Why 2 OR THREE Witnesses?

[joebloggs]

7 hours ago, lftc said:

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?

Lol no I dont have a blog. My names joe, joe bloggs is a phrase over here in the uk. Means a typical , average kind of a guy.

Yes as a Christian the bible is very important to me. I do my best to live by Christs teachings. And the bible gives us a great indicator of what those are and how those apply to me in any given situation. 

[ReneeIW]

15 hours ago, lftc said:

Still on the same topic, I watched in morbid fascination a few years ago as the governments in the U.S.A. legalized homosexual marriage, overriding the popular vote.  Which side had the authority of your understanding of Romans 13?

I’m not sure I understand the question. 

Romans 13 was written before  Christianity became the state religion. Christians lived among pagans and the government was run by pagans, yet Romans 13 says to be subject to the governing authorities. But that of course assumes Christians are not “evil doers,” therefore they don’t have anything g to worry about.

I don’t worry about homosexuals having the right to marry. They were having sex anyway. My concern is with what the church is doing, not the world. 

I still don’t understand the point of your post. Are you suggesting that if there are not three witnesses, there  should not be a conviction?

Also, Christ called his teachings  and miracles “witnesses.”

 

 

[lftc]

16 hours ago, joebloggs said:

Lol no I dont have a blog. My names joe, joe bloggs is a phrase over here in the uk. Means a typical , average kind of a guy.

Yes as a Christian the bible is very important to me. I do my best to live by Christs teachings. And the bible gives us a great indicator of what those are and how those apply to me in any given situation. 

Thank you.

I too do my best to understand the teachings of Jesus, the Christ.  Years ago, I realized I was being dishonest about the Sermon on the Mount, taking one part literal and the next figurative and ignoring that he said that the Law still has applicability.  So that led to taking the Law more seriously, instead of just ignoring it except as a "look how bad it was" study.  Then I realized, like Bereans, the foundation for the Gospel was built through the Old Testament, as Paul clearly lays out.  It really is quite remarkable.

Thank you again!

[lftc]

7 hours ago, ReneeIW said:

23 hours ago, lftc said:

Still on the same topic, I watched in morbid fascination a few years ago as the governments in the U.S.A. legalized homosexual marriage, overriding the popular vote.  Which side had the authority of your understanding of Romans 13?

I’m not sure I understand the question. 

I had further illustrated that question with the case of the U.S.A. foundation in rebellion against the governing authorities.  Applying Romans 13 as you interpret it, the foundation and claim to authority becomes based on some other principle, not God Given Authority.  That is, unless God Grants Authority to each person or group that uses the power of force to assert authority and wins.  I am not singling out the U.S.A., this issue is one of the fundamental issues of history. 

I would go further and provide clarity to this issue, but that really should be in another topic.  For the purposes of this thread, I seek to establish that the prinicples that God presented in his wisdom given to Moses are timeless and not obsolete.  As to the ability to change government, I join with you in doubting the practical feasibility.  However, principles stand regardless of the regime in control in a particular region.  The world is much larger than the U.S.A. and history is much longer than that of the U.S.A.

[joebloggs]

18 minutes ago, lftc said:

Thank you.

I too do my best to understand the teachings of Jesus, the Christ.  Years ago, I realized I was being dishonest about the Sermon on the Mount, taking one part literal and the next figurative and ignoring that he said that the Law still has applicability.  So that led to taking the Law more seriously, instead of just ignoring it except as a "look how bad it was" study.  Then I realized, like Bereans, the foundation for the Gospel was built through the Old Testament, as Paul clearly lays out.  It really is quite remarkable.

Thank you again!

My view of the Jewish Law is that it has been replaced by a new set of teachings but is still good to study for context and depth of understanding. 

I'd be happy as a Christian if I just had the four gospels. Probably dont even need all four to be fair.

[lftc]

8 hours ago, ReneeIW said:

My concern is with what the church is doing, not the world. 

I still don’t understand the point of your post. Are you suggesting that if there are not three witnesses, there  should not be a conviction?

I agree with your concern as being the church.  As a group it is very important.  And I seeking to share the things one can learn about God's perspective from his view of how government should work.  Do the prinicples of God conflict with the world?  Do the principles of God conflict with the systems of Law?  If they do, as I think you and I have already agreed, what do we do with those prinicples?  I think that at the least, one can ponder them and let them affect the issues in the domain of the ponderer.

[ReneeIW]

2 hours ago, lftc said:

prinicples that God presented in his wisdom given to Moses are timeless and not obsolete

Galatians 3:24-25 King James Version (KJV)

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

[lftc]

14 minutes ago, ReneeIW said:

Galatians 3:24-25 King James Version (KJV)

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The principle of 2 OR THREE witnesses is not just old testament, I feel obligated to point out it was mentioned in the OP.

I could take the common approach and post opposing verses. However, I find that when it becomes a debate of posting countering verses, the clear indication is that understanding has ceased.  I suggest that if you truly do not believe that the Old Testament has value, then we have no common ground on which to discuss this topic. 

[Tzephanyahu]

38 minutes ago, lftc said:

I could take the common approach and post opposing verses. However, I find that when it becomes a debate of posting countering verses, the clear indication is that understanding has ceased.  I suggest that if you truly do not believe that the Old Testament has value, then we have no common ground on which to discuss this topic

Amen, well said. 

[Tzephanyahu]

On 10/22/2019 at 8:54 PM, lftc said:

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"?

Shalom @lftc

I might be repeating what someone else has already said, if so forgive me. 

I believe the term "two or three.." was the ancient Hebrew way of saying "two or more.."

Obviously two was acceptable but the provision is there to allow more to come forward as a testimony rather than turn them away saying "we have two already, be gone!"

Love & Shalom