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!
Maybe not, but the theocratic state based on the Pentateuch did authorise the death penalty and Jesus quite clearly abrogated it. Bottom line: Jesus did not support the death penalty and neither do I as His follower.Originally posted by Phillip:
In the case of the woman, the men who brought her before Jesus were not government officials or they would have ignored Jesus. Jesus was being tested to see what He would say and He threw their hypocracy right back in their faces. Its an obvious story.
Maybe not, but the theocratic state based on the Pentateuch did authorise the death penalty and Jesus quite clearly abrogated it. Bottom line: Jesus did not support the death penalty and neither do I as His follower. </font>[/QUOTE]Certainly he did. It is not for individuals to take the state's punishment into our own hands. It is OUR responsibility to forgive and the Bible contains much about living like Christ. He is NOT telling a government official that ANYTHING has changed.Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
In the case of the woman, the men who brought her before Jesus were not government officials or they would have ignored Jesus. Jesus was being tested to see what He would say and He threw their hypocracy right back in their faces. Its an obvious story.
That is exactly what the passage was about. They weren't interested in justice; they were interested in tricking Jesus (v. 6). The Pharisees, all through Scripture, were hypocrites. Read Matthew 24 for example. When Jesus said the first stone line, he was pointing out that they were guilty of the kind of sin they were accusing her of.Originally posted by canadyjd:
I have re-read John 8. I don't see Jesus calling the pharisees hypocrites, and that is not what the passage is about.
Incorrect. First, "we" don't administer the death penalty. That would be vigilante justice. The governmetn, not a person., administers the death penalty. Second, being a sinner does not prevent one from correcting sin. If that were so, then no parent could correct a child; no judge could correct a law breaker. But in fact, we see that God ordained that sinners judge sinners.We are unable to administer the death penalty because of our sin.
Were all men not sinful in Gen 9 when he said it? How did he establish it in Gen 9 when all men were sinners and then remove it because all men are sinners thousands of years later? Did you think about that before you said it? It doesn't make sense, my friend. The sin nature is the same in Gen 9 as in John 8, as it is today. The image of God is still the same. The command of Gen 9 is not based on the perfection of hte judge, but the image of God of the victim.And yes, Jesus changed the commandment concerning the death penalty, even Gen 9, if it established the death penalty (which it doesn't) would now be changed because all men are sinful.
Not here you haven't.I have taken no scripture out of context. I have shown what they mean in context,
You make a false dichotomy. The Bible say that all Scripture (including Gen 9) is God breathed. Therefore either Gen 9 is the words of Christ, or Christ is not God. Which option do you want? The third is my position, which you have already rejected. Your position has left you denying the inspiration of all Scripture, or the deity of Jesus.You keep saying that if it is unChristlike to seek or support the death of anyone, then Christ lied.
Show me the words of Jesus, not Gen 9,
I haven't appealed to OT Law since we are not under the Law. That was for Israel.not Old Testament Law,
I have already asked you the same thing in different wors. I really struggle as to why you don't accept it. All you have done is try to circumvent it and rewrite it by changing the context and meaning.Why are the Words of scripture so hard to accept?
As I said, I agree with this. What I have said doesn't contradict this at all.I Tim 1:16+ is very clear. Perfect patience. Just like Jesus had perfect patience with Paul, the murderer. Seek the salvation of all men...that is pleasing in the eyes of God, our Savior.
That is false. It is the duty of all men to seek the death penalyt for murderers to honor the image of God in man.Never once are Christians told to seek or support the death of anyone.
THen Christ was a liar since he is the one who commanded it.It is unChristlike to do so.
Several problems. First, John 8 is about the OT Law. Capital punishment for murder is not. It predates the Law. Second, we are not under the new covenant, per se, nor the old covenant. Those are Jewish things, but that's a theological discussion. Third, the Bible does not limit you to being only under the NT.Jesus did not say the words in Gen 9. He did however address the issue of the death penalty in John 8 in a way that was entirely in keeping with His mission. We are under the New Covenant, not the Old, and thank Jesus for that! For me, the NT is my standard and I can find no instance, nothing, nada, diddly squat of Christians ever implementing or being asked to implement the death penalty
Capital punishment for murder is not based on teh theocratic state, nor the Mosaic Law. It predated that Law. Why do you guys keep ignoring that? It was instituted several thousand years before the Mosaic Law.Maybe not, but the theocratic state based on the Pentateuch did authorise the death penalty and Jesus quite clearly abrogated it. Bottom line: Jesus did not support the death penalty and neither do I as His follower.
What was ironic about that? All I have done is say what God said. I have supported my position from Scripture. That's not ironic, is it?Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Whoa. That just broke my irony meter! </font>Many of us do, however, take the commands of God about the sanctity of human life serious enough to believe in teh death penalty.
First of all, since this is a religious discussion, it's hard for me to take it in any other context. A Christian's life isn't always "Practical" in man's eyes now is it?Originally posted by Phillip:
Let's talk from a practical point of view, if not a religious point of view. You would rather pay seventy-thousand dollars (cost of prison and overhead for one prisoner, average) per year in tax dollars to keep them alive and let them suffer confinement for their entire life?
Since Cruel and Unuaual punishment is man's terms, and not (that I know of) God's terms it doesn't matter, it's not a point here.Originally posted by Phillip:
Doesn't this actually sound like cruel and unusual punishment?
Since Most criminals are not in a position to tell me/you/us/anyone right from wrong, it really doesn't matter to me which they perfer. I go by the Bible, not by what "criminals perfer".Originally posted by Phillip:
Especially when MOST criminals who are given a choice of life without parole and the death penalty take the death penalty?
We can certainly do this, but not if we want to be obedient to God. That is the call we must make. God did not institute prisons for murderers. He instituted capital punishment. Why wouldn't you believe it? </font>[/QUOTE]Quote one place in the Bible where it says that by putting people in prison, it makes us Non-Obedient to God.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Correct! But NOT by killing them. They have this place call Prison. Put them in Prison and throw away the key, but we should not be killing people.
When God commands a particular response, any other response is disobedient.Quote one place in the Bible where it says that by putting people in prison, it makes us Non-Obedient to God.
"Shed man's blood" is a Hebrew euphemism for murder. It does not have reference to assaults, or the like.I'm curious, does this apply to deaths, or to batteries and assaults as well? Bloodshed is not limited to murder, and if respective corporal punishments are warranted for physical assaults as well, then is incarceration for any offense biblically justifiable at all?
The fact that God chose a different way is his right. We do not get that right. We are to obey God.We know God did not intend for Gen.9 to be an absolute statement or "command". Why do we know that? Because there are many examples of people who have killed and have not been killed in return, including Cain, Moses, David, and Paul.
Non sequitur. You advance it out of convenience, not out of legitimacy. It is an absolute statement that God, at times, has chosen to act differently. But in those cases, God is the one choosing to act differently. It is not our decision to do such.So it is not an absolute statement. It, therefore, must be a general statement.
This is a key point. The death penalty is not warranted for killing an animal. It is for man. Why? Because man is in the image of God. Whatever "shed man's blood" means in teh first prhrase, it must also mean in teh second. We change it to "incarcerate" or some such thing.Well, the context seems to be clear. Animals are different from human beings, because human beings are made in the image of God. Therefore, the life of a human being has more value than that of an animal.
How so? I have said only what is there. You have tried to limit it, unjustly I might add.I think you are seeing far more than is there.
Your last phrase is key. Jesus is talking about the death penalty in Deut 17. That is the Mosaic Law of Israel. Gen 9 was several thousand years before the Law. Nothing in John 8 is parallel to "shedding man's blood." What would Christ have said if they brought a murderer? That would have bearing on this issue. But you are comparing apples and orange.Surely if you can see God implementing the death penalty for governments in Gen. 9, (which makes no mention of governments, or trials, or witnesses, or any method of execution) you can't deny Jesus' teaching that only a sinless man can execute the death penalty in John 8, can you? I mean, Jesus actually uses the words and references the implementation of the death penalty in Deut. 17.
Yes, but the attitude we have is not the issue. We should ahve the attitude you say, and should also be in obedience to God to have the death penalty. You are making a false dichotomy, pretending these things can't co-exist. They can.But in reading the New Testament, I see Christ commanding a different type of attitude for Christians. One that is different from the world's. You admit to that, because you stated that you agree with me on I Tim. 1:16.
You have assumed the conclusion; you have not shown it to be logical.It appears to me, however, that you will not let the logically conclusion take hold; that Christians are not to seek or support the death of others.
But this is exactly what you did not do. You have taken two passages that have nothing to do with capital murder and have used them to ignore the teaching of Scripture on capital murder. You are not comparing apples to apples in any sense. And that is the problem. The fact that we should forgive people has nothing to do with murder.When it was clear to me what was being taught, I had to abandon my old position and let the teaching to scripture win the day. I hope and pray you come to this same conclusion.
Repeating this won't make it right.It is unChristlike to seek or support the death of anyone.
If asked by the goverment of the United States or a State or local government, I would be quite willing to push the button for electrocution or insert the needle for lethal injection or, the way I think that executions should take place, pull the lever for the trap for a public hanging.Originally posted by billwald:
Both of you willing to do the killing?