T
Tex_MidwesternerNW
Guest
So, one of the things you should know about Christian life and is well adhered to is that no bloodshed is allowed. This would be called "sex" in even a general understanding of the word, referring to disputes over personal boundaries that causes a person to touch someone else's blood or be called to witness in court something seen or known to be true.
Anyone would be mistaken for confusing intimacy which is proper from acts which retaliate greater conflict:
"A man must not defile himself by having sex..." "This is a perverse act." "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman." "It is a detestable sin". (Leviticus 18:22)
"Jesus replied, "But even more blessed are all who hear the word of God and put it into practice."" (Luke 11:28)
Girard Butler put it well, didn't he... I come from that same place. But the guilt that Maximus carries is real.
Leviticus (6:24-25) gives an overview on why that kind of sin can be paid for with animal blood, but guilt requires other testimony, that of blood guilt. Or it did, until Christ Jesus restored people to this right commandment:
"If you are called to testify about something you have seen or that you know about, it is sinful to refuse to testify, and you will be punished for your sin."
And clearly understanding, people absolutely revile sin and will not put up with anything like letting a man and woman sleep on the ground together. It happens, but that is not a valid means by which life carries itself out.
Don't lose your temper, but that was the libel for which the Lord needed to respond. (Exodus 3:14) (Psalms 110:1) (Daniel 7:13)
Nothing about the Lord's character was anything but ritually clean, effectively these charges were for being seen in public near people with leprosy, which took on the nature of blood loss and incontinence... This exists today and is still very contagious. The Pharisees really wanted to see if death would affect their bottom line. It does.
The technical word in this case is "crying uncle", not "blasphemy". That was never the case.
Anyone would be mistaken for confusing intimacy which is proper from acts which retaliate greater conflict:
"A man must not defile himself by having sex..." "This is a perverse act." "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman." "It is a detestable sin". (Leviticus 18:22)
"Jesus replied, "But even more blessed are all who hear the word of God and put it into practice."" (Luke 11:28)
Girard Butler put it well, didn't he... I come from that same place. But the guilt that Maximus carries is real.
Leviticus (6:24-25) gives an overview on why that kind of sin can be paid for with animal blood, but guilt requires other testimony, that of blood guilt. Or it did, until Christ Jesus restored people to this right commandment:
"If you are called to testify about something you have seen or that you know about, it is sinful to refuse to testify, and you will be punished for your sin."
And clearly understanding, people absolutely revile sin and will not put up with anything like letting a man and woman sleep on the ground together. It happens, but that is not a valid means by which life carries itself out.
Don't lose your temper, but that was the libel for which the Lord needed to respond. (Exodus 3:14) (Psalms 110:1) (Daniel 7:13)
Nothing about the Lord's character was anything but ritually clean, effectively these charges were for being seen in public near people with leprosy, which took on the nature of blood loss and incontinence... This exists today and is still very contagious. The Pharisees really wanted to see if death would affect their bottom line. It does.
The technical word in this case is "crying uncle", not "blasphemy". That was never the case.