Theology, Torah, Vox Day vs Torah and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Christians and the Law: Answering the Objections, part 7

  1. Toby Temple says:

    Finally! Now let us check jay c’s “rebuttals” on my comments.

    I have asked the following:

    Do you stone adulterers, murderers and blasphemers to death in
    accordance to Mosaic Law? Yes or No?

    Leviticus 26:16 (Stoning blasphemers to death) [I think he meant Leviticus
    24:16. -jay c]
    Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (adulterers stone to death)
    Numbers 35:16-18 (murderer put to death)

    So tell me, do you still do these things?

    But I also asked jay c if there were any OBJECTIONS to the Torah in this thread.

    objection – 1: an act of objecting; 2 a : a reason or argument presented in opposition;b : a feeling or expression of disapproval

    From the definitions of the word, it is quite clear that there were NO OBJECTIONS to the Torah ever made in Vox’s thread entitled Christians & Law. There was not a single comment expressing arguments AGAINST or IN OPPOSITION of the Mosaic Law. Neither was there any expression of disapproval for it. In other words, what jay c is doing now is nothing more than his answers to his very own straw man.

    But let us examine jay c’s answer to the questions that were never directed to him:

    In accordance with Mosaic Law? Absolutely! But what does the Mosaic Law
    say?

    -There must be at least two witnesses testify to the crime. (Numbers 35:30,
    Deuteronomy 19:15, etc.)

    -The trial must be presided over by a duly appointed judge and witnessed by
    the congregation. (Deuteronomy 1:16, Deuteronomy 16:18, etc)

    -The witnesses must cast the first stones. (Deuteronomy 17:7)

    -The whole community must participate in the stoning. (Leviticus 24:16,
    Numbers 14:10, etc.)

    – jay c

    I would like to put emphasis on these statements by jay c:

    There must be at least two witnesses testify to the crime.

    If a case in my local community meets all four requirements, then I
    would be required to participate.

    In the 1st statement, jay c used the word “crime” instead of sin. On the
    2nd statement, jay c is saying that a CHRISTIAN congregation should find
    an accused adulterer guilty if there are 2 witnesses to the “crime”. There
    will be an appointed judge and the trial is held before the congregation.
    After finding the accused guilty, the witnesses will start to execute the
    punishment then followed by the rest of the members of the congregation.

    One needs to take note that all these 4 requirements were evident in the
    Old Testament, but in the New Testament there is not one single recorded
    event that any of the first Christians executed a proven adulterer/murderer
    /blasphemer.

    There is, however, one recorded incident where an adulteress was taken
    before Jesus Christ. We all know(I assume) the story in John 8:1-11.

    It is quite interesting that jay c used the word “CRIME” while our Lord
    and Savior used the word “SIN”. I think this way, jay c is trying to escape the Christian doctrine of forgiveness of sins since there is nothing about forgiveness of crimes in it.

    The bad news for jay c is that crimes such as adultery and murder are
    considered by the Almighty as SINS. And yes, adulterers and murderers can
    be forgiven if they repent. If Mosaic Law should be followed then there is no forgiveness for sins such as murder, adultery and several others(witchcraft, blasphemy).

    With jay c’s 4 requirements, the one who committed adultery or murder must
    die. He condemns the sinner to death even if he/she repents once there are
    2 witnesses to the sinful act and is therefore found guilty since there is no provision in the Mosaic Law to forgive such transgressions. On the other
    hand, Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, does not condemn but
    forgives the repentant.

    It is also interesting to see that the execution of the sinners in the OT
    does not happen with the Christians in NT. Even with Paul, there was never
    an instance that he judged anyone and sentenced to death in his congregation

  2. jay c says:

    Sheesh. Talk about straw men.

    “Objections to the Torah” in context obviously means “Objections to Christians keeping the Torah.” That is the subject of Vox’s original post, after all. Most 7 year olds could figure that out. Even public schooled 7 year olds.

    As for anyone saying anything against the Torah, I give you this comment:

    Bob Wallace September 24, 2012 3:33 PM

    If men were meant to be circumcised, we’d be born circumcised. It’s a revolting, primitive habit, almost as bad as female circumcision, and it should be illegal.

    I didn’t bother reading the rest of Toby’s comment. There’s no point in responding to such flagrant dishonesty and ignorance. Further comments by Toby along the same lines will be deleted.

  3. jay c says:

    Comments that are actually on topic are welcome whether the commenter agrees with me or not.

  4. Toby Temple says:

    “Objections to the Torah” in context obviously means “Objections to Christians keeping the Torah.” That is the subject of Vox’s original post, after all. Most 7 year olds could figure that out. Even public schooled 7 year olds.

    It would be best for jay c not to think for somebody else.

    “Objections to the Torah” is “Objections to the Torah”.

    If jay c thought that his original statement did not convey what he intended to say, then he should have corrected it in the first place. But he did not. Even another commenter warned him with the following statement:

    Don’t build a straw man, though. Nobody (that I know of) is claiming that it is wrong for a Christian to follow Torah, only that it is wrong for them to tell other Christians to do so. As in Rom 14:6-7

    But jay c insist that his statement is correct despite admitting that he meant Objections to Christians keeping the Torah.

  5. jay c says:

    Toby, as I already pointed out to you, Markku was incorrect in his assertion that nobody was claiming that it is wrong for a Christian to follow Torah. You ned to answer two questions if you are to continue posting here:

    1. Are you claiming that Vox’s post was not about Christians following the Law (aka the Torah)?
    2. Are you claiming that Bob Wallace did not actually post what I quoted above?

  6. Toby Temple says:

    1. Are you claiming that Vox’s post was not about Christians following the Law (aka the Torah)?

    No. But you are claiming that Vox’s post in an objection to the Torah. The statement “Christians are not obligated to follow Mosaic Law.” is not the same as saying that “Christians SHOULD NOT follow Mosaic Law”. Even Markku and Vox will say the same thing.

    2. Are you claiming that Bob Wallace did not actually post what I quoted above?

    No. However, “objection to the Torah” is not “objections to the Torah”.

    1 will never be > 1.

    And you could have addressed that in Vox’s thread immediately. You did not and you are not even addressing that here.

  7. jay c says:

    Posting this here as well just to make sure you’ve seen it:

    Toby, you repeatedly contradict yourself. You are either a troll or a a complete moron. Don’t post anymore unless you have something meaningful to say.

  8. jay c says:

    Opposing points of view are always welcome. Especially well thought out, intelligent opposing views.

    People who will say anything and twist anything just to pick a fight are not welcome.