Should I Have My New Wife Stoned to Death ...?

[StuartJ]

My new Christian wife recently broke ten (10) biblical laws.

One Sabbath, she put on my shirt and jeans (1) - the shirt was wool and the jeans cotton (2) and headed into town while she was menstruating (3). On the way, she picked up some sticks for the bbq (4) and cooked up a mess of cheeseburgers (5) and calamari (6) then let it slip that she had slept with other guys before we married (7).

One of the guys was at the bbq, and when I got into a brawl with him my wife rushed up and grabbed him forcibly by the testicles (8). She then turned and abused her parents who had tried to intervene (9) and took Yahweh's name in vain during her tirade (10).

If Jesus is "God", he was co-author of these biblical laws in the first place and did not rescind them during his visit to this planet ... and we shouldn't try to dodge the ones we just don't like anymore.

So, should I take my new wife before the elder men of my people and - in true biblical tradition - have her stoned to death ...?

[bluethread]

The commandment is that, IF one gets a divorce, the divorce must be put in writing.

This is an allowance that Moses made for the people.

This is an allowance made by Adonai and delivered to us by Moshe'. My point is that the law was not an exception, but takes into account the reality of adultery that can not meet the standard of thorough examination. One could argue that divorce should be the exception to the principle of marriage. However, all sin should be exceptions, but laws designed to deal with them are not considered exceptions.

What Yeshua did was make the commandment stronger by saying that simply putting it in writing is not enough, it also must be for cause, specifically adultery.

What Jaheshua did was state the truth; truth as it is from the beginning, making no exceptions or allowances to the truth.

Yes, he was pointing out that even unfaithfulness short of provable adultery should be repairable. However, more importantly, the Scribes and Pharisees had expanded the scope of the get beyond the case of unfaithfulness short of provable adultery.

Yeremiyahu does not specify what he was referring to when he speaks of "the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely".

He is referring to the law of JAH (which they say they are wise for having); and yet that law has been mishandled.

I do not see that as undermining the Septuagint, Masoretic and similar texts. Yes, mishandled, as I believe the RCC and the derivative Protestant views have done.

However, it appears that the problem was that commandments were being ignored, not added. I see nowhere in the accounts of Yeshua, or even in the writings of His disciples, where they say that anything in HaTorah was not accurate. The "you have heard it said", seems to refer to how HaTorah had been interpreted by the teachers of the law.

Scribes and pens relate to something written. Whether that is adding TO or taking away FROM.

I was speaking to that passage, which appears to refer to discouraging people from observing Torah. It is true that the Talmud , Mishnah, "Church Fathers", denominational books of "Discipline", etc. add to the Scriptures. However, as I said before, I believe, the source documents for the bible are reliable, due to the nature and number of the manuscript differences.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 61 by bluethread]

This is an allowance made by Adonai and delivered to us by Moshe

Will you demonstrate that Adonai/Yahweh/Kurios/Lord exists ...?

Will you demonstrate that Moshe/Moses ever existed ...?

If not, will you acknowledge that you can't ...?

[StuartJ]

One of the purposes of this topic was to demonstrate that not a soul ever demonstrates that any of the "laws" came from any version of "God".

Another was to demonstrate that people of faith will carry on as though they were dealing with the "Word of God".

Another was to demonstrate that people of faith will cherry-pick the laws ...

And have them mean just whatever they CHOOSE them to mean.

In my view, we have been successful in this topic.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 50 by bluethread]

Christianity is the New Israel.

According to whom? If you believe that to be the case, then please make the case. Where in the bible does it say this?

My hypothetical wife is a Christian.

It appears that your hypothetical wife believes in or is associated with replacement theology.

You obviously know what Replacement Theology is ...

Why then did you ask "according to whom?" ...?

You know perfectly well ....

I suggest you are playing the "wild goose" and "clutter the topic" dodges.

This whole topic has quite obviously been about the Christian notion that THEY are now the "Chosen Race/People" ...

Because most Jews didn't accept the propaganda that the failed Jesus character was the true Messiah.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 61 by bluethread]

This is an allowance made by Adonai and delivered to us by Moshe

Will you demonstrate that Adonai/Yahweh/Kurios/Lord exists ...?

It is presumed in my discussion with tam. Also, we are talking about HaTorah and Adonai exists in that literature.

Will you demonstrate that Moshe/Moses ever existed ...?

It is presumed in my discussion with tam and also a stated character in HaTorah.

If not, will you acknowledge that you can't ...?

I apparently can to the satisfaction of tam. When one is discussing a Sherlock Holmes novel, one presumes the existence of Sherlock Holmes in discussing the details of that novel.

[bluethread]

It appears that your hypothetical wife believes in or is associated with replacement theology.

You obviously know what Replacement Theology is ...

Why then did you ask "according to whom?" ...?

Because it appears that you think that Replacement Theology is universal to Christianity. I was giving you the opportunity to support that view.

You know perfectly well ....

No, I do not know why you presume Replacement Theology.

I suggest you are playing the "wild goose" and "clutter the topic" dodges.

This whole topic has quite obviously been about the Christian notion that THEY are now the "Chosen Race/People" ...

Because most Jews didn't accept the propaganda that the failed Jesus character was the true Messiah.

No, I am questioning that notion. There are a good many people who profess Christianity that do not have that notion. Some believe that there is no "Chosen Race/People". Others are two track, viewing there are those who follow Jesus and there are those who follow Torah, as if they two different things.

I have not intention of going on a wild goose chase or clutter the topic. I am directly addressing the question of the OP. Stoning is a mandate of the Covenant. If one is not a party to the Covenant, it is not relevant. If one is a party to the Covenant, it should be addressed in the context of that covenant.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 65 by bluethread]

Also, we are talking about HaTorah and Adonai exists in that literature.

You're almost there ...

Only another very small step ...

And you're into the light of Atheism.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 66 by bluethread]

Because it appears that you think that Replacement Theology is universal to Christianity. I was giving you the opportunity to support that view.

Universality never came into it.

RT is part of choosing what things mean.

Choosing is especially easy when you are dealing with imaginary characters from human-written literature.

It's all part of the great big game of Pretend ....

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 65 by bluethread]

Also, we are talking about HaTorah and Adonai exists in that literature.

You're almost there ...

Only another very small step ...

And you're into the light of Atheism.

In the same way that talking about Napoleon based on the literature about Napoleon is a very small step from believing that there never was a Napoleon.

Because it appears that you think that Replacement Theology is universal to Christianity. I was giving you the opportunity to support that view.

Universality never came into it.

RT is part of choosing what things mean.

Choosing is especially easy when you are dealing with imaginary characters from human-written literature.

How is RT part of choosing what things mean for those who do not accept RT? One can just as easily say that theism is part of choosing what things mean.

[jeremiah1five]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

QUOTE: Should I Have My New Wife Stoned to Death ...?

RESPONSE: That would depend. What did you do to her?