It's not the original authors I was referring to, but the scribes who wrote every copy, some based on other copies, and on and on... and the ones who chose which writings make up scripture, who had to be at least scholarly enough to read, write, and comprehend.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
John 8:3-11 : The Case Against Christians Supporting Capital Punishment
- Thread starter Zaac
- Start date
It's not the original authors I was referring to, but the scribes who wrote every copy, some based on other copies, and on and on... and the ones who chose which writings make up scripture, who had to be at least scholarly enough to read, write, and comprehend.
Ummm... no.
Of course it says so. The Bible says that Jesus was sinless.
If he had stoned the woman without witnesses and without the man, he would have violated God's law and been a sinner. If he had stoned her, he would have been in violation of Roman law and the Bible says to obey governing authorities.
Scripture doesn't say that humans cannot to carry out God's execution orders. God told his people many times to wipe out entire nations and groups of people: men, women, and children. Kill them, God said. The law said to throw rocks at people until they are dead for a variety of reasons.
It didn't make God's people better than anyone or without sin themselves - it just made them under God's command to destroy what God deemed necessary to be destroyed.
Again....no.
Again, I am telling you exactly what the Bible says. These Pharisees were in direct violation of God's law.
They knew EXACTLY what "cast the first stone" meant. In the Law, the witnesses whose testimony led to the condemnation of the person to be stoned HAD to throw the first stone.
When Jesus said, "You without sin...." and "the first stone" - that recognition of their violation of the law opened their eyes to their OWN sin.
The Bible clearly says they were presenting the woman ONLY to trap Jesus. They weren't concerned about the law nor their own state of sinfulness.
And this wasn't the only time they tried to trap and/or kill him. They didn't LEARN from this experience with Jesus. If they walked away contrite and with repentance and humility ... well, it didn't stick!!!
They, in various groups, came back again and again with the ONLY purpose of trapping him with words so that they could have cause to have HIM stoned. Taxes, divorce, signs, the resurrection, His authority, washing of hand/traditions, the greatest commandment, and maybe more were all questions posed to Jesus not from curiosity, but from a hellish drive to destroy Him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't you see, Jesus chose perfect obedience to the Law - providing for an execution, but ONLY within the parameters of what God said. And ironically, that perfect obedience to the Law provided for mercy for the woman.
Jesus didn't go around telling the Jews to stop stoning people. He didn't command the Roman government to stop crucifying people.
[/QUOTE]
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Yes. The word is inspired from God, not scholars.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Ummm...yes. You're reading into Scripture what you think and not what it says.
They were in the Temple in Jerusalem. What Romans(people) were there that there would be a need to deal with Roman law?He was speaking to Jews. ANd in the space of moments moved them from their unrighteous judgment of not being able to righteously condemn another sinner.
I agree. I've said this before. But it was ALWAYS OT and either God giving the command to His people or to an agent of His people to tell them to carry it out. That is NOT the case in the NT.
Again...yes.
No you're not.
That's not what CHRIST said. He didn't say for the witness to throw the first stone. He said Let any one of you who is without sin be the first
That's the point. None of them were capable of righteously throwing the first stone.
Of course they were concerned about the law. That's what they were using to trap them. But as He did with satan, HE demonstrated that He knew the law better than anyone else could possibly know the law and showed that NONE were righteous enough to cast that first stone.
And neither are we righteous enough to.
What I see is Jesus setting the tone for what His Gospel is about: grace and forgiveness of those who are guilty of breaking the same law that we break. As such, I believe that though the government can take a life under the laws it has crafted, as with abortion, the Christian stance should always be grace and life as demonstrtaed by Jesus in John 8.
The words of Jesus...John 8 have been making the rounds for the last 2000 or so years. Jews don't stone folks anymore.
Again, like divorce, the government could allow it. But according to a principle of the NT, it looks to be sinful because men aren't capable of righteously doing so.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
The amanuensi, as they were called, only produced copies. They didn't decide what made up Scripture.
Last edited by a moderator:
How is that supposed to be a case against capital punishment?
Somebody obviously decided. Who was it?
Zaac
Well-Known Member
God sounds like the proper answer.:laugh: HE told them what to write down. It was then consolidated.
Share the details on that. Exactly who did HE tell to make copies and copies of copies, then who did HE puppeteer to choose which, among all those, are to be scripture.
This passage has really no direct support by the earliest Church fathers and the earliest manuscripts evidence, but was well known in some circles that were extended out in time and space...
many believe that someone knew of this account and recorded it later on, and that it was added into the original texts several copy cucles later on by well meaning scribe/copier...
seems like something jesus would have done and said, but really not the best passage to form a conclusion on his view on Capital punishment from!
It is not necessary to take away from the word of God in order to show this passage is not about Capital Punishment.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
You haven't shown that it's not about capital punishment.
Even if this statement were true (and it is not) you have not shown that it is.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
I didn't have to as Scripture says what it says . And what it says is dealing with capital punishment. :thumbsup:
many manuscripts, attested to by early church fathers and by lack of evidence, do NOT include this as being part of the original Gospel of John, so how can it be taking away from the Bible if should not have been added to it though?
So you would have Jesus saying that capital punishment has been put away under the new Covenant, yet Apostle paul stated that it was not, that the govt still has the right and duty to perform it under certain situations...
Either Jesus and paul disagreed, or your viewpoint is wrong on this...
I pick the latter option!
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Did i write that HE said that?
See previous.
As I've stated before, capital punishment is just like divorce. He ALLOWS the government to do it, but His word shows that He expects something else from HIS people.
It remains absolutely absurd to make all the noise we do about abortion and being pro-life while being okay with the taking of other lives.
You pick whatever you want to because as usual, you're confused about what is being said. Nobody has said the governing authorities can't make a law that says capital punishment is the allowed. It's no different than divorce. Allowed but still wrong. And everything in the NT shows that the way of Christ is different from the way of the governing authorities.
They wanted a lion. He came as the Lamb.
They want to leave an ox in the ditch on the Sabbath. HE says (paraphrase) get the ox out the ditch. It's lawful to do good on the Sabbath.
Everything about Jesus seemed to run contrary to the governing authorities just as it does with capital punishment.
It's beyond hypocritical for people in the church to pretend to be pro-life while still advocating death through capital punishment.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
You should really pay much more attention to Scarlett O.'s explanation of the passage, she really nails it.
This thought is in error and it is demonstrably so. The law didn't require sinless perfection of those carrying out the capital punishment. It simply required that the one carrying out the punishment wasn't guilty in the same act and manner the convicted one(s) were being executed for.
So, Jesus' statement "You who are without sin, cast the first stone" needs to be understood as "you who are without sin in this matter...." As Scarlett pointed out, there is a man missing. This is a miscarriage of justice.
Again, the accusers claimed to have found the woman in the very act of adultery. This is not an act one can commit by one's self. Where is the man? Did they let him go? Did they entrap the woman? Did they lie about the situation? In any case, they were complicit in the sin because they had not brought the man, too.
Just remember--All of Israel stoned (then burned) Achan and his family after they broke the terms of the "ban" at Jericho. None of the Israelites were perfect or without sin, yet the participated in Achan's execution. Why? Because the requirement is only that they not be convicted of going against the ban themselves.
The law never requires sinless perfection to carryout an execution.
The Archangel
This thought is in error and it is demonstrably so. The law didn't require sinless perfection of those carrying out the capital punishment. It simply required that the one carrying out the punishment wasn't guilty in the same act and manner the convicted one(s) were being executed for.
So, Jesus' statement "You who are without sin, cast the first stone" needs to be understood as "you who are without sin in this matter...." As Scarlett pointed out, there is a man missing. This is a miscarriage of justice.
Again, the accusers claimed to have found the woman in the very act of adultery. This is not an act one can commit by one's self. Where is the man? Did they let him go? Did they entrap the woman? Did they lie about the situation? In any case, they were complicit in the sin because they had not brought the man, too.
Just remember--All of Israel stoned (then burned) Achan and his family after they broke the terms of the "ban" at Jericho. None of the Israelites were perfect or without sin, yet the participated in Achan's execution. Why? Because the requirement is only that they not be convicted of going against the ban themselves.
The law never requires sinless perfection to carryout an execution.
The Archangel
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Not in the least.
First, abortion is the denial of due process and capital punishment is the result of due process.
Second, through due process, taking the most valuable thing from one who has taken the most valuable thing from someone else without due process shows that which was taken through murder to be of great value. To not take the most important thing from the murder--his life--is to greatly decrease the value of the life taken, and life in general.
Now, we must be careful about how capital punishment is applied. We should make a distinction between first and second-degree murder. The Old Testament required capital punishment for first-degree murder (after an investigation according to due process, by the way). However, in a situation of second-degree murder or manslaughter, there were cities of refuge.
Furthermore, not everything the Old Testament requires capital punishment for should be enacted today. But, capital punishment is certainly the proper response to first-degree murder.
The Archangel