The condemned?

[Bobcat]

Jesus says that those who hear His word and do not keep it are condemned.

John 12:47,48
“Anyone who hears my word and does not keep it I am not the one to condemn him for I did not come to condemn the world I came to save it. Anyone who rejects me and does not accept my word he already has his judge namely the words I’ve spoken that’s what will condemn him on the last day.”

So keeping His word is accepting it.

Jesus said He kept God’s word. He also said He came to spread it. So by His standards keeping God’s word is spreading it.

Do you keep God’s word as Jesus did? Or are you condemned?

[Miles]

So tell me, just how did Jesus keep gods word, one of which was:

Leviticus 20:13
“If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death."

DID JESUS BREAK THE LAW BECAUSE HE DIDNT KILL ANY HOMOSEXUALS?

Jesus was not instructed to find and execute practising homosexuals, that responsibility was for Israel's appointed judges.

Makes no difference what you may think Jesus was not instructed to do or whose responsibility you may think it is, because that's not the point I was addressing. My only concern was Bobcat's statement and its implication: "Jesus said He kept God’s word." Now if Jesus did indeed keep god's word, then he must have kept them all, including what god said in Leviticus 20:13.

“If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death."

Meaning Jesus must have been responsible for the death of some man who had sexual relations with another man as with a woman. If he wasn't then he would have failed to keep god's word.


.

[Bobcat]

[Replying to Miles in post #22]

The scripture you quoted was not in effect in Jesus day.

Then why did Jesus keep god's word? You yourself said "Jesus said He kept God’s word," and without qualification no less, with almost all of god's words popping up in the Old testament.

There was a new covenant which is still in effect today.

In spite of Jesus himself declaring:

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

And what do you do with

Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

Just put it in a corner of the closet?

As it is written;

Isaiah 59:21

“And as for me, this is the covenant I have made with them, says the LORD, my spirit which is upon you and my words which I have put into your mouth shall never leave your mouth nor the mouths of your children nor the mouths of your children’s children from now on and forever.”

Sorry, but I fail to see the relevance.

.

The son of man fulfills the law by proclaiming it. Jesus was not speaking of Himself alone because He knew that the son of man is all the Prophets. So when Jesus said I He meant the son of man, all the Prophets.

Isaiah 59;21 is saying that the word of God will be spoken by all those who uphold God’s covenant.

That is why Jesus sent His followers with God’s word in order to proclaim it.

“Go and make disciples of all the nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you.”(Jesus)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

The homosexual would have been put to death by the courts that upheld God's Law. Not by any individual. These days the courts don't kill homosexuals and Jesus admonished everyone to obey the laws of the land. Practicing homosexuals will be taken care of by Jesus when he comes back in Kingdom power.

Your source of information please.

.

The justices were responsible for upholding God's Law and could be said to uphold the law concerning homosexuality, I would think, as the law brings out in the treatment of the case of a pregnant women having her child prematurely, in a brawl of some sort....."...the offender must pay the damages imposed upon him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges." (Exodus 21:22) If the judges were concerned about that aspect of the Law, I'm sure they would be concerned about homosexuality and rule in favor of the Law being carried out (Leviticus 20:13).

"Moses chose capable men out of all Israel and appointed them heads over the people....So they judged the people when cases arose." (Exodus 18:25,26

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

The homosexual would have been put to death by the courts that upheld God's Law. Not by any individual. These days the courts don't kill homosexuals and Jesus admonished everyone to obey the laws of the land. Practicing homosexuals will be taken care of by Jesus when he comes back in Kingdom power.

Your source of information please.

.

The justices were responsible for upholding God's Law and could be said to uphold the law concerning homosexuality, I would think, as the law brings out in the treatment of the case of a pregnant women having her child prematurely, in a brawl of some sort....."...the offender must pay the damages imposed upon him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges." (Exodus 21:22)

Not as I read it.

Exodus 21:22 (ERV)
22 “Two men might be fighting and hurt a pregnant woman. This might make the woman give birth to her baby before its time. If the woman was not hurt badly,[a] the man who hurt her must pay a fine. The woman’s husband will decide how much the man must pay. The judges will help the man decide how much the fine will be."

The only thing the judges are doing here is helping the husband decide the amount of the fine, not unilaterally deciding any guilt themselves or acting as an intermediary between the two parties.

If the judges were concerned about that aspect of the Law, I'm sure they would be concerned about homosexuality and rule in favor of the Law being carried out (Leviticus 20:13).

Sorry, but what you may be sure of doesn't carry any weight. What is required are actual Biblical statements to that effect.

"Moses chose capable men out of all Israel and appointed them heads over the people....So they judged the people when cases arose." (Exodus 18:25,26

Apparently not in cases like the one described in Exodus 21:22.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

“If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death."

Meaning Jesus must have been responsible for the death of some man who had sexual relations with another man as with a woman. If he wasn't then he would have failed to keep god's word.

Please explain ; "HOW do you think Jesus "failed to keep Gods word"? What specific action do you believe he should have taken that he didnt.

For example, you might say :

"Jesus failed to keep God's word because he ... never killed any homosexuals."
"Jesus failed to keep God's word because he ... failed to find any homosexuals engaging in sex."
"Jesus failed to keep God's word because he ... never condemned that particular law."

Over to you : "Jesus failed to keep God's word because he ... [....fill in the blank ...]."

[Miles]

“If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death."

Meaning Jesus must have been responsible for the death of some man who had sexual relations with another man as with a woman. If he wasn't then he would have failed to keep god's word.

Please explain ; "HOW do you think Jesus "failed to keep Gods word"?

I didn't say he did. But he would have if he wasn't responsible for the death of some man who had sexual relations with another man as with a woman. Everything has been explained in previous posts.

,

[JehovahsWitness]

...he would have if he wasn't responsible for the death of some man who had sexual relations with another man as with a woman. ...

Please explain what specific action (or lack of )would have resulted in his being responsible for the death of [a homosexual]". In short ...

What specific ACTION would he have needed to do in order to " MAKE HIMSELF RESPONSIBLE" for the death of a homosexual ( the failure of which would have legitimately opened him up to the charge of not keeping Gods word)?

If he had done {X} he would have been keeping Gods word.

If he had failed to do {X} he would have NOT been keeping Gods word

WHAT IS {X} ?

(a) Is {X} kill a homosexual?
(b) Is {X} hunt down a homosexual?
(c) Is {X} denounce the laws on homosexual practices?
(d) Is {X} hate a homosexual in ones heart?
(e) OTHER ... [please say specific action]


What specific action equals {X} ?!

[Miles]

...he would have if he wasn't responsible for the death of some man who had sexual relations with another man as with a woman. ...

Please explain what specific action (or lack of )would have resulted in his being responsible for the death of [a homosexual]". In short ...

What specific ACTION would he have needed to do in order to " MAKE HIMSELF RESPONSIBLE" for the death of a homosexual ( the failure of which would have legitimately opened him up to the charge of not keeping Gods word)?

How about actually killing such a person himself or if this is too extreme to contemplate, turning this person over to the authorities and convincing the court, or whomever, that the person actually engaged in homosexual sex, in effect insuring the guy would be put to death? Bobcat implies Jesus did one or the other because Jesus himself is said to have said he kept god's word, one of which was to put to death "a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman."

Because no one knows for sure if Jesus actually kept god's words---all we have is Bobcat's claim that he did: "Do you keep God’s word as Jesus did?"---I believe "would have" is an appropriate expression of the situation. If Jesus was responsible for the death of a practicing homosexual then I believe he kept god's word, as alleged in Bobcat's remark. If Jesus was not responsible for the death of a practicing homosexual then he would not have kept god's word.

By the way, I hope you recognize that keeping god's word is more than simply agreeing with it.

What about you? Do you know if Jesus kept god's word, as Bobcat claims, and was therefore responsible for the death of a practicing homosexual? Either way, what's your evidence?

.

[JehovahsWitness]

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

How about actually killing such a person himself

As I have explained in post #28, killing someone without due process was illegal. If Jesus had witnessed such a crime, he was not authorized by law to simply assasinate the person (any more than we are today). He was to report the crime to the duly appointed authority, who (especially for a crime that carried the death penalty) were to conduct a proper investigation.

... or ... turning this person over to the authorities and convincing the court ..?

If Jesus had witnessed two men engaging in intercourse then yes, he would have had to report it. And failing to do so would indeed have meant he failed to keep Gods law. The witness was not to assume the role of "lawyer" his job was not to convince the court, the witness had the responsibility to report truthfully what he saw or knew. There is no evidence, that Jesus was ever put in the position of having to report such activity.

..." Keeping god's word entails doing what god said ...

And God did not say that every individual member if the public had to kill at least one homosexual but that those that engaged in such act were to be executed. The mechanism for that was set up in scripture by the existence of a legal system. Individuals (like Jesus) were expected to bear a truthful witness if called to do so by the courts (compare Deut 19:17-21).

Again, there is absolutely no evidence, that Jesus was ever put in the position of having to claim witness to such a sexual crime, but had he been, we can reasonably assume he would have spoken truthfuly.




JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[Miles]

How about actually killing such a person himself

As I have explained, killing someone without due process was illegal. If Jesus had witnessed such a crime, he was not authorized by law to simply assasinate the person (any more than we are today). He was to report the crime to the duly appointed authority, who (especially for a crime that carried the death penalty) were to conduct a proper investigation.

Is this what god cared about or said? Not at all. All god said was "They must be put to death." an imperative Jesus was ordered to make sure happen, and did, according to Bobcat, and without any contravening action from anyone else. Or does god listen to the opinions of others with the possibility of changing his mind? I would think not. In fact, god didn't qualify his order in the least. Any man who had sexual relations with another man as with a woman "MUST be put to death." End of order. That's it,"you do it, you die!"

... or ... turning this person over to the authorities and convincing the court ..?

If Jesus had witnessed two men engaging in intercourse then yes, he would have had to report it. And failing to do so would have meant he failed to keep Gods law. There is absolutely no evidence however, that Jesus was ever put in this position.

But god doesn't say a thing about reporting anything. Bobcat explicitly said Jesus kept (all) of god's word, but to do so would mean obeying god's order to actually see that:

Leviticus 20:13
“If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death."

And Keeping god's orders would entail more than just acknowledging or agreeing with them, but actually carrying them out. The order was; to put such a person to death (an action) which Jesus obligingly carried out (the corresponding action), accordingly to Bobcat's implication. The point being, without actively doing so Jesus would have failed to keep god's word.

Bobcat asked, "Do you keep God’s word as Jesus did?" indicating Jesus did indeed keep god's order to see that such a man was put to death. Accordingly, Jesus would have either personally put such a man to death or made sure that others put him to death. Jesus's roll was a pro-active one---it had to be in order to keep god's word. It had to be far more than simply reporting "naughty" bed-room behavior.

.