About Cain

[canadyjd]

Thank you! I just learned something!

You're welcome.:thumbsup:

With me, the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.:smilewinkgrin:

peace to youraying:

 

[Salty]

You're welcome.:thumbsup:

With me, the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.:smilewinkgrin:

peace to youraying:

Then that means I dont know anyting!! :laugh:

 

[Marcia]

I said that as well. It sounds absolute.

If a person "sheds the blood" of another person (i.e. kills them), then God will always allow that person to be killed by another man as punishment.

And yet, God showed mercy throughout history to murderers...Moses, David, Elijah, Paul.... and used them to accomplish His plan of redemption.

Therefore, the statement from Gen. 9 cannot be an absolute statement. If it is not an absolute statment, it must be something else.

BTW, this is not speaking of a "death penalty" as is commonly argued. There are no governments at this point, no Mosaic Law, just Noah and his family.

I believe it is speaking of the ancient near east practice of the "blood avenger".

peace to youraying:

I know about the cities of refuge, but those were spoken of later, in Numbers 35, and they were not for murderers but for those who killed accidentally (manslaugther) to protect them from avengers.

The above statement has to do with murder, not manslaughter or avengers, and is God revealing that one who kills forfeits his life. This is not true with manslaughter.

Now among the cities which you will give to the Levites you shall appoint six cities of refuge, to which a manslayer may flee.

Note here that God gives the penalty for murder as death:

These six cities shall be for refuge for the children of Israel, for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills a person accidentally may flee there.
16 ‘But if he strikes him with an iron implement, so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he strikes him with a stone in the hand, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 18 Or if he strikes him with a wooden hand weapon, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Yet God still showed mercy to Moses and David among others. how do we reconcile the seeming contradiction?

Canadyjd, that was my inkling. Thank you.

 

[sag38]

God can show mercy to whom He will. That is His choice. But, that is not a relevant argument to use against the death penalty. Marcia has given us God's directive from God's word and unless God directly supersedes His mandate then the penalty for murder is death.

 

[canadyjd]

I know about the cities of refuge, but those were spoken of later, in Numbers 35, and they were not for murderers but for those who killed accidentally (manslaugther) to protect them from avengers.

The above statement has to do with murder, not manslaughter or avengers, and is God revealing that one who kills forfeits his life. This is not true with manslaughter.

You're not addressing the issue of the "absolute" nature of the statement, which cannot be maintained since God didn't kill everyone who is a murderer.

Note here that God gives the penalty for murder as death:

Which God gave to the Hebrews as their Law, of which we do not live under.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Yet God still showed mercy to Moses and David among others. how do we reconcile the seeming contradiction?

Canadyjd, that was my inkling. Thank you.

You're welcome.:thumbsup:

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

God can show mercy to whom He will. That is His choice. But, that is not a relevant argument to use against the death penalty. Marcia has given us God's directive from God's word and unless God directly supersedes His mandate then the penalty for murder is death.

Marcia quoted O.T. Law, which we are not under. But, even yet, I believe Jesus changed the mandate for execution. Consider the woman caught in adultery (John 8).

When Jesus said, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her," He wasn't just shaming them. Jesus was referring to the O.T. Law concerning execution... the "death penalty".

Deut. 17:6-7 "On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.(7) The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people... ." (emphasis mine; not yelling)

The two or three witnesses began the stoning. They were the first to throw the stones and they were taking that person's blood upon themselves. If they were false witnesses, they would be guilty of murder.

Jesus changes the decree concerning the "death penalty". No longer is it the "two or three witnesses" that are responsible for the execution, it is the "one who is without sin among you", that is responsible for the execution.

Since God is the only one who is without sin, God is the only one who can administer the death penalty justly and impartially.

peace to youraying:

 

[Allan]

Marcia quoted O.T. Law, which we are not under. But, even yet, I believe Jesus changed the mandate for execution. Consider the woman caught in adultery (John 8).

When Jesus said, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her," He wasn't just shaming them. Jesus was referring to the O.T. Law concerning execution... the "death penalty".

Deut. 17:6-7 "On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.(7) The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people... ." (emphasis mine; not yelling)

The two or three witnesses began the stoning. They were the first to throw the stones and they were taking that person's blood upon themselves. If they were false witnesses, they would be guilty of murder.

Jesus changes the decree concerning the "death penalty". No longer is it the "two or three witnesses" that are responsible for the execution, it is the "one who is without sin among you", that is responsible for the execution.

Since God is the only one who is without sin, God is the only one who can administer the death penalty justly and impartially.

peace to youraying:

Sorry but, your wrong regarding your view on this - with the exception of your last sentence but even this only PARTLY true. it is partly true only in that God gave the law to men so men would not only know what is good and right but also was entrusted by to excute divinely sanctioned judgment against those who would violate it.

Jesus didn't change the law nor did He adjust it, tweak it, or fiddle with it.
Read the Law regarding both adultry - both the man AND woman were to be taken.
Where was the man?
How is it that had so many 'witnesses' of the se*ual event in which they were found - in the act?
How come they (both the man and the woman) were not taken before the judges for trial before they going to stone them?
Just because two or three witnesses see an event does NOT mean they were to bring forth judgment themselves.

No, ther entire point of what Jesus said reflects THEIR sin and as such, because they stood in sin and were guilty of breaking the very same law, they were UNABLE or Not Permitted to pass any type of jugdment against her, and all those witnesses had lost any credibilty. THAT is why Jesus state - he who is without sin cast the first the stone. It is also that reason being why Jesus said to the woman "go and sin no more". IOW - You are free but if you sin [most specifically this way again] you will be judged [executed].

Note also what Jesus has stated as well - He did not come to bring judgement [to men]. And yet again it proves another reason why He allowed her to leave. He was not going to judge her because He was not one of those to whom such judgment was brought to - yet.

Thirdly, Jesus did not change the death penalty. Did He not state - I have not come to destroy the Law (change it or remove it) but to fulfill it. He could no more change the Law than He could sin. The Law is Good and is a perfect reflection of the both the character and the nature of God.

 

[Marcia]

You're not addressing the issue of the "absolute" nature of the statement, which cannot be maintained since God didn't kill everyone who is a murderer.Which God gave to the Hebrews as their Law, of which we do not live under.

peace to youraying:

The absolute statement was given to man. This statement in Gen. 9 was before the Law, so it's more universal than just the law. God can make exceptions and He does, but what he told us is the standard.

The account of the woman caught in adultery does not rescind this at all. This was a particular case where there were no witnesses and the man was not there. These men were trying to trap Jesus.

 

[The Archangel]

Sorry but, your wrong.

Jesus didn't change the law nor did He adjust it, tweak it, or fiddle with it.
Read the Law regarding both adultry - both the man AND woman were to be taken. Where was the man? How is it that had so many 'witnesses' of the se*ual event in which they were found - in the act? How come they (both the man and the woman were not taken before the judges/trial before they going to stone them?

No there entire point of what Jesus said reflects THEIR sin and as such were UNABLE or Not Permitted to pass any type of jugdment against her, and all those witnesses had lost any relability. THAT is why Jesus said to go and sin no more. IOW - next time she most likely WILL be executed.

Yet, Jesus did not come to judge men as of yet. And yet again it proves another reason why He allowed her to leave. He was not going to judge her as He was not one of those to whom such judgment was brought to.

Allan,

Good to "see" you, my friend. Let me say that I cannot agree with you more.

The John 8 passage (the woman caught in adultery) is one of my favorite passages--though it is likely not germane to John, but that is another thread.

Don't forget that in the Old Testament, a death sentence required two or three witnesses. So, when Jesus says "you who are without sin" He is saying, in effect, "you who are without sin in this matter cast the first stone." The accusers were required to cast the first stone. When Jesus calls them on their sin (which you correctly identify as not bringing the man to justice). The accusers know they are not capable of legally participating in the execution because their hands were dirty in this very matter--likely through the entrapment of the woman in some way.

So, they left. When Jesus asks "Where are your accusers...neither do I condemn you..." He is upholding the Old Testament law--the requirement of the testimony of two or three witnesses. The Old Testament law errs on the side of grace and this episode is an example of that. Jesus did not tweak the law, rather He held to it perfectly.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

Allan,

Good to "see" you, my friend. Let me say that I cannot agree with you more.

The John 8 passage (the woman caught in adultery) is one of my favorite passages--though it is likely not germane to John, but that is another thread.

Don't forget that in the Old Testament, a death sentence required two or three witnesses. So, when Jesus says "you who are without sin" He is saying, in effect, "you who are without sin in this matter cast the first stone." The accusers were required to cast the first stone. When Jesus calls them on their sin (which you correctly identify as not bringing the man to justice). The accusers know they are not capable of legally participating in the execution because their hands were dirty in this very matter--likely through the entrapment of the woman in some way.

So, they left. When Jesus asks "Where are your accusers...neither do I condemn you..." He is upholding the Old Testament law--the requirement of the testimony of two or three witnesses. The Old Testament law errs on the side of grace and this episode is an example of that. Jesus did not tweak the law, rather He held to it perfectly.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Very true, I guess I was editting my post while you were typing But you are correct and is my very point. Brevity is not my strong suit.

I think my post might have come off to...angry and I wasn't trying to be. My mood might be reflecting somewhat in my post.
Do you think I should go back and tone it down a bit?

 

[Allan]

Allan,

Good to "see" you, my friend.

By the way - Good to "see" you as well dear brother in Christ.

 

[The Archangel]

Very true, I guess I was editting my post while you were typing But you are correct and is my very point. Brevity is not my strong suit.

I think my post might have come off to...angry and I wasn't trying to be. My mood might be reflecting somewhat in my post.
Do you think I should go back and tone it down a bit?

I don't think it was "angry." But, then again, I know how you write. The person to whom you were responding may not? Just a thought...but, again, it didn't strike me as angry.

I probably should post an exposition of sorts for this passage. I shot from the hip in my response to you. I don't have the time or the energy right now. I may be crying over my busted brackets! March Madness is really madness this year!

Blessings, my friend,

The Archangel

 

[kyredneck]

Then that means I dont know anyting!! :laugh:

You dont know how to spell anyting !!

 

[Salty]

You dont know how to spell anyting !!

Maybe i dont, but I does hav more posts thatn you :smilewinkgrin:

 

[canadyjd]

Sorry but, your wrong regarding your view on this - with the exception of your last sentence but even this only PARTLY true. .....

Well, I think I'm right and I've quoted scripture in support of my position.

Jesus didn't change the law..... adjust.... tweak...or fiddle with it.....Where was the man?.... Just because two or three witnesses see an event does NOT mean they were to bring forth judgment themselves.

That is not true. The witnesses brought the accusation before the judges, and the witnesses were the first to throw the stones.

And you are simply wrong. Jesus couldn't have asked them to bring the man as well to be stoned. Jesus could have condemned them for their motivations.

Jesus referred back to the O.T. Law, which I have quoted... and He changed the conditions. That is undeniable. No longer is it the "two or three witnesses" that begin the stoning, it is the "one that is without sin" who begins the stoning.

I don't understand how you can't see that is different from the original instructions found in Deut. which Jesus is quoting in the context of the passage.

Thirdly, Jesus did not change the death penalty. Did He not state - I have not come to destroy the Law (change it or remove it) but to fulfill it. He could no more change the Law than He could sin. The Law is Good and is a perfect reflection of the both the character and the nature of God.

So, you believe we are suppose to live under the O.T. Law?

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

The absolute statement was given to man. This statement in Gen. 9 was before the Law, so it's more universal than just the law. God can make exceptions and He does, but what he told us is the standard.

I understand that argument. But I don't believe it is referring to a "death penalty" as we know it today. More likely, IMHO, it was referring to the "blood avenger" of the ancient near east.

The account of the woman caught in adultery does not rescind this at all. This was a particular case where there were no witnesses and the man was not there. These men were trying to trap Jesus.

The passage says the woman was caught "in the very act" of adultery. The witnesses were most likely there as well, although they clearly violated the Deut. passage by not bringing the man.

None of that really matters because it doesn't change what Jesus did. Jesus referred back to the passage in the O.T. Law that dealt specifically with executions and He changed the conditions of the O.T. Law.

Now, you can speculate that Jesus just changed the conditions for this one case, which means Jesus breaking the O.T. Law by being partial in His judgements.

I believe Jesus was doing something much more. Jesus changed the conditions of the "death penalty" forever by saying only the one who is "without sin" can cast the first stone (take the responsibility for execution).

This is consistent with Jesus's commandment to Christians to exibit "perfect patience" with the worst of sinners, even murderers, just as He had done.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

.... He is upholding the Old Testament law--the requirement of the testimony of two or three witnesses. The Old Testament law errs on the side of grace and this episode is an example of that. Jesus did not tweak the law, rather He held to it perfectly.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I disagree. If Jesus wanted to hold to the O.T. Law "perfectly", He would have demanded the man be brought forth and both the man and the woman to be stoned.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

...I think my post might have come off to...angry and I wasn't trying to be. My mood might be reflecting somewhat in my post....Do you think I should go back and tone it down a bit?

My brother in Christ, let me assure you I didn't see any anger in your post.

You are one of the few people whom I truly enjoy debating because you are well reasoned, scriptural, and firm in your belief; but not arrogant or rude. You make me think about what I believe and why I believe it, and I have often been forced to search the scriptures for support. I can say the same thing about Marcia and a few others. I thank you for all of that.

I wish you agreed with me more often, but that's another thread.

Can you image me starting a thread entitled, "why don't you people agree with me more often?":laugh:

I wonder how that would go over?:smilewinkgrin:

peace to youraying:

BTW, Jesus doesn't want Christians to support the death penalty.:love2: