No, why should you explain it further -- I think you've made your point that according to your understanding they were not to first consult God before stoning Sabbath breakers. (Or applying other death penalties)



But you won't go address anything I've been sharing.
Whether it's the last day application
or the reason why we today do not stone Sabbath keepers.

Remember they were ready to stone Jesus Himself on the charge of Sabbath breaking.
They felt perfectly vindicated in stoning Stephen for blasphemy.


The last day events are BASED on this very premise -- that "Sabbath breakers" (albeit they will apply it to the so called "Lord's Day" Christian Sabbath, which isn't the Sabbath at all) should be killed. And they won't be consulting the true God about it.

Why don't you want to touch the issue that is totally relevant to our day and age, why do you come up with expressions like "strawman" and now "rather exercised",

This illustrates the seeming futility of my efforts here. You have misunderstood what I'm trying to say, perhaps on account of my poor ability to put my thoughts to words, and then continue to believe you understand me. Unfortunately, you have misconstrued my words, and I'm at a loss for how to correct your understanding.

Frankly , your quote above is not reflective of my thoughts or expressions on this matter.

Because you have not understood me, and the question is irrelevant to my side of the discussion. It is your own question, but has nothing to do with my understanding. I DO NOT advocate stoning Sabbath breakers in modern times, and in no point during this discussion have I done so. The fact that you have not understood the least part of my perspective so far prevents me from desiring to explain peripheral or tangential issues to it. Until the core is understood, the rest cannot be.

Here's a straw man argument for you:



In fact, the argument is fallacious on several other counts as well, not least of which it was the "priests" (those possessing the "Urim and Thummim") involved here, not the people at large as was the case in the Old Testament.

Nevertheless, this argument is quite parallel to the following:

Premise 1) The disciples asked Jesus if they should call down fire from heaven upon some Samaritans.

Premise 2) Jesus rebuked them for their evil spirit.

Conclusion) Elijah sinned and had an evil spirit in calling down fire from heaven.


Do you see how that kind of an argument goes? The example with the disciples does not match the example of Elijah. Elijah called down the fire from heaven in righteousness. There was no sin in it. The disciples, of a different spirit entirely, thought to do the same--but wrongly so. The first example cannot be judged by the latter. Such reasoning would be fallacious. The logical fallacy this involves can be called "straw man" because the original position is exaggerated and misrepresented before being attacked, and then the listener is told that the first one had to be bad too because it is the same situation. The problem is that it isn't the same. They are different. Two can never equal three, four, or five. When we exaggerate, the exaggeration does not equal the original.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Your example of Elijah makes a point.

Elijah was in communion with God as to what to do. God had a purpose in what was done.

The disciples were acting on their own impulses of slighted ego and THOUGHT they were coming up with what God wanted. At least they had the knowledge that they should ask Christ and He set them straight. NO it was not God's will for people to call down fire because someone slighted you.

Both these stories only illustrate that A person MUST be in communion with God when such drastic steps are contemplated.

Thank you.


I agree. But it was not by Urim and Thummim.

Agreed.


On this I differ. A person MUST be in communion with God at ALL times, not just when contemplating capital punishments.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I wasn't suggesting that you, yourself, were advocating stoning in modern times, I just said you continually sidestep, and push aside, any mention of the issue of how people will use that type of concept in modern times.

And yes, I do get leery of people who insist on taking me down some very narrow rabbit trail, and that's what I feel you are doing. It's not open discussion then, it's manipulative.

Your statement that my bringing up the fact the Jewish leaders wanted to stone Christ for Sabbath keeping is a fallacious argument on several counts -- why would you say that?

Why would that statement be "fallacious on several counts".
It's a clear and sad fact of history showing what happens when people aren't communicating with God.

I don't for even one moment believe that they used the "Urim and Thummim" in humble supplication to God as to what to do.
There possession of the sacred stones themselves isn't the issue.
It's their honest communion with God, or lack of it, that is the issue.

Why would you even imply that their attempt to stone Jesus (and by the way eventually crucify Him) had anything to do with possession of the Urim and Thummin -- a means by which THEY COULD HAVE communicated with God?

Though the priesthood was so corrupt by then that I'm not even sure the Urim and Thummin was still being used by God to answer them.

Pointing to church leaders ready to put to death the Creator of the Sabbath, on charges of Sabbath breaking is NOT a fallacious argument at all in light of this subject, but the most graphic and terrible example of what happens when people take it upon themselves to KNOW who deserves to die in order to "purify" the group.

Nor do I think the people at large were to just go and stone someone without presenting it to the "leaders sitting in the gates" first.

Not to have some form of judicial trial and guidance would be mob action, not judicial punishment.
That they sometimes did stone people in mob action is true, (as when Rehoboam sent out one of his stewards to try to persuade the ten tribes to return) but I don't believe that's what God had in mind.

God is a God of order, He is not the God of confusion.



The issue is --
Were the people to be in communion with God when dealing with corporal punishment, or were they simply to decide on their own who was worthy of death?

Israel, at the time the command was given was a theocracy. A true Theocracy means God is the ruler and leader. It doesn't work unless there is constant REAL communion with God about everything. Especially when dealing with the lives of others.

Dedication,

Which of God's laws required stoning Jesus? (Or crucifying Him, for that matter?)

I think perhaps that question will help you to see that this is a rabbit trail you have taken us on.

The fact is, we were not discussing a case like this. It is a straw man and a red herring argument. It leads us away from the real subject here, which was enforcement of God's law.

Jesus did not sin. So it was impossible that He should have been stoned. End of story. End of analogy. His story does not fit this discussion.

Now, back on topic...

If God gave us a law to stone a sinner, should we trust Him and follow it?

That seems more in line with the subject of this thread.

(Again, Jesus was not a sinner, and there was no law to stone perfect people.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In the case of the Sabbath breaker who was stoned in the Old Testament, he knew what he was doing. People saw him. There were witnesses. He likely confessed to it himself. He was disgruntled. And rebellious. Just the kind that needed to be purged from the camp to stop the sinful infection from spreading.

Jesus' case was vastly different. In the end of time, many injustices can be expected to occur. The wicked, frankly, don't care if the Bible supports them or not--but they would be happy to think they are using the Bible against its own supporters. They might like to think they are justified by its pages. They will learn the truth when God reveals all.

In Jesus' time, there would have been no need to consult Urim and Thummim for such a case, for God had taken away the Jews' right to capital punishment by allowing them to come under the Roman authority.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That's just the point -- Jesus was NOT a sinner, but according to the THINKING of the religious leaders, the ones that made the decision, HE was BREAKING THE SABBATH.

According to them He was defying the Sabbath commandment by healing, and allowing His disciples to "harvest" grain on the Sabbath and eat it. To them going through the field and picking grain to eat was no different than a man picking up a few sticks to build a fire on the Sabbath.

They were WRONG of course, there was a HUGE difference, but the point is this ---
PEOPLE make huge mistakes when determining who is sinning and thus subject to the death penalty.

Thus for that command to be "of God" people first needed to be sure they THEMSELVES were in connection with God.

So no this is NOT a red herring or a rabbit trail--
The idea that people were free to exercise that command at THEIR OWN DISGRESSION, as in they taking upon themselves to determine who the "sinners" were without consulting God, is the rabbit trail that leads to horrendous crimes like killing the very author of those commands, or killing the very ones who were God's true followers.

That is the issue --
not whether outright rebellious lawbreakers were to be stoned in their society, for obviously that was the situation then, but the issue is whether God was to be FIRST consulted and the persons in leadership were to be in close communion with God before they had any right to exercise that command.

I wasn't questioning that aspect. Moses was in connection with God, but even he was careful that what was done was according to God's decisions not his own.



Yes, many injustices will occur and many have occured over the centuries. I'm glad you agree on that point, maybe we can reach points of agreement.

However, there is another dimension.
The devil works by DECEPTION. There will be many deceived into thinking exterminating those who refuse to subject themselves to the grand religious movement to save the world from the calamities befalling it is absolutely necessary and God ordained.

There will be many who, in their hearts feel the drastic measures are wrong, who will be given the very arguments to "simply trust God" and apply His scriptural remedy in bringing the nation back to God.

Yes, God will reveal it in the end, I agree on that!
But that will be too late for changing their final destiny.
So yes, I think my so called "strawman" is a very important aspect in this discussion that needs to be brought out!

The death sentence on sinners still holds -- all who refuse to give up their sin and continue in rebellion against God will perish in everlasting death.
God offers the gift of life to all who will receive it.

The important part of those commands to inflict death is that we need to take them serious at this point in time, NOT as something people are to inflict upon each other, but that death is the sure result of those who rebel against God. God Himself is the judge who are His and who are not.
Let no man judge you concerning the things of God.