Question about the rapture!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I know I know. Jesus KNEW that all the woman's accusers had sin in their lives so there would be no takers to his offer. BUT, we have some here who have said that a NORMAL Christian can and does lead a sinless life (with the occasional shortcomings -which should be few and far between).

Here's a question for you. If Jesus hadn't been there and they had stoned the women would that have been wrong?

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Here's a question for you. If Jesus hadn't been there and they had stoned the women would that have been wrong?

What is funny is that quite a few NORMAL (and thus sinless) Christians DO "stone" people in a spiritual sense and feel completely justified in it and probably pray (out loud for all to hear of course) about how thankful that they are not like the person they felt obligated to stone.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jfrog

But why can't I interpret the 10 commandments even more broadly than you do? Why can't someone say any number of things besides homosexuality is against the 10 commandments and put some kind of argument forth. Why can't someone interpret the commandment against bearing false witness to include even white lies or telling a joke in first person? Why can't someone interpret the commandment against no graven images as no christmas trees and no easter bunnies and no pictures of the cross?

Where is the line for how broadly we can interpret the 10 commandments?

Great questions. I'm really not sure. I just follow the Ten Commandments and see them as addressing sin as a general rule. In the examples you've given I'd say that adultery includes outright adultery, fornication, and any other form of sexual sin that adulterates the intended purity of human sexuality. I would agree that telling "white lies" is lying. Jokes on the other hand, I'd say are not because they are not intended to be believed as truth once the punchline is given, this goes into the intent of the heart. While I disagree, one could justifiably argue that Christmas trees etc. are of idolatrous origin and should be avoided if not only based on principle. At least the Ten Commandments give us a guideline whereby we can't drift too far into outlandish accusations of sin such as articles of clothing, jewelry, hair styles, etc.

But you make an excellent point. I'm only looking for guidelines. Conceivably one could argue a strict approach to the Ten Commandments claiming that forms of "sin" as seen in the Mosaic Law were cultural and intended only for Israel.

It appears that in many cases the Bible doesn't clearly define what is sin and what is not. Again, I was just seeking guidelines.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Here's a question for you. If Jesus hadn't been there and they had stoned the women would that have been wrong?

Yes. Because the Bible states that she was caught in the very act of adultery. The Law demanded that both the man and the woman invovled be put to death. You'll notice no man was on trial with her. In executing her they would have broken the Law by not truly keeping it, using it as an instrument to commit murder.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes. Because the Bible states that she was caught in the very act of adultery. The Law demanded that both the man and the woman invovled be put to death. You'll notice no man was on trial with her. In executing her they would have broken the Law by not truly keeping it, using it as an instrument to commit murder.

So, killing only one instead of both would have been murder?

[ENDTIMPREACHER]

If you have sin in your life at the rapture you will go to hell.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by ENDTIMPREACHER

If you have sin in your life at the rapture you will go to hell.

That's what I keep telling people!!!

Perfection IS possible!

Of course I can only think of one person to ever achieve it.............

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Timmy

So, killing only one instead of both would have been murder?

It wouldn't have fulfilled the law.

Of course this was all a trap to trap Jesus. The Pharisees didn't really want to see her die. They wanted Jesus to say that she should die so that they could accuse him to the Romans, because under Roman law they were forbidden to perform or order executions. The Romans would have brought Jesus up on charges of murder or of unlawfully ordering an execution.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It wouldn't have fulfilled the law.

Of course this was all a trap to trap Jesus. The Pharisees didn't really want to see her die. They wanted Jesus to say that she should die so that they could accuse him to the Romans, because under Roman law they were forbidden to perform or order executions. The Romans would have brought Jesus up on charges of murder or of unlawfully ordering an execution.

I see, thanks.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It wouldn't have fulfilled the law.

Of course this was all a trap to trap Jesus. The Pharisees didn't really want to see her die. They wanted Jesus to say that she should die so that they could accuse him to the Romans, because under Roman law they were forbidden to perform or order executions. The Romans would have brought Jesus up on charges of murder or of unlawfully ordering an execution.

I've never heard that one before.

By the way it would have been lawful for them to stone her. Just because the man was elusive and escaped capture (Jesus did this many times) does not mean that they couldn't have fulfilled the law to the best of their ability. Of course you are going to paint it as they just let him go. There is nothing to indicate such a conspiracy. The simplest explanation is that he avoided capture which seemed to have been quite common. Notice all the times Jesus avoided capture.