to be consistent, a bible christian from today living in old testament times, should stone folks

Ah, my apologies Pro. I did not fully understand your statement then, but I think I do now. The answer lies in something that I touched on in my earlier response but did not have room to develop fully. I will do so now. It is important to understand that stoning was a governmental function, much as lethal injection is in modern-day America. If I were to inject somebody with a lethal chemical, I would be sentenced to life in prison (at least) for murder. It was the same in ancient Israel. Intentionally throwing a stone at somebody in cold blood would be murder. Deut. 19:11-12 (dealing with intentional murder) "But if a man hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him, assaults and kills him, and then flees to one of these cities [of refuge], the elders of his town shall send for him, bring him back from the city, and hand him over to the avenger of blood to die." So if I decided as an ancient Israelite that I didn't like somebody because he had done something to me, stoning him was NOT an option. Stoning would be murder in that case. So what about the OT stoning? This was the government's method of putting somebody to death. The death penalty is mandated for crimes like rape and murder. Lesser sentences, such as proportional reparation, were allocated for offenses like stealing. But for crimes that defamed the image of God in humanity, death was the requirement. Now this function of government is perfectly legitimate. Romans 13 says this of the government: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." (vs. 1-4) God has delegated authority to our human rulers. They are given the power of the sword to punish wrong. Thus the human governor of Israel (the prophets/judges and later the king) was given the power to carry out God's sentence on the wrongdoer. With murderers and the like, this punishment was death, often by stoning. Stoning in the OT was a government function. The "avenger of blood" mentioned in Deuteronomy was also a government agent. Stoning was not the only method of carrying out the death penalty, but it was one of the most severe ways. So why did the community stone the people? Because they were the executioners prescribed by the government. For example, look at Achan in Joshua 7. God commanded that Achan be put to death for direct disobedience regarding the things of Jericho. The whole community stoned him and then burned his body and the devoted things. This was the prescribed justice that God had laid out. In effect, the community was the appointed executioner of God's government in this case. It is to note though, that if, say, Achan's wife had seen what he did and stoned him for it, this would be murder, since she was not the government. Stoning was a government function and action. When the community was appointed executioner, the community carried out the sentence in obedience to God. Perhaps not every individual cast a stone, but every individual was present and involved. In any case, stoning was not an individual action. So no, if I lived in ancient Israel, I could not stone people personally, individually. But the government under God's law certainly could, and could dictate that the community take that part of executioner. It is also something to note that "Biblical Christians" did not exist in ancient Israel; followers of God certainly, but Christians did not come about save as a function of the new covenant. So my arguments above still apply to that part of the argument. The New Covenant had not been instated at the time of the Old. So a question of "under your principles today, would you have operated as such-and-such in the past" is not valid, considering that the New Covenant was not an option back then. On this side of the cross, we have a different way to live. Note: I am not saying by any means that God changed his mind about things. He merely operated in different ways throughout history. The Old Covenant was the covenant with God's chosen people as a theocracy; the New Covenant is not concerned with earthly kingdoms but with a heavenly kingdom. The Old pointed the way to the New and made the way for the New, but it is fundamentally different in nature from the New. We must take this into account when comparing any part of the two Covenants.