lftc

Greetings Joebloggs. Out of curiosity, do you have a blog? I too observe that many things in scripture are functionally obsolete: no longer used as a guide. I still consider the Bible the most important group of writings as I personally consider that God intended people to use it. It gets tricky. What do you think?

Very well said! And so true about people just hurting themselves with the need for recompense/retribution. I have not pondered the French influence on U.S.A. law, but I assume it has some heritage from the French Revolution. I have read somewhat on the French Revolution and see the prinicple of extreme power invested in the judge present in the awful events there. I always enjoy hearing of your experiences.

Hello Trace! Good points. I already replied about some the later points in your post. I hope it is OK with you that I respond to the points about the presentation of technological evidence as fulfilling the requirement for witnesses. To ensure that I don't interfere with @Neighbor's expected response, allow me to set the context as believing that the Law of Moses has precedence, and has bearing on modern law, at least as far as indicating the wisdom of God. I go further than that myself, but I realize that many on these forums prefer their respective govenments to be the authority over law. I also know there are some on this forum that would find great relief to be under the Law of Moses instead of the government in their region. As to non-human witnesses fulfilling the requirement for 2 OR THREE withnesses: The Deut 19 passage indicates that false witnesses are to be punished with the punishment decreed for the defendent. This commandment and the commandment following are helpful in understanding the environment that God desired to have. How is this requirement fulfilled with non-human witnesses? It is not. A brief review of cases involving technological evidence shows that such evidence is not without risk of false conclusions. So who gets punished? No one and the technology continues to be used (in many uses of technological evidence, but not all, sometimes it is paritally disallowed). Again, assuming that a people group cares to use the Bible as aguide, it would seem that the punishment for false witnesses would be critical if the "evil is to be purged from the land".

I see your point, and I respect your ability to reason, as you have demonstrated in many posts. Certainly, the Apostle Paul refers to other systems of law outside the Law of Moses in Romans. When you think of the evolution of U.S.A. law (since you are a patriot of that country), what is natural law? Is the 197? change in U.S.A. law allowing abortion a natural law? As you review the Law systems from various governments, there is a tremendous variation on most issues. I submit that the case for natural law is present but not forceful. What is your understanding of the evolution of law and the variation of law by jurisdiction (regional areas of authority)? Thank you.

Answering that question, of course, would be very important. As are all these questions since the administration of Law is the administration of judgement and condemnation of the accused, at times necessary to protect society from people devoted to evil, at times as a system of retribution. Working from the Torah itself, the question appears to be left in the decision of the levite judge deciding the case. To try to eliminate difficult decisions, the Jews immdeiately began adding teachings to the Torah (the Takkanot) to addresses issues like this. I personally do not know how the additional teachings address this, I am not overtly concerned with those teachings for reasons that have to do with the recognition of canon etc. For the purpose of this post, based on the Law of Moses as recorded in the Torah, suffice it to say that the accuser could be chosen by the judge to qualify as a witness. The judge is required by the Deut 19 passage to thoughly investigate the witnesses and punish any found to be falsifying information with the same punishment as was to be given the defendent. Ouch. If the judge were to choose the accuser as a witness (one can certainly imagine situations where this would make sense) then the judge COULD use the 3 witnesses as rule to apply to require a third witness. But the judge could also use the 3 witnesses rule because he/she (remember Deborah was a judge), could be taking seriously the part of the Deut 19 passage about purging evil from the land. What do you think about it? ADDED: On reviewing, I realized you said the accuseD. Not the accuseR. My mistake. I assume that it could be the case if the accused confesses and the accuser agree, making 2 witnesses. Could the judge require a 3rd? Based on a plain reading it would appear to be within the judge's rights. Again, I would think it would depend on the understanding of the overriding principle being presented. For example, if someone confesses because they are suicidal and want to commit suicide by stoning, the judge could require other witnesses.

Prompted by this conversation, I did a brief search on christians that make aggressive music. Found this - a recent rock(ish) album that is intended to represent the John Bunyan book "Pilgrim's Progress". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Similitude_of_a_Dream

@TraceMalin Nice summary. I understand the frustration. It would be nice to have true fellowship, but in a public forum the conflicts will always be present. And they are necessary: the decisions we make about what we believe are reflected in how we act towards each other at every level, from snubbing someone at a tea, all the way up to capital punishment and genocide. All human decisions, all claiming right. In the end, UNDER THE SUN (as the Teacher in Eccl says), might is right. Those with the power to do so enforce their view on all others. The tea snubbee, simply does not invite the tea snubber to the next tea. The court systems send people to death or imprisonment for actions that are a crime in their area, but not a crime in the next area. Church groups line up behind doctrines and either despise people of other doctrines or even kill them (many examples to be seen). What does this have to do with this forum? At least we can try to learn to communicate. I'm trying. My belief as to the meaning of the Gospel leads me to recognize Love and Mercy as the only mitigating factor in this world. I am trying to learn how to communicate my pearls bought at great price (you truly have no idea) to others. I hope to not post too long here as well. It is draining. And many of the things said here can get people killed or destroyed by government and other power groups. The world is not safe. Hence, this forum is good as it allows true anonymity. I have enjoyed your tales of adventures and your unreserved way of communicating. I loved the advice you gave to John about going to the dive club for help. A true grasp of truth. I hope you get many more years of adventures.

Good clarity. Thank you for sharing.

Hello ReneeIW, I realize that you are deep into a painful experience that has lasted for many years. I understand that this topic is significant to you. I hesitate to discuss it with you as I do not wish to add to your burdens or appear to be working against the foundation from which you hope achieve peace in your life. I can't even help a man on the street, how can I presume to do anything to help you? I can just be concerned for you, ineffective, but all I have to offer. This is the difficulty with posting, somebody is going to be hurt. It is really the difficulty with life and with this topic. Who gets hurt with a miscarriage of justice. I have thoughts about the good points you raised, but I don't wish to offend you by appearing to oppose you.

Hello Trace! you said: "When it comes to he said/she said crimes, a lawyer almost doesn't have a case without some form of eyewitness testimony or other evidence to back something up." In one of your other recent posts you stated your concern with the state of GA not having a statute of limitations on sex crimes and the possibility of your life being destroyed by unsubstantiated accusations. You perceptively stated : "In our modern world, we can see how the Law of Moses has inspired due process.". As I mentioned in the OP and in a reply to Neighbor, I agree that the Law of Moses helped in forming the principles from which western jurisprudence evolved. I think it is clear that at no point did western jurisprudence mirror the Mosaic Law. Which begs the question of which was/is correct. While that is a tremendously important topic, affecting the lives of billions of people, I was trying to keep this topic focused on understanding why God said the things he said in the Deut 19 passage quoted in the OP. Things like "2 OR THREE witnesses" , false witnesses must be punished with the punishment that would have been inflicted on the defendent to rid evil from the land. Does the Law of Moses speak to us today? If so, what does this passage mean in understanding your GA jeopardy? What does it mean for others?

Thanks for the reply appy. Nice horse in your picture. I did quote that verse. The question was in regards to the THREE witnesses instead of just 2. When you cite law (the U.S.A. law I assume), if I provide examples where U.S.A. Law does not require such witnesses, would you agree that the U.S.A. law is not in alignment with the Law of Moses? Such a discovery is helpful in forming accurate concepts, but that is not the primary direction of my question about THREE witnesses.

I feel that the question of basis must be answered to set context for the above paragraph.

Hi, "In fact"? Might you cite your resource for reaching that conclusion? Good question. A quick review of online sources revealed that the modern approach to the epistomology of law has been sanitized (as have many other things such as BC and AD morhping into BCE and CE). Which means the references are now using other language, such as Canon Law. If you are truly interested, I suggest an in depth review of such topics. It has been many years and I no longer have my original books, but in my secondary and post secondary education, the basis for the thought processes around which modern western jurisprudence derived was cited as being Roman Law, the Hammurabi Code and the Law of Moses. The above paragraph discusses the topic from the view of how modern jurisprudence regards its own claims to authority. That sentence is a generalisation, and, as such, implies a monolithic body of thought which does not exist. But how modern systems explain their right to govern and how a biblical theist understands the granting of such rights are surely two separate approaches. That sentence may be unclear. Restated with less accuracy: How a secular person decides what is proper law is surely different than how a Bible believer decides what is proper law. Do you agree with that?

Excellent points. A truly double edged sword.

Going offline now. Getting late here. Will return tomorrow, but please read last paragraph of the OP.

Easily. I encourage others to do the same.

The whole subject of how the Law of Moses applies to modern life is disputed and contested and ignored. Jesus said whoever teaches against the Law is the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Psalms speak of loving the Law. Various people handle this subject in various ways, but even the most ardent that oppose using the Law in everyday life state that it has value for modern life by simply applying the principles. In fact, most western societies claim that their Laws are derived from the principles of the Law of Moses. I have my own strongly held opinions about the Law and what Jesus meant. But this topic is not about that. Let me repeat for the people that have already decided to post about the applicability of the entire law. This topic is not about that. This topic is about a principle that is presented in the Law of Moses and repeated consistently through the teachings related to the New Covenant. Establishing culpability based on 2 OR THREE witnesses. I understand that this principle is exceedingly difficult for the modern mind to assimilate into a concept for managing modern life. To the modern mind it appears to add to the victim's tremendous burdens. But we are faced with the issue of either trying to understand God's approach to retribution or finding a thought process to move these verses to a less applicable interpretation. I can understand the intense need to take the second approach. Our very being cries out for wrongs to be righted through exposure and punishment. We have a built in belief that relief lies along this path. I, too, feel the pull of this direction. But the first option calls to those who desire to align their concepts with those of God Most High, the God of Moses. the Scriptures: Regarding any crime: Deut 19 15“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evilc from your midst. 20And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Deut 17 has a similar passage that is focused on worshipping other gods. Matt 18 15“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosedf in heaven. 19Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” 1 Tim 5 19Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. What does that tell us about how God thinks about Due Process? If I proceed to tell you what I think, I would be assuming the role of teacher, which no one here wants me to do. So assuming the role of another God Pursuer pointing out things I notice: Notice that the 2 OR THREE is consistently repeated. One thing that has really enlightened me is to ponder Why OR THREE witnesses? If the goal is to convict, why would one ever need three? The Deut 19 passage already says the judge is to investigate the witnesses thoroughly. And the witnesses would already know that their very lives are at stake if found to be a false witness. So if the judge already has 2 witnesses that actually saw the crime being commited, the judge can then convict on the basis of 2 witnesses. So why "OR Three"? And the last part of the Deut 19 passage says "purging the evil from the land". Seems like it has great bearing on the whole passage. What evil? I will probably not respond to many posts or click "like" on many posts. Not because I dislike what people say, but simply to try to avoid the factions issue as much as I can. Please assume that I like you.

Contrary to other statements here, a simple search reveals that there is such a thing. I know nothing about it.

Yes. And he spoke to the issue of Law governing these things many times. Who is listening?

@DustyRoad, @Alive, @ayin jade, @other one, @dailyprayerwarrior, @Melinda12, @Justin Adams Thank you all for your thoughts and insights.

@JTC The links Trace gave hold some possibilities.

Some people believe it is the same person. Some do not. From the scriptures alone there is not a definitive answer, at least to my casual observation. Is there some reason why it is important to you to link them?

Friend @JTC I surely wish I was able to physically help you. The pain of abandonement and hatred is so terribly devastating. Over time we make deals with ourselves as each new blow hits. We think, OK I'll adjust to this new destruction by trying to build a wall around what is left of meaning and purpose. Some pursue revenge to try to find something, anything, that will change the impossible. The major problem is that meaning and purpose in life is completely tied to love. You need to know you are loved. I have read enough of you posts to know that you have chosen to believe in Jesus. I also know that in difficult times you need someone to physically be there since the physical Jesus is in heaven. It appears from your situation that you do not have a group of believers around you, we here on the Worthy Forum are the closest you have to friends? Like I said, I would go to help you and sit waiting. But those are empty words because I am too far away and unable to make those words mean anything. For fun, we could debate the forum issues on the drive there and back. But like so many other of my thoughts - it can't be. The suggestion that @Debp had was very good. While there are many on this forum who do not like Roman Catholics, they do tend to have systems in place to help people without requiring adherence to their beliefs (at least in my experience). For what it is worth (not much in practical terms) I do care about your situation.

I was walking after dark a week or so ago, carry home some street vendor type food. I passed a man squatting beside a wall, awake but ignoring me. I walked past. I felt urged to give the man some food. I turned around, walked back and offered him some food, holding it out towards him. He suddenly jumped up and started angrily insisting that I give him money, agressively swinging his arms wide and gesturing at me. He moved to block my exit. I said "no money, only food". At which he started yelling for money and started reaching behind his back, like he was going to retrieve a weapon. I spoke in a forceful voice, telling him to sit down. He looked confused then put his arms down and moved out of my way. I walked past him and home. When I went around a turn down the road, I looked back - he was still standing there. While in the waking periods of the night, I was deeply concerned for the man. What kind of hell is he living in? Why can't I help him? I hope and pray he awakens. I don't share this story to say "look what I did". I didn't do anything like a christian except worry about the man during the night. Someday I hope to be effective.

Hello 4EveryUMe, nice name. I see that you noted that you are 13. In this modern age, you may be in an environment where lots of very "adult" things happen. Is that true? Do a lot of the other people at your school do lots of very crazy things? Is there a lot of pressure to be one of them? I ask because knowing the situation you are in is very important to any advice I may offer. Beyond that, just be patient with the pain of not knowing what direction the relationship will go. Some things take a long time.