Biblical law for non-Christians ?

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Back in Roman times, we know from 1 Corinthians 6 : 1 -4 that Paul said (paraphrasing): "Don't go to the civil courts. They're ungodly. Create your own courts." Christians did. They were so efficient that after a while pagans were coming to the church courts and saying: "Adjudicate our problems for us. It takes years to get a case heard in the civil courts and it bankrupts us and then we don't get justice. Would you do it for us?"

When Constantine became Emperor, he called in the bishops and he said, "The courts of the Empire are failing. We have cases that have been in the courts forty years with no justice. I want you Christian men to go out into the streets wearing the garb of the Roman magistrate by my orders, so that the people of Rome and of the Empire will know that they can come to you for justice."

What do you think of this ?

[e=mv^2]

Those civil courts no longer exist. They were evil but they are no longer here.

Are you trying to tell us that christians should not go into a civil court? Be a judge? Laywer? What is it that you are trying to link here?

[reformedfan]

lawsuits against other believers are prohibited, not civil suits in general.

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Are you trying to tell us that christians should not go into a civil court?

Absolutely. Christians have no business taking up legal action against their Christian brethren.


Be a judge? Laywer?

Absolutely not. Studying scripture for legal purposes and learning its practical
application is of prime importance.

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Beyond The Bible´s practical application in solving everyday legal cases, what concerns
me is how it can offer a viable alternative to American citizens who have lost hope and faith in a corrupt and decadent pagan legal system.

[twistedsketch]

There is no question that believers should at least try to resolve their differences within the church. Of course, then there is the issue of what measures are to be taken for certain sins.

We must also acknowledge that God is the author of justice. Those familiar with His law would naturally be the best choices for judges. When Paul was talking about not judging unbelievers, he was talking about not withdrawing himself from them because of their sins - they don't know better, they don't have God. But God does have an idea of what justice looks like. Take a look at the OT criminal law. That really should be the basis for the criminal laws of a nation, IMO. Since it is better that justice reign, rather than injustice, we must go back to God's model for justice in criminal cases.

[The Ascetic Crusader]

God does have an idea of what justice looks like. Take a look at the OT criminal law. That really should be the basis for the criminal laws of a nation, IMO. Since it is better that justice reign, rather than injustice, we must go back to God's model for justice in criminal cases.

There is still hope for you my friend....

[The Ascetic Crusader]

lawsuits against other believers are prohibited, not civil suits in general.

Do you believe Christian courts would work much better than our current
pagan Republican courts ?

[e=mv^2]

We must also acknowledge that God is the author of justice. Those familiar with His law would naturally be the best choices for judges. When Paul was talking about not judging unbelievers, he was talking about not withdrawing himself from them because of their sins - they don't know better, they don't have God. But God does have an idea of what justice looks like. Take a look at the OT criminal law. That really should be the basis for the criminal laws of a nation, IMO. Since it is better that justice reign, rather than injustice, we must go back to God's model for justice in criminal cases.

I would like to point out the thread on justice (http://www.christianforums.com/t1654803-on-justice-es-thought-for-the-day.html) and remind everyone that true justice involves everyone dying. The wages of sin are death.
Calling for justice is calling for your own death. You (everyone) have sinned and the only justice for that is your own death.


Do you believe Christian courts would work much better than our current
pagan Republican courts ?

Pagan Republican courts? Huh?
In a court system there has to be authority that is accepted by the masses and it must be enforceable by law. A Church court could give a decision and the loser could simply not accept it.

We have a multi cultural nation and I believe that requires a secular and neutral court system and government. That is not to say that the existing courts are fair/good/whatever tho.

[twistedsketch]

I would like to point out the thread on justice (http://www.christianforums.com/t1654803-on-justice-es-thought-for-the-day.html) and remind everyone that true justice involves everyone dying. The wages of sin are death.
Calling for justice is calling for your own death. You (everyone) have sinned and the only justice for that is your own death.

God also knows how to run and protect a society, which is one of the tenets of criminal law.

Also remember that while someone will go to hell for theft, God's criminal code did not say to execute robbers. It does demand that they pay back double to the victim. So what we are talking about is different here.

[The Ascetic Crusader]

God's criminal code did not say to execute robbers. It does demand that they pay back double to the victim. So what we are talking about is different here.

Brilliant Twisted. Brilliant. I would like to hear more.

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Those civil courts no longer exist. They were evil but they are no longer here.

Evil ? What do you mean ?

[The Ascetic Crusader]

We have a multi cultural nation and I believe that requires a secular and neutral court system and government. That is not to say that the existing courts are fair/good/whatever tho.

A secular and neutral court system ? Are you saying that Republican government, democracy and secular law are neutral ? Please meditate
the above statement.

[The Ascetic Crusader]

In a court system there has to be authority that is accepted by the masses and it must be enforceable by law. A Church court could give a decision and the loser could simply not accept it.



Would that be an option for a Christian man ?

[twistedsketch]

Technically, all sin is an option in the sense that we have free will whether we are going to sin or not. In today's litigious society, it wouldn't surprise me if the church made a descision and the unhappy party took it to a secular court because he wasn't done fighting yet. Then you'd have another ugly situation like the Terri Shiavo case, with the long-standing family feuds. That's not good for anybody, especially the church, but I can definitely see that happening.

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Technically, all sin is an option in the sense that we have free will whether we are going to sin or not.

Bible justice is meant to work within the bosom of a Christian community, as practiced by the Patriarchs.

Ostracism comes to mind as a strong deterrent to free will.

[gnine]

They were so efficient that after a while pagans were coming to the church courts and saying: "Adjudicate our problems for us. It takes years to get a case heard in the civil courts and it bankrupts us and then we don't get justice. Would you do it for us?"

:confused:I find this very difficult to believe... do you have a reputable reference?

Firstly, Ascetic, its an interesting idea, but as Mao said, "Power flows from the barrel of a gun", thats how the courts and society as a whole works. Do the right thing, or the authorities are going to come and physically lock you up, execute you, beat you, etcetera. How else do you actually make someone do something? What authority would the courts have if anyone was free to ignore their judgement because they didn't like it?

Without that threat, secular society would not work.

The corollary of this is that if Christians are to be judges for a secular world, then they will need force to back it up. I don't like the idea of that - its not New Testament, its Old Testament.

Secondly, how is this new "law" going to be derived. You will be unable to find prescibed punishments for murder, rape, theft, adultery, etc in the New Testament, beyond banishment from the church community. Hate to say it, but thats not really going to deter most people.

This is because the New Testament Christian society does not operate on the laws of secular society (i.e. force), it operates by love. Which is entirely different. When a community of people love and care for each other , banishment will be an effective, but if they don't, its a toothless tiger.

Your case is unproven.

[e=mv^2]

A secular and neutral court system ? Are you saying that Republican government, democracy and secular law are neutral ? Please meditate
the above statement.

Read the statement.
That is not to say that the existing courts are fair/good/whatever tho.

And why is it that you are calling the courts republican? There are a whole slew of democrat judges.

Would that be an option for a Christian man ?
Absolutely. People go against the church all the time.
What would prevent ANYONE from simply not recognizing a negative verdict? At some point you have to have the ability to either cause pain or take away freedom in order to force a decision on someone.
Not pretty but it is the truth.

It is great in theory but it simply would not work today unless there was some sort of government enforcement of the church's decision.

[The Ascetic Crusader]

When a community of people love and care for each other , banishment will be effective, but if they don't, its a toothless tiger.
Your case is unproven.

You have just proven my point. By quoting Mao you have sided with one
of Satan´s most powerful minions. I do not side with Satan.

Bible justice is meant to work within small communities...that´s the
trade- off

[The Ascetic Crusader]

And why is it that you are calling the courts republican? There are a whole slew of democrat judges.


" Republican " as in Republican government. In the legal , constitutional sense

[twistedsketch]

Bible justice is meant to work within the bosom of a Christian community, as practiced by the Patriarchs.

Ostracism comes to mind as a strong deterrent to free will.
In this society, however, ostracism does not seem effective to me. For example, Joe and Jane are married, but Jane is sleeping with Jeff and they all go to church together and the church finds out. Jane and Jeff may be ostracized, but today they can dust themselves off and go to another church down the street that is more liberal and will accept them. This is not good at all, and we need to think of ways to counter it.

[gnine]

You have just proven my point. By quoting Mao you have sided with one
of Satan´s most powerful minions. I do not side with Satan.

Bible justice is meant to work within small communities...that´s the
trade- off

Come off it!

You're not listening - goodbye, have a nice life.:wave:

33°51'47.51"S

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Come off it!

You're not listening - goodbye, have a nice life.:wave:

See ? Ostracism does work.

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Firstly, Ascetic, its an interesting idea, but as Mao said, "Power flows from the barrel of a gun" (...) Without that threat, secular society would not work.


Well; I wouldn´t be so quick to quote a Chinese tyrant. The fall of Soviet absolutism in 1991 showed the rulers of China that if the democratic West is allowed to exist as democratic, then no matter what its intentions are or will be, its " pathogenic microbes " of democracy will destroy the Chinese absolutism as it destroyed the Soviet absolutism in 1991. China is an ememy of the West, I wouldn´t use them as an example.

[lismore]

Those civil courts no longer exist. They were evil but they are no longer here.

Are you trying to tell us that christians should not go into a civil court? Be a judge? Laywer? What is it that you are trying to link here?

Well a Christian clearly cannot participate in a secular court, for starters the masonic oath you take is contrary to the scriptures.

Matthew 5 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

:)

[e=mv^2]

Well a Christian clearly cannot participate in a secular court, for starters the masonic oath you take is contrary to the scriptures.


1) The oath is not Masonic. If it was you would be swaring to rip out your bowels or something.
2) You do not have to take it. You can refuse to take the oath and they can not do squat.

Matthew 5 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Agreed. You do not have to take the oath.

Other reasons?

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Well a Christian clearly cannot participate in a secular court, for starters the masonic oath you take is contrary to the scriptures.


We Christians should be entitled to our own Mosaic courts. By Law.

[e=mv^2]

How do you come to that conclusion?

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Pagan civil courts can no longer meet our Christian needs. Do you think I´d agree to a pagan court upholding my wife´s "right" to get a divorce or " enforce " my daughter´s right to an abortion ? or have degenerate courts upholding gay marriage rights ? Or trust a judicial system that upholds a ban on prayer in school ? Or the 10 commandments ? or the cross ?

There is no way on Earth any Christian can trust a justice system bent on a Satanic agenda.

[Bushido216]

I think it's time Ascetic woke up and realized it wasn't all that bad.

[e=mv^2]

Or follow the rules of the forum. Either way.

[ksen]

MOD HAT ON:

Please refamiliarize yourself with the rules of the Fundamentalist forum. Unless you are a Fundamentalist as defined in the linked to thread you may not debate in here.

http://www.christianforums.com/t672730-rules-for-this-forum-read-before-posting-updated-6-16-05.html

Any further infractions will be deleted and appropriate staff action will be taken.

Thank you for your assistance in this.

MOD HAT OFF.

[twistedsketch]

Well a Christian clearly cannot participate in a secular court, for starters the masonic oath you take is contrary to the scriptures.

Matthew 5 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

:)
However vows are exchanged at weddings, does this make them sinful?

At that time, Pharisees would swear by one thing or another and depending on what they swore on, they may not have had to keep their oaths. For example, if you swore by Jerusalem and were facing it, your word was binding but if you were not facing Jerusalem, your word was not binding. Jesus said to put an end to all this bullarky.

[e=mv^2]

At my wedding I was asked if I took my wife and I said "I do" not "I swear that I do". There is a difference.

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Mosaic courts would be welcomed as an improvement on our judicial system by many of our Christian brethren.

[twistedsketch]

But you said "I do" and that is a vow, is it not? Vows are the same as swearing oaths.

[e=mv^2]

"I do" is the same as saying "yes". My yes is my yes and my no is my no. Much like "I do" and "I do not".

[The Ascetic Crusader]

I believe we Christians should have the right to be tried in Mosaic courts

[5solas]

I believe we Christians should have the right to be tried in Mosaic courts

Mosaic courts would be welcomed as an improvement on our judicial system by many of our Christian brethren.

Would you then also like to re-introduce animal sacrifices as well? :confused:
What about the forms of punishment: stoning to death by the congregation etc.?

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Would you then also like to re-introduce animal sacrifices as well? :confused:
What about the forms of punishment: stoning to death by the congregation etc.?

Why so concerned with forms of punishment ? Is not the Lord the sole arbiter of justice ? God invented justice. Why do you not trust his word ?

Rather you prefer to believe in Republican secular humanism (satanism?). An ideology that has become a grave threat to us Christians and our communities.

Please read your Bible, you will see we have no business in secular courts.

[ksen]

Why so concerned with forms of punishment ? Is not the Lord the sole arbiter of justice ? God invented justice. Why do you not trust his word ?

Rather you prefer to believe in Republican secular humanism (satanism?). An ideology that has become a grave threat to us Christians and our communities.

Please read your Bible, you will see we have no business in secular courts.

TAS,

This is just a friendly reminder that you are not allowed to debate in here.

Thanks.

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Sorry. Let me re-phrase this :

Why so concerned with forms of punishment ? The Lord is the sole arbiter of justice. In fact God invented justice. We must trust his word.

We must not put our faith in Republican secular humanism (satanism?). An ideology that has become a grave threat to us Christians and our communities.

In our Christian Bible it says we have no business in secular courts.

[e=mv^2]

Definitions of debate on the Web:

argue with one another; "We debated the question of abortion"; "John debated Mary"
consider: think about carefully; weigh; "They considered the possibility of a strike"; "Turn the proposal over in your mind"
argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"
discuss the pros and cons of an issue
the formal presentation of and opposition to a stated proposition (usually followed by a vote)
argue: have an argument about something

[cwebber]

I fear we are all doomed if taking an oath is sinful. Jesus Christ our Lord and savior said under agreement of an Oath. "It is as you say" saying under oath I am the Christ.

So I would ask again is taking an Oath sinful? Something to think about. Also God has made many Oaths with man, does this mean God has sinned as well?

Between Christians there should be no oaths, but between a Christian and non- Christian yes there allowances for this. Everytime you sign a loan, corperate secret disclamer or Covenant (Such as Church Covenant) you have taken an oath.

Covenant: A binding agreement; a compact.
ad·jure:

To command or enjoin solemnly, as under oath: “adjuring her in the name of God to declare the truth” (Increase Mather).
To appeal to or entreat earnestly.


Matthew 26: 63But (CA (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&version=49#cen-NASB-24118CA))Jesus kept silent (CB (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&version=49#cen-NASB-24118CB))And the high priest said to Him, "I (CC (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&version=49#cen-NASB-24118CC))adjure You by (CD (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&version=49#cen-NASB-24118CD))the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, (CE (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&version=49#cen-NASB-24118CE))the Son of God."

64Jesus said to him, "(CF (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&version=49#cen-NASB-24119CF))You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see (CG (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&version=49#cen-NASB-24119CG))THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and (CH (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&version=49#cen-NASB-24119CH))COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

[e=mv^2]

CWebber - what version of the bible are you reading?


59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
Where does Jesus say under oath that he is the christ? LOOK WITH YOUR EYES. Jesus says nothing of the sort but quotes: "Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

You make it out to say something it does not.

Having said that - Acts 15 does not in fact say anything about an oath. Although Christ, while addressing jews does admonish them against declaring an oath, there is apparently no such command for gentiles. At least not one that I can see.

[cwebber]

59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.



Where does Jesus say under oath that he is the christ? LOOK WITH YOUR EYES. Jesus says nothing of the sort but quotes: "Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."


I am looking with my own eyes and would ask that YOU OPEN YOURS. and to answer your question both the KJ and the NAS us the same word Adjure which means to answer under OATH.

Jesus answered thus agreeing to the Oath in the presents of God that it is as he said.

63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Paul also made many Oaths stating "As God as my Witness"

[e=mv^2]

So then if you ask me "Under oath are you typing on your computer" and I say "You say that I am" then I have taken an oath? No.

Paul also made many Oaths stating
Paul was imperfect and broken. Just like you and I. Have you not seen the direct prohibition of oaths?

I know exactly where this is going by the way.....

[cwebber]

So then if you ask me "Under oath are you typing on your computer" and I say "You say that I am" then I have taken an oath? No.

You would have accepted the Oath by answering it.
Example: Do you swear to tell the Truth and nothing but the Truth so help you God.

Your answer being: I Do.

when you answer in agreement you in fact are stateing that you SWEAR to tell the truth and nothing but the truth So Help You God.

So if you answer in agreement to someone asking you under Oath you take that Oath opn yourself.

Paul was imperfect and broken. Just like you and I. Have you not seen the direct prohibition of oaths?

I know exactly where this is going by the way.....

Yes Paul was imperfect and yes He sinned, But my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ does not and did not and will not ever sin. He took many Oaths to be quit frank with you. One of the First the tethan there was the Covenant with Abraham, Than Solomon,

few more verses:

Heb 6:17 Wherein <1722> <3739> God <2316>, willing <1014> (5740) more abundantly <4054> to shew <1925> (5658) unto the heirs <2818> of promise <1860> the immutability <276> of his <846> counsel <1012>, confirmed <3315> (5656) it by an oath <3727>: {confirmed…: Gr. interposed himself by}

God took an Oath

[e=mv^2]

I just don't see it. I also can not see that is a law for gentiles tho. It would be legalism to say that it is sin I guess. I imagine that you have another topic in mind tho. Maybe you should start a new thread for that one?

[cwebber]

I just don't see it. I also can not see that is a law for gentiles tho. It would be legalism to say that it is sin I guess. I imagine that you have another topic in mind tho. Maybe you should start a new thread for that one?



I think the best explation is the one given in Eastons Dictionary. That Oaths are permited on certian occasions. But between Christians let your Yes be Yes and your Know Be know in other word be True to your Word.

We take Oaths everyday on paper. When you bought a house you bond yourself to paying that House off in a since you made an Oath that you would pay your debt by signing a Contract and getting it noterized. An Oath is the same in nature that you have made a verbal Contract and have it noterized by God by saying may God hold you responsible if you do not fullfil it as and Example.

Jesus was teachng ou should not enterto an Agreent with someone lightly, and that you should not if your trust one another to have to take an Oath, Hence between Christians and Oath should not be necessary, but between a Christian and a un-bliever it is permitted.

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Christians have no need for " secular dictionaries ". The Bible is my dictionary.