Jesus and the death Penalty?

[Zaac]

IAre you Jewish (I'm not)? Are you under the Jewish Civil Laws God gave to the Jewish People? If not (as I am not) then the answer is "No". However The Moral Law (10 commandments still stand) and the Jewish Law still is Good (at least that is what Paul stated via the Holy Spirit) as a 'guide' as Gentile believers to note what is good and right (and wrong) before a Holy God.

That's right the MORAL law is still in place. And as anyone who has broken one sin is guilty of breaking them all, you cannot justly take the life of someone who is guilty of the same thing that you are. So you're advocating murder while trying to justify it as righteous. But the Church seems to have gotten really good at exacting wickedness while trying to stamp the name of Jesus on it.

But as I said, where confusion abounds, it's because man has inserted his hypocritical opinion and not stuck to what God's word says.

Really? It seems that context disagrees with you. Does not the scripture state just what it says, contrary to your personal assumptions? Yes it looks to do just that.

What it looks like is that you're making your own assumptions.

But like I said, it's now wonder the world doesn't listen to what most folks who call themselves Christians are saying.

It is beyond crazy to rale about abortion but be okay with taking the life of an adult who Scripture essentially says is guilty of breaking the same law that we all have.

 

[Zaac]

If we use your criteria, the question becomes- How is sinful man going to righteously judge ANYTHING?

That's easy. By righteously applying Scripture. Scripture says

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Matthew 7:1-5

It means don't HYPOCRITICALLY judge. Don't you be okay with taking the life of another because he has a trespass when Scripture says that you break one, you break them all. SO unless you're planning on putting your own head on the chopping block FIRST, don't advocate it for someone else's trespasses.

Jesus said we are to make righteous judgments (John 7:24) so therefore the implication is that we do have the ability to make righteous judgments based upon Scripture. This would include the death sentence.

A RIGHTEOUS judgment would be one in accordance with Scripture. And unless you're advocating the death penalty for your trespasses, to advocate it for people who commit a specific sin is unrighteous.

Because again SCRIPTURE says For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2:10

 

[Mexdeaf]

That's easy. By righteously applying Scripture. Scripture says

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Matthew 7:1-5

It means don't HYPOCRITICALLY judge. Don't you be okay with taking the life of another because he has a trespass when Scripture says that you break one, you break them all. SO unless you're planning on putting your own head on the chopping block FIRST, don't advocate it for someone else's trespasses.



A RIGHTEOUS judgment would be one in accordance with Scripture. And unless you're advocating the death penalty for your trespasses, to advocate it for people who commit a specific sin is unrighteous.

Because again SCRIPTURE says For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2:10

Wow- that's just messed up thinking - and completely contrary to the Scriptures.

 

[InTheLight]

Wow- that's just messed up thinking - and completely contrary to the Scriptures.

You're right.

I've been sitting this one out. But it seems that this would apply to Zaac:

But as I said, where confusion abounds, it's because man has inserted his hypocritical opinion and not stuck to what God's word says.

 

[Allan]

The Law specifically says 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2:10

Sin is a spiritual issue so why would we be addressing it any other way?

Ok First, You do realize that James 2, which you keep quoting, in context, is about prefering one person over another and that it is sinful. Thus their thinking they were better than the poor person, made them as much a sinner according to the Law as one who was a murderer.. ie. in othe words, why do you think less of your brother not in sin, since you because of what you have done are now in sin. You keep pulling this passage so far out of it's context you are forcing violence upon the text.

And it is here which is one place you stumble and fall. Another is here - The Law regards both physical AND spiritual aspects. Man is to judge that which physical.. God commanded he do it thus the Law given to man and why God established - judges. However since we do not know the intent nor spiritual aspects therein, that is God's to judge.

Dance all you want but you cannot make scripture violate itself in this.

That's what I said. I just also said that after the OT, it does not appear that God was giving the go ahead for sinful men to i.e "kill all the Amorites". Before, He gave them the command to exact final judgment.

The command to kill the Amorites was for a particular time and place. However, as you have been shown Pual himself states man IS to continue in this and thus it is one of the purposes of government. You don't like it but it doesn't change the fact.

Post fulfillment of the law and taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, it does not appear that He gave man the right to punish unto death.

Again, read your bible in context. It has already been shown you are wrong in both your arguments - No scripture / Yes there is... Nothing in the NT / Yes there is.

You can bounce around all you want also. But just like the rest of the church, don't be attempting to claim the moral high ground by being okay with selectively taking certain lives while feigning disdain with the taking of the lives of babies.

God gave man not ony the authority to use capital punishment, but commanded him to obey it. I'm glad you finally see that in the OT, God did tell man to do such and man had to obey. At least you are now halfway there where as previously you didn't even hold that biblical truth.

All the excuses in the world can be made for why they are not the same. But the confusion arises because the CHURCH attempts to say that it is okay to take one life under certain circumstances but not okay in others

The church must walk in accordance with what is biblical and in honoring our civil governments. There are things God said are biblical reasons for a man to take the life of another.. there is no attempt here.. it is fact.

That's why it is ALWAYS so easy to tell when something is of man and NOT of God. Man authors confusion because of his hypocrisy.

I agree. You are all over the place trying to force scripture into your view, taking it out of context so it appears to support your statement. Look, I'm not trying to put you down but to show you that you are not correct in your assumption.

God gives 100% CLARITY. And that 100% clarity says that He has NOT given people guilty of breaking all the law the right to take the life of another who is also guilty of breaking all the law.

Then you deny scripture because it states that EXACT opposite and it has been proven to you which is why you won't deal with the texts given

Nope. I said without God's go ahead. You listed OT Scripture where He was giving the command to the Jews to do those things within the Jewish people.

Exactly - God's go ahead. There is no need to seek God at every infraction when God gave what to do through the Law regarding those infractions. If you want to know God's opinion on the matter, all they had to do was look at the Law. That was His word and declaration/authorization to do what was perscribed for the broke Law.

 

[Allan]

That's easy. By righteously applying Scripture. Scripture says

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Matthew 7:1-5

It means don't HYPOCRITICALLY judge. Don't you be okay with taking the life of another because he has a trespass when Scripture says that you break one, you break them all. SO unless you're planning on putting your own head on the chopping block FIRST, don't advocate it for someone else's trespasses

Seriously? Man, who taught you such non-sense!
While in part you are correct, that we are not to judge being hypocritical (that is established in the OT Law - this is where it comes from ) Then you *rip it* from it's context and try to use it for capital punishment. The text does not say you are NOT to judge but to judge with a right and Godly heart.

Otherwise how can one christian tell anther they are in sin. To do so is to judge! Or how can the church do biblical Church discipline because to do so is to 'judge'. How is the Church those in it regarding other issues (according to Paul) instead of taking it to civil governments, since Paul states we ARE to judge?

You REALLY need to do much more research here buddy.

A RIGHTEOUS judgment would be one in accordance with Scripture. And unless you're advocating the death penalty for your trespasses, to advocate it for people who commit a specific sin is unrighteous.

Again, the death penalty is cited by God to be used for specific actions. Stop taking scripture and tearing it apart for your own desired outcome.

Because again SCRIPTURE says For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2:10

AGAIN, OUT OF CONTEXT. This is context regards prefer one over another.. I'm better than you attitude. The verse itself isn't saying they HAVE broken all the laws, but to break one makes you are Law-breaker, just as one sin makes you a sinner. But as a sinner you are not judge for every conceivable sin but that which you have done. I say again " Thus their thinking they were better than the poor person, made them as much a sinner according to the Law as one who was a murderer.. ie. in other words, why do you think less of your brother not in sin, since you because of what you have done are now in sin. You keep pulling this passage so far out of it's context you are forcing violence upon the text."

If you are a new believer I can understand why you are having troubles and encourage you speak with your pastor. IF not, well... continue studying.

 

[Allan]

LOL.. Ok. I'm done. I've said my piece. Enjoy

 

[Zaac]

The issue that was being discussed, that I spoke to, had nothing to do with present day.. but Jesus and woman caught in adultry.

The issue that is being discussed pertains to Jesus endorsing or not endorsing the death penalty.

You don't get to pick and choose what you want, those that are no longer applicable, are so because they are no longer necessary (ie, sacrifices, symbolic aspects like what to eat, touching the dead) there are specific issues that allow us to know what is and is not.

And you don't get to pick and choose to ignore those you don't like because they blow your attempt to make a point out the water. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2:10

You broke one you broke them all. So put yourself up for capital punishment FIRST before you start advocating it for someone with equally sinful trespasses.

Repeating something that is incorrect does not make it correct the more you say it. The punishments given via Law (God's or man's) is NOT determined by sinlessness but justice and what establishes that.

from your keyboard to your eyes.

You do the crime, you will have to pay. But again, the are proceedures that need to established in order to make the execution valid and moral.

And here we introduce the subjective morality of man.

Then you need to look more than you have because there seems to be a gaping hole here.

And that passage refers directly to the fact they asked Jesus about The Law. If you are going to take the whole of scripture, then do so and not cherry pick it. You MUST take the context into account in order to note why they all left at Jesus statement. It has NOTHING to do with them not being sinless, but the fact The Law, regarding this situation, was broken not only by her but THEM. They were just as guilty of the sin being asked to be prosecuted as the woman they placed before Jesus.

They didn't commit adultery. She did. And you don't have anything in Scripture that shows otherwise. Jesus specifically said "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7

He didn't say her sin. And He didn't say the same sin. He said SIN. That's ANY.

Wrong. You cannot pull scripture for it's context to support another scripture.. both are then out of context and support nothing. If IN it's context, it supports another, that is one thing but you are leaving the context of the passage and what was being asked of Christ for some personal visage you wish to hold. It is well and good for you, but it does not make it biblical.

Again, from your keyboard to your eyes. He says SIN. You're the one infusing your assumptions of what they were also guilty of instead of dealing with what the text says

If you will take the whole of scripture then you MUST accept the FACT that God has not only given to man the authority to excute capital punishment but the command to do so. I'm sorry but the issue you have is not with men but God's own command to do so. You can hold God as a HYPOCTIC but it does not make it so.

You can say it, like you did, again and again and the whole of Scripture STILL counters what you say.

 

[Zaac]

Seriously? Man, who taught you such non-sense!
While in part you are correct, that we are not to judge being hypocritical (that is established in the OT Law - this is where it comes from ) Then you *rip it* from it's context and try to use it for capital punishment. The text does not say you are NOT to judge but to judge with a right and Godly heart.

Otherwise how can one christian tell anther they are in sin. To do so is to judge! Or how can the church do biblical Church discipline because to do so is to 'judge'. How is the Church those in it regarding other issues (according to Paul) instead of taking it to civil governments, since Paul states we ARE to judge?

You REALLY need to do much more research here buddy.


Again, the death penalty is cited by God to be used for specific actions. Stop taking scripture and tearing it apart for your own desired outcome.


AGAIN, OUT OF CONTEXT. This is context regards prefer one over another.. I'm better than you attitude. The verse itself isn't saying they HAVE broken all the laws, but to break one makes you are Law-breaker, just as one sin makes you a sinner. But as a sinner you are not judge for every conceivable sin but that which you have done. I say again " Thus their thinking they were better than the poor person, made them as much a sinner according to the Law as one who was a murderer.. ie. in other words, why do you think less of your brother not in sin, since you because of what you have done are now in sin. You keep pulling this passage so far out of it's context you are forcing violence upon the text."

If you are a new believer I can understand why you are having troubles and encourage you speak with your pastor. IF not, well... continue studying.

Yes everything that you don't want to accept is out of context. Got it.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Don]

In fulfilling the Law, did Jesus not make it unnecessary to do certain things?

And THAT should be the question that finishes the discussion.

In fulfilling the Law, WHAT did Jesus make unnecessary?

Answer: fulfillment of the Law for salvation. NOT for civil/government ruling.

When we see Jesus rebuking the Pharisees and others, it wasn't related to civil disobedience; it was because they were attempting to tie the situation to issues of salvation.

You cannot find where Jesus said "follow the law no more." If that were true, then we would NOT see Paul referencing "thou shalt not murder" in the New Testament. We would NOT see Paul rebuking the church of Corinth for things specifically identified in the Old Testament as wrong.

We should never "rejoice" in taking a life; but to deny that scripture allows for this is to show a simplistic misunderstanding of scripture.

 

[Mexdeaf]

We should never "rejoice" in taking a life; but to deny that scripture allows for this is to show a simplistic misunderstanding of scripture.

:thumbsup:

 

[Revmitchell]

So you're advocating murder while trying to justify it as righteous. But the Church seems to have gotten really good at exacting wickedness while trying to stamp the name of Jesus on it.

HEY! No one is advocating murder. You need to reign yourself in. Maybe you should take a break or just plain grow up little one.

 

[Zaac]

HEY! No one is advocating murder. You need to reign yourself in. Maybe you should take a break or just plain grow up little one.

If a person is calling a killing righteous that is unrighteous, then that person is advocating murder so reign yourself in.

If you're advocating killing someone who Scripture says has broken the same law that you have in your sinning, but you're not advocating it for yourself, then it's hypocritical and unjust. And THAT is murder.

But at least the lot consistently shows itself to consistently rate its sin as less than the sins of the "really bad people".

 

[Zaac]

And THAT should be the question that finishes the discussion.

In fulfilling the Law, WHAT did Jesus make unnecessary?

Answer: fulfillment of the Law for salvation. NOT for civil/government ruling.

When we see Jesus rebuking the Pharisees and others, it wasn't related to civil disobedience; it was because they were attempting to tie the situation to issues of salvation.

You cannot find where Jesus said "follow the law no more." If that were true, then we would NOT see Paul referencing "thou shalt not murder" in the New Testament. We would NOT see Paul rebuking the church of Corinth for things specifically identified in the Old Testament as wrong.

We should never "rejoice" in taking a life; but to deny that scripture allows for this is to show a simplistic misunderstanding of scripture.

Who said anything about following the law no more? What was said is that Scripture shows that all who have sinned are guilty of breaking every law. And if we have ll broken the same every law, where do you get the nerve to advocate death for someone whom God says has broken the same law that you did, but you're not advocating it for yourself?

We always tend to be more lenient when its our own necks on the line. Might be why Jesus preached so much on forgiveness.

 

[Revmitchell]

If a person is calling a killing righteous that is unrighteous, then that person is advocating murder so reign yourself in.

If you're advocating killing someone who Scripture says has broken the same law that you have in your sinning, but you're not advocating it for yourself, then it's hypocritical and unjust. And THAT is murder.

But at least the lot consistently shows itself to consistently rate its sin as less than the sins of the "really bad people".

It just blows me away how you fail to see the inconsistency of your comments. This is what happens when you begin with your own presuppositions and move forward from there with your backwoods theology.

 

[Zaac]

It just blows me away how you fail to see the inconsistency of your comments. This is what happens when you begin with your own presuppositions and move forward from there with your backwoods theology.

It just blows me away how you ALWAYS fail to see how you and others on here constantly ignore anything in Scripture that does not aid you in making the point you think is correct but inconsistent with the whole of Scripture.

But that's what happens when you bring your own bias into the conversation and move forward with a hypocritical theology.

So go ahead reconcile it. You break one, you break them all. Reconcile it with advocating death as righteous for some but not for yourself while breaking the same law.

Make every excuse known to man, but it's still hypocritical.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It just blows me away how you ALWAYS fail to see how you and others on here constantly ignore anything in Scripture that does not aid you in making the point you think is correct but inconsistent with the whole of Scripture.

But that's what happens when you bring your own bias into the conversation and move forward with a hypocritical theology.

So go ahead reconcile it. You break one, you break them all. Reconcile it with advocating death as righteous for some but not for yourself while breaking the same law.

Make every excuse known to man, but it's still hypocritical.

You have moved beyond mental gymnastics to complete tomfoolery.

 

[Don]

Who said anything about following the law no more? What was said is that Scripture shows that all who have sinned are guilty of breaking every law. And if we have ll broken the same every law, where do you get the nerve to advocate death for someone whom God says has broken the same law that you did, but you're not advocating it for yourself?

We always tend to be more lenient when its our own necks on the line. Might be why Jesus preached so much on forgiveness.

This is where your misunderstanding of scripture is most shown. What was the context of "all who have sinned"? Salvation or government?

Are we not to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's? Are we not to be afraid if we do evil, for the ruler beareth not the sword in vain; but is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil?

 

[Don]

Breaking one is the same as breaking them all; this is true. But this is meant in regards to our salvation, not our physical presence on this earth.

 

[InTheLight]

Scripture shows that all who have sinned are guilty of breaking every law. And if we have ll broken the same every law, where do you get the nerve to advocate death for someone whom God says has broken the same law that you did, but you're not advocating it for yourself?

This concept is found in Psalm 14: 1-3. That is the Old Testament. This idea that if someone has broken any part of the law they have broken the whole law is not new to the New Testament. Capital punishment was allowed in the Old Testament. I don't see where it has been repealed. This is where your argument has failed.