Knock-off thread from the thread addressed to Fenris

[Equipped_4_Love]

If a man was guilty of breaking only one tenet of law, he is guilty of violating the ENTIRE law.

I have a question -- Say a man, under the law, was guilty of adultery, and had to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin. If the man was guilty of violating the ENTIRE law, then why did he not have to bring sacrifices to atone for EVERY transgression accounted for by the law, such a murder, robbery, etc.?!

What is the ENTIRE law of God....Is it just a compilation of each and every law put forth in the Torah, or is there something deeper at work here?!

I would think that if a man was guilty of violating every single tenet of the law, then he would have to bring a sacrifice to atone for every single tenet.

Maybe I'm just confusing the matter -- but the law does discriinate between different sacrifices offered up for different sins.

[dan p]

If a man was guilty of breaking only one tenet of law, he is guilty of violating the ENTIRE law.

I have a question -- Say a man, under the law, was guilty of adultery, and had to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin. If the man was guilty of violating the ENTIRE law, then why did he not have to bring sacrifices to atone for EVERY transgression accounted for by the law, such a murder, robbery, etc.?!

What is the ENTIRE law of God....Is it just a compilation of each and every law put forth in the Torah, or is there something deeper at work here?!

I would think that if a man was guilty of violating every single tenet of the law, then he would have to bring a sacrifice to atone for every single tenet.

Maybe I'm just confusing the matter -- but the law does discriinate between different sacrifices offered up for different sins.

Hi , and not all sin could a sin offering help , like if a person committed adultery , the woman was stoned , or in a manslaughter , the other family could seek revenge without reprisal , or if , with 2 ot 3 witness , anyone saying amiss about the Law of Moses was also stoned , dan p

[Equipped_4_Love]

Thanks Dan.....You're right. I guess I was just using that as an analogy. Bad choice!!

I think you get my point, though

[ewq1938]

I have a question -- Say a man, under the law, was guilty of adultery, and had to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin. If the man was guilty of violating the ENTIRE law, then why did he not have to bring sacrifices to atone for EVERY transgression accounted for by the law, such a murder, robbery, etc.?!

Only figuratively had he broken the entire law, but in reality he broke one. BTW, OT punishment for Adultery was stoning to death.

[Walls]

He was "guilty" of the whole Law. He had not violated the whole Law. God makes a difference for sins, so in one, as pointed out above, there was a death penalty and in another a lesser penalty. It is like sin. "The wages of sin is death." Murder somebody and you sin. Steal a pencil from a millionaire and you sin. Both lead to death and need an atoning death to compensate for them. But at the judgment a difference is made.

[Firstfruits]

If a man was guilty of breaking only one tenet of law, he is guilty of violating the ENTIRE law.

I have a question -- Say a man, under the law, was guilty of adultery, and had to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin. If the man was guilty of violating the ENTIRE law, then why did he not have to bring sacrifices to atone for EVERY transgression accounted for by the law, such a murder, robbery, etc.?!

What is the ENTIRE law of God....Is it just a compilation of each and every law put forth in the Torah, or is there something deeper at work here?!

I would think that if a man was guilty of violating every single tenet of the law, then he would have to bring a sacrifice to atone for every single tenet.

Maybe I'm just confusing the matter -- but the law does discriinate between different sacrifices offered up for different sins.

According to what is written sacrifices for sins are only for sins of ignorance other than that the requirement is death.

Firstfruits

[BroRog]

If a man was guilty of breaking only one tenet of law, he is guilty of violating the ENTIRE law.

I have a question -- Say a man, under the law, was guilty of adultery, and had to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin. If the man was guilty of violating the ENTIRE law, then why did he not have to bring sacrifices to atone for EVERY transgression accounted for by the law, such a murder, robbery, etc.?!

What is the ENTIRE law of God....Is it just a compilation of each and every law put forth in the Torah, or is there something deeper at work here?!

I would think that if a man was guilty of violating every single tenet of the law, then he would have to bring a sacrifice to atone for every single tenet.

Maybe I'm just confusing the matter -- but the law does discriinate between different sacrifices offered up for different sins.

Do you have a particular verse in mind that convicts a man of violating the entire law?

[Fenris]

If a man was guilty of breaking only one tenet of law, he is guilty of violating the ENTIRE law.

Just to be clear, this is a Christian concept, not a Jewish one.

[Firstfruits]

Just to be clear, this is a Christian concept, not a Jewish one.

From what we have discussed before you agree with this.

According to what is written sacrifices for sins are only for sins of ignorance other than that the requirement is death.

Firstfruits

[Fenris]

From what we have discussed before you agree with this.

According to what is written sacrifices for sins are only for sins of ignorance other than that the requirement is death.

Mm, no. Sometimes a person has to pay restitution. Sometimes a person has to have 40 lashes. It's all in the bible.

[Firstfruits]

Mm, no. Sometimes a person has to pay restitution. Sometimes a person has to have 40 lashes. It's all in the bible.

What if the person that comitted the offence does not pay for their offence?

Firstfruits

[Fenris]

What if the person that comitted the offence does not pay for their offence?

Then they have an unexpunged sin.

What does this have to do with the OP?

[Firstfruits]

Then they have an unexpunged sin.

What does this have to do with the OP?

It would mean that whatever else they did according to the law, they were already unrighteous before God.

Firstfruits

[Fenris]

It would mean that whatever else they did according to the law, they were already unrighteous before God.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[Firstfruits]

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

If they have unforgiven sin are they not unrighteous until their sin is forgiven?

Firstfruits