Grammar

I think the discussion may be over, but I'll offer my input anyway . As far as Leviticus and Jesus contradicting, the standard Christian view is that they don't do so at all. Paul writes that we're delivered from the Mosaic Law, as it is through Jesus and not the Law that we're now justified. To the Christian, Leviticus is valuable in that it is a great history and perhaps reveals parts of God's nature, but it is not written for the Christian but instead for the Jew of that time. The entire OT, with the Law, rise and fall of nations, and the like, was in preparation for Jesus, the culmination of God's redemptive plan. We often see strange or even seemingly cruel treatment of the Jews, but it was "tough love" on God's part because they had an important role as the mode through which the world's savior would come. When the manifestation of God's plan arrived in the form of Jesus, the Law passed away (symbolized, for instance, by Jesus' paraphrased words, "you have heard an eye for an eye, but I tell you the truth, if somone strikes you on one cheek, turn the other").
This is all demonstrated by the idea that there is a "new" testament(covenant/contract/agreement). The previous "contract" with God has been wiped away and we are presented with a new way to be justified before him. The Bible says it's only with blood that there's justification for sins. In the OT this occurred in the form of sacrifices, death penalty, etc., and this was spelled out in Leviticus and other books of the Law. With the coming of Jesus, God provided all people, Jew and Gentile, justification through this blood sacrifice. Thus Christians are delivered from the Law, and Leviticus is not applicable to our lives as a binding system of rules. (We are, however, bound by systems of morality put forth in the NT.)
I once heard a good illustration relating the two covenants to driving. When you drive from one state to another, you are under a totally different jurisdiction. Some laws change and others remain the same, but the point is that you're no longer responsible to conduct yourself according to the previous state's laws, providing that similar laws are nonexistent in the new state. I know that's jumbled, but I hope it gets the idea across.
Now, as for the whole idea of someone killing another human and God's authorization for it, it is a huge religious and philosophical debate for which this space is too limited .
I'm not arguing that this is all true (although I do believe it), but I simply wanted to note that Christian dogma doesn't contradict in this instance.
Phew, that took longer than I wanted it to...back to work .
JakeP.S. Oops, after reading more of the past posts I realized someone brought up the passage where Jesus says that he did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. Most Christians would say that this does not contradict Paul's view. This is probably better suited as a new post, but I'll try to give a quick version of the viewpoint. In short, Christ fulfilled the demands of the Law, which required perfect obedience. He didn't destroy it in the sense of overthrowing it, but he ended its binding effect on man by fulfilling it and bringing it to fruition. According to Paul, the Law was important in its role as the medium through which Christ saves...by fulfilling and delivering us from the binding nature of the Law through his blood sacrifice.
Ugh, okay, I know that was nebulous and incomplete, and I didn't tie it in with the body of my text. I'm sure some online sources could discuss it better and with fewer times constraints than I. Oh well, there's my attempt .[This message has been edited by Jake22, 07-28-2003]