Where in the NT does it approve of us putting someone to death?
Strictly speaking, it doesn't have to. Moral Universals transcend Testaments. In Genesis 9: we have the Noahic covenant:
Gen 9:1 ¶ And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Notice that this covers ALL of his sons, it is not unique to Shem nor anyone else, the following things are Universally relevant.
Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
This is still true, and has never changed.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Again, this has never changed either.
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
No one should, at any time, ever intentionally eat blood.
Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Notice that this is
NOT the "Law". This is a Universal principle. This is before Moses and not unique to any people group, but rather to the fathers of all races into perpetuity. Note vs:
Gen 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
Gen 9:17 And God said unto Noah, This [is] the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that [is] upon the earth.
This is all of us. Jew and gentile alike, and there is nothing in the Noahic covenant that has been superceded or fails to remain valid.
I know it states an "eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", but where in the NT does it say this?
This is unique to Jewish Law. It is not relevant to us.
It states that "vengenance is mine, saith the Lord, I shall repay".
This is the wrong attitude. Justice systems are not about "vengeance" or "revenge". Justice is to be meted out by God's ministerial servants. Legal authorities. Impartial, blind, and not a party to the offended. It is the "
LAW" by which we are to be ruled, not a sense of revenge by an offended party. I like our Western symbol for justice....She is blind-folded, and she holds scales in the one hand and a sword in the other.
I am just uneasy about a court system that has proven people to guilty, and yet, in the end, they were really innocent. And the corrupt DA's would rather have them rot in jail, or be put to death, before they would admit they're wrong.
No judicial system is perfect. So neither "side" should commit the "Perfectionist Fallacy". We don't throw out babies with the bath-water if we can help it. That being said, No innocent man has been truly "proven" to have been executed in the United States since at
least the 1950's. Keep in mind that just because someone is
acquitted LEGALLY, that does not mean that they are
actually innocent of the crime. Our justice system is hard-wired to favour the defendant. Thus, guilty men win appeals all the time. Just because someone is
legally acquitted, that certainly does not mean they did not in fact, commit the crime. Don't let activists tell you that someone who wins a legal appeal has been "proven" innocent.
5,000th post!! Woot woot woot!!
I humbly stand in fear and awe of your being.
